Board of Adjustment Minutes 1-5-11 Print E-mail

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.

 
Last Updated ( Thursday, 03 March 2011 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack