4-4-12 BoA minutes Print E-mail




Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road


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



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]



 Swearing in of Professionals




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


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 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



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


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


Planning Board Liaison Update

Mr. Driscoll – No updates.


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

Last Updated ( Thursday, 03 May 2012 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack