Board of Adjustment Minutes 5-4-11 Print E-mail



 

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

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.

ROLL CALL:

Richard Moore - Present                     Thomas Buraszeski - Present

Donald Kanoff - Present                     James Marinello - Present

Deane Driscoll - Absent[1]                    Keith Olsen (Alt #1) - Present

Kenneth Shirkey - Present                  John Petrozzino (Alt #2) - Present

Gerard Hug - Present

Also Present:        Brigette Bogart, Planner

                                Stanley Omland, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

NEW BUSINESS

ZC4-11 Cooper, Douglas  –15 David Alan Way – B: 56, L: 23.3 – variance for rear yard of 32’

vs 50’ for deck - Notice Acceptable                                                  ACT BY: 8/18/11

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


Page 2

5/4/11

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

OLD BUSINESS

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 BY: 5/10/11

Present 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 setback.

Shri Kotdawala, PE, - sworn – reviewed credentials

Distributed a DEP photo of the property.

                Exhibit marked in A1– DEP aerial photo of property 2007

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 engineering perspective. 

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. – sworn

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. 


Page 3

5/4/11

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 architectural plans.

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:

Minutes of April 6, 2011 Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello

Motion to approve made by Mr. Buraszeski, seconded by Mr. Moore; Roll call: Unanimous

Mr. Hug stepped out

INVOICES:

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

RESOLUTIONS

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, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello


Page 4

5/4/11

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, Shirkey, Olsen, Marinello

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

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

CORRESPONDENCE

Discussion re: NJDOT letter dated 4/19/11 Lowes traffic island Chapin/Old Bloomfield

Mr. Marinello brought the letter to the Board’s attention. 

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[2], Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey , Olsen[3], Petrozzino                                                                                                  ACT BY: 5/5/11

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

Mr. Schepis indicated that traffic testimony would be heard this evening and planning testimony will be held for the next hearing.

Mr. 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 Ms. Grogaard.

Mr. 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.

Tony Garrett, Architect – previously sworn

Mr. 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


Page 5

5/4/11

Kitchen, 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.

Mr. 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.

Gladys 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. 

Joshua Mann, Esq. – attorney for certain residents

How 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.

Mr. 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.

John Murphy – sworn

The tent was never a permanent structure is now proposed to be a permanent structure.  Mr. Garrett - We would have to file for building permits.

Mr. 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

Who would be using the cottage in the evenings?  Mr. Garrett – Volleyball players and tennis players and people sitting on the lawn.

Evelyn 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.

Ken Nemeth – previously sworn

Size 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. 

Sue Jenner – sworn - questioned the safety of people crossing from the softball field to the cottage.

Ed 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.


Page 6

5/4/11

 Mr. Joe Staiger, Civil Engineer – reviewed credentials - sworn 

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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. 

Mr. 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. 

Ms. 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. 

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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. 

Open to the pubic for questions of this witness

Mr. 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.


Page 7

5/4/11

Staiger 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, parking counts.

Ralph Nemirow – previously sworn

You cannot predict how many people will be there for dinner when a swim meet is going on and a ball game.

Ken 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.

Diane 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. 

Ms. 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. 

Sue 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.

Mr. 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. 

Mr. 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. 

Mr. 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 complete.

The application was carried with notice to 6/1/11 and an extension of time to act to 6/2/11.


Page 8

5/4/11

OTHER BUSINESS

Planning Board Liaison Update – no update

There being no further business the board unanimously adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Liz Johansen, Acting Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of June 1, 2011.

_______________________________________

Meghan Hunscher, Sec.



[1] Absent with explanation

[2] Certified to 3/2/11 & 4/6/11 hearings

[3] Certified to 3/2/11 hearing

 

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