ZONING BOARD OF
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 5, 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 - Absent Thomas Buraszeski - Present
Kanoff – Present James Marinello - Present
Deane Driscoll - Present Keith Olsen (Alt #1) - Present
Shirkey – Present John
Petrozzino (Alt #2) - Present
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. He then reviewed procedure and expected timing.
ZSPP/FDC8-11 Romola Enterprises Site
Plan with variances//ZSOIL9-11 Romola Enterprises Soil Movement application – 347
Changebridge Rd. – B: 160.2, L: 27 – Notice
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Mark Walker, PE, Joseph Romola, Applicant,
James Cutillo, AIA
Mr. Schepis – The applicant
is requesting a Use Variance along with Preliminary and Final site plan as well
as a soil movement permit application.
Mr. Schepis reviewed the site for the Board. The industrial zone does not allow for auto
body repair. The side was previously
Carlton Tool which closed in the mid 1990’s.
Mr. Romola has cleaned up the site to the satisfaction of DEP. Mr. Romola is the proprietor of RAR Auto
behind McDonalds on Old Bloomfield
Ave. and wishes to move his operation to this
Mark Walker, PE –
Exhibit marked in – A1 – colorized site plan dated
A2 – colorized site plan with more
site details dated 10/5/11
Mr. Walker – Lot 27 is the property that Mr. Romola’s site is on. The neighboring property is part of the
application because we will be improving part of the shared driveway on that
lot. We have frontage on Rt. 80 and Changebridge Rd. The property has 1.86 acres and is a
previously developed site as a tool shop.
There is a well and septic existing on the property. The property is significantly lower than the
roadway. The existing building is 20’
higher than Rt. 80. The back part of the
property has delineated wetlands on the property. We do have an LOI for the property. There is a wooded buffer between our property
and Rt. 80. The building footprint will
remain as it is. There is a small area
in the back that will be added to the building but the entire site will be
redeveloped. There will be one-way
access from the southerly side of the property with exit from the northerly
side of the property.
Mr. Walker – Reviewed the
parking areas on site. A safe exit
situation has been designed for the site.
We have designated 11 parking spaces but there is parking for upwards of
20 spaces in the gravel parking area.
The gravel area is for
parking of vehicles for cars to be worked on only. There will be 7 auto body bays and 1 spray paint
bay. The landscaping will be entirely
redone on site. Building sign to be on
building at 18’ where 8’ is allowed but our building is 10’ lower than the
roadway. Propose a 4’x8’ freestanding
identification sign at the southerly side of the site. We have septic on site, there is no sewer
access, the septic system was upgraded not too long ago and the Health
Department is confident with the septic system.
We will tie into the Municipal Water System and cap the well. Propose a board on board fence by the visitor
parking and the 2-lane access drive. A
chain link fence proposed around gravel parking area. There is minor soil movement associated with
site. The applicant proposes a gross
fill of 2,766 cy and a cut of 1,398, net fill to be brought on site is 1,368 cy,
it is a minor amount. The fill will come
from the south so there would not be much truck traffic affecting Changebridge Rd.
Mr. Walker – Design exception
requested for change in property within 5’ of the property line where we need a
retaining wall. Design exception
requested for curbing. Design exception
requested for lighting into right of way.
The light is located directly adjacent to the parking spaces for
appropriate lighting in that area.
Design exception for slope disturbance of:
15 to 19.9%
20 to 24.9%
Mr. Walker – Using
sheet 8 of 19 part of site plan last revised 9/12/11 Mr. Walker reviewed slope
exceptions for the Board. The slopes on
the property were all initially man made.
Mr. Walker –
Variances requested for retaining wall height of 10’ if with fence must be
combined. 4’ retaining wall with 6’
chain link fence for overall height of 10’.
But fence is setback 6’ from the retaining wall. The retaining wall will not be seen from the
front of the site. There will be
plantings in between the retaining wall and the fence. Norway Spruce is proposed in that area. Will be dedicating land along Changebridge Rd. to
the County of Morris.
Before the dedication a 58’ front setback existed and with the
dedication a variance will be required for 42’.
Mr. Schepis indicated if the board had an issue with the front setback
than an easement can be dedicated instead to the Township. 144 parking spaces are required for this use,
we propose 19. Two sign variances are
requested. Propose a freestanding
sign and a building mounted sign whereas one is permitted. A ‘c’ variance is required for a second
sign. The building mounted sign is
proposed at a height of 18 feet where a maximum of 8 feet is permitted.
Mr. Walker – Minor drainage improvements are proposed on
site. Propose underground infiltration
Mr. Walker – Discussed soil movement. Sandy
material. Propose soil movement more
than 1’ within 5’ of the property line.
It will not impact Changebridge
is no excavation within 10’ of a public street.
Mr. Walker indicated that it would take approximately 5 days for the
soil movement process. Addressed each
condition required by ordinance.
Mr. Burgis – The curbing on the adjoining property? Mr. Walker – Currently a one- way out
driveway, if the neighbor needed a 2-way out driveway he would have to rip out
curbing. What exists today is a narrow
driveway and we propose curbing on our side of the site pitched for water to go
into our drainage. Mr. Burgis – The
parking standard is excessive. The
parking for this activity is adequate.
Mr. Omland – Requested number of employees. Mr. Walker deferred to the applicant. Mr. Omland asked what the impervious coverage
was proposed. Mr. Walker -- adding less
than 1,000 s.f. but are over 1 acre of disturbance. Mr. Omland – There are no water quality
devices proposed on site. Mr. Walker – We are under ¼
acre. Mr. Omland – Would like to know if
accident vehicle storage would be in the gravel area with the possibility of
oil/gas leaks reaching the wetland area.
Mr. Omland – How do we know the appropriate lab results show that the
soil quality meets the standards of the township? Mr. Schepis – will submit lab results to the
Board of Health. Mr. Omland is concerned
that the water will sheet flow down the driveway instead of draining along the
curb line as described to Mr. Burgis.
Mr. Walker – We can relocate the inlet #9 over or add another inlet on the
opposite side of the roadway.
Mr. Walker – Going from 11’ driveway to an 18’ is a
significant improvement, if the neighboring property owner wants to expand it
in the future it would be up to them. So
no curbing because that expense would be wasted if the neighbor intended to
expand one day.
Mr. Omland – The
applicant has agreed to comply with streetscape lighting. The front setback is measured into the Changebridge Road
pavement. Granting of the ROW to the
County is the appropriate thing to do.
Mr. Omland questioned the location of the dumpster. Mr. Walker
– The applicant will discuss same.
Open to public for this professional - none
Mr. Shirkey – Would like a cross section as to how the 18’
auto body shop sign will look from Changebridge
are you going to put snow on this property?
What is the square footage to be given to the County? Dr. Kanoff – Would like to see documentation
on septic upgrades. Mr. Hug – Where is
the septic field? Can you see cars for
repair from Changebridge Rd.? Why do you need another sign on building if
you have one on Changebridge Rd.? Mr. Marinello – Need testimony on chain link
fence design standards, sidewalks required along Changebridge Rd.? Mr. Ackerman – Is there streetscape signage
uniformity along Changebridge Road. There has been no testimony of noise from the
site. Mr. Buraszeski – Would like
numbers on impervious coverage. Mr.
Driscoll –Has the DRC reviewed the signage?
Mr. Olsen – Are there wetlands on the property and where is the 50’
buffer. Do any of the neighbors have
wells on their properties? Why did you
choose gravel for the rear parking lot and how are you going to deal with
hazardous materials when you are using an old septic system. Would like to know what the use is of the
neighbor to the north and their parking usage on their property.
Carried with notice preserved to 11/2/11
Minutes of September 7, 2011
Driscoll, Shirkey, Hug, Buraszeski, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello
to approve made by Buraszeski, seconded by Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Shirkey, Hug, Buraszeski, Olsen, Petrozzino,
Burgis Assoc – Trust for:
$168.75, $135, $472.50, $978.75, $405, $202.50, $57.50
Pashman Stein – O/E for:
$364.50; Trust for: $627.75, $1,377.00, $1,856.25
Johnson, Murphy – Trust for:
Omland Engineering – Trust
for: $438.75, $202.50, $101.25, $202.50, $202.50, $337.50
Motion to approve made by Hug, seconded by Shirkey;
Roll call: Unanimous
ZC8-10 –Grassi – B: 94, L: 13 – 7
Hillcrest Rd. – request for extension of approvals
to grant extension made by: Driscoll; Second by: Hug; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Kanoff, Shirkey, Hug, Olsen, Petrozzino,
ZDC28-08 Holiday at Montville – 29 Vreeland Ave.–
B: 52.03, L: 19 – variance - request for extension of approvals to 10/7/12
to grant extension made by: Driscoll; Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Kanoff, Shirkey, Hug, Olsen, Petrozzino,
ZSPP/FD10-11 JCP&L – 9
Changebridge Rd. – B: 59.2, L: 2 – amended site
plan with variances for sound wall – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 1/24/12
Present on behalf of the
applicant: John Beyel, Esq.; Kevin O’Brien, PP; Wayne Freeman, PE; Michael Obremski, JCP&L; Jack Kay,
Acoustical Solutions; Mr. Ehrlich, Acoustical Engineer
Mr. Beyel – Requesting a use variance for an existing non-conforming use,
variance for height of sound wall and pre/final site plan approval. The sound from the property is not
satisfactory to the applicant or the community so we propose a sound wall to
alleviate this problem.
Michael Obremski, factual witness, area manager from JCP&L – sworn
This substation has been in existence since 1965. We have been before this board in the
past. We are making efforts over the
years to reduce the noise/vibration for the operation. Testing of the sound levels will be done if
the board approves this application and the sound wall is installed.
Wayne Freeman, PE – sworn
Mr. Freeman reviewed the location of the proposed sound wall for the
Board. The integrity of the wall will be
structurally sound. The nearest
transformer will be 40’ away from the sound wall.
Jack Kay, Acoustical Solutions - sworn
Reviewed work done within New Jersey
& New York. Reviewed a sound wall elevation for the
A1 – larger scale
version of page 4 of wall detail
A2 – larger scale
version of sound wall barrier
Mr. Kay – A 4-man crew will install the sound wall. Reviewed construction details for the
A3 – sample of
galvanized steel wall cell material.
A4 – photo board of
sound wall example
Mr. Ehrlich, Acoustical Engineer – sworn – reviewed credentials
The sound wall will be located 40’ from the noise source. 25’ height will reduce the sound to the noise
ordinance limits. The walls are proposed
to reduce the noise levels from transformers 3a & 3b.
Kevin O’Brien, PP – sworn
A 5 – photo sets
O’Brien – There is a 14’ height limit for accessory structure where the
applicant is proposing a height of 25’.
Requesting Use variance along with pre/final site plan and c
variance. Reviewed the additional landscaping
that was installed at the last application in 2005. Additional landscaping cannot be placed
within the drainage easement, Algonquin Gas easement or within the substation
itself. JCP&L will install
landscaping within their constraints and will meet with Mr. Burgis on site to determine
where landscaping can be installed.
Reviewed the Sica balancing test for the board.
Burgis – They have addressed my concerns and have agreed to meet on site to
determine where additional landscaping could be installed.
Omland – Did the existing conditions when the transformers were operating
exceed the noise limits allowed? Mr.
Ehrlich – I did not perform the tests myself, but they were over the noise
ordinance. The proposed noise levels
would meet the ordinance. Discussion
ensued on location of sound wall, noise levels and noise ordinance standards.
Beyel – Post construction noise levels will have to meet the ordinance
requirements of today. Mr. Ehrlich – The
current noise was 9 decibels over the allowable ordinance and will meet the
ordinance post construction. Testing
will be done after construction to make sure the noise levels meet the
Samitt, 2 Ridge Dr.
you addressed the possibility of blocking the noise to the east of the
property? Mr. Ehrlich – It does not
break the line of sight there but the sound levels meet the ordinance currently
to the east.
Lewis – 5 Cooks Farm Rd
not hear testimony relative to the relationship of the height of the wall and
the distance of the noise source. Did
not hear testimony of the status of walls existing elsewhere and how they hold
up visually over years.
Ehrlich – There is a linear relationship from height of wall and distance to
transformers. Mr. Kay – It is a smooth
surface so it can be cleaned up easily.
The wall system has been in operation for about 40 years and the
galvanizing will last about 40-50 years.
Can easily be sandblasted and painted.
Lewis – It is a tall wall and I assume it is not finished.
Fiorenzi – 7 Cooks Farm – sworn
it be painted so it does not look like a big steel wall? Mr. Kay – The gray color blends in with the
equipment that is there. It can be
painted but it will stand out.
Bressman – 6 Old Farm – sworn
with the noise factor. Mr. Ehrlich –
Will be back after construction to take noise measurements to make sure it
meets the noise ordinance.
Ackerman – How many wall installations have failed to meet the computer
simulation? Mr. Ehrlich – Usually they
meet the ordinances after construction.
Fiorenzi – Sworn
this wall eliminate the problem on my property?
Mr. Beyel – It is our expectations that it will achieve the necessary
standards since we are putting money into this development. Mr. Fiorenzi – Can the wall be longer? Mr. Beyel – If the sound results are not
satisfactory we may have to extend the wall.
We are trying not to make it bigger than we need to.
Petrozzino – Can you make the wall higher to alleviate possibly more noise
toward the residences? Mr. Olsen – Would
like to see statistical information on sound and how the wall would alleviate
the noise. Mr. Driscoll – Would like
more definite information on the exact size and height of the wall that would
reduce the noise to ordinance standards.
Mr. Buraszeski – Will there be sun glare? Mr. Kay – It is galvanized and will not
create sun glare, the equipment on site is battleship gray and so will the wall
be battleship gray. Mr. Buraszeski –
Would like to see if another color would be less obtrusive. Mr. Beyel – From a maintenance perspective,
the galvanized steel is better than painting the wall. Mr. Marinello – Is the Sica test
satisfied for this application because the use is beneficial -- but does that
extend to the wall? Need testimony on
the effect of the properties to the east.
Mr. Ehrlich – Virtually 100% of the sound will be absorbed by the wall.
Mr. Hug stepped out
Marinello – Would like testimony on how much closer it can be to the
transformers. Need photo simulation of
sound wall or balloon test.
Mr. Hug returned
Hug – Would like costs of wall and costs of new transformers that have less of
a noise output. Mr. Shirkey – Would like
the noise levels prior to the installation in 2005. Mr. Ackerman – Test the noise levels with the
2 newest transformers turned off. Mr.
Marinello asked Mr. Burgis to have information on sidewalks available at the
with notice preserved to 11/2/11
Board Liaison Update – Review the Draft Zoning Ordinance that was given to all
board members. Olde Towne Properties
application was dismissed without prejudice.
There being no further
business the board adjourned the meeting.
Jane Grogaard, Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of November 2, 2011.