ZONING BOARD OF
MINUTES OF MAY 4, 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 - Absent Keith Olsen (Alt #1) -
Shirkey - Present John
Petrozzino (Alt #2) - Present
Hug - Present
Also Present: Brigette Bogart, Planner
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
Cooper, Douglas –15 David Alan Way – B: 56, L: 23.3
– variance for rear yard of 32’
vs 50’ for deck - Notice Acceptable ACT
Present on behalf of the applicant: Mr. Lawrence
Korinda, AIA.; Douglas Cooper, applicant
Lawrence Korinda, AIA – sworn
Mr. Korinda states that they are asking for a single variance for rear yard
of 32’ to deck where 50’ is required.
The house is on a cul-de-sac and is on an irregularly shaped lot. There is no house to the rear of this house
it is separated from Asa by a strip of land. He will be removing terrace area
of 127 s.f. which will reduce the lot coverage. Want to put on a breakfast room
and a family room where existing deck is now.
Mr. Korinda reviewed the floor plans for the board. The new deck is about the same size as the
existing deck but slid over. It is a
modest addition. No neighbors impacted
by the construction. Ms. Bogart stated
that the setback is 45’ to the building
and the stairs are at 32’. Mr. Omland
requested that the applicant affirm that the setback noted was to the
foundation, not the overhang . Mr.
Omland – No concerned with drainage.
Open to public – none
Douglas Cooper – applicant – sworn
Mr. Cooper stated that he has lived on this property for 32 years and the
house was built in this configuration on the lot when the house was
purchaed. We have evergreens planted
along Asa and added evergreens on the south side of our property. Mr. Marinello
– What have you done to mitigate variances on the property? Mr. Korinda – The lower section of the
property is unusable for entertaining so they propose a deck that will
accommodate a grill. The deck requested
is about the same size as the existing deck.
Mr. Buraszeski questioned if the setback was to the foundation. Mr. Korinda - The setback is the overhang of
the building. Mr. Marinello – If
this house was built closer to the road would a variance be needed? Ms. Bogart – No.
Motion to approve the
application, irregular shaped lot, no detriment to neighbors, made by: Kanoff,
seconded by: Buraszeski. Roll call: Yes
- Buraszeski, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Marinello
ZD4-10 – Patel – 299 & 301Changebridge Rd. – B: 160.2, L: 15
& 17 – 2nd story addition to home in industrial zone/building
height – Notice
Acceptable – Eligible: Buraszeski, Hug,
Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Marinello ACT
on behalf of the applicant: Mahesh Patel, applicant; Carmine Campanile, Esq.
Carmine Campanile, Esq. described
that the homeowners are looking to do a 2nd story addition and lot
line change. No other expansion
proposed. Variances would be expansion
of non-conforming use since the property is in the industrial zone and height
variance of 32’ where 30’ allowed and 24’ exists. Eliminated the previously requested FAR
variance. The lot coverage is
reduced. A rear yard setback variance will
be eliminated. Existing conditions
variances are lot area, lot frontage, lot width, front setback, and side
Shri Kotdawala, PE, - sworn – reviewed credentials
Distributed a DEP photo of
Exhibit marked in A1– DEP aerial photo of property
Mr. Kotdawala – Property
surrounded by commercial properties and residential properties across the
street. This is a residence in an
industrial zone so it is an existing non-conformity. Applicant wants to add 1,800 s.f. on the
existing building for a 2nd story addition. Reviewed the proposed plans for the
board. We are cutting off .17 acres from
lot 17 and adding it onto lot 15. Stated
that the fences on the rear of property will be removed since they are not
related to structures. The roof pitch
will be 32’ where 30’ is allowed. Used industrial zone requirements. Because of roof pitch we need 32’ otherwise
it would look like an awkward flatter roof.
It would look better at 32’ than 30’.
No impact on zoning ordinance or neighboring properties from an
Ms. Bogart questioned what
the disturbed piece of property on the backside of lot 17 was. Mr. Kotdawala - Was not sure. Mr. Campanile –
Will have owner answer that question.
Ms. Bogart – Regarding removal of structures shown on plans, it looks
like most of those structures are in the wetlands, are DEP permits required
for removal of the structures? Mr. Kotdawala – They are all man made
structures. Ms. Bogart – Have you
written to DEP to see if any approvals are necessary for the removal of the
structures? Mr. Kotdawala – DEP
permitting not required, we are not removing any trees or shrubs. Ms. Bogart – I defer to the engineering on
whether he thinks permit will be required. Mr. Omland – No engineering issues
as it relates to the 2nd story addition. The removal of the extra structures makes the
lot more into compliance.
Open to public – none
Mr. Mahesh Patel, owner – 299 Changebridge Rd.
Can my cousin speak? I have a
problem with English.
Mr. Rakesh Patel, 3 Virginia Drive,
Parsippany - sworn
Stated that the property was
the same in 2007 as it is now. The
pictures were taken at different times of the year.
Mr. Marinello – Were the lots
bought at the same time? Mr. Campanile –
Yes. Mr. Marinello – Why were the lots not merged? Mr. Campanile – They are in different
names. One is owned by Mr. Patel and one
is owned by Mr. Patel and his wife and they have both signed the application.
Mr. Ackerman questioned why
they weren’t making both lots conforming.
Mr. Campanile – If someone comes in and wants more square footage on lot
17 then that is available. Mr. Ackerman
so you just do not want to make the lot conforming. Mr. Campanile – We are making the lot more
conforming than what it is. I would need
a FAR variance if we do not add the land and we are eliminating other
variances. Mr. Ackerman – Either way
there is an expansion of the non-conforming use, what are the special
reasons? Mr. Campanile – We are making
it more conforming and it improves the area aesthetically. The Board indicated that they do not have
Mr. Campanile asked for an
extension. Mr. Olsen questioned if there
should be a front yard setback variance.
Mr. Ackerman – Yes. Mr. Moore
would like to see a contract, title or agreement from the owners. Mr. Ackerman – Show the title and a legal
document that owner of lot 17 agree to the transfer of land. Mr. Buraszeski would like to see detailed
architectural plans and questioned if a side setback variance is required for
patio which is located 17’ from the property line. Mr. Marinello would like to see what the
impact is for the second story addition height and the impact to the
neighboring properties and the character of the Township as people enter that
corridor, justify why it should be that close to the road and proofs of when
built and if other variance approvals were granted in the past. Will the addition look like it is going to
fall over into the road? Will need DOT
approval and better documentation and surveys showing the land being
transferred form one lot to the other. Mr.
Kanoff questioned what is on lot 17 and if permits required from DEP for
removal of structures on that lot. Mr.
Shirkey would like to see more detailed plans, all 4 elevations, proper
labeling on the site plan showing all setbacks to patios, decks, etc. Ms. Bogart is concerned about the 0’ setback,
looks like the building is over the property line, if it is over the property
line the board does not have the jurisdiction to approve structures in a right
of way. She would like to see rear
setback set back an additional 14’. Mr.
Omland would like more detailed architectural plans for the present
application, signed and sealed by an architect.
Carried with notice to 6/1/11
with an extension of time to act to 6/2/11
Minutes of April 6, 2011
Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino,
to approve made by Mr. Buraszeski, seconded by Mr. Moore; Roll call: Unanimous
Mr. Hug stepped out
Burgis Associates – Trust
for: $843.75, $101.25, $33.75, $62.50, $168.75, $125
Omland Engineering – Trust
for: $62.50, $468.75, $1,062, $406.25, $93.75, $93.75
Pashman, Stein – Trust for:
$418.75, $972, $297, $2,895.75
Motion to approve made by Mr.
Kanoff, seconded by Mr. Moore; Roll call: Unanimous
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 - Granted
Motion to approve made by Mr.
Buraszeski, seconded by Mr. Moore; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Kanoff, Moore,
ZC11-10 –Brittain & Foster – B: 52.02, L: 15 – 61 River Rd – rear setback 40’ for
deck – Approved – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Marinello
Motion to approve made by Mr.
Buraszeski, seconded by Mr. Moore; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Kanoff, Moore,
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,
Mr. Ackerman states that
clarification needs to be made to include no staging of trucks on street, only
staging of trucks during soil movement activity.
Motion to approve with the
above change, made by Mr. Buraszeski, seconded by Mr. Shirkey; Roll call: Buraszeski,
Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Marinello
Discussion re: NJDOT letter dated
4/19/11 Lowes traffic island Chapin/Old Bloomfield
Mr. Marinello brought the letter to the Board’s
Mr. Hug – returned
Mr. Marinello stepped down on
the following application:
ZSPP/FCD25-06-05-09 Lake Valhalla Club – Vista Rd. – B: 11, L: 29 - preliminary/final site
plan/Use & Bulk relief and design waivers
– first hearing 11/4/09, carried
with notice from 12/1/10, 3/2/1 &
4/6/111 – Eligible: Buraszeski,
Driscoll, Hug, Kanoff,
on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; David Egarian, PE; Adrian Humbert, PP; Anthony
Garrett, AIA; Joseph Staiger, Traffic Engineer
Schepis indicated that traffic testimony would be heard this evening and planning
testimony will be held for the next hearing.
Bauman questioned the acting recording secretary as being related to the club
president and wanted to know if it made a difference that she was up on the
podium. Mr. Buraszeski indicated that
Ms. Johansen was not a voting member she was taking minutes in the absence of
Schepis – Indicated that we have been rehashing complaints by the residents
when questions on testimony are requested, could the residents limit their
comments until the end.
Garrett, Architect – previously sworn
Garrett indicated that the alterations to the clubhouse facility would be front
entrance and steps that are proposed be closed off and glass doors added as a
sound barrier. The attic space on the second
floor is proposed to be finished and made into new office space. Mr. Hug – Will there be any refrigeration in
the cottage? Mr. Garrett – The cottage
will be turned into showers and locker room, there is currently a
but will not be operating the kitchen anymore.
Mr. Hug – A letter went out to the members that convenience
refrigeration will be available. Mr.
Garrett – There is an outlet. Mr. Hug – What about cooking? Mr. Garrett – There is always the opportunity
for someone to put a microwave in since there is a plug, but we have no
intention of food preparation or cooking in the cottage. Mr. Hug – Is the tent a building? Mr. Garrett – The tent is temporary, it is
removed in the winter, and we now want it to remain on a more permanent
basis. Mr. Hug – Would that create
additional building coverage? Mr.
Garrett – Yes. Mr. Buraszeski asked Mr. Schepis if the
building coverage calculations included the tent. Mr. Schepis indicated that he would check
with Mr. Egarian.
Bauman – previously sworn - questioned if there will be a warming plate in the
cottage. Mr. Garrett stated there will
be no cooking or food preparation done in the cottage.
Nemirow – previously sworn – questioned where the guard house was being moved
to. Mr. Garrett – The attending shack
will be re-located out of the horseshoe into the landscape bed.
Mann, Esq. – attorney for certain residents
far away is the cottage from where the members would swim? Mr. Garrett – About 250’. Mr. Mann – How about the volley ball
courts? Mr. Garrett – About 50-60’. Mr. Mann, Attorney questioned what activities
take place at night. Mr. Garrett - Softball
field and volleyball court are only available until dark because there are no
lights. Tennis courts have lights. Mr.
Mann – So there is a closer bathroom in the evening for the members so they
would not have to go up to the clubhouse to use the bathrooms. Mr. Garrett – Yes.
Mann - Questioned what the offices will be used for and if wedding couples will
have access to this area. Mr. Garrett
states that the offices will be used for staff and possible board meetings.
Murphy – sworn
tent was never a permanent structure is now proposed to be a permanent
structure. Mr. Garrett - We would have
to file for building permits.
Hug – How do you maintain security in the evenings for the cottage? Mr. Garrett – There is maintenance staff and
guard services during the summer months.
Dennis O’Brien – previously sworn
would be using the cottage in the evenings?
Mr. Garrett – Volleyball players and tennis players and people sitting
on the lawn.
Hoops – sworn - questioned why the room downstairs off the ballroom couldn’t be
used for board meetings. Mr. Garrett
stated that the room was used for table and chair storage. Ms. Hoops – The
members usually use the side door, the front door is usually used for weddings.
Nemeth – previously sworn
of guardhouse? Mr. Garrett – 5’x5’. Mr. Nemeth – Will it be used for the
valet? Mr. Garrett – I am not aware,
that is a question for management.
Jenner – sworn - questioned the safety of people crossing from the softball
field to the cottage.
Jenner – sworn – concerned with the pedestrian crossing being in a blind spot
along the road. Mr. Ackerman – That
would be a question for the traffic engineer.
Mr. Joe Staiger, Civil Engineer – reviewed
credentials - sworn
Staiger – Reviewed the parking analysis he did on site. He states that the paved parking lot holds 77
cars, between the maintenance shed and paddle ball courts there are 27 spots,
in the grove there are 42 spots, 13 spots along the tennis courts on Club Drive, and 8
spots on the backside of tennis courts on Hathaway. During a Christmas party in
December there were 60 parking spaces being used on site at that time. The majority of the cars were parked in the
main lot. The 2nd survey was
done on January 29, 2011 for a wedding. The ratio of guests to cars was 2.12
people. The majority of the cars were
parked in the main lot. There are
typically 25 staff members on site during these events.
Staiger - Overflow parking will be on softball field for large member
functions. Memorial Day, Labor Day and one
other day are when there are large events and the ball field will be used as
parking. Remainder of the time the ball
field will not be used. Valet parking
will be used for these functions. The
ball field holds 230 parking spaces, there is no striping proposed, plan just
shows how many cars can be parked. During larger weddings, the staff is
instructed to park in one of the other areas other than the main lot. There
should be no on street parking needed on Vista Rd. Mr. Hug questioned if “no
parking” signs should be erected. Mr.
Staiger – Should not be needed.
Omland – Are the parking spaces you counted in the road lawful spaces or are
they striped spaces on the plan? Mr.
Staiger – They are just striped on the plan.
Mr. Omland – Will they meet the ordinance requirements for parking stall
aisle width? Mr. Staiger – No. Mr. Schepis – That is only for employee
parking. Mr. Omland – Do the employees have better parking skills than the
general public? Mr. Staiger – They are
accustomed to parking there. If we
eliminate 1 aisle we can accommodate the proper parking. Mr. Omland – If it is not marked in the field
would they park in a conforming 9’ wide spot?
Mr. Staiger – I have not done a study on it. Mr. Staiger – We only need 20 spaces and there
is room for 24. Mr. Staiger – The ball
field is for valet parking only. Discussion
ensued on the flow of valet parking traffic.
Bogart questioned why he attended winter events, when this operation is more
active in the summer time. Mr. Staiger
stated he was hired during the winter time and there still would not be more
than 200 people per event, the average is 100 to 150. Ms. Bogart - Recommend condition of approval
that valet parking in place during events. Ms. Bogart – Concerned without striping
cars may be parked in the public right of way.
Shirkey – The sampling time cannot possibly be the same in the winter as it is
in the summer. Mr. Staiger – The ratio
changes accordingly with the number of people that attend an event. Mr. Shirkey – What is the impact of parking
with the addition of the tent? Mr.
Staiger – I do not know how many people would be in the tent but we can
accommodate 395 cars on site with the 4 parking sites. Mr. Moore
– We need more information on how parking will be affected with multiple events
going on at once. Mr. Moore questioned
the condition of the grove after a rain storm. Mr. Staiger was unsure. Mr. Olsen questioned how vehicles will exit
onto Vista Rd.
if there are multiple functions going on.
Mr. Staiger states that they will exit from the main parking lot.
Ackerman – Did you review occupancy of the club other than the 2 events. Mr. Staiger – No. Mr. Ackerman - Do you have information on the
maximum number of guests on the 3 large events?
Mr. Staiger – 600. Mr. Ackerman –
So you do not need the ball field parking.
Mr. Staiger – Mr. Egarian showed on the plan the maximum number of
spaces that could fit.
to the pubic for questions of this witness
Mann, Esq – I renew my clients’ request that the traffic counts be done in the
summer time, the board does not have enough information on traffic to make an
informed decision. Mr. Mann asked if Mr.
Staiger had any other personal knowledge of traffic on site other than the 2
times in the winter he was there? Mr.
indicated that he did not. Mr. Mann – Do
you see a safety issue with valet parking being done with no lighting? Mr. Staiger – There will not be 300 cars
parked there. Mr. Mann – Did you do
traffic counts? Mr. Staiger – No,
Nemirow – previously sworn
cannot predict how many people will be there for dinner when a swim meet is
going on and a ball game.
Nemeth questioned if a guard rail should be installed by the maintenance shed
since there is a 20’ drop to a stream.
Mr. Staiger a guardrail would be a good idea if it is as you say, I will
go out and investigate.
Licht – previously sworn - questioned the safety of employees turning from the
grove onto Vista Road. Mr. Staiger states there are no safety
issues. Ms. Licht – If the gates are open by the grove, what is going to stop
people from parking there who are not employees? Mr. Staiger – Nothing but most people park in
the front lot because it is more convenient.
Ms. Licht – It would allow people who are not members to sneak in.
Carney – previously sworn - Will there be lighting in the grove area? Mr. Staiger – Yes. Ms. Carney – Concerned with amount of
lighting and how late it will be lit.
Jenner – previously sworn - questioned if the police have approved of this
plan. Mr. Schepis indicated that Lt.
David Peterson, the Traffic Safety Officer responded in writing to the Board. Ms. Jenner – There is a safety hazard in the
area where they have to cross the street to park.
Shirkey would like to see the bylaws from when the club opened. He would also like to see the current membership
demographics of Montville
Township residents as
opposed to non-residents and the number of banquets a year along with occupancy
at those events. The Health Department
indicated that they would approve the application if the membership was held at
no more than 400 and the club indicated that they would not agree to that, does
that nullify the Health Department’s approval?
Mr. Hug questioned if there are events going on while there is softball
and volleyball? How many member
functions are there, how many weddings, are wedding people persuaded to join
the club and is the money they pay to join credited toward their wedding? Dr. Kanoff – Concerned this was turning into
more of a banquet facility instead of a club.
Hug – Referenced a letter to the membership indicating that there was to be
renovations to the bridal suite and Mr. Garrett indicated that there was a bathroom
upstairs that they would use. What is
the renovated bridal suite? In the
letter it also indicates that there will be a warming kitchen in the cottage
where Mr. Garrett stated that there would be no such kitchen use. Want to know how many members are responsible
for the weddings and how many events happen per year including weddings,
communions, etc. Want to know if social
membership are given just so anyone can have a wedding at the club and where do
the monies go for these memberships, does it affect the non-profit status of
the club. Mr. Hug indicated he was
concerned with the large amount of misinformation given to the board. Mr. Schepis indicated that he has never read
the letter regarding the warming kitchen.
Buraszeski questioned if any permits were taken out for the propane tanks and
wants it submitted to the board. Mr.
Petrozzino questioned where the bridal suite is located. Mr. Garrett – The upgrades to the bridal suite
were finished not expansion and there is a room there not just a bathroom. An exhibit will be available for the next
meeting. Mr. Omland requested that the Traffic Engineer return for the next
hearing. Mr. Mann – Should our planner
be here at the next hearing? Mr.
Ackerman – Your planner will be heard after the applicant’s professionals are
The application was carried
with notice to 6/1/11 and an extension of time to act to 6/2/11.
Board Liaison Update – no update
being no further business the board unanimously adjourned.
Liz Johansen, Acting Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of June 1, 2011.
Certified to 3/2/11 & 4/6/11 hearings
Certified to 3/2/11 hearing