1-4-12 BoA minutes Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF JANUARY 4, 2012

Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM

NOTE: No New Business to be conducted past 10:30 P.M.

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

ROLL CALL:

Richard Moore – Present                    Keith Olsen - Present

Donald Kanoff - Present                     James Marinello - Present

Deane Driscoll - Present                     Kurt Dinkelmeyer (Alt #1) - Present

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

Gerard Hug - Present

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated

REORGANIZATION

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: Unanimous

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: Unanimous

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

Designation of Meeting Nights for Board of Adjustment as follows:

1st Wednesday of every month @ 8PM

                                               

January 4, 2012                                                     August 1, 2012

February 1, 2011                                                   *August 16, 2012 (Thursday)

March 7, 2012                                                       September 5, 2012

*March 15, 2012 (Thursday)                              October 3, 2012

April 4, 2012                                                          November 7, 2012

May 2, 2012                                                           *November 15, 2012 (Thursday)

June 6, 2012                                                           December 5, 2012

*June 21, 2012(Thursday)                                  January 2, 2013

**July 19, 2012(Thursday)                

               

*additional meeting if needed

** changed due to holiday


Page 2

1/4/12

Motion by: Kanoff; Second: Hug; Roll call: Yes - Unanimous

Designation 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

               

Adoption of By-Laws

Motion to adopt bylaws made by: Kanoff, Second by: Hug, Roll call: Unanimous

Adoption 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 member. 

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 Jersey. 

 Swearing in of Professionals

OLD BUSINESS

The following application was carried with notice preserved at the applicant’s request to 2/1/12:

ZMS/D26-09 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

ZSPP/FD10-11 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 – previously sworn

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


Page 3

1/4/12

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 properties. 

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 transformer. 

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, & Riverdale. 

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. 

Page 4

1/4/12

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 night time. 

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 substation. 

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 the Board.

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 knowing they


Page 5

1/4/12

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

NEW BUSINESS

MINUTES

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

               

INVOICES

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, Shirkey, Marinello

RESOLUTIONS

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, Kanoff, Olsen

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

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 – Approved – Eligible: Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, Marinello

Correction on Page 4 eliminate redundancy.

Motion to adopt as amended made by: Driscoll; Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, Marinello

ZSPP/FDC10-89-29-06 Hook Mountain Care Center – Hook Mountain Rd. - B: 159, L: 4 - request for extension to: 12/3/12 – Granted – Eligible: Driscoll, Shirkey, Kanoff, Hug, Moore

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

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 – 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


Page 6

1/4/12

OTHER BUSINESS

None

CORRESPONDENCE

None

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard, Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of February 1, 2012.

_______________________________________

Meghan Hunscher, Sec.

 

Last Updated ( Monday, 02 April 2012 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack