ZONING BOARD OF
MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 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.
Moore - Present
Thomas Buraszeski - Present
Kanoff - Present
James Marinello - Present
Deane Driscoll - Present Keith Olsen (Alt #1) - Present
Shirkey - Present John
Petrozzino (Alt #2) - Present
Hug - Absent
Also Present: Joseph Burgis, Planner
Wayne Corsey, Engineer
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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
on behalf of the applicant: Mahesh Patel, applicant; Carmine Campanile, Esq.
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
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
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.
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
Marinello stepped down on the following application and Mr. Buraszeski assumed
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
Mr. Olsen certified to
listening to the tapes of the previous hearings.
on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; David Egarian, PE; Adrian Humbert, PP; Anthony
Buraszeski – This application will continue until 10pm.
Schepis – Mr. Egarian had submitted revised plans to the board. Mr. Egarian reviewed the revised plans for
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:
A10 - Aerial photo of the
site dated 1930
A11 – Aerial
photo of site dated 1954
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.
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.
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.
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.
Nemeth – 12 Vista Rd.
– Previously sworn
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.
O’Brien – 8 Diann Dr.
proposed changes are changes that are not favorable with our community. Additional parking and lighting are not
favorable changes. This is not a
Bauman – Lakeshore Dr.
– previously sworn
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.
Nemirow – previously sworn
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.
Zurwell – Rockledge Rd.
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.
Licht – 52 Lakeshore Dr
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
Kearny – Vista Rd.
- Previously sworn
see a lot more gravel there than before, during past 3 years.
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
Garrett, AIA – sworn
as an architect.
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.
with notice preserved to 5/4/11 with extension of time to act to 5/5/11
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
on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq; Mark Walker, PE
Schepis – This is the soil movement application associated with the site plan
approved at the last hearing.
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.
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.
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.
to public – none
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
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.
Buraszeski – I make that turn with the ambulance but maybe we can require a
traffic safety officer. Mr. Marinello – 287 is the safest route.
Gannon, Applicant – sworn
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.
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
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,
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.
Motion to adopt as amended
made by: Moore;
Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Moore, Kanoff, Shirkey,
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
Board Liaison Update – no update
re: Revisions to By-Laws
Ackerman - Reviewed the draft revisions to the By-Laws for the board.
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”.
to adopt By-Laws as amended: Driscoll; Second by: Buraszeski; Roll call:
being no further business the board unanimously adjourned.
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of May 4, 2011.