BoA minutes 12-7-11 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 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 – Entrance Noted      Keith Olsen (Alt #1) - Present

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

Gerard Hug – Entrance Noted

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.

Mr. Marinello – It is Mr. Buraszeski’s last meeting after 10 years of service.  He brought the mark higher for us to achieve and he was always fair.  He stepped up as vice chairman and did a wonderful job.  He will be missed.

*NOTE: Mr. Hug and Mr. Driscoll entered

The attorney for JCP&L allowed the following application to proceed first:

ZC12-11 Ruby, Shawn  –9 Rathbun Rd. – B:39, L: 46 – variance for front setback of 34’ where 45’ is allowed and 30.4’ exists for 2nd story addition – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 2/28/12

Present on behalf of the applicant: Shawn Ruby, applicant

Mr. Ruby, applicant – sworn

I am looking to build a 2nd story addition on my house and the house does not currently meet the front yard setback requirements.  I am requesting a variance for front setback of 34’ where 45’ is allowed and 30.4’ exists.  The addition would be compatible with the neighborhood, there are single story homes, split level, bi-level and 2 story homes in the neighborhood.  There are 2 other homes on the street that do not meet the front yard setback.

Mr. Burgis – The house directly across the street does not meet the front setback requirement.  If you put the addition at the setback how would it effect the proposal?  Mr. Ruby – It would cut off 10’, and we would not be able to build 4 bedrooms upstairs.  Mr. Omland – No comments.

Open to the public – none

 

Dr. Kanoff – You are not increasing the footprint and the height is not a problem.  Mr. Ruby – Correct.  Mr. Burgis – The existing side setback is not being affected.  Mr. Moore – Are there any drainage issues?  Mr. Omland – There will not be any additional impervious coverage, so no.  

Closed to public

Motion to approve the variance, front setback pre-existing non-conforming and not increasing the non-conformity, consistent with the neighborhood made by: Kanoff; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Moore, Marinello

MINUTES

Minutes November 2, 2011 Eligible: Driscoll, Shirkey, Moore, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello

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

INVOICES

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $140

Murphy, Hubner – Trust for: $90

Pashman, Stein – O/E for: $114.75; Trust for: $135, $135

Burgis Assoc. – Trust for: $317.50; $987.50

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $270, $135, $312.50, $270, $270

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

OLD BUSINESS

ZSPP/FD10-11 JCP&L – 9 Changebridge Rd. – B: 59.2, L: 2 – amended site plan with variance for wall height of 25’ where 14’ is required for sound wall – carried with notice preserved from 10/5/11 – Eligible: Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello                             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

Wayne Freeman, PE – previously sworn

The wall cannot be placed any closer to the existing transformer because, in the ground is a membrane that catches leaks that may come from the transformer and, if we moved the wall closer, it would perforate the liner.   The second reason is we require some space around the equipment for maintenance and replacement purposes.

Mr. Beyel – We had a study done from all sides of the transformer, not just the south and there were no sound readings in excess of the ordinance during daylight hours, but there may have been in the evening hours.  We have redesigned the wall to alleviate that issue.  We will also do testing once the wall is built, which will be submitted to the board.

Mr. Ehrlich, Acoustical Engineer – previously sworn

I did noise testing during the afternoon with the transformers on and with the transformers off. 


Page 3

12/7/11

                A6 – Silent Screen Septum Sound Wall photo board

Mr. Ehrlich – We came back to the site in the middle of the night and re-did the testing.  In the day it did not exceed the noise ordinance but in some locations at night it did.  We have a revised wall design with 3 segments with 3 different heights due to setbacks to residents and elevations on site.  The eastern wall is 18’ high 150’ long wall; the southern wall would be 90’ long and 22’ high and the other southern wall would be 100’ long and 32’ high.  With this design there will be no noise levels exceeding the ordinance.  Mr. Ehrlich – Reviewed examples of sound levels for the Board.  The loudest point at the property line would be 45 decibels.  Mr. Driscoll – Can you eliminate the noise so the neighbors do not have to hear it?  Mr. Beyel – You cannot eliminate the noise, even the Grand Canyon at night has a noise level.  Mr. Ehrlich – Whenever you have a reflective surface in the area it will decrease the sound wall effectiveness.  We propose a sound wall interior by the transformer and a firewall on the opposite side. 

Kevin O’Brien – I did a balloon testing on site but the weather made it hard to schedule.  Balloon testing has to be done with as little wind as possible. 

                Exhibit A7 – balloon test photos – on site

                Exhibit A8 – photo array of property – off site

Mr. O’Brien – Reviewed all the photos for the Board.  Showing the board what the wall heights would look like from different locations around the site.

Jack Kay, Acoustical Solutions – previously sworn

                Exhibit A9 - photo board from balloon test with the wall superimposed

Mr. Kay – Reviewed exhibit A9 for the board showing what the wall would look like with the balloon and with the superimposed wall. 

                Exhibit A10 – photo board superimposed with 32’ wall and the 18’ high wall

Mr. Kay – Reviewed exhibit A10 for the board.  Gave the board an idea as to how the wall would look as built. 

                Exhibit A11 – photo board of examples of what the wall would look like in alternate colors

Mr. Kay – Reviewed beige, black and green photo shopped colors as alternate colors for the board. 

Mr. Beyel – I have no more witnesses.

Mr. Marinello – Since you notice for a 25’ wall and you are now proposing a 32’ wall you will have to re-notice for the January hearing.

Open to the public

Truscha Quatrone – 4 Main Rd. Towaco – sworn

Just wanted clarification as to the location of the site.  Mr. Marinello – Changebridge Road near 202.

Mr. Olsen – Will it be at the noise level it was prior to the installation of the 2 new transformers?  Mr. Ehrlich – We cannot make it inaudible but it would be dramatically reduced.  Mr. Ehrlich reviewed the decibel levels with the transformers on, with the 2 transformers off and the levels when the wall is constructed.

 

Mr. Omland – The plans will be updated to reflect the wall as proposed and the noise report will be submitted.  Mr. Beyel – Yes.  Mr. Omland – Could you wrap the membrane up for the containment area along the wall?  I do not understand why you need a 40’ setback if there is other equipment within the compound that can puncture that membrane.  Mr. Burgis – Suggested additional planting along the wall than what was initially discussed with my office.  Mr. Beyel – You cannot put landscaping within the compound for safety purposes.  Mr. Burgis – Variances are needed for these heights of the walls proposed.  Mr. Moore – What is the wind load for the wall?  Mr. Kay – It will far surpass an 80 mph wind load. 

Mr. Driscoll – I see that only one of the sites you submitted in NJ is around a transformer.  Mr. Buraszeski – The previous application indicated that we would not have this problem so why are we back here trying to attenuate a problem that was not supposed to exist?

Mr. Marinello asked Mr. Burgis if there were any other walls in the town that would compare to this height.  Mr. Driscoll – Why can’t the transformers be changed?  Mr. Hug --the length of the wall is now 340 linear feet, which is not 80’ as previously proposed.  Mr. Hug – What is the cost of the construction of this wall and what is the cost of new updated transformers and I would like to have that information at least 10 days prior to the next hearing.  Mr. Shirkey – Can’t you resize the containment liner and place the wall closer?  Mr. Beyel – The containment liner cannot be smaller than what exists due to the containment requirements. 

Carried with new notice required to 1/4/12

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

Mr. Marinello – The applicant requested an extension last month, the board members had questions and the applicant’s attorney is here to answer the questions.

Joseph Vena, Esq.  – The site is exactly as it is was during the first approval.  There are no violations on the site.  The economy has devastated the ability for construction on the site.  Financing is very difficult.  Having it approved twice before, it seems that the township was not against this operation.  Mr. Vena indicated that he believed the Permit Extension Act applies with this application.  Mr. Omland – All properties in the Highlands are not entitled to protection under the Permit Extension Act.

 Mr. Vena – Request the one-year extension.  There are developments all over the State that are having problems getting financing.  We do not have to give up the struggle we prevailed on to get these approvals.  Mr. Buraszeski – Even with the new Master Plan the property was kept as a Residential Zone.  Mr. Vena – The Re-examination re-stated the zone but it did not say anything about this parcel or use.  No circumstances have changed.   Mr. Marinello – This is a different town from 5 years ago, different traffic patterns on Hook Mountain, etc.

 Mr. Hug – The building has not been taken down and it causes a danger.  Mr. Vena – I have not had an opportunity to discuss it with my client but if this could be extended and there was a condition that the building be removed, we would have to comply.  Mr. Shirkey – Demolition of the building to occur in 6 months.

Motion to grant 1 year extension conditioned upon the demolition of building 6/30/12 made by: Hug; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Moore, No -

NEW BUSINESS

ZMS/D26-09 Mommy & Me – 2 Park Ave. – B: 39, L: 37 – minor site plan/D variance for day care center – Notice Acceptable - ACT BY: 3/8/12

Present on behalf of the applicant: Geoff Evans, Esq; Millie Enriques, applicant; Peter Steck, PP; Cathy Klein, client

Ms. Enriques – 5 Park Ave - sworn

Mr. Evans – You live at 5 Park Ave. and own a house at 2 Park Avenue, which is the subject property of this application?  Ms. Enriques – Yes.  I run a small home-based day care center from 2 Park Ave.  I wish to have up to 15 children at the location; currently my mother and I run the center and we will hire one more employee.  I cannot obtain state licensing until I get variance approval.  The state has visited the site many times.  There is a preliminary assessment required which is similar to phase 1 environmental testing and I have already hired a company to do that.  I hired an architect that said that what I had existing was sufficient for the day care.  I will agree to any conditions of this approval if granted. 

Ms. Enriques - Drop offs and pick ups are staggered between 7:30am – 10am so there are not typically more than 2 cars on the property at the same time.  A lot of times it is 1 car for several children.  There are no changes to the parking proposed, I intend on maintaining the residential integrity of the area.  I live in one of the 5 houses on the street.  Generally I walk to work and so does my mother.  The previous owner was handicapped so there is handicapped accessibility to the house.  No signage is proposed.  There would be no operation on the weekends; before 7:30am and after 5:30pm there is no one located on the site.  We purchased a strip of land from the township to fix an existing encroachment of the garage on Township property. 

Cathy Klein – client of Mommy & Me – sworn

I live in Kinnelon but I am a teacher in Montville Township and a client of Mommy & Me.  This is a home environment and the children are treated like family.  Millie provides a great service to the community. 

Peter Steck, PP – sworn

                Exhibit A1 – 4-page handout of aerial photo zoning map section, highlighted site plan and photos

Mr. Steck reviewed A1 for the board.  Reviewed the property for the board.  It looks from the inside and out a single family house and the applicant is maintaining that appearance.  5 cars can be parked on site.  The applicant wants 15 children but not use it as a residence.  State licensing is required.  It is not unusual to have child care in a residential zone.  Mr. Steck reviewed other day care centers in the town.  There are only 5 houses on this road.  There is a signalized intersection.  The property is located near the TC-1 and TC-2 zones which would allow this use.  The property is located in the R-20A zone, which does not permit day care centers, so requesting a D variance.  This is an inherently beneficial use as recognized by the Municipal Land Use Law.  The home environment will continue when it changes from 5 to 15 children.  There is a natural staggering of people coming to the site.  The volume of traffic in my opinion is not a problem due to the recent signalization.  There is parking for 5 cars along with 2 cars in front of the garage.  An open space lot isolates this property.  5 kids are permitted in a residential home without licensing.  The house is 1,550 s.f. in size. Typically no more than 8 kids would be outside at any one time.   The use variance would limit the use to a day care center and it could easily be brought back to a residential use.  No detriment to zone plan, zone ordinance or public good. 

Mr. Evans – Addressed the required reports received.   We complied with the Morris County Planning Board requirements.  No report was received from the Township Engineer; Morris County Soil, exempt; W&S no comment; Tax Assessor no response; DRC no response; Health Department has conditions

 

required and the applicant will comply with all conditions but would like a waiver from the Phase I Environmental where the applicant is getting the required report by the State.  Mr. Burgis – The applicant will agree to all testimony above as conditions of a resolution?  Ms. Enriques – Yes.  Mr. Burgis – The applicant testified that no more than 2 cars will be located on site at any one time, there is no striped parking on site, there is no refuse collections shown on the plan.  Mr. Steck – It is typical home refuse.  Mr. Marinello – Will a commercial collector be required?  Where will the garbage cans be located?  Ms. Enriques – Based on the State, since there are no more than 15 children it would be regular refuse removal, the cans would be in the driveway in front of the garage and the regular pick up is Monday and Thursday. 

Mr. Omland – I do not see any lighting shown on the plan.  Concerned with parking, I concur that 5 cars can be there but not too many more.  1 space would be for staff since the two owners walk to work.  Ms. Enriques – There is a spot light that shines on the driveway and parking area and there is a porch where everyone arrives, there is lighting on the porch and it is a covered porch.  Mr. Omland – The lighting does not conform to the ordinance as well as there are no designated parking aisles.  Signage and striping for handicapped spot needs to be required.  If this is not a residence occupied property it is not qualified for residential refuse pick up. 

Mr. Shirkey – Do you have traffic counts for that corner?  Mr. Steck – No.  Dr. Kanoff – Will you be cooking for 15 kids?  If so, then there is another trash problem.  Mr. Hug – Is the building being used right now as a day care center?  Clarification was requested on the age of children because it would affect number of employees.  Would the applicant agree to a circular driveway?  Mr. Marinello – Need more information on drop off and pick ups.  Need more information on lighting standards for day care centers.  Need more information on how to meet parking and lighting standards and keeping the property looking like a residence.  Mr. Hug – Will there be fencing on the property?

Mr. Ackerman – There are numerous ‘c’ variances required.  Have you applied for and noticed for all variances and exceptions?  Mr. Olsen – Will building codes affect changes to the site plan? 

Open to public for questions only which can be put on the record and the answers may not be answered tonight but they will be answered at the next hearing

Truscha Quatrone – 4 Main Rd. – sworn

Will the fence be outside the property line? 

Bob Leeder – 3 Majorca Rd. – sworn

Concerned that the application would diminish the value of our property.  There is a noise problem now with 5 children in the day care center.  Is the chain link fence allowed in the residential zone?  Cartoons on garage wall should be painted?  How long has the business been running without approvals? 

Carried with notice to 1/4/12

RESOLUTIONS

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 – Granted - Eligible: Moore, Driscoll, Shirkey, Hug, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Olsen

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

ZSPP/FDC8-11 Romola Enterprises Site Plan with variances/ZSOIL9-11 Romola Enterprises Soil Movement application – 347 Changebridge Rd. – B: 160.2, L: 27 –Approved – Eligible: Moore, Driscoll, Shirkey, Hug, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Olsen

 

Mr. Buraszeski – On the bottom of page 11 those words are repeated on the following page.  Mr. Ackerman – Requested changes to the resolution by counsel from the applicant.  Name change of entity receiving approval, will add the tenant entity and the ownership entity.  Next request for change is to clarify that, due to dedication to Morris County, two variances will result, front yard setback and lot size. Agreed to clarify with that change.  Next request for change to the resolution - number of pole lights?  Mr. Omland – We discussed 3.  Mr. Burgis – We discussed 3 but I believe the board agreed to 2.  More information required on number of lights, cannot be resolved at this time. The board discussed the question of car washing and car detailing    Mr. Shirkey – There are no floor drains in the repair area, but there is stormwater management outdoors.  Mr. Olsen – suggest changing washing to rinsing of vehicles, since limited to repaired cars.  Board consensus to change as it relates to rinsing of cars and detailing to allow inside or behind building rear.  Mr. Marinello – We never looked into the parking requirements for a detail business. Mr. Burgis – There is no parking requirements for detailing, just for automatic car wash. He wants to change 12 employees to 12 employee cars.  Board consensus: number of employees not number of cars.  Mr. Ackerman – The request to insert a date of decision is fine.  

Mr. Ackerman – The Board will have to wait until next month to nail down the number of lights and can then memorialize at that hearing.  Board consensus: Carry to 1/4/12 hearing.

CORRESPONDENCE

ZC11-10 –Brittain & Foster – B: 52.02, L: 15 – 61 River Rd – original approved granted on 12/1/10 – 1st request for extension of time for approval to: 12/1/12

Motion to grant: Driscoll; Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Moore, Marinello

OTHER BUSINESS

Planning Board Liaison Update

No comments

Discussion re: Draft Annual Report

The Annual Report will be updated and ready for adoption at the Re-organization meeting. 

Mr. Shirkey – Would like required reports agencies to write no comments at this time instead of approved.  Mr. Ackerman – If there are major changes on the site, a new report should be requested. 

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard, Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of January 4, 2012.

_______________________________________

Meghan Hunscher, Sec.

 

Last Updated ( Thursday, 05 January 2012 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack