Board of Adjustment Minutes 4-6-11 Print E-mail




Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting

NOTE: No New Business to be conducted past 10:30 P.M.


Stated for the record.


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 - Absent[1]

Also Present:        Joseph Burgis, Planner

                                Wayne Corsey, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.


Stated for the record


ZD4-10 – Patel – 299 Changebridge Rd. – B: 160.2, L: 15 & 17 – 2nd story addition to home in industrial zone/building height/FAR – Notice Acceptable                               ACT BY: 5/10/11

Present on behalf of the applicant: Mahesh Patel, applicant; Carmine Campanile, Esq.

Mr. Campanile – The applicant wants to expand his residential home that exists in an Industrial Zone.  In an effort to make this project more conforming, the applicant is looking to see if the board would agree to a lot line adjustment which would eliminate a FAR variance; a rear yard variance and would be able to reduce the non-conforming lot area requirements.  We would be looking for a height variance of 32’.  The applicant would still before this board because of an expansion of a non-conforming use.   The notice we provided was not properly noticed for a lot line adjustment.  The board secretary indicated that a revised application with applicable fees would be required.  Mr. Campanile agreed.    

Carried to the May 4, 2011 with new notice required. 

ZC11-10 –Brittain & Foster – B: 52.02, L: 15 – 61 River Rd – rear setback for deck – Notice Acceptable

Present on behalf of the applicant: Chuck Foster, applicant

Charles Foster, applicant – sworn

Mr. Foster stated that he was requesting a rear yard setback variance for a deck.  Mr. Burgis – The applicant constructed a deck to the rear of the house, it was found to be constructed without permits and was required to go before the board.  The deck is 31.7’ rear setback where 50’ is required.  Mr. Foster - The

Page 2


deck is 2 ½’ off the ground.  There was a deck there originally I just enlarged it a little here and there.  There is a rock wall behind me and a house way beyond that.   Mr. Ackerman – The house is at 55’ rear setback so a usable deck would not be possible to meet the setback.

Open to public – none - closed

Mr. Burgis – A few months ago the applicant was here for a 2nd floor addition and building coverage.  When at building permit process it was discovered that the deck was built without permits.  The building coverage variance granted previously included the deck.  Mr. Buraszeski – Can you consider a lesser-scaled deck, it is very large.  Mr. Foster - We have a very small house. 

The applicant requested a waiver from the storm water management requirements.  Mr. Corsey – Paver details should be supplied on the revised plans.  Mr. Corsey stated that the effect is de minimis.

Mr. Shirkey – There are 3 logical spaces which this deck can be reduced to.  There are 3 girders that can be reduced by the initial 10’ the deck can be reduced to 39’ or 40’ rear setback.  Mr. Burgis – That is consistent with what you have done recently on 2 other variances.  Dr. Kanoff – Concerned with setting precedence on building without permits and then approving the variances.  Mr. Moore – How far is your rear neighbor from your property?  Mr. Foster – There is a 5’ wall, a fence on top and then about 250’ to the neighbor’s house.  Mr. Olsen – You expanded the deck by how much?  Mr. Foster – About  9’.  Mr. Burgis – The rear house is closer to 80’ from the applicant’s deck.  Mr. Marinello – I think we are missing the location of this property and how it relates to the neighboring properties.  Mr. Driscoll – There was a non-conforming deck there even though it was expanded and it was not picked up initially.  Mr. Moore – We in effect approved this once already.  Mr. Ackerman – The board was under the understanding that it lawfully existed previously.  Discussion ensued as to reducing the deck back to the original setback of the deck that existed prior to new deck construction.  Mr. Driscoll – No detriment to the neighborhood. 

Motion to approve the application with a 17’x29’ deck (nine feet back from the deck size requested) to reduce the encroachment into the rear setback, making the setback variance at 40.76’; approve the storm water management plan waiver: Kanoff; Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Marinello

Mr. Marinello stepped down on the following application and Mr. Buraszeski assumed the chair:

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 & 3/2/11  – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey , Petrozzino                                                                                 ACT BY: 4/7/11

Mr. Olsen certified to listening to the tapes of the previous hearings.

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; David Egarian, PE; Adrian Humbert, PP; Anthony Garrett, AIA

Mr. Buraszeski – This application will continue until 10pm.

Mr. Schepis – Mr. Egarian had submitted revised plans to the board.  Mr. Egarian reviewed the revised plans for the board.

Mr. Buraszeski – The revised plans indicated 3/24/10 revision date which should be 3/24/11 correct?  Mr. Egarian – Correct.  Mr. Egarian – Will speak about the impervious coverage and aerial photos would be part of my testimony.

                Exhibit marked in:

Page 3


A10 - Aerial photo of the site dated 1930

                                A11 – Aerial photo of site dated 1954

Mr. Egarian – Reviewed the changes to the plans as outlined in his cover letter submitted with the revised plans to the land use office.  Several gravel surfaces were not included in the previous calculations for impervious coverage.  The number in the zoning table has changed with an increase of 34,000+ s.f. for impervious coverage.  The number of parking spaces has been reduced from 391 to 389 because in the area by the paddle ball court there are 2 propane tanks that were not shown on the original plans.  The amount of proposed impervious coverage requested does not change, there is 1,539 s.f. additional impervious coverage proposed. The plan shows the extension of the gravel area in the Grove area.  There is a new note indicating the picnic area on the plan and the fire pit in the picnic area that was not previously located on the plan. There are propane tanks now located on the plan.  The fire pit is a camp fire setup with boulders making it permanent.  Eliminated the outdoor bathroom structure by the ball field and placed it by the pavilion.   The port-a-johns will be eliminated with the addition of the proposed bathroom structure. 

Mr. Egarian – Adjusted the handicapped-parking layout; moved the gatehouse to a parking island because of the 25’ setback requirement from the propane tank.  Show gravel drive to boat raft.  Show a 4’ board on board fence on plan.  Recommending  9’x18’ parking spaces for this site.  Mr. Buraszeski – You previously had impervious coverage approved in the amount of 123,055 s.f. where today there exists 157,000 s.f.?  Mr. Egarian – Yes.  Mr. Schepis – In 2006 it was unclear if gravel was included in impervious coverage calculations where today it is considered.  Mr. Ackerman – This board has historically included gravel in impervious coverage calculations.  All of the items are new in his letter.  Mr. Egarian – Some were just omitted from the plan this time around.  Mr. Ackerman – You want to prove that 30,000 s.f. of impervious coverage existed but was never approved?  Mr. Schepis – It was not shown on the plan previously in 2006, and was not shown on the previous approval.  Mr. Schepis- Not looking to change the use of the club.

Josh Mann, Esq. – Our contention came from previous testimony, which confirmed the expansion of the use on the site.  There is a social membership that allows for non-club members to hold special events.  We think the case law shows that if there is a substantial change in the legal non-conforming use it requires a D1 variance.  I cannot imagine that the intensity of the use of the club right now is the same as it was upon the initial approval of the use variance. 

Mr. Burgis – Would wait for the applicant’ planner’s testimony to get to the heart of the questions that Mr. Mann is raising.  Mr. Schepis stated on the record that they are not asking for a D1 variance.  Mr. Mann – I think the board should determine if a D1 variance is required.  Mr. Ackerman – The board will allow for the additional testimony by the applicant.  Mr. Schepis advised that by not requesting a D1 variance also, he is taking the risk that, if a D1 variance is required, the entire application will fail.

Ken Nemeth – 12 Vista Rd. – Previously sworn

Checked with the DEP and they would not comment until they had paperwork on this application.  My well is a sole source aquifer and is only 100’ below the surface; the grove area is 30’ below my property so I imagine it is a lot shallower to the top of the aquifer.  Do you think it is negligent to park vehicles in the grove where there are toxic liquids that could put into jeopardy what I depend on -- that aquifer -- for the community.  Mr. Egarian – The gravel area in the back are areas that have been in use for decades.  I saw in the last rainstorm that the runoff was to Crooked Brook.  The grove area has been used for parking in the past.  Do not foresee a substantial increase in runoff and I would not anticipate pollution by the cars.  Mr. Corsey – If the parking events are of sporadic nature, I do not think it affects the aquifer unless it is used often like an office building.  Mr. Schepis – This project is not located within the prime Towaco aquifer. 

Dennis O’Brien – 8 Diann Dr. – Sworn

The proposed changes are changes that are not favorable with our community.  Additional parking and lighting are not favorable changes.  This is not a commercial zone. 

Page 4


Donald Bauman – Lakeshore Dr. – previously sworn

The volleyball court increased the amount of people parking on the site.  They made expansion based on expansion of memberships and it is no longer a non-profit organization.  Alleges large catering business with manager of club paid by commissions on catering.

Gladys Nemirow – previously sworn

Volleyball has been played for fun on the site for years but now is more extensive.  The guardhouse is madness, a man used to sit out there and was given a table and eventually an umbrella.  This is a small family oriented club, not a large club that it is turning into. 

Walter Zurwell – Rockledge Rd. – sworn

I had my own wedding reception at the clubhouse in the 80’s.  Over the years it is turning into more of a commercial scene.  I have photographs of the grove area; about 3 weeks ago where there was about ½ acre of water standing about 3”-6” deep.  Cars do not park there as a general rule.  There are full sized gray hound buses showing up for these weddings.  This is turning into a huge commercial enterprise.  The previous membership was 185 do not see why 185 families need 400 parking spaces unless they are allowing outsiders to use the facilities.

Diane Licht – 52 Lakeshore Dr – sworn

I drive past the grove everyday and there is a lot of pooled water after a rain.  It is a very uneven area; do not see how it can be used for parking.  How can they enforce parking 2 or 3 times a year in the grove area?  Not in favor of the additional parking in the grove area.  Mr. Egarian – The ball field parking would be 2 or 3 times a year and the grove parking 2 or 3 times on weekends.

Jean Kearny – Vista Rd. - Previously sworn

Do see a lot more gravel there than before, during past 3 years. 

Mr. Shirkey – The grove, on the drawing you indicate 45 parking spaces for employee and overflow, does that mean the employees would be parking there consistently?  Mr. Egarian – Defer to the traffic engineer. 

Mr. Garrett, AIA – sworn

Testifying as an architect. 

The cottage is a 1 ½ story dwelling unit with 2 bedrooms that is in disrepair.  Propose interior alterations and roofing and to change it back to accessory space for the club and use it as a toilet facility.  Trying to reduce the number of port-a-johns on the site.  Adding 2 fully accessible bathrooms to the existing bathroom that is there.  Access would be from the south side facing Vista Road and another access from the lawn area.  The living room area would be converted over to yacht club use.  There would be virtually no change to the outside of the building. Propose 2 exterior showers.  The existing showers by the clubhouse will be eliminated.  In the pavilion area we propose 2 toilets.  The guard area is proposed as a stucco and stone structure to match the front entrance of the clubhouse building.    On the 2nd floor we want to put the offices to the south side and add a board meeting room for the use of the staff. 

Carried with notice preserved to 5/4/11 with extension of time to act to 5/5/11

Mr. Marinello assumed the chair for the following application.

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 & 3/2/11 - Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq; Mark Walker, PE

Page 5


Mr. Schepis – This is the soil movement application associated with the site plan approved at the last hearing. 

Mr. Walker, PE – sworn

Did earthwork calculations for the project.  We have a cut 15,108 cy and a fill 8,204 cy with an excess of 6,904 cy to be removed from the site.  Sandy material on site.  We will need 530 truckloads of material to be removed from the site over time.  No adverse environmental effects on site due to soil movement.  We have 2 options leaving the site, if the soil is going north we would make a right on Vreeland Ave and go into Boonton to Route 202 to Route 287; if we find a user that needs the material south, would be Vreeland Ave to River Rd to Changebridge Road to Rt. 46.  No minor streets only major thoroughfares.  The Town of Boonton requested that the soil removal not be limited to travel through Boonton.

Mr. Walker – Morris County Soil Certification will be required.  Mr. Walker – Explained the soil erosion measures for the board.  All topsoil will be retained on site.  There is no major excavation within 20’ of the property line.  The only areas would be at the front of the property in connection with the detention ponds and in the rear of the property there would be 5’ from the property line near the retaining wall.  There are some changes within 20’ of the property line but they are minor in nature that will be shown in detail on the revised plans.  Mr. Walker referred to plan on easel.  Mr. Ackerman – Is that the plan that was approved?  Mr. Walker – No.  He put up the latest grading plan the applicant has at this point, last revised 11/8/10.  He testified that it is substantially the same in terms of grading and soil movement requirements.  One of the conditions of approval is to update the site plan, but the grading around the perimeter is 99% the same shown on this plan.  Largest area is the detention basin, which will be within 20’ of the property line, and in the rear by the retaining wall by units 13-15.  There is a 4’ cut behind unit 8 that would be 5’ from the property line.  The 2 detention basins are proposed to be fenced in. 

Mr. Walker – No excavations that would endanger a neighboring property.  The existing wells on the property will be turned into irrigation wells.  Soil testing was done on the property in accordance with the DEP criteria and there are no environmental hazards involved.   No excavation within 2’ of the groundwater.  Hours for soil movement between 7:30am to 4:30 pm Mon-Sat.  Mr. Schepis - We will limit the soil movement outside of school bus hours. 

Open to public – none

Mr. Corsey – Would prefer that all soil movement be done toward Vreeland Avenue to Route 287 because of a less adverse impact to residential areas and school traffic.  9am-2pm would be a good time to limit soil movement. 

Mr. Driscoll suggested that the applicant check with the township to see if they could use the soil.  Mr. Gannon for applicant said he would work with the town and offer to town first as needed.  Mr. Schepis – A road cleaning bond and maintenance bond will be placed on file with the township.  Mr. Marinello – Do you see a problem with 530 trucks encountering any issues with the right turn off Vreeland onto River?  Mr. Walker – It is tight but no. 

Public portion closed

Mr. Buraszeski – I make that turn with the ambulance but maybe we can require a traffic safety officer. Mr. Marinello – 287 is the safest route. 

Mr. Gannon, Applicant – sworn

We don’t have a location to bring the soil yet.  We will come back before the board if we need to use anything other route than Route 287.  Discussion ensued on hours of operation.  Mr. Gannon represented that the Boonton school hours begin at 7:45 and end at 2:30.

Page 6


Motion to approve the soil removal application via Vreeland Ave to Route 287 subject to hours of operation 8am-2:30 pm weekdays (outside regular school traveling hours) while school in session and 7:30am-4:30pm on Saturday and days schools are not in session, subject to bonding, first refusal to Township for soil, made by: Driscoll; Second by: Kanoff;  Roll call: Ye s- Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Marinello.




Minutes of March 2, 2011 Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Petrozzino, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski, Second by: Driscoll. Roll call: Yes- Unanimous


Burgis Associates – Trust for: $593.75, $781.25, $437.50, $67.50

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $343.75, $1,062.50, $656.25, $250, $500, $281.25, $125

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $350

Pashman, Stein – Trust for; $125, $135, $594

Motion to approve made by: Kanoff, Second by Moore, Roll call: Unanimous


ZC16-10 Kaner, Suzanne  –12 Foremost Mountain Rd. – B: 130, L: 14 – variance  - detached garage construction variance for side yard 6.04’ where 20’ required; accessory structure height 16.42’ where 14’ allowed – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Petrozzino

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Petrozzino

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, 1/5/11 & 3/2/11 Eligible: Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello       Approval Resolution

Board asked counsel to review the changes and those which counsel thought had merit.  Mr. Ackerman reviewed the requested changes by the applicant for the board.  There are 2 items one of which does not change what we wanted, which is the effect of the air conditioners between the units as it relates to open space not being less than 12’,  in general the language requested has the same meaning.  If so, applicant can have that language change.  Did not see merit to other items sought and were not representative of the Board’s actions.  However, it is up to the Board to decide those issues.  As to patios and decks, Mr. Ackerman deferred to Mr. Burgis to weigh in on the requested change.  Mr. Burgis indicated that at the last hearing the discussion was 3 units would have decks and the remainder were to have patios.  Mr. Schepis wanted a blanket requirement for all units to have patios and decks.  Mr. Ackerman – The original resolution stated no decks and limited patio areas, but it is up to the board to approve no patios or decks or patios with decks on 3 specific units.  Mr. Burgis – It was not entirely clear whether the board allowed for those 3 units to have decks, but there was to be no more than the 3 decks allowed.  Mr. Buraszeski – I think the original thoughts were to keep as much open space as possible.  Mr. Buraszeski – I would like to add in the resolution that the developer would be responsible for anything that happens to the water line in the dead end loop.  Mr. Ackerman – You can put in the resolution that it would be the developer’s and then the association’s responsibility, to indemnify and protest the Township.  Mr. Marinello – It is the developer’s responsibility during construction and the association after construction to have sole responsibility for maintenance and repair of the water line so it is not the Town’s responsibility.  Consensus – Amend the resolution to include Mr. Schepis’ request #3 as it relates to leaving 12’ of open space between units and the responsibility of the dead end loop water line to be solely the developer’s and the association’s responsibility as discussed. 

Page 7


Motion to adopt as amended made by: Moore; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello

ZSPP/FDC10-89-29-06 Hook Mountain Care Center – Hook Mountain Rd. - B: 159, L: 4 - request for extension of approvals until 12/3/11 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Petrozzino - Granted

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by:  Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Petrozzino


ZSPP/F27-05-31-06 DAB Associates – 43 Bellows Ln. – B: 41, L: 15 - request for extension of approvals until 3/6/12

There are no zone changes in that area per Mr. Burgis.  Mr. Ackerman has prepared a draft resolution in the event the board grants to the extension.

Motion to grant the extension and adopt the resolution made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Olsen; Marinello; No - Shirkey

ZSPP/FDC07-08 Lowes – 85 Bloomfield Ave. – B: 167, L: 28-32; B: 178, L: 3; B: 179, L: 1 – request for extension of approvals until 7/1/12

Motion to grant: Driscoll; Second by:  Moore; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey, Olsen; Marinello


Planning Board Liaison Update – no update

Discussion re: Revisions to By-Laws

Mr. Ackerman - Reviewed the draft revisions to the By-Laws for the board. 

Add as agenda item Open Public Portion to the agenda and submission of revisions to the board professionals at least 10 business days prior to the hearing and 10 calendar days for revisions to the land use office.  Add pledge of allegiance.  Change last agenda item to refer to “closed session as permitted”.

Motion to adopt By-Laws as amended: Driscoll; Second by: Buraszeski; Roll call: unanimous

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 May 4, 2011.


Meghan Hunscher, Sec.

[1] Absent with explanation


Last Updated ( Monday, 23 May 2011 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack