|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF JANUARY 5, 2011
Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
NOTE: No New Business to be conducted past 10:30 P.M.
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated for the record.
ROLL CALL:
Richard
Moore - Present
Thomas Buraszeski - Present
Donald
Kanoff - Present
James Marinello - Present
Deane Driscoll - Present Keith Olsen (Alt #1) - Present
Kenneth
Shirkey - Present John
Petrozzino (Alt #2) - Present
Gerard
Hug - Present
Also Present: Joseph Burgis, Planner
Stanley
Omland, Engineer
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
REORGANIZATION
Appointment of Temporary
Chairman – Motion to appoint Ms. Grogaard as Temporary Chair made by: Kanoff;
Second by: Hug. Roll call: Unanimous.
Appointment of Chairman – Motion to appoint James
Marinello made by: Kanoff, Second by: Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
Appointment of Vice Chairman – Motion to appoint Mr.
Buraszeski made by: Driscoll, Second by: Hug, Roll call: Unanimous.
Appointment of Secretary
& Assistant Secretary – Motion to appoint Meghan Hunscher as Secretary and
Jane Grogaard as Assistant Secretary made by: Kanoff, Second by: Driscoll, Roll
call: Unanimous
Appointment of Recording
Secretary - Motion to appoint Jane Grogaard as Recording Secretary made by:
Kanoff, Second by: Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
Mr. Marinello indicated that
the Township Committee requested that the professionals grant a 10% reduction
in fees for 2011. I have had many conversations
about this and have figured out that one professional has not had a raise in
many years and the other professionals are at 2008 level. Doing the math, keeping all the professionals
at the 2010 level, which is 135/hr would still have incurred a savings. At this Board, our professionals do not spend
much O/E, most charges are against trust accounts.
Appointment of Board of
Adjustment Attorney & execution of Professional Service Agreement as
written – Motion to appoint Bruce Ackerman, Esq. from Pashman Stein and
adoption of professional service agreement made by: Kanoff; Second by: Hug,
Roll: Unanimous
Appointment of Board of
Adjustment Engineer & execution of Professional Service Agreement as
written – Motion to appoint Stanley Omland, PE from Omland Engineering and
adoption of professional service agreement made by: Kanoff, Second by: Hug,
Roll call: Unanimous
Page 2
1/5/11
Appointment of Board of
Adjustment Planner & execution of Professional Service Agreement as written
– Motion to appoint Joseph Burgis, PP from Burgis Associates for a 90 day
interim and adoption of professional service agreement made by: Kanoff, Second
by: Buraszeski, Roll call: Unanimous
Mr. Marinello welcomed Mr. Olsen
& Mr. Petrozzino to the Board.
Designation of Meeting Nights
for Board of Adjustment as follows:
1st Wednesday of every
month @ 8PM
January
5, 2011 August
3, 2011
February
2, 2011 *August
18, 2011 (Thursday)
March
2, 2011 September
7, 2011
April 6, 2011 October
5, 2011
May
4, 2011 November
2, 2011
June
1, 2011
December 7, 2011
*June
16, 2011 (Thursday) January 4, 2012
July
6, 2011
*additional meeting if needed
Motion to adopt made by: Hug; Second by: Kanoff, Roll
call: Unanimous
Designation of Official
Newspaper for Legal Purposes
a)
The Daily Record & The Citizen of Morris County
b) The Star Ledger
Motion to adopt made by: Kanoff, Second by: Hug, Roll
call: Unanimous
Adoption of By-Laws
Change future agendas to
indicate Correspondence before Other Business.
A “T” in the word “the” page 3 last paragraph.
Motion to adopt bylaws as amended made by: Kanoff,
Second by: Buraszeski, Roll call: Unanimous
Adoption of Annual
Report
Motion to adopt annual report made by: Hug, Second by:
Buraszeski, Roll call: Unanimous
Mr. Buraszeski made a motion
to appoint Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Hug and Mr. Marinello to the Invoice Review
Subcommittee; Second by: Mr. Driscoll.
Roll call: Unanimous
Mr. Buraszeski made
a motion to appoint Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug and Mr. Marinello to the Master Plan
Subcommittee; Second by: Mr. Driscoll.
Roll call: Unanimous
Mr. Buraszeski made a motion
to appoint Mr. Driscoll as Planning Board Liaison Second by Mr. Hug, Roll call
Unanimous
Swearing in of Professionals
Page 3
1/5/11
OLD BUSINESS
The following application was
carried with notice preserved to 2/2/11:
ZSPP/FCD25-06-05-09 Lake Valhalla Club – Vista Rd. – B: 11, L: 29 - preliminary/final site
plan/Use & Bulk relief and design waivers for lighting for volleyball area
– first hearing 11/4/09, carried with
notice from 12/1/10 – Eligible:
Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, Shirkey ACT
BY: 2/3/11
ZC34-09-21-10 DePalma, Frank – 18
Valhalla Rd. – B: 20.1, L: 33 – rear setback 42.7’
where 50’ require addition – Notice
Acceptable ACT
BY: 4/9/11
Present
on behalf of the applicant: Frank DePalma, applicant; Larry Quirke, AIA
Mr.
Quirke, AIA – sworn
This
application was before the board July 7, 2010 for variance of building coverage
and the board granted the variance.
Someone in the building department noticed that the rear setback was 50’
where I had written 30’ because the fax I received from zoning of the
requirements looked like a 30. The
previous application had 30’ rear setback written on all the plans. We were told that we have to come back before
the board for the rear setback. Mr.
Marinello – Is it my understanding that there was no other change to the
plans? Mr. Quirke – Yes. Mr. Marinello – Could the variances be
reduced? Mr. Quirke – This property is
large and can withstand the addition, the house is setback 90’ from the front
setback, reducing the rear setback. No
detriment to the neighborhood. All
runoff from the addition will be dealt with through a drywell. There is a steep incline toward the rear and
the house is set back on the hill.
Mr.
Burgis – No impact to neighbors, neighboring properties good distance
away. Mr. Quirke – The addition is at
44’ and the chimney is at 42’. Mr.
Buraszeski – One story addition, minimal effect on neighbors.
Open
to public – None - Closed
Motion to approve the application, house set far back, topography of lot, no
detriment to zoning ordinance or neighborhood made by: Buraszeski; Second by:
Driscoll; Roll call: Yes -Buraszeski,
Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello
ZSOIL5-10-20-10 Lodhi – B: 21.01, L: 35.04 – 10 Old Ln. – soil movement
application - Notice Acceptable
Present
on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Frank Matarazzo, PE
Mr.
Schepis –This is an application that has minor amendments from the previous
application as to the route of the soil movement. 2,000 cubic yards to be moved in and out of
the property. Traffic Safety Officer and
Township Engineer have no issues with this application; neither did Mr.
Omland’s office.
Frank
Matarazzo, PE – sworn
Currently
a vacant lot on Old Lane. Propose a single family dwelling in the center
of the property. There are several
retaining walls on site and have a drywell system proposed along with a
proposed septic system. Main change from
previous application is the destination of where the soil was being brought to
and the route. Now propose to go west on
Old Lane to Valhalla then east on Main Road up Jacksonville to Indian Lane East
to small portion of Old Jacksonville Road into Lincoln Park. We have a total of 1,600 cubic
Page
4
1/5/11
yards
which would be just over 100 trucks.
4,300 is the total amount of cut and fill but 1,600 will be moved from
site.
Mr.
Omland – I need the following information: what is likelihood of hitting rock,
blasting, or staging of trucks, hours of operation and damage to roads. Mr. Matarazzo – Have not done test pits by the
house but no rock was encountered near the septic. Mr. Omland – Asked that the applicant to be
in compliance with Township Blasting Regulations. Want to have protection of the
neighbors. If approved the applicant
must comply with historical provisions for blasting within the township, hours
of blasting, notice of blasting, pre-blast surveys, etc.
Charles
Erhman – Jersey Mulch Products – hired to clean up property and remove soil
Mr.
Omland – Can we limit the trucking hours of operation to those hours outside of
school pick up and drop off times. Mr.
Erhman – Yes. Mr. Omland – No staging of
trucks on Old Lane.
Mr. Erhman - Correct.
Open
to public
Bill
Scalzitti - 15 Old Ln – sworn
All
drainage is supposed to be put in before soil removal. Mr. Matarazzo – Yes, within the right of way,
that was a condition of the variance approval and is as noted on the
plans. Mr. Scalzitti – What about
minimal tree removal? Mr. Matarazzo –
Limit of disturbance is shown on plan.
Mr. Marinello – Could this soil movement have a negative impact on the
trees on the neighboring property? Can
you take measures to save the root system of those trees even though not on the
applicant’s property. Mr. Matarazzo –
Yes.
Dr. Kanoff – Is this the
quickest route? Mr. Schepis – No but it
is through less of residential areas.
Mr. Marinello – Damage to roads to be applicant’s responsibility to fix? Mr. Schepis – Will have Developers Agreement
from Township Attorney which will include same.
Motion to approve, blasting policies to be adhered to, no stacking of trucks,
no movement of trucks during school bussing hours, drainage within right of way
be done prior to removal of soil, detailed schedule of project prepared and
followed carefully, damage to roads repaired by applicant, minimize damage to
trees on adjacent properties, water to be channeled toward catch basins,
bi-weekly reports to be submitted as per previous resolution, subject to
developers agreement made by: Hug; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug,
Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello
ZC25-08 Caggiano, Lou Carl – Hog
Mountain Rd. – B: 33, L: 32 – variance for
construction of a single family home on an unimproved road – Carried with
notice from 4/7/10 & 9/1/10 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey,
Marinello ACT
BY: 1/6/11
Present
on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Frank Matarazzo, PE
Mr. Schepis – The applicant
is requesting a planning variance because the lot does not abut an improved
street. There is sufficient access for
emergency vehicles. The property existed
prior to the zoning ordinances.
Easements have been recorded as previously requested by the board. There is a zero increase in net runoff from
the site with the proposal. Have
received approvals from Health, Traffic, Fire and Water and Sewer Departments.
Mr. Matarazzo – previously
sworn
Exhibit A-6 – grading plan sheet 2 of 10 dated
5-19-08 last revised 12-21-10 colorized plan
previously
submitted to the board.
Page 5
1/5/11
Mr. Matarazzo – Culverts are
shown.
Exhibit A7 – proposed driveway plan sheet 4 of 10
dated 12-21-10 colorized
Mr. Matarazzo – Shows
proposed driveway improvements and access easement along lot 33. I have marked the limits of the access
easement in the field. Driveway will
be pitched toward the pond.
Mr. Burgis – The applicant
has to prove safe access to the site.
Mr. Matarazzo – The access easement currently is Hog Mountain Road that services several
lots from Taylortown Road. Coming off that is another access easement
that services 2 additional lots. Since
it’s an existing condition a public road would not be feasible. Mr. Schepis – It was difficult to get a 15’
easement from one neighbor and when asked for more we received a negative
response. Mr. Hug – What is the
narrowest point? Mr. Matarazzo –The
narrowest point is 12’.
Mr. Omland – Has the Boonton
access been rectified. Mr. Schepis –
Spoke to Boonton and they are satisfied with the easement we have
submitted. Mr. Omland – Suggest the Board/Township
Attorney be involved with the wording for all easements. This will be a private driveway and do not
recommend that it go public. The Township
would not want any issues in the future; the culverts would become our burden
if in the future we accepted the road.
Want the record to be clear that the Township would not accept this road
in the future. Mr. Omland – Is there
acceptable sight distance at Taylortown
Road? Mr.
Matarazzo – Yes. Mr. Schepis on page 2
of the easement it indicates that the storm water infrastructure is the
obligation of Mr. Caggiano. This is not
a township road and is not inclined to be.
Mr. Omland – We have received updates from DEP, which were helpful. There are still some conflicts in the plans
can they be fixed? Mr. Matarazzo –
Yes. Mr. Omland – If there are
substantial changes from DEP the applicant would have to come back before the
board.
Mr. Shirkey – The report says
the dam is leaking and caused wetlands.
Mr. Schepis – DEP said the dam has to be rectified due to safety
issues. Mr. Caggiano has to deal with
DEP either way, the DEP says the dam is a safety issue and is requiring the dam
to be opened up to release slowly to have a lower level. This dam was hand made 70 years ago. It appears that the recent plans will have to
be approved by the DEP. Mr. Omland – He
is not compelled to breach the dam, he can repair it or breach it. But the applicant has the choice. Mr. Shirkey – What was supposed to be built
on that foundation that was never built?
Mr. Matarazzo – It was for a house that was never built. Mr. Hug – The fact that the applicant is
addressing the dam needs it is a positive effect to the neighbors down
below. Mr. Omland – Yes.
Mr. Moore – Plowing? Mr. Matarazzo – Mr. Caggiano will plow the
road. Mr. Omland – What about the remaining
maintenance to the road? Mr. Ackerman –
Will be part of the easement agreement review and potentially part of the
condition for applicant to indemnify the Township for such obligations.
Open to public – none –
closed
Motion to approve the planning variance conditioned upon testimony above,
applicant responsible for the road and to be passed on to any future owner of
the property, including Township indemnity, easements to be reviewed by board
attorney including easement to the town of Boonton, DEP permits, any material changes
required by DEP must come back before the board, all professional and agency reports made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Hug; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug,
Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello - No
ZC16-10
Kaner, Suzanne –12 Foremost Mountain Rd. – B: 130,
L: 14 – variance - detached garage
construction variance required for existing lot size; existing depth of
measurement; existing lot width; existing impervious coverage; proposed side
yard 7.87’ where 20’ required; accessory structure height 16.42’ where 14’
allowed – Carried from 12/1/10 ACT
BY: 2/11/11
Page 6
1/5/11
Present
on behalf of the applicant: Suzanne Kaner; Jacob Soloman, AIA
Mr.
Soloman – previously sworn
I have
incorporated board comments from the last meeting. Propose the construction of a garage on an existing
foundation. Moved garage forward 30” to
eliminate rear setback variance. Reduced
the height of the garage to 16.42’.
Minimized the need for variances.
Mr. Burgis – Need specific testimony as to positive and negative
criteria. We specifically requested a
reduction in rear setback, have not had testimony on accessory structure
height. Mr. Soloman – The topography of
the lot and fact that the lot is undersized is a hardship. The front of the garage is in conformance,
but the lot slopes back toward the rear of the property and the height is
determined by an average of the grade.
Mr.
Olsen – The plan indicates 6.04’ side setback where the table says 7.87’. The secretary checked the notice which
indicates 7.87’. Mr. Ackerman – You
noticed for one number and the one requested is less. Mr. Marinello – Can carry with new notice
required to 2/2/11.
Application
carried to 2/2/11with new notice required to indicate proper side setback
variance.
Mr. Schepis agreed to allow the application under new business proceed
before the Holiday at Montville
application.
NEW
BUSINESS
ZC36-09 –Marotto, Vincent – B: 71, L: 11
– 15 Millers Ln. – front/rear setback variances
for addition to single family home – Notice
Acceptable ACT
BY: 4/11/11
Present
on behalf of the applicant: Lisa Marotto, applicant
Ms.
Marotto, applicant – sworn
We
tried to minimize the effect on the property due to the house being offset
initially on the property. The houses on
Millers Lane
are closer together that most streets in town.
The houses were placed haphazardly in the neighborhood. Mr. Burgis – On the plan a revision is to be
made to show the right of way line. The
depth of the property on Millers
Lane is shown to be 89’ where it should show
79+/-‘. Which is 9.75’ less than
shown. Mr. Omland – Would like more
grading on property, storm water management system (not fully designed but one
that would be proven to work).
Open
to public – none – closed
Mr.
Burgis – The applicant is proposing an addition over the garage and wrapping
around the rear of the house. There is a
one story addition also proposed. The
variances are for front setback to Millers and Lincoln and a rear setback. Most of the setbacks exist and they are going
up with a 2nd story except the one area that goes 7’ back to rear
yard and closer to Lincoln Street. Mr. Marinello – Do we need a turnaround on
this property? Mr. Omland – Good idea to
create a K turn on site. Mr. Marinello –
Would there be any other place to do this addition that would not require a
variance? Mr. Burgis - Due to constraints
of the lot, no.
Motion to approve subject to installation of
K-turn or otherwise sufficient enough turnaround to not back out onto Millers
Lane on the property, 9.75’ right of way dedication, additional grading, storm water
management to be proven as operational made by: Kanoff; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug,
Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello
Page 7
1/5/11
ZSPP/FC28-08-13-10 Holiday at Montville – 29
Vreeland Ave. – B: 52.03, L: 19, 21 & 22 –
site plan & variances -
carried from 10/6/10; carried with notice from 12/1/10 Eligible: Buraszeski,
Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello ACT
BY: 1/6/11
ZSOIL14-10 Holiday at Montville – 29
Vreeland Ave - B: 52.03, L: 19, 21 & 22 – soil
movement - carried
from 10/6/10; carried with notice from 12/1/10 Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey,
Marinello
Present
on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Joseph Staigar, Traffic PE;
James Cutillo , AIA; Robert Gannon, Applicant
Mr.
Schepis – Site plan approval requested.
Previous testimony was given by Mr. Walker. Mr. Staigar is here to testify as a traffic
expert.
Joseph
Staigar, Traffic PE - Sworn
I have prepared a traffic
impact analysis. Light traffic volumes
proposed. Reviewed the roadway for the
board. Age restricted communities have
less traffic activity during peak hours.
There are no children to bring back and forth to school. In my report I did not analyze as age
restricted development so it will have higher trip generation rates at 2 ½
times the rate of an age restricted community.
Still has level of service A & B.
Complies with RSIS except for the loop at the end of the roadway. RSIS does not provide standards for one-way
roadways.
Mr. Schepis – Mr. Walker
submitted a plan that shows one-way traffic because the Traffic Safety Officer
requested it, but it will create an exception.
If the Board wants 2-way traffic we can provide a 28’ roadway. It is up to the board to decide.
Mr. Staigar – The preferred
plan is the one-way traffic flow plan.
Mr. Staigar reviewed the amount of parking proposed on site. We are more than double of what the RSIS
standards require. Mr. Omland - We have
reviewed the traffic report which addresses most of our comments. Suggest that the final placement of
landscaping and the removal of trees and shrubs be done at the advice and counsel
of the board engineer or township engineer prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy. The 24’ loop is a minor
exception from the RSIS and the applicant is required to submit a written
statement to this board that states the requirements of the standards, the
manner in which strict compliance would result in practical difficulties and a
statement of the nature and extent of the practical difficulties, this is a
statutory regulation. The 24’ design is
preferred, less impervious coverage.
James Cutillo, AIA - sworn
Mr. Ackerman – As a follow
up, as it relates to proofs that it is impractical to develop an RSIS compliant
roadway, you have acknowledged that it is practicable. Mr. Schepis – I read the codes different from
Mr. Omland, it is my understanding that a Board and an applicant can agree to
deviate from the standards when the general purposes of the standards have been
met. We do not have to establish
practical difficulty; we can agree with the board that what we are proposing
meets the purposes and the intents of the guidelines. We can provide safe access, safe traffic flow
and an ergonomically designed road, the regulations overlook one-way streets. The Traffic Safety officer requested the one-way
street. Even though there is not a
practical difficulty meeting the design standards the board can grant an
exception in light that it meets overall goals and purposes of the regulations
as recommended by the Traffic Safety Officer.
Mr. Omland – The regulations say the examples include reduction of cart
way width also says the board may grant the exception based on consistency with
integrity of the standards, meets the needs of public health and safety, etc. I think they can satisfy it in writing if
they follow the regulations.
Page 8
1/5/11
Mr. Cutillo - We have
designed 5 models for this property.
Models are the same as previously submitted. I have provided the front elevation for each
model. The homes are designed to make
them attractive since they are smaller homes.
They are all similar in nature and footprint. I have listed on the plan which model will
fit on which lots. Some are garage under
type homes. Some are flat all the way around
and some have walk-out basements. The
duplex model has no basement and is designed to be located on the flatter
portion of the property. Mr. Cutillo –
Reviewed the building height calculations for the board.
Exhibit A4 – first and second floor half story
diagrams dated 1/4/11
Mr. Cutillo – Used exhibit A4
to further review the building height calculations. Mr. Burgis – Visually it would be a 2-story
structure. Mr. Cutillo – I disagree, do
not see walls or windows on the 2nd floor. Adding the extra height adds an
architectural feature that makes this look more like a quality building. Mr. Burgis – What is the height of the
garage under model? Mr. Cutillo – No more
than 30’. Mr. Burgis – That would give
the visual impression of a 2 story building.
How many units could possibly be built with that model? Mr. Cutillo - Possibly 10. Mr. Omland – I have not had sufficient amount
of time to review this exhibit. Mr.
Schepis – Applicant agrees to comply with 1 ½ stories.
Open to the public for the
traffic and architect.
Mr. Mizzone – previously
sworn
When did they receive the 20’
rear yard setback? As far as safety is
concerned, has there been any testimony on snow removal? There is parking on one side of the street
and with snow on the ground the road
gets narrower. Is the rear setback 20’
or the now proposed 7’? My house is 75’
from the property line and I have to look up at this property. Mr. Ackerman – The resolution was adopted
November 2009 for 20’ rear setback.
Robert Gannon, applicant –
previously sworn
We have a private company
that will come in and do snow removal for the roadway, sidewalks and walkways
and there is sufficient room on the property for snow removal. Home Owners Association will be responsible
for snow removal.
Exhibit
A5 – Fire report 10/6/09
A6
– Fire report 11/9/10
A7
– RSIS exception request
Matthew Rainken – previously
sworn
Where will construction
trailers be located and for how long will they be located on the property? Will there be sales trailers too and how long
will they be located on the property?
Mr. Walker – The sales trailer/construction trailer is to be located in
the front section of the project and is shown on the plan, initially it will be
used as a construction trailer and when the improvements go in it will be
converted into a sales trailer.
Mr. Omland – Will there be
parking area for sales patrons in winter time?
Mr. Walker
– Sales trailer will use parallel parking within the roadway and there will be
no sales until the roadway system is done.
Mr. Omland - Will there be accessibility and ramping to sales trailer
and landscaping? Mr. Walker - Yes. Mr. Marinello – Length of time construction/sales
trailer to be on site? Mr. Gannon – We
do not know how long it will remain on site, maybe 5-6 months and then will
move into a model home. I currently
have 11 buyers. I only have 1 buyer that
wants the loft, 3 of the 11 want finished basement but majority of buyers want
no loft and no finished basement.
Mr. Marinello – Do you have
an expert to answer the question about the rear setback being reduced to
7’? Mr. Walker – Sheet 13 of 20 showing
elevation difference between our property and Longview Estates. It shows the difference between the elevation
of the proposed home and adjacent lot on Longview Estates.
Page 9
1/5/11
Mr. Walker - There was always
a 20’ setback and there was always a patio shown on plans at use variance. We initially asked for a variance for decks,
which was removed. The necessary A/C
units needed to be relocated due to 12’ side setback had to be relocated into
the rear yard. Some are between the
building and the property line. The
other alternative would be putting A/C units in the front yard.
Marcia Goldstein – previously
sworn
Concerned with A/C units
being closer than the 20’. How close are
these A/C units to my property? The
proposed site is cramming everything in to put in as many units as they
can. Need time to look at plans to see
how it affects my property.
Joan Donovan – 72 Jesse Ct – sworn
The units have previously
been advertised as single floor units and are now testified to be 1 ½
stories. Do they meet the height
ordinance? Mr. Cutillo - The height and
stories ordinances are in compliance.
Ms. Donovan – Will the drainage be adequate prior to construction? Mr. Walker – The drainage flows completely
away from Longview Estates. Your
property will not be affected at all.
Ross Fox – 8 Barge Ct. - sworn
Had a comment. Mr. Marinello – This is not concluding this
evening, comments will be taken after all testimony has been provided.
Linda Gannon – 6 West Lake Dr –
sworn
Why won’t this conclude this
evening? Mr. Marinello – The By-Laws
indicate no new business past 10:30pm.
Mr. Marinello – Questions
from the Board to be answered at the next hearing. Mr. Petrozzino – More information on
grading. Mr. Olsen – Rear elevations not
shown, windows proposed in loft? Mr. Cutillo
– Dormers. Mr. Buraszeski – During
initial use application the homes were smaller than what is proposed today. Now there are basements and lofts and
dormers, these will look like 2 story homes, it will be hard to convince me the
amount of units on the property with accessories will fit on this property. I don’t object to the proposal but the vision
that was given at use was more of a community proposal and this is not in the
spirit of what I am seeing now.
Mr. Marinello – There was an
exhibit presented this evening that the professionals did not have time to
review. Mr. Schepis – Common driveways
have been eliminated. Mr. Hug asked what
the affordable housing requirements are for this site. Mr. Burgis – 6 units are set aside which are
20%. Mr. Gannon – We will comply with
COAH requirement at the time of approval. We are not required for 20% on this
site. This issue is to be cleared up
before the next hearing. Dr. Kanoff – I
have difficulty with A/C units and accessories being crammed in, not the same
type plan as 2009. Mr. Shirkey – The
exhibit A-6 from the Use variance showed modest homes that did not have any
type of loft or 2nd floor space.
This new plans show full blown 2nd floors with bedrooms and
bathrooms and finished basements. There
has to be a middle ground between the original approvals and what is
proposed. Can we make a concession at
lesser units and more recreational space; we now see no recreational space on
the current plans. Need additional
information on cut and fill and requirements for walkouts and garage under
units.
Mr. Gannon – We have talked
about elevators, lofts, and garage under units on this application. Mr. Shirkey – I beg to differ. Mr. Gannon will review the transcripts. We
took the common driveways out, moved the A/C units, I cannot make the plans to
fit everyone’s needs. Take the 6
affordable units out if you want to reduce the number of units on site. I was willing to build them but let someone
else build them. We hid the garage under
units tucked in the back of the property so they are not seen from Vreeland Avenue. Mr. Marinello – Site Plan is very difficult,
more difficult than Use. This is a
unique case. Mr. Gannon – I have asked
twice for a special meeting so we can spend 2 hours to hash out all of the
issues.
Page 10
1/5/11
Mr. Marinello – Would it help
if we carry you to March and give you 2 hours?
Mr. Gannon - No. Mr. Shirkey – We
do not have the option of a subcommittee like the Planning Board which would
probably help. Mr. Gannon – I understand
that. Mr. Burgis – We can meet before
the next hearing with the applicant to hash out technical issues prior to the
next hearing. Mr. Burgis – The A/C
location is still non-compliant and needs to be addressed. The Use required recreation area that has now
been removed. Need to meet with Mr.
Ackerman on current housing issues.
Carry with notice to 2/2/11extension
of time to act granted to 2/3/11.
MINUTES:
Minutes of December 1, 2010
Eligible: Buraszeski,
Driscoll, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Mr.
Buraszeski, Second by: Mr. Hug. Roll call: Yes- Unanimous
INVOICES:
Pashman Stein – Trust for:
$481.25, $187.50
Omland Engineering – Trust
for: $187.50, $31.25, $31.25, $156.25, $62.50
Burgis Associates – Trust
for: $156.25; $62.50, $62.50, $62.50, $125, $125
Motion to approve made by:
Kanoff, Second by:Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
ZC10-10
Strumph, Gail –20 Highland Ave – B: 40, L:18 –
side yard setback 4.9’ (existing/proposed) where 13.8’ required; building
coverage 1,921.91 s.f. vs 1,750 s.f. allowed; impervious coverage 4,686.36 s.f.
vs 3,500 s.f. (4,586.56 s.f. existing); for addition to single family home and
deck – Approval
Resolution – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore
Mr. Ackerman - Page 2 has a
double paragraph, will change and give to Land Use Office.
Motion to adopt as amended
made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski,
Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore
ZC9-10
Wang, Lichen –68 Horsenck Rd. – B: 125.7, L: 32 – variance for front setback of 31’
where 50’ required for front porch addition – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Buraszeski,
Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by:
Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff,
Moore, Marinello
CORRESPONDENCE
NONE
OTHER BUSINESS
NONE
Mr.
Marinello – My goals for the year, timely reports and better public understanding of our processes. Better
docket controls. Mr. Omland – Suggested
that revisions be required to be submitted 10 working days as opposed to
business days. Mr. Ackerman – law says
10 days prior. Can change bylaws to say
professionals receive same day as land use office.
Page
11
1/5/11
Mr. Marinello asked the Township Committee liaison and
the Planning Board liaison if they had anything to address and they indicated
that they had no comments.
Motion
to go into closed session to discuss personnel issues made by: Buraszeski;
second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Unanimous.
Upon
return from closed session and there being no further business the board
unanimously adjourned.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Grogaard
Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of February 2, 2011.
_______________________________________
Meghan Hunscher,
Sec.
|
