ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2012
Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road
NOTE: No New Business to be conducted past 10:30 P.M.
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Richard Moore – Present Keith Olsen - Present
Donald Kanoff - Present James Marinello - Present
Deane Driscoll - Present Kurt Dinkelmeyer (Alt #1) -
Kenneth Shirkey - Present John Petrozzino (Alt #2) -
Gerard Hug - Present
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Appointment of Temporary Chairman –
Motion to appoint Ms. Grogaard as Temporary Chair made by: Kanoff; Second by:
Hug. Roll call: Unanimous.
Appointment of Chairman – Motion to
appoint James Marinello made by: Kanoff, Second by: Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
Appointment of Vice Chairman – Motion
to appoint Mr. Driscoll made by: Kanoff, Second by: Hug, Roll call: Unanimous.
Appointment of Secretary &
Assistant Secretary – Motion to appoint Meghan Hunscher as Secretary and Jane
Grogaard as Assistant Secretary made by: Kanoff, Second by: Hug, Roll call:
Appointment of Recording Secretary -
Motion to appoint Jane Grogaard as Recording Secretary made by: Kanoff, Second
by: Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
Appointment of Board of Adjustment
Attorney & execution of Professional Service Agreement as written – Motion
to appoint Bruce Ackerman, Esq. from Pashman Stein and adoption of professional
service agreement made by: Kanoff; Second by: Hug, Roll: Unanimous
Appointment of Board of Adjustment
Engineer & execution of Professional Service Agreement as written – Motion
to appoint Stanley Omland, PE from Omland Engineering and adoption of
professional service agreement made by: Kanoff, Second by: Hug, Roll call:
Appointment of Board of Adjustment
Planner & execution of Professional Service Agreement as written – Motion
to appoint Joseph Burgis, PP from Burgis Associates and adoption of
professional service agreement made by: Kanoff, Second by: Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
of Meeting Nights for Board of Adjustment as follows:
1st Wednesday of every month @ 8PM
January 4, 2012 August
February 1, 2011 *August
16, 2012 (Thursday)
March 7, 2012 September 5,
*March 15, 2012 (Thursday) October 3, 2012
April 4, 2012 November 7,
May 2, 2012 *November
15, 2012 (Thursday)
June 6, 2012 December
*June 21, 2012(Thursday) January 2,
**July 19, 2012(Thursday)
*additional meeting if needed
** changed due to holiday
Motion by: Kanoff; Second: Hug; Roll
call: Yes - Unanimous
of Official Newspaper for Legal Purposes
a) The Daily Record & The Citizen
of Morris County
b) The Star Ledger
Motion to adopt made by: Kanoff,
Second by: Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
Motion to adopt bylaws made by:
Kanoff, Second by: Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
of Annual Report
Motion to adopt annual report made
by: Kanoff, Second by: Moore,
Roll call: Unanimous
Mr. Driscoll made a motion to appoint
Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Hug and Mr. Marinello to the Invoice Review Subcommittee;
Second by: Shirkey. Roll call: Unanimous
Mr. Marinello thanked Dr. Kanoff for
serving on this committee since its inception.
Dr. Kanoff made a motion to appoint
Mr. Driscoll, as liaison to the Master Plan Subcommittee; Second by: Hug. Roll call: Unanimous
Mr. Hug made a motion to appoint Mr.
Driscoll as Planning Board Liaison; Second by: Kanoff, Roll call Unanimous
Mr. Marinello welcomed Mr.
Dinkelmeyer to the board and congratulated Mr. Olsen on becoming a full
Mr. Marinello – Recognized the loss of
a true friend to the planning process recently, Carol Murphy. She was
instrumental in moving the planning and open space process forward and she went
on to other offices in the state. It is
a great loss to the State of New
Swearing in of Professionals
The following application was carried
with notice preserved at the applicant’s request to 2/1/12:
Mommy & Me – 2 Park Ave. – B:
39, L: 37 – minor site plan/D variance for day care center –Carried with notice
from 12/7/11 ACT BY: 4/8/12
JCP&L – 9 Changebridge
Rd. – B: 59.2, L: 2 – amended site plan with variance for wall height up to 32’
is required for sound wall – carried with notice preserved from 10/5/11 &
carried with new notice required from 12/7/11– new notice acceptable -
Eligible: Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, 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 and
David Garibaldi, JCP&L; Mr. Ehrlich, Acoustical Engineer
Michael Obremski, JCP&L –
Transformers 3A & 3B are
dependant on our load and need to be used at times. In 2009 they were used for 17 days, in 2010
they were used for 33 days, and in 2011 they were used for 57 days. They are energized when there are big
loads. When there is hot weather the
load is increased and those transformers have to be turned on.
Wayne Freeman, PE – previously sworn
Reviewed the proposed construction shown
on the colorized site plan. The wall
cannot be moved closer to the transformer because the dimension between the 3A
transformer and the sound wall has to be at 40’ to provide adequate safety between
the transformer and the wall for maintenance and emergency services. Around the transformer is an oil containment
area which is there to provide containment if there is a failure of the
transformer in order to collect the oil from the transformer. The transformer, once the radiators and
coolant are removed; the lightest unit is around 100 tons. A crane would be required to remove the
transformer. A crane with 2
outriggers is at minimum 20’
wide. The transformer is 18’ wide to the
center of the transformer to hold the transformer with the crane, so there is
only 8’ to work with between the crane and the transformer. It would be a tremendous task to reorganize
the containment area. The note on the
plan about no additional landscaping is not accurate. We are working with location and species of
landscaping that has not yet been confirmed.
We will install landscaping per Board Planner requirements. The material
cost of a new transformer is $1,156,000 plus materials, construction, etc. for
a total cost of $2,300,000 for 1 new transformer to perform what the two are
doing today, to answer Mr. Hug’s question at the previous meeting. Mr. Freeman reviewed the heights of the
existing structures on site.
Kevin O’Brien, PP – previously sworn
I met with Mr. Sniekus of Mr. Burgis’
office and agreed to additional landscaping to be determined by the Planner’s
office and representatives of JCP&L.
Reviewed the setbacks of the proposed walls to the neighboring
Mr. Marinello – Asked if someone set
off an electronic device in the audience?
A woman plugged in a device to set off a buzzer and Mr. Marinello asked
that she unplug it.
Mr. O’Brien – The safe and reliable
transmission of electricity for Montville
Township is an inherently
beneficial use. The sound walls will
reduce the impact of the sound levels to be in compliance with state and local
ordinances. There is a visual detriment
but the sound reduction would be beneficial.
Mr. O’Brien reviewed the size of the wall at the adjacent storage
facility as being higher than the proposed wall on the JCP&L site.
Mr. Beyel – The Board previously
requested a cost proposal for the proposed project and that would be $371,000.
Mr. Burgis – Requested information of
the visual impact of the wall. Mr.
O’Brien – The wall is to be gray like the tower. The eye would be drawn toward the wall as
opposed to the substation itself. It
eliminates the clutter at the ground level.
Mr. Burgis – Requested more information on the additional landscaping. Mr. O’Brien – We discussed the southern
portion of the property and along the houses along Changebridge have some spare
spaces where additional landscaping would be proposed. Mr. Burgis – How long are the 3A & 3B
transformers on when in need? Mr.
Obremski – This summer it was 55 days straight but the other years it would be
lesser time periods.
Mr. Omland – Do you know the extent
of the containment area that is located in the site? Mr. Freeman – The barrier surrounds the
transformer 51’ in one direction and 40’ in the other direction. There is a separate containment area for each
Mr. Shirkey – Can you describe the
process for removal of the transformer.
Mr. Freeman – Reviewed the size of the transformer, the size of the crane
and the distance from the overhead lines.
Mr. Shirkey – How long will 3A &3B last before they need to be
replaced? Mr. Freeman – That is hard to
say but their life is reduced by overloading and additional heat. Typically 40-50 years and these were on
another site prior to being installed on this site. Mr. Shirkey – So your cost estimate is
actually less because you are going to use them someplace else. Mr. Shirkey – What is the future use
prediction? Mr. Obremski – It depends on
the system load, which depends on the weather.
Mr. Shirkey – Who receives the service from these transformers?
David Garibaldi, Project Manager as a
fact witness - sworn
Montville, Whippany, Butler,
Dr. Kanoff – Will these walls reduce
the sound? Mr. Beyel – There are no
noise levels above the ordinances between 7am-10pm existing and we are reducing
the noise between the 10pm and 7am hours to meet the ordinance.
Mr. Ehrlich – previously sworn
I am confident it will reduce the
noise levels day and night with the proposed sound walls. My analysis considered the change in grade as
well as property locations.
Mr. Omland – Is the noise that will
result from the transformer different from when the transformer is on and when
it is on and loaded? Mr. Ehrlich – No
significant difference. Mr. Omland –
Concerned that there may be a size, height or location issue that could be a
remedy if sound gets through. Mr. Ehrlich
- Then we would have to change the size,
height or location.
Mr. Hug – Would the load levels be
effected by additional construction in the area including different towns? Mr. Freeman – Yes that would be true. Mr. Hug – As they go into other towns do they
go into transformers in the other towns?
Mr. Garibaldi – Yes. Mr. Hug – I
think it is important for the Board to know the age of the transformers. This is a very large structure. Can the wall be painted after the wall has
been installed? Mr. Garibaldi – No.
Mr. Marinello – The safe supply of
electrical power is your testimony for the SICA test? Mr. O’Brien – Yes. Mr. Marinello – This is a wall, not the
supply of power. I need other criteria
to balance the test. Mr. O’Brien – This
is accessory to the use and if the
power station were not there then the
wall would not be needed. There is a
direct correlation between the electricity and the sound wall. Mr. Marinello – Without the wall the
substation would still be there.
Mr. Driscoll – How could the previous
application be so far off from what exists today as it relates to sound
levels? Mr. Ehrlich – I did my tests in
October, I verified the analysis based on the calculations done by others from
the previous application.
Mr. Moore- It is my understanding
that 3A & 3B were to meet the noise ordinance back in 2006. Now you are back for noise walls. Mr. Freeman – A new transformer would make
less noise but may still require a noise wall, studies would have to be done to
see if the noise would still meet the noise ordinances. Mr. Ackerman – That is important information
that the board would need, whether the new technology transformer would result
in a noise violation or would also require a sound wall. Mr. Freeman – You cannot buy transformers
with a specific noise generation level.
Mr. Hug – The board would like the
difference between the existing transformer noise and the state of the art
transformer, this may eliminate the need for the walls. Mr. Beyel – The noise ordinances are met from
7am-10pm but not during 10pm-7am.
Weather dictates when the transformers have to be turned on during the
Mr. Olsen – Asked what the spike at 125
Hz in Mr. Ehrlich’s report sounded like. Mr. Ehrlich indicated it was a low
pitched humming sound. Mr. Olsen – Would
a new transformer have a similar spike?
Mr. Ehrlich – Most transformers in America have that same spike. All plants will have a low frequency
hum. Mr. Olsen – Is the wall the only
method to decrease the intensity of the hum?
Mr. Ehrlich – Yes. Mr. Olsen –
Is a noise abatement wall an accessory structure? Could a resident build a 14’ tall wall? Mr. Burgis – Yes. Without the inherently beneficial use, we
would be reviewing this as a c variance so the wall is accessory to the
Mr. Dinkelmeyer – Do you have a
percentage of how much will this wall resolve the noise issue? Mr. Ehrlich – No, I do not have a percentage
estimate. We come up with significantly
sufficient assumptions with the analysis result. Mr. Dinkelmeyer – What would the remedy be if
the noise ordinance is not met after the construction of the walls? Mr. Ehrlich – Increase in wall height. Mr. Dinkelmeyer – Are there other tests that
could be done? Mr. Ehrlich – I was not
satisfied with the results so I did additional testing.
Mr. Burgis reviewed the SICA test for
Mr. Beyel – We are asking the board
to review the application to install the wall or not install the wall.
Mr. Petrozzino- If you add up the
costs; it costs more to build the wall than to install a new transformer. Mr. Garibaldi – The cost of the system is
$371,000 with additional $24,000 for painting of the wall.
Open to the public
Camille Bressman – previously sworn
The transformers run 24 hours a day,
every day, from May to September. They
are old and should be replaced. The wall
would be an eyesore. My quality of life
has been compromised by this. I do not
see the need for a wall; I think they should be replaced. Mr. Marinello – The application before us is
to build the wall or not build the wall, would your quality of life be improved
with the wall? Ms. Bressman – I do not
think it would work. Mr. Petrozzino –
Would you be more comfortable with no wall, because we cannot force them to
purchase new transformers? Ms. Bressman
– I do not believe it would work, they should change the transformers.
Mr. Beyel – We are here to do our
best to solve our problem. We do not
have a problem before 10PM at night. The
company will not spend $2.4 million on a problem that occurs only certain times
during the year. We have come up with a
solution to solve the problem and will allow us to meet the noise
ordinance. The substation has been there
since 1965 in a residential zone. There
are many structures existing on this site that exceed 14’. The walls would make a less offensive visual
perspective of the sight and would reduce the noise off site. Additional landscaping is proposed. The wall is similar to the wall on the
storage facility site. The reason why we
are here is because of noise. There will
be a visual impact but the noise is more offensive. We designed what we think will get the job
done with a comfort level. We are asking
the board to approve this application.
Closed to public
Mr. Marinello – What happens if we
don’t approve a wall and the site still exceeds the noise ordinance? Mr. Ackerman – The town would have to enforce
it. They can appeal the denial or they
can come back with a smaller wall or different configuration, subject to res
judicata issues. Mr. Marinello – I think
the previous application was deficient but I do not think they came into town
were going to exceed the
ordinance. Our choices are no wall, a
lot of noise or wall that may not work.
But, I am a big advocate of light, air and open space.
Mr. Olsen – The difference after the
wall is only about 10 Hz, it will be less but you will still hear it. Mr. Marinello – It would meet the
ordinance. Mr. Shirkey – The landowner
created the problem. Mr. Marinello –
They made a mistake. Mr. Shirkey – I
believe the board can ask for alternative solutions to solve the problem. Dr. Kanoff – If we approve the wall there is
a possibility that it will reduce the noise, if we deny the wall, they do not
have to do anything. Mr. .Hug – We do
not know if the structure itself could accommodate a taller wall if it does not
work. Discussion ensued on possible
conditions if approved. Mr. Ackerman
indicated that the board could hire an expert to validate the noise report at
the applicant’s expense.
Mr. Driscoll – I am not certain we have
enough information to make a decision on this matter. Mr. Beyel – If your expert agrees with Mr.
Ehrlich, we will still have it tested after the construction and I believe that
the costs would be better spent toward that testing by your expert afterwards
to confirm that the post-construction readings are valid.
Motion to approved the application
subject to usual conditions, including in addition -- substantial additional
landscaping, which would also reduce the sound, color to be determined by our Planner,
foundation to be built large enough to hold a larger wall if needed in the
future, the wall is consistent with the storage facilities wall, the setback of
the walls are set far back from roadways, joint testing (township (at
applicant’s expense) and applicant) to be done after installation, 2 year
landscape maintenance bond, the facility is already a visual detriment to the
community, there are already existing structures on site higher than the
proposed walls, based upon the quality of life for all the residents in the
township, plan revisions to meet testimony, firewall in regard to noise
abatement system to be on plans, made by: Hug; Second by: Kanoff; Roll call:
Yes – Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, Olsen, Marinello; No - Shirkey
Minutes of December 7, 2011 Eligible:
Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Olsen, Petrozzino, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Driscoll; Second
by: Hug; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Marinello
Pashman Stein – O/E for: $195.75;
Trust for: $2,247.75, $526.50
Omland Engineering – Trust for:
$337.50, $33.75, $472.50
Motion to approve made by: Kanoff;
Second by: Hug; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Moore,
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, Kanoff, Olsen
Motion to adopt made by: Driscoll;
Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes - Moore,
Driscoll, Shirkey, Hug, Kanoff, Olsen
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 – Approved – Eligible:
Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Moore,
Correction on Page 4 eliminate
Motion to adopt as amended made by:
Driscoll; Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug,
Hook Mountain Care
Center – Hook
Mountain Rd. - B: 159, L: 4 - request for
extension to: 12/3/12 – Granted – Eligible: Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug,
Motion to adopt made by: Driscoll;
Second by: Hug; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Moore
–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 – Granted Eligible: Driscoll, Shirkey,
Kanoff, Hug, Moore, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Moore; Second by: Shirkey;
Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, Marinello
Jane Grogaard, Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of February 1, 2012.