Township of Montville

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF AUGUST 3, 2011

Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting

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

Chairman Marinello welcomed the applicants and residents to the hearing and requested that everyone either turn off or silence their cell phones. 

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated for the record.

ROLL CALL:

Richard Moore - Present                     Thomas Buraszeski - Present

Donald Kanoff - Absent[1]                    James Marinello - Present

Deane Driscoll - Present                     Keith Olsen (Alt #1) - Present

Kenneth Shirkey – Absent [2]               John Petrozzino (Alt #2) - Present

Gerard Hug - Present

Also Present:        Joseph Burgis, Planner - present

                                Stanley Omland, Engineer - present

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq. - present

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

PUBLIC HEARING

Chairman Marinello opened the hearing for public comment.  Seeing no one wanting to be heard, Chairman Marinello closed the public portion.

The following application was carried with notice preserved to 9/7/11:

ZSPP/FCD25-06-05-09 Lake Valhalla Club – Vista Rd. – B: 11, L: 29 - preliminary/final site plan/Use & Bulk relief and design waivers  – first hearing 11/4/09, carried with notice from 12/1/10,  3/2/, 4/6/11, 5/4/1, 6/1/11, 6/16/11& 7/6/11  – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll[3], Hug[4], Moore, Shirkey [5], Olsen[6], Petrozzino                                               ACT BY: 9/30/11

OLD BUSINESS

Mr. Campanile asked if the other application on this evening could go first.

NEW BUSINESS

ZC6-11 – Dharmakeerthi, Asanka – 42 Crescent Rd – B: 148, L: 10 – side setback/sides combined/front setback for addition Notice Acceptable                            ACT BY: 9/23/11

Page 2

8/3/11

Present on behalf of the applicant: Asanka Dharmakeerthi, applicant

Asanka Dharmakeerthi, applicant – sworn

Requesting 3 variances; side setback, front setback & side yards combined.  There is currently no garage on this property.  The kitchen is too small.  A garage is needed for storage since there is no room inside the house.  There is no variance required for the kitchen.  There is an existing side setback at 11.5’ and going back on that setback; front setback of 42.2 existing where 50’ required, extending along same line; and combined setbacks of 30’ where 35’ required, which is an expansion.  Mr. Marinello – The garage, after it is built, will be 19’ from the property line?  Mr. Dharmakeerthi – Yes and 15’ is required.  The house to the right is smaller home and to left is larger. 

Mr. Burgis – On either side of this gentleman’s house is driveways to the adjoining houses.  If you can make this a 1-car garage instead of a 2-car garage can you meet the side yard combined ordinance and still allow for the design of the upper floor as proposed?  Mr. Dharmakeerthi - I think the upper floor can be done with a 1-car garage.  Mr. Burgis – If they moved it in 5’ they would comply to the combined sides ordinance.  Mr. Burgis – There is a pre-existing non-conforming front setback that is being brought along that line, this setback is consistent with the neighborhood.  Mr. Omland – They are removing impervious coverage to equalize what is being added.  No decks or patio areas can be added.

Open to public – none

Mr. Olsen – With relocation of driveway you will have more lawn between you and your neighbor?  Mr. Dharmakeerthi – Yes.  Mr. Moore – In the neighborhood what are the garages like?   Mr. Dharmakeerthi – 1-car garages. 

Mr. Driscoll – Does the blacktop go back to the shed?  Mr. Dharmakeerthi did not believe there was blacktop to that rear area.

Marta Dharmakeerthi, applicant – sworn

The blacktop stops and the garage will be built on the blacktop.  There is no blacktop that goes back to the shed.  Mr. Driscoll – Mr. Burgis recommended a K-Turn.  Mr. Dharmakeerthi – Will comply.  Mr. Omland – The plan does not show one but impervious coverage will still comply with the addition of the K-turn. 

Mr. Buraszeski – They are reducing the impervious coverage by over 500 s.f.  Mr. Omland – Yes.  Mr. Hug – Would you be able to move the entire garage over 5’, internally in the house or make it 5’ smaller to comply with the combined side yard setback.   Mr. Dharmakeerthi – Yes.

Motion to approve the application for side setback and front setback because though increased, they are existing conditions, but not the combined side setback variance and subject to installation of a K-Turn as required by the board engineer, and if possible save the tree to the rear near the dining room addition made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Hug, Driscoll, Moore, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello

ZMS/D4-10 – Patel – 299 Changebridge Rd. – B: 160.2, L: 15 & 17 – 2^nd story addition to home in industrial zone/front setback/lot line change – carried w/ notice from 4/6/1, 5/4/11 & 6/1/11 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Hug, Driscoll[7], Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello                                                                                                                                           ACT BY: 8/4/11

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

Page 3

8/3/11

Mr. Campanile – The board previously had questions about the properties across the street. 

Fred Meola, PP – previously sworn

When the County reconfigured Changebridge Road 12’ was taken on the south side and 17’ was taken from the north side, closest to the house.  It does not show if there was a house there or not.

Exhibits marked in:

                A7 – Deed dated 2/27/68

                A8 – Morris County Plans when they reconstructed Changebridge Rd. in the 1960’s

Mr. Meola – The home was shown on the Morris County Plan when the road was re-configured and widened.  I also looked at the R-27 zone to see how this house would have met these requirements.  Does not meet 27,000 s.f. size, but with lot line adjustment it is getting closer to that requirement to be at  20,000 s.f.  The front yard in R-27 zone is 50’ where this house is at 0’.  Rear yard will now comply with the residential zone with the lot line adjustment.  The property side setbacks and combined side setbacks are well within the R-27 zone requirements. 

                A9 – GIS map showing applicant’ property and surrounding neighborhood

Mr. Meola – Described the neighborhood using A9 for the Board.  3 lots across the street are ranch homes, and then there are 2 lots with multi family properties. 

                A10 – 8 photos of Schilling Property

Mr. Meola – The surrounding area across the street is single family and multi family.  The front setback requested can be granted without detriment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance.  The industrial properties came after this home was already constructed.  Mr. Meola – The 2^nd floor addition will be stepped back 5’ to make it less non-conforming than presently exists and adds a better architectural feature. Will make the addition appear less massive.  Mr. Meola – Sidewalks can be put in, but it would be in the right-of-way, and there is an expanse of open space after this property.  There are only the industrial sites to the left. 

Mr. Katawala, PE – previously sworn

 No wetlands permits will be required to add additional land to this lot.  If there were any land disturbance permits would be required but no land disturbance is proposed with this application.

Mr. Burgis – Describe other properties on this side of property?  Mr. Meola – Industrial properties.  Mr. Burgis – What does the master plan indicate for both sides of the street for this area?  Mr. Meola – I do not know; the applicant is doing minimal improvements to this property.  Mr. Burgis – The master plan reaffirms the industrial uses in this zone.  Mr. Meola – It is an existing residential home, the only change is a better utilization of the home.  Mr. Burgis – How does this applicant effect the development of the rear property owned by a family member?  Mr. Meola – There are many constraints on that lot that currently would be extremely difficult to develop an industrial site on that property.  Mr. Burgis – There is a substantial detrimental effect to the zoning ordinance.

Open to public – none

Mr. Hug – Is there a basement in this house? 

                A-11 existing basement plan

Mr. Hug – Is there a bedroom in the basement?  Mr. Patel – Previously sworn – There are no bedrooms in the basement. 

Page 4

8/3/11

Mr. Marinello – Is lot 17 going to be a not buildable lot with the approval of this application?  Mr. Campanile – It does not render it not buildable.  Mr. Ackerman – Would the wetlands setbacks be affected by the taking of the property from lot 17 to lot 15?  Mr. Katawala – Lot 17 and 15 are both in the flood plain.  If you build anything on these lots there would be wetlands, riparian buffers and flood plains that would be affected.  Mr. Marinello – Could lot 17 as it exists today have an industrial building built on that property?  Mr. Katawala – Yes, but it would be a small footprint.  Mr. Meola – Under the existing zoning, lot 17 has impact by wetlands, it can be built on today and after the lot line change.  Mr. Marinello – How much of the property is dry land?  Mr. Meola – About 80’x250’ prior to the lot line change, and 80’ x 200’ after.  Mr. Marinello – Is that a 20% impact?  Mr. Meola – About that, but there are buffer areas that could be approved before DEP to make it less of an impact. 

Mr. Burgis – The application is a negative impact to the master plan.  Mr. Campanile – By adding the land we have reduced the existing variances to make them better and have eliminated some.  The footprint remains the same; we are just adding the 2^nd floor.   We are expanding the non-conforming area of residence in an industrial zone.  Mr. Driscoll – How do you explain having so many cars on your property?  Mr. Patel – 7 family members, 7 cars. 

Mr. Omland - Streetscape conditions will be implemented before the Planning Board soon.  This is a streetscape corridor and the ordinance is currently being developed.  With or without the lot line change it is improbable that lot 17 can be developed. The patio shown on the plan is not shown on the exhibit.  The board asked if all improvements were lawful, were permits received from the Township?  Mr. Meola – I am not aware.  Mr. Omland - a driveway to lot 17 would have to be through lot 15.  Lot 17 is part of this application but is not shown on the plan or application.  It shows fences and structures are to be removed on lot 17.  A fence along the rear of lot 15 would restrict development on the back lot 17.  If the pavers were done without approvals, some stormwater management would have been required.  One plan shows it, but the other does not.  Mr. Marinello – They are calculated on this application.  Mr. Omland – It tripped the impervious coverage variance without the lot line change. 

Closed to public

Mr. Ackerman – Reviewed case law as it relates to expansion of a non-conforming use for the board. 

Mr. Driscoll – Do not see any enhancement to the master plan or the Township zoning ordinance.  Mr. Petrozzino – The applicant stepped back the addition, which would make the addition seem less massive.  I think the proposed plan would increase the aesthetics to the property.  Mr. Marinello – I agree with you on the aesthetics, but it is probable that lot 17 will be rendered not buildable.  I also think that 7 residents with cars in a flood plain may be a safety concern.

Motion to deny the application based on the lack of special reasons, the substantial negative impact to the zone plan and zoning ordinance, it would exacerbate a difficult condition on lot 17 without adequate proofs shown: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes vote to deny the application - Buraszeski, Hug, Driscoll, Moore, Olsen, Marinello; No - Petrozzino

MINUTES

Minutes of July 6, 2011 Eligible: Buraszeski, Hug, Driscoll, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino

Motion to approve made by Buraszeski, seconded by Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Hug, Driscoll, Moore, Olsen, Petrozzino

INVOICES

Pashman Stein – Trust for: $513

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $1,080, $270, $540, $93.75, $67.50, $135, $67.50, $540

Page 5

8/3/11

Motion to approve made by Hug, seconded by Moore; Roll call: Unanimous

RESOLUTIONS

Z/FSPDC23-02 -Morris Plaza - B: 57.01, L: 6 - 350 Main Rd. – request for extension of approvals until 6/4/12 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Hug, Driscoll, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino

Motion to approve made by Buraszeski, seconded by Hug; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Hug, Driscoll, Moore, Olsen, Petrozzino

CORRESPONDENCE

ZC5-11 Gray, Melissa – 6 Fawn Dr. – B: 125.4, L: 1 – variances for side setback and building coverage for addition and deck - withdrawn without prejudice

OTHER BUSINESS

August 18, 2011 meeting cancelled

Planning Board Liaison Update – The Planning Board approved a number of waivers.  One waiver wanted to take a section of a building to allow a church, there will be further discussions on that application.  The Open Space Trails Plan was adopted at the last Planning Board meeting.

Motion to closed session to discuss potential litigation made by: Driscoll; Second by: Hug; Roll call: Unanimous

Upon return from closed session and there being no further business the board unanimously adjourned by motion.

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard, Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of September 7, 2011.

_______________________________________

Meghan Hunscher, Sec.