ZONING BOARD OF
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.
Moore - Present
Thomas Buraszeski - Present
Kanoff - Absent James Marinello - Present
Deane Driscoll - Present Keith Olsen (Alt #1) - Present
Shirkey – Absent  John Petrozzino (Alt #2) -
Hug - Present
Also Present: Joseph Burgis, Planner - present
Stanley Omland, Engineer - present
Bruce Ackerman, Esq. - present
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
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:
Moore, Shirkey ,
Mr. Campanile asked if the other application on this
evening could go first.
ZC6-11 – Dharmakeerthi,
Asanka – 42 Crescent Rd – B: 148, L: 10 – side setback/sides combined/front
setback for addition Notice Acceptable ACT
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Asanka Dharmakeerthi, applicant
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 – 2nd
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, Kanoff,
Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello ACT
Present on behalf of the applicant: Mahesh Patel,
applicant; Carmine Campanile, Esq.; Fredrick Meola, PP
Mr. Campanile – The board
previously had questions about the properties across the street.
Fred Meola, PP – previously
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
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
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
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
2nd 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
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.
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
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 2nd 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 of July 6, 2011
Eligible: Buraszeski, Hug, Driscoll, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino
to approve made by Buraszeski, seconded by Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Hug, Driscoll, Moore, Olsen, Petrozzino
Pashman Stein – Trust for:
Omland Engineering – Trust
for: $1,080, $270, $540, $93.75, $67.50, $135, $67.50, $540
Motion to approve made by Hug, seconded by Moore; Roll call:
- 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
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
18, 2011 meeting cancelled
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.
to closed session to discuss potential litigation made by: Driscoll; Second by:
Hug; Roll call: Unanimous
return from closed session and there being no further business the board
unanimously adjourned by motion.
Jane Grogaard, Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of September 7, 2011.
Certified to 5/4/11 hearing
Certified to 3/2/11 & 4/6/11 hearings
certify to 7/6/11 hearing
to 3/2/11 hearing
Certified to 5/4/11 hearing