|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF APRIL 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 – Absent[1]
Deane Driscoll - Present Kurt Dinkelmeyer (Alt #1) -
Present
Kenneth Shirkey - Present John Petrozzino (Alt #2) -
Present
Gerard Hug – Absent[2]
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated
Swearing in of Professionals
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None
OLD BUSINESS
ZC11-11 Laden, Denise –14 Virginia Rd. – B:18, L: 1 – variance for
front yard setback for addition – carried with notice from 3/15/12 – Eigible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino, Dinkelmeyer,
Marinello
ACT BY: 6/15/12
Present on behalf of the applicant: Denise Laden,
applicant; Steven Schepis, Esq.; Mark Gimigliano,
PE
Mr., Schepis – Here to resolve
remaining open issues. There were
questions as to water quality from the driveway. A modified plan was submitted and the Board
Engineer reviewed the plan. Test pits
were taken. Ms. Laden will discuss log
siding. Propose an addition to an existing
single-family dwelling. The house was
built in the 1920’s. There is no building
envelope on this property due to front setback and riparian buffer
requirements. Property is encumbered by
the stream and the riparian buffer requirements. There is limited on-street parking. Propose
to move the driveway due to safer sight distance.
Ms. Laden – previously sworn
A3 - piece of half round log siding with colors
A4
– photos of log homes in area
Ms. Laden- 3 Homes on Afterglow Way have
same log siding.
Mr. Gimigliano, PE
– previously sworn
Since the last meeting the plans were
modified to take into account the board concerns about stormwater
management. Graded a small impression
next to the driveway that will be vegetated to help catch runoff. There is now a guide rail adjacent to the
driveway. A rain garden is to be
installed next to the guide rail. The
addition is to be placed on existing pavement.
New driveway on eastern side of property will run through a swale. An infiltration area is proposed next to
the addition. Roof drain leaders will be
installed. Soil test shows suitable soil
for infiltration system for roof water runoff.
Mr. Burgis – Can you shift the
retaining wall so the root structure of the large tree is not damaged. Mr. Gimigliano – We can adjust the wall to
stay outside the root structure on site.
Mr. Burgis – In addition to the wood siding you will have stone also
similar to the existing stone on house.
Ms. Laden – Yes, as close to the original as we can possibly find.
Mr. Omland – I have had discussions
with the applicant’s engineer as to the storm water runoff. What is the increase in impervious
coverage? Mr. Gimigliano – About 800
s.f. Mr. Omland – The solution you
propose in the rain garden which is about 1 ½’ deep, the water would percolate
down to the rubble wall which will be a travel sector for the water, is the
applicant willing to put a plastic lining in the rain garden near the retaining
wall? Mr. Gimigliano – Yes. Mr. Omland – The most important area is by
the addition and what is proposed is a good idea. The effort the applicant made is an
appropriate one. The DEP has a whole
host of suggestions. I am comfortable
with the combination of the 3 elements proposed for the stormwater management
on the site. Roof leader collection was
reviewed for the board. Mr. Gimigliano -
Reviewed test pit results for the board.
Mr. Omland – Is there any objection to not having wall constructed any
closer to the Crooked Brook. Mr.
Gimigliano – Yes. Mr. Omland – Why do
the dry well away from the construction area?
Mr. Gimigliano – The easterly side has ground water closer to the
surface.
Mr. Dinkelmeyer – Is there a chance
that water could build up and the wall could be pushed in over time? Mr. Omland – It is a 2’ wall, I do not have
concerns with lateral pressures. Mr.
Gimigliano – There will also be gravel behind the wall to allow for water to
flow in different areas so it does not build up behind the wall. Mr. Omland – Please add a detail for the wall
on the plan. Mr. Gimigliano – Agreed. Mr. Olsen – Will stone be removed from the
house by the addition? Ms. Laden – No
much, want to see the stone on the inside of the house. Mr. Shirkey – Shouldn’t the drywell be placed
in the front of the house? Mr. Omland –
That would make sense to capture additional runoff if required by the
Board.
Mr. Driscoll – In Mr. Burgis’ March
30th memo he recommended against the Japanese Andromeda. Mr. Gimigliano – The applicant will work with
Mr. Burgis’ office as it relates to that issue.
Mr. Shirkey – Is the applicant agreeable to additional dry well in
front? Mr. Gimigliano – There is no
place in that area to place the pipes, the grades are lower on the east side,
which will have less infiltration. There
is not enough elevation distance to travel that far to catch roof runoff. Discussion ensued on additional stormwater
management. Mr. Omland – If the soils
allow during construction the additional dry well should be installed, if the
infiltration is slow it should not be done.
Do test pits during construction and verify whether you can or cannot do
it and a field decision can be waived to release from that requirement. Mr.
Schepis - We meet the requirements for stormwater runoff, the applicant would
not want a drywell right next to the basement.
Mr. Ackerman – The garden and retention areas are inadequate as to DEP
requirements, so if you can divert the water it would be an improvement. Mr. Schepis – What if we pipe it around the
addition so it does not go across the driveway and discharge it into lawn
beyond the rain garden? Mr. Omland –
Does not address the quantity issue, though it is a good idea. Mr. Schepis – We can discharge the clean water
along the wall into the lawn past the rain garden. Mr. Omland – Agreed that would be a good
idea.
Open to the public – none - closed
Motion to approve the application
subject to revised plans, meeting with planner’s office regarding planting and with
engineer as to stormwater management, usual conditions, and other conditions in
professional reports as discussed made by: Kanoff ; Second by: Shirkey; Roll
call: Yes - Kanoff, Moore, Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino, Dinkelmeyer, Driscoll
NEW BUSINESS
ZC2-12 Elias, Mitchell - 147
Konner Ave – B: 139.08, L: 16 – front yard setback
of 46.38’ (to Konner Ave) where 50’ is required for 2nd
story addition - Notice Acceptable
ACT
BY: 7/20/12
Present on behalf of the applicant: Mitchell
Elias, applicant; Steven Schepis, Esq.
Mr. Schepis – Representing Dr. Elias.
Mitchell Elias, applicant - sworn
Mr. Schepis – The existing front
setback is 46.38’ where 50’ is required.
The applicant is proposing a 2nd floor addition for a master
bath over the existing portico. There
will be no increase in impervious or building coverage. Propose to revise the portico entrance and
adding 2nd story addition over existing footprint. Dr. Elias – We have lived in this house since
1978. The bathroom in the master bedroom
is 4’x6’. If we move out one wall over
the existing portico we can enlarge the bathroom. Other bedrooms are to the rear of the house
so the addition cannot be placed to the rear of the house.
Mr. Schepis – Dr. Elias has a
permitted dentist office in his house since 1978. Mr. Burgis – Hardship variance, no
comments. Mr. Omland – No comments.
Mr. Shirkey – It looks like it is
falling over, would it look much heavier than what normally be allowed after it
is built? Mr. Burgis – There is an
additional 10’ to the traveled way so it mitigates that.
Open to public – none - closed
Motion to approve the application:
Shirkey; Second by: Moore;
Roll call: Yes - Kanoff, Moore, Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino, Dinkelmeyer,
Driscoll
MINUTES
Minutes of March 15, 2012 Eligible:
Driscoll, Kanoff, Olsen, Shirkey, Moore, Petrozzino, Dinkelmeyer, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Kanoff;
Second by: Moore;
Roll call: Yes – Kanoff, Olsen, Shirkey, Moore, Petrozzino, Dinkelmeyer,
Driscoll
INVOICES
Burgis Assoc. Trust for: $93.75,
$168.75, $540
Omland Engineering – Trust for:
$472.50, $67.50, $67.50
Motion to approve: Kanoff; Second by:
Shirkey; Roll call: Yes - Kanoff, Moore, Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino, Driscoll
RESOLUTIONS
ZC1-12 Rizzo, Shannon – 6 Adams Way – B:113, L: 43.13 – completeness and waiver hearing - variance 5’ fence in
front yard corner lot – Approved – Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino,
Marinello
Motion to approve made by: Kanoff;
Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes - Kanoff, Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino,
Driscoll,
ZSPP/FCD01-08 J L J & J Marketing (Kids R Kids) - B: 138, L: 8 – 217 Changebridge Rd – request for
extension of time for Use and Site Plan approvals to 3/4/13 – 2nd
request – Extension granted to 9/4/12 – Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore,
Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino, Marinello
Motion to grant made by: Kanoff;
Second by: Moore;
Roll call: Yes - Kanoff, Moore, Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino, Driscoll
OTHER BUSINESS
Planning Board Liaison Update
Mr. Driscoll – No updates.
CORRESPONDENCE
ZC25-08 Caggiano – Hog
Mountain Rd. – B: 33, L: 32 – request for
extension of approvals to 3/2/13 – 1st request
Present on behalf of the applicant:
Steven Schepis, Esq.; Frank Matarazzo, PE; William Mercurio, PE
Mr. Schepis – Applicant is requesting
a 1-year extension of approvals. The
applicant was approved previously for construction of a home on a land locked
property. A Planning Variance was
granted. Outside agency approvals were
required. The applicant is diligently
pursuing the permits from DEP on wetlands and dam permits. The plan shows breaching of the dam. Permits have not been secured yet and without
permits this application cannot go forward.
There was some concern that the applicant submitted plans to the DEP that
were different from what the board approved.
The plans did not change, just addition of plants as required by DEP. The plans submitted to DEP were submitted to
Mr. Omland for review. What was shown
back in 2011 is the same as what is proposed.
As soon as permits received by the State, the applicant will proceed
with construction.
Mr. Ackerman – The findings and condition
in the resolution was that the dam would be breached and the water would be
released at a slow rate to a lower level or the dam would be fixed. Mr. Schepis – It is my understanding that the
water would be released at a slow rate to a lower level. Mr. Shirkey – I believe the water is to be
completely removed which is adverse to the resolution that would have a lower
level of water not a zero level of water.
Mr. Mercurio, PE – sworn- credentials
reviewed
Have made applications to the Bureau
of Dam Safety. Anything that can raise
water above 5’ is considered a dam. The
dam is in extremely poor condition. The
rock is unstable. The structure either
requires significant rehabilitation or it needs to be breached. It would take approximately $800,000 to
repair the dam. The applicant cannot
leave it as it exists. It is
unsafe. The best solution for this
situation is to breach the dam. There
will always be some water in that pond based on rainfall. The ground surface is covered so it is hard
to say how much water will remain. The
dam will remain the same with the exception that in the location of the 3-boxed
culverts proposed, so the original flow to the stream will remain. The plans submitted to DEP are the same as
the ones approved by the board. There are
no other alternatives, just the 2 discussed.
DEP will conduct a public hearing which has not occurred yet and the
public will be notified of that hearing.
Mr. Moore – Is there water currently
seeping out of that hole in the dam? Mr.
Mercurio – Yes and now wetlands are being made and they cannot be removed.
Mr. Omland – Mr. Mercurio is the same
engineer that did the plans at application and now. Mr. Omland – What has happened between 2009
and 2012 as it relates to closure of the dam safety aspects? Mr. Mercurio – We had a meeting with dam
safety a year ago to discuss wetlands.
The main open issue is that the wetlands have been a problem. Mr. Omland – I was under the understanding
that the wetlands were dealt with prior to the approval of the
application. Mr. Mercurio – There was a
meeting back in October 2011. Mr. Omland
– So if the board requested minutes and correspondence regarding more recent
meetings you would be able to submit that?
Mr. Mercurio – Yes. The intention
is not to completely drain the pond but to remove the technical term
“Dam”. Mr. Omland – On the northern
side of the pond on the CMX plans there are contours that will show that the
pond will always exist. Mr. Mercurio –
These are not measured contours, they came from USGS information. Mr. Omland – Your plan indicates notes that
the topography from the pond and dam were taken from field tests and that the
surrounding area is from highlands information.
Mr. Mercurio – I do not interpret that note in that way. Mr. Omland – So the topos on the plan is a
guess? Mr. Mercurio – Yes. Mr. Omland – Will this pond hold water? Mr. Mercurio – This pond will hold water but
I cannot tell you how much it will hold.
Mr. Ackerman – Can the area be dredged to make sure the water remains?
Mr. Mercurio – Yes. Mr. Omland – What is
the difference in the stormwater retention?
Mr. Mercurio – There will be no change.
Mr. Omland – What is the depth of the water today? Mr. Mercurio – There is currently up to 5’ of
water depending on the time of year.
Mr. Omland – The plan is the same
plan as submitted to DEP. I understood
that the water will be drained, but the applicant testified previously that
there would be some water left. I still
believe that there will not be a lot of water in this pond based on this plan.
The resolution indicates that there will be water left. They are now draining the pond. At application, the board was under the
understanding that the pond would remain.
As changed now, there would be no more than 1-2’ of water in that pond
only at the 518’ contours. Most would
have no water. Mr. Olsen – So the pond
will be about 2 ½’ lower than it stands today for any water that is
standing. Mr. Omland – Correct.
Mr. Burgis – We are here to make a determination
on the extension request. The MLUL
requires discussion on change to the site since the approval. It seems that there has been a change in what
the board believed would occur under the original approval and the question is,
does that preclude the board from granting the extension. Mr. Ackerman – It is up to the board to
determine if there is change from the initial approval and the degree of change.
Mr. Omland read a section of minutes
from September of 2010 indicating that the plans are going to change and may
require the applicant to come back before the board in the future. Mr. Ackerman – The board can condition an
extension upon presenting the changed plans and returning to the board. Mr. Moore
– I was under the understanding that the breaching of the dam would reduce the
level of water dramatically but understood that there would be water left in
the pond. Mr. Mercurio- Dam Safety is
going to make him either breach or fix the dam either way.
Mr. Schepis - Mr. D’Angelo,
Environmental Engineer is here to answer Mr. Omland’s concerns about continuing
discussions with DEP. Mr. Omland – Not
required as long as the information can be submitted if the board
requires.
Open to the public
Landie Simone – previously sworn
What class dam is this? Mr. Mercurio – Class 3. Ms. Simone – Reviewed the differences between
the different classes of dams. Mr.
Mercurio – Dams are a safety aspect so fees are not taken for dam safety
applications, they work to make sure the residents are safe. Ms. Simone – If this dam fails, nothing will
happen, there will be no effect on the residents in the neighborhood. I think the estimate given for repairing the
dam is very high. DEP led me to believe
that the regulations are way less for a class 3 dam than a class 1 or 2
dam. Mr. Mercurio – There is no
difference in the design calculations between any class of dam, we have to meet all requirements that is
why rehabilitating the dam is so expensive.
Ms. Simone – a 1’-2’ water level would incur algae and would be a
mosquito breeder. Currently there are
lots of fish and other
animals, which will not be there if the
pond was drained. I am concerned with
the safety of the culverts. What was
said in discussion and in the resolution is significantly different than I
thought.
Michael Kelly – previously sworn
This will have a great effect on my
family. We moved there because of our
close proximity to the pond with the wildlife.
Draining the pond will change our community drastically.
Don Eden – 105A Taylortown Rd. – sworn
Moved to this property because of the
deed rights to the pond that was included.
If the pond is drained it will re-create drought conditions with dead
fish. At that point it would be a
swamp. What was represented to me 3
years ago is different from what is stated today.
Paul Simone – 101B Taylortown Rd – sworn
A letter dated 5/2011 from DEP to Mr.
Caggiano discusses removal of the dam.
The plans on paper haven’t changed but what was stated to us is
different. There is a difference between
releasing the water slowly and removing the dam so I do not think this
extension should be granted.
Closed to public
Mr. Shirkey – I believe that water
removal and water lowering are 2 different things. I do not believe that complete removal of the
pond was ever discussed. What are our
options? Mr. Ackerman – The application
for extension is a very limited analysis.
It is typically done to see if neighborhood or zoning has changed. That is not really what is going on
here. Mr. Omland has not given you any significant
health, safety or welfare impacts. You
may approve or deny, or wait for production of the DEP materials and have the
applicant come back based on the changes to the plan as required by DEP. If the applicant did not build a house here
he would not have to come before the township to deal with the dam. Dr. Kanoff – I only recall voting on the
lowering of the water level. Mr.
Petrozzino – I would be interested in seeing evidence as to the costs involved
to repair the dam. Mr. Dinkelmeyer
questioned as to whether he can vote on an extension if he was not here for the
application approval and Mr. Ackerman indicated he may abstain if he does not
have sufficient information, but he is not disqualified from voting on an
extension.
Mr. Moore – I understood from the
beginning that the water was to be lowered and I do not see an issue with
granting an extension when an applicant has to deal with outside agencies for
approvals like DEP.
Mr. Ackerman – The application was
for a variance for a home on an unimproved road, not a variance for a dam. Mr. Driscoll – Would agree to a 6 month
extension with the condition that any changes to the DEP plans must come back
before the board. Mr. Driscoll – Should
we hire an environmental engineer to review health, safety, etc.? Mr. Ackerman – It is up to the board. Mr. Omland – We have not received any
information on the process with DEP since the approvals were granted, we have
only received a report and a plan. They
were supposed to be keeping us updated on the status of information passed to
and from DEP.
Motion to deny the request for
extension, if originally known that the pond was to be drained, would have
never voted to approve the original application, changes made by applicant from
the approval, made by: Kanoff; Second
by: Olsen; Roll call: Yes – Kanoff, Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino; No – Moore,
Dinkelmeyer, and Driscoll
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Mowles-Rodriguez, Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of May 2, 2012.
_______________________________________
Meghan Hunscher, Sec.
[1] Absent with explanation
[2] Absent with explanation
|
