ZONING BOARD OF
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.
Moore - Present
Thomas Buraszeski - Present
Kanoff – Present James Marinello - Present
Deane Driscoll – Entrance Noted Keith Olsen (Alt #1) - Present
Shirkey – Present John
Petrozzino (Alt #2) - Present
Hug – Entrance Noted
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
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.
The attorney for JCP&L allowed the following
application to proceed first:
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,
Minutes November 2, 2011
Eligible: Driscoll, Shirkey, Moore, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Olsen, Petrozzino,
to approve made by Buraszeski, seconded by Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Shirkey, Moore, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski,
Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello
Anderson & Denzler –
Trust for: $140
Murphy, Hubner – Trust for:
Pashman, Stein – O/E for:
$114.75; Trust for: $135, $135
Burgis Assoc. – Trust for:
Omland Engineering – Trust
for: $270, $135, $312.50, $270, $270
Motion to approve made by Kanoff, seconded by Hug;
Roll call: Unanimous
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
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 –
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
Ehrlich, Acoustical Engineer – previously sworn
I did noise testing during
the afternoon with the transformers on and with the transformers off.
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
Kay, Acoustical Solutions – previously sworn
Exhibit A9 - photo board from balloon test with the
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
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 –
Just wanted clarification as
to the location of the site. Mr.
Marinello – Changebridge Road
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
– The applicant requested an extension last month, the board members had
questions and the applicant’s attorney is here to answer the questions.
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
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,
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 -
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
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
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
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
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
Bob Leeder – 3 Majorca Rd. –
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
Carried with notice to 1/4/12
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,
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 –
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.
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
Motion to grant: Driscoll; Second
by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski,
Board Liaison Update
re: Draft Annual Report
Annual Report will be updated and ready for adoption at the Re-organization
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.
Jane Grogaard, Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of January 4, 2012.