11-2-11 BoA minutes Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 2, 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 – Present                     James Marinello - Present

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

Kenneth Shirkey – Present                 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.  He then reviewed procedure and expected timing.

The following application requested to be carried to 12/7/11 hearing with notice preserved:

ZSPP/FD10-11 JCP&L – 9 Changebridge Rd. – B: 59.2, L: 2 – amended site plan with variances for sound wall – carried with notice preserved to 11/2/11 – Eligible: Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug[1], Buraszeski, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello                            ACT BY: 1/24/12

Mr. Marinello – JCP&L stated that they could get the materials in at the 10 day mark, but they chose to move to December so our professionals would have time to review.  Chairman commended JCP&L for being upfront about their timing of delivery of reports.

ZSPP/FCD01-08 JLJ&J Marketing ( Kids R Kids ) - B:138,L:8 - 217 Changebridge Rd. - Preliminary/Final Site Plan w/variances – request for extension to: 3/4/12

Alfred Ferraro, owner - sworn

Requesting an extension of time, we did not know it expired.  Expect approval from the bank any day and will be proceeding.  No change in application since time of approval.   Mr. Burgis – No changes to the zoning as it relates to this property.  Mr. Ackerman – It is the Board’s decision if they wish to grant an extension even though it is late. 

Motion to grant extension made by: Kanoff; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Shirkey, Hug, Moore, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello

OLD BUSINESS

ZSPP/FDC8-11 Romola Enterprises Site Plan with variances//ZSOIL9-11 Romola Enterprises Soil Movement application – 347 Changebridge Rd. – B: 160.2, L: 27 –carried with notice from 10/5/11 – Eligible: Moore[2], Driscoll, Shirkey, Hug, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello                                                                                              ACT BY: 1/5/12

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Mark Walker, PE, Joseph Romola, Applicant, James Cutillo, AIA, Mia Petrou, PP

Mr. Schepis – Mr. Walker is here to answer specific questions by the Board at the last hearing.  He has created a site plan profile.

Mr. Marinello reviewed the procedures of the Board for the public.

                A3 – copy of plan submitted to the Board – site cross section 10/19/11, highlighting line of sight and privacy fence

Mr. Walker – Reviewed A3 for the Board.  The road is elevated to the site, there is a retaining wall by the lower parking area and on top of the retaining wall is a 6’ board-on-board fence.  The sight line goes over the roof of the cars so they will not be seen from the road.  The sign is only 7 ½’ above the roadway as proposed, because the building is so low relative to the street.  In my letter of 10/11/11, I answered the Board’s questions and attached back up information relating to those questions.

                A4 – construction detail of fencing

Mr. Walker reviewed the fence details for the Board.  The board-on-board and chain link fences are both ‘6 high.  The board-on-board fence will be located from the access drive to the south side of the property.  The chain link fence encompasses the lower gravel parking area.  The dumpster is located next to the retaining wall by the lower parking area.  The dumpster will not be seen from Changebridge Road.  The lower area is proposed to be gravel, because gravel exists in this area and it is to be a passive parking area, the public will not be driving in and out of there.  It also reduces the amount of runoff coming off the property.  Mr. Burgis – They resolved my concerns from the last hearing.  Mr. Omland – I have questions from Mr. Romola, no more questions for Mr. Walker.

Mr. Shirkey – How will employees access the dumpster?  Mr. Walker – Mr. Romola will answer that question.  Mr. Shirkey – Is there enough room for the garbage truck to access?  Mr. Walker – Yes. Mr. Hug – What if the cars can be seen after it is built.  Mr. Schepis – The Board can condition that additional screening will be required if the cars area visible as approved by the Township Engineer.  Mr. Buraszeski – Will the sidewalk be counted toward impervious coverage?  Mr. Omland – Not within the right of way.  Mr. Olsen – Will the cars in the gravel parking area be seen from Route 80?  Mr. Walker – No.  Mr. Olsen – What about from the bridge over Route 80?  Mr. Walker – Did not do an analysis from the bridge, but there is vegetation in that area.   Mr. Olsen – Would like to have a condition that if visible from the overpass that additional screening will be required.  Mr. Schepis – The applicant would agree to that. 

James Cutillo, AIA – sworn

                A5 – large photo rendering of building

                A6 – small photo rending of building. 


Mr. Cutillo – Currently the building is a one story building with a flat roof.  Plan to gut the building inside and out and refurbish the entire building.  Plan a parapet to hide roof top equipment.  The roof will be 26’ high from floor level.  Reviewed the applicant layout for the Board.  The customer entrance would be on the side of the building, but will leave the front entrance area to make it look like the front of the building.  Refinishing building in stucco.  The sign gives the front of the building some character.  Also propose a freestanding sign.

                A-7 black and white rendering of freestanding sign

                A8 – color rendering of freestanding sign

Mr. Cutillo – The area of the sign is 4’x4’ and then added area around it to match the character of the building as requested by the DRC.    Mr. Burgis – How is the exhaust handled in paint area?  Mr. Cutillo – The paint booth is a self-contained system with a small exhaust vent on top of the building.  The front office area will be air conditioned and the rest of the building does not have to be air conditioned.  Internally, there will be a lot of paddle fans and exhaust fans.  Mr. Burgis – The new master plan wants consistency with new buildings.  Mr. Cutillo – The proposed building is in character with the existing buildings in the neighborhood.  Mr. Omland – Will the landscape plan be revised to indicate the plantings as shown on A6?  Mr. Cutillo – The landscape plan does not depict the area, additional plantings like the rendering will be done.  Applicant will add year round planting as opposed to seasonal to the landscape plan.

Joseph Romola, applicant – sworn

Currently located at 62 Old Bloomfield Ave for the past 32 years.  Auto repair, detailing, auto body repair and towing for customers only.  The rent in my current building is increasing; I thought this would be a good investment.  We do not do enough bodywork to be required to have a booth, but will be installing a booth as approved by EPA requirements. 

                A9 – type of spray booth rendering

Mr. Romola – There is ventilation equipment required and licensing required by the state.  If a car is brought to the site, it is stuffed with special absorbent towels to clean up any fluids.  I will not allow leakage on my property; I do not wish to pollute my property.

                A10 – absorbent towel

Mr. Romola – Will agree to put in additional screening if cars seen from Changebridge Road or Route 80 overpass.  Garbage will be brought down to the dumpster twice a day. 

Mia Petrou, PP – sworn

                A11 – photo array exhibit

Ms. Petrou reviewed the properties in the area using the photo array for the Board.  She indicated where the shared driveway was located.  Reviewed permitted uses in this zone.  This building could be developed as a retail use from a zoning perspective.  The zone allows for outdoor storage. 

Ms. Petrou – Use variance required because auto body not a permitted use in this zone.  I-2A Industrial Zone.  Meets the intent and purpose of the master plan.  It would be unlikely due to the slope of the property that retail would care to use this type of property, since the building is not very visible from the road.  The proposed use is compatible with some of the other uses in the I-2A zone.  There is natural screening on the property as well as additional screening proposed.  No neighbors will be impacted on the southerly or westerly side of the property.  This is private redevelopment of a defunct site.  Parking variance, 144 required where 21 spaces are proposed.  Signage variances for height of wall sign at 18’ high and freestanding sign not allowed.  The signage height is required for visibility from the road and public safety and identification of the site.  Signage is not obtrusive. No substantial detriment to neighboring properties.  Century 21 and florist have both freestanding signage and wall signage. 

                A12 – photos of Petals of Pine Brook and Century 21 signage

Ms. Petrou – Freestanding signs are commonly used to identify a use.

Open to public – None

Discussion ensued on height of freestanding sign.  Mr. Schepis – We can reduce the sign to 8’ in height.

Mr. Burgis – How is this within the intent and purpose of the master plan as it relates to retail?  Ms. Petrou – It is not an appropriate site for retail and will be a regeneration of an Industrial use.   Mr. Omland – How many employees on this property.  Mr. Romola – I have 6 currently and I will have 10 at the proposed site.  Mr. Omland – Is the parking sufficient for repair cars as well as 10 employees?  Where do the cars queuing up for service park?  Is 19 spaces enough?  Mr. Romola – Number of employees is not number of mechanics, we have office workers also.  We pick up and deliver cars so when one  is done we bring it back to the customer.  We do detail on cars that we do body work on.  Waste oil stored in a tank.  No outdoor storage of parts or tires on site.  Tires are picked up every week.  Mr. Omland – Do you intend to irrigate the landscaping?  Mr. Romola – Yes.  Mr. Omland – Will any of the trees along the shared driveway be salvaged when you raise the road?  Mr. Walker – The pavement will not affect the trees but need to see if the grading will.  Will put in tree wells to attempt to save the trees.   Mr. Romola – Will put in new trees instead. 

Mr. Schepis – As it relates to soil movement, Mr. Barile reviewed the plans and did a memo indicating that he reviewed the site plan.  No soil to be brought to site without review by his office of the testing as required by NJDEP.  Mr. Schepis indicated that Mr. Romola will comply. 

Mr. Driscoll – How many cars do you work on in a day?  Mr. Romola – Approximately 13 per day but it varies daily for the fleet companies.  Mr. Buraszeski – Do you sell cars from the site?  Mr. Romola – No, unless I am selling one of my own personal cars.  Mr. Schepis – The sign is subject to DRC approval and we will submit it to them for final approvals.  Mr. Ackerman – What about noise?   Mr. Romola – I have never had a complaint about noise in 32 years and my neighbor is a residence.  I do not think you will hear anything since we are next to Route 80.  Mr. Romola – Will not have any cars parked overnight in the customer parking area unless a customer drops one off in the middle of the night.  Tow truck is a flat bed and will be parked in the yard, which is locked at night. 

Mr. Ackerman – The uses that Ms. Petrou used for signage seem to be retail uses.  Mr. Romola – The signage is very important, people need to find me, I do retail business, if you need an oil change and I have openings the car can have an oil change otherwise an appointment will have to be made.  Mr. Burgis – Do not see the need for the freestanding sign based on the testimony provided.    Mr. Marinello – Is the towing needed on the sign since you do not do towing at night?  Mr. Romola – I was showing the full service of the site. 

Mr. Burgis – Discussions held at the planning board and subcommittee were that the industrial uses are fading out in this zone.  They have allowed for restaurants and retail within this zone.  It is a significant aspect to the application that the parking is blocked from view and the architectural design is aesthetically pleasing as opposed to most auto repair facilities.  Mr. Marinello – If cars are being rinsed off for dust can the septic system handle it?  Mr. Walker – It is just rinse water poured on cars that drains into the storm drains.  There is no issue with capacity or stabilization.  No detergents will be used.

Mr. Hug – Complimented the applicant on the design of the building.    There is no outdoor storage of tires?  Mr. Romola – Correct.  Mr. Hug – You agree to reduce the sign to 8’ tall?  Mr. Romola – Yes. 

Mr. Shirkey – You don’t really need that front sign because most of your business is local people.  Mr. Romola – It is consistent with signs along Changebridge Road and it is important for identification.  Mr. Cutillo – The façade sign is parallel to the road so it is not seen immediately as you pass.  The freestanding sign will have the number of the building up high so it is seen from a distance.  The applicant is willing to reduce the size of the sign, but it is important to have the sign.  Mr. Shirkey – Can you do pre-construction calculations as to if the parapet will screen the equipment on the roof completely.  Mr. Cutillo – Yes. 

Mr. Burgis – The applicant is requesting a D1 use variance, slope variance, sign variances, parking variance.  Mr. Burgis – The sign lettering is 2 inches in height and will be very difficult to read.  Also a front yard setback variance if dedication given to the county will be required along with lot area. 

Mr. Schepis – We have been looking at this abandoned industrial building for the past 10 years.  The applicant purchased the property in order to upgrade the property and use it for a use that he already does in the town currently.  The site is suited for this use.  Screening will be maintained so outdoor storage is not viewed.  New ordinance will allow for freestanding signs. 

Closed to public

Discussion ensued on whether or not the freestanding sign should be allowed.  Mr. Olsen – Because it is so relatively low to the street elevation, I think a free standing sign is appropriate at that entrance.  It would be easy to miss that site entirely due to location to Route 80 overpass.  Mr. Driscoll saw it as a safety issue due to location of property.  Mr. Hug – No objection from neighbors. 

Motion to approve the application subject to additional screening post construction will be added if needed to ensure no visibility of rear storage area, limiting washing of vehicles to no use of soap, water only,  irrigation system for planting needs a rain gauge, no outdoor storage of tires, pre-construction calculations of parapet to meet its intent and purpose, additional planting on landscape plan, reduction of sign to 8’ high by 5’ wide, wall mounted sign to be consistent and proportionate as shown in exhibit A5 subject to our professionals’ review, car washing and detailing only for cars repaired, free standing sign to match the building design, subject to all agency and professional reports, no parking of vehicles in customer parking overnight unless a customer drops it off at night, no towing over night, no metal or parts storage outside, approval of soil movement application as well conditioned upon Mr. Barile’s requirements, dedication of right of way will cause front setback variance and lot area, cap the well, number of employees to be no more than 12, lighting for signage subject to DRC, well to be capped, made by: Hug; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Moore, Driscoll, Shirkey, Hug, Buraszeski, Kanoff, No - Marinello

NEW BUSINESS

None

MINUTES

Minutes October 5, 2011 Eligible: Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Olsen, Marinello

Page 6 move Mr. Hug returns to prior to his comment.

Motion to approve made by Buraszeski, seconded by Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Olsen, Marinello

INVOICES

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $270

Joseph Burgis – Trust for: $1,957.50, $101.25, $202.50, $101.25, $405, $236.25

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $573.75, $270, $123.75

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

RESOLUTIONS

ZC8-10 –Grassi – B: 94, L: 13 – 7 Hillcrest Rd. – request for extension of approvals to

10/6/12 – Granted – Eligible: Driscoll, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Shirkey, Hug, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Shirkey, Hug, Olsen, Marinello

ZDC28-08 Holiday at Montville – 29 Vreeland Ave.– B: 52.03, L: 19 – variance - request for extension of approvals to 10/7/12 – Granted – Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Shirkey, Hug, Olsen, Petrozzino, Buraszeski, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Driscoll; Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Kanoff, Shirkey, Hug, Olsen, Buraszeski, Marinello

CORRESPONDENCE

ZSPP/FDC10-89-29-06 Hook Mountain Care Center – Hook Mountain Rd. - B: 159, L: 4  - request for extension to: 12/3/12

The master plan reaffirms the residential zone for that property.  Mr. Marinello – That is an affirmative that they want residential there.  Mr. Ackerman – You gave it a variance for the same zone that is there today.  Mr. Burgis – The Planning Board did not want to rezone it to a different use because your variance approval was reasonable, they did not want to spot zone. 

The Board requested attendance of the applicant at the next hearing for information on where this application status is. 

OTHER BUSINESS

Planning Board Liaison Update – Planning Board had their first public discussion of the draft-zoning ordinance.  Mr. Burgis discussed the updates to the zoning ordinance.

2012 Tentative Budget for Board of Adjustment – If questions, discuss with Land Use Office

2012 Tentative Board of Adjustment Meeting Date Schedule – If questions, discuss with Land Use Office

Discussion re: reappointments: Moore, Petrozzino – If you wish to be reappointed, please send a letter to the Township Clerk

The professionals were released.

Mr. Marinello – Why are there no high school students here?  Mr. Driscoll – Is meeting with principal tomorrow and will discuss this issue with him. 

Motion to go into closed session to discuss personnel issues.

Upon return from closed session and there being no further business, the Board adjourned the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard, Recording Secretary

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

_______________________________________

Meghan Hunscher, Sec.


[1] Certified to missed section of 10/5/11 hearing

[2] Certified to 10/5/11 hearing

Last Updated ( Thursday, 08 December 2011 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack