|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MAY 2, 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) -
Absent[1]
Gerard Hug – Absent[2]
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated
Swearing in of Professionals
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None
OLD BUSINESS
ZMS/D26-09 Mommy & Me – 2 Park Ave. – B: 39, L: 37 – minor site plan/D
variance for day care center; parking variance; impervious coverage variance
–Carried with notice from 12/7/11 – new notice acceptable – Eligible: Driscoll,
Kanoff, Moore, Hug, Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino, Dinkelmeyer, Marinello ACT
BY: 5/3/12
Present
on behalf of the applicant: Geoff Evans, Esq; Millie Enriques, applicant; Peter
Steck, PP;
Mr. Dinkelmeyer certified to
the December hearing.
Mr. Evans – Our engineer has
revised the plans from the questions that the Board had at the last
meeting. Our planner is here this
evening.
Peter Steck, PP – previously
sworn
A circular driveway has been
added to the plan; the surface would be pavers, which are pervious.
A2 – supplemental photos for exhibit A1
Mr. Steck – Reviewed exhibit
A2 for the Board. The 1st
page has an aerial photo with property lines superimposed. The lot is isolated by property owned by Montville Township. The 2nd page has photos of the
existing lot. The wooded area is
municipal property. The last page is a
rendition of the revised site plan. It
shows the pattern of driving proposed and parking spaces are labeled. It is
true that if someone parks in the middle of the handicapped parking space it
will block the space in the garage but if pulled further in it will not block
the garage spot.
Mr. Steck – In 2010 the
County did a traffic count going in the northeasterly section of Route 202 and
there was 11,700 vehicles a day. There
was very little traffic on Park itself but since the traffic light was
installed there is more traffic along Route 202. It is a truck route.
Mr. Steck - The applicant is
willing to accept a commercial refuse pick up if conditioned by the Board. The food waste will be handled whatever way
the Board of Health wants. There is not
a lot of food preparation on site. The
recycling and refuse will be kept inside the garage. The applicant’s home on the far end of Park Avenue is a 5-child day care center and this site is
a 5-child day care center and the applicant’s mother lives here. If this is approved this will no longer be a
residence. At no point will there be
more than 15 children on site at any given time. Mr. Steck reviewed the breakdown of child to
caregiver ratio. Pick-ups and drop offs
are staggered. Even if she has 15
children she has the ability to stagger the drop offs and pick-ups. No K-turns will be required by installing the
circular driveway.
Mr. Steck – By keeping the
number of children at 15 or under there are no architectural changes required
for the building. The existing fencing
was installed by permit; it is a PVC fence in the front and a chain link fence
in the rear. There are evergreens
proposed but they are on the Township property and cannot be planted unless the
Township allows. If the Township does
not allow the plantings then the applicant is willing to install 6’ high PVC
fencing along that area.
Mr. Steck – Childcare is an
important public benefit. You can have a
day care center in any non-residential zone in the State of New Jersey.
We meet the positive criteria.
This site is suitable for this zone.
The traffic light is beneficial to the area. This site and this location fulfill a public
need. This will look like a
single-family house, there are no changes to the house proposed, there is no
signage proposed. It will look like a
single family home. It is isolated from
other properties. The impervious
coverage is going up 500 s.f. , but we are using brick pavers, which is a
pervious surface. The area between this
property and other properties is wooded and will stay this way because it is
Township owned property. It is a lower
scale use. All of the traffic movements
are confined to the front section of the building. The applicant will no longer have the 5
children in her house. They will be
shifted to the proposed site.
Mr. Steck – The traffic from
Route 202 is very noisy and the sound of children playing outside is not
foreign to a residential neighborhood and which will be masked by the sound of
the traffic from Route 202. There is a
demand for this use. Not a lot of
traffic caused by this use. No detriment
to zone plan or zoning ordinance.
Mr. Moronski – What if the
applicant goes beyond the 15 children proposed?
Mr. Steck – The applicant is requesting the condition of restriction of
15 children. If there are more than that
then there are changes that would be required architecturally which the
applicant does not want to do.
Mr. Omland – Is the architect
here? Mr. Evans – The architectural map
is existing conditions with no changes.
Mr. Omland – There is no check in area?
Mr. Steck – That is a question for the applicant. Mr. Omland – The Construction Official would
have to review the ramp in the rear to see if it complies with ADA requirements. Mr. Steck – Would agree to a condition of
approval. Mr. Omland – Is there striping
showing a one-way route on the driveway?
Mr. Steck – No, that would detract from the residential appearance. These are repeat customers and they are
instructed on how to approach the property.
We do not propose signage. Mr.
Omland – It appears that the light at the northerly part of the garage exceeds
the foot-candle allowed by property line.
Mr. Steck – The property next door is municipal owned. Mr. Omland – But it is in a residential
zone. Discussion ensued on lighting on
site. Mr. Steck – Can put motioned
sensor lights so they turn off when the children leave. Mr. Omland – Concerned with traffic to the
site as being a nuisance factor.
Millie Enriques – Previously sworn
I provide a beneficial
service to Montville
residents. We have a clean and safe
environment. I have been trying to
proceed with this project for 6 years. I
have provided this type of service for 17 years. Peoploreork at different times. Most of my clients are teachers from the
different school levels and they all work at different times. Reviewed the varying drop off and pick up
times for the current use. My clients
respect my systems that I put into place.
Not all of the children come 5 days a week. Some drop offs are more than 1 sibling. Some parents car pool. We will propose a drive by drop off and pick
up where we will be outside to take the child
from the car. This proposal can
accommodate 4 parents’ cars at one time.
There is no activity on the site on the weekends. Propose 9 evergreen trees to be planted on
the Township property side of the fence but can put a 6’ PVC fence along that
area if the Township will not allow the evergreens.
Ms. Enriques – The existing
handicapped ramp was there before I purchased the property and am aware that it
may need to be widened and will comply with the building codes.
Mr. Moronski – Where would
the employees park if stalls 2 and 3 were being used? Ms. Enriques – Currently I walk to work. Mr. Moronski – There could be 2 more
employees parked there and would not allow parking availability for the
parents. We have to consider the
operation of this site for the future even if you sell. Ms. Enriques – 2 employees are only necessary
as long as the children are over the age of 2 ½. Mr. Moronski – Concerned that in the morning
there would be more of a chance for stacking of cars off site.
Mr. Omland – The wall mounted
lights will be pointed down? Mr. Steck –
Yes. Mr. Omland – Would there be holiday
parties on site? Ms. Enriques – Parties
would be at my house since my clients are an extension of my family but there
will be no parties on the proposed site.
Mr. Omland – Would you agree to replace the proposed trees if they
should die even though they are not located on your property? Ms. Enriques – Yes. Mr. Omland – Is there a check in area or
secured doors for security? Ms.
Enriques – There is no check in area, there are currently chains on the doors
so the children do not go out but if conditioned will put in security features
if required.
Mr. Ackerman – You walk to
work, will you ever drive to work? Ms.
Enriques – No. Mr. Ackerman – If this is
approved then this will no longer be a dwelling unit and your mother would walk
to work too? Ms. Enriques – Yes, she
would live with me and walk to work. Mr.
Marinello – The house faces Route 202 and the Towaco Center
is being redeveloped, is the best use of this property a residence as it
relates to the current master plan? Mr.
Moronski – A residence would be the best use for this property. Mr. Marinello – Would you choose this
property for a 15-child day care center?
Mr. Moronski – No. Concerned with
morning drop off and how it affects the surrounding area. Lighting and trash can be worked out. I question the functionality of the
site. There is a big difference between
5 children and 15 children.
Mr. Moore pointed out a
couple of mistakes on the plan. Mr. Moore – Do you have a
fire safety evacuation plan for the children for the proposed site. Ms. Enriques - Currently yes, but will have
to implement a new plan with the additional children. Mr. Olsen – Has this plan for this center
been reviewed by the State? Ms. Enriques
– Yes and I have had inspections for this proposal. Mr. Olsen – Is there now or will you be
installing a sprinkler system in this building?
Ms. Enriques – I believe it is not required. Mr. Olsen – I would check that with the
Building Inspector and the State code requirements. Mr. Dinkelmeyer suggested a do not enter sign
at one end of the driveway to prevent congestion. Ms. Enriques – I was attempting to keep the
look of the site as residential.
Mr. Shirkey – If this
application was approved would you be willing to waive your right to the
additional 5 children at 5 Park Avenue or any other property on this
street? Ms. Enriques – Yes.
Open to public
Bob Leeder – 3 Majorca Rd –
previously sworn
The traffic light has made it
less safe for the children because drivers speed up to get through the yellow
light. This house is immediately
adjacent to a highway that makes it unsafe for children.
Truscha Quatrone – 4 Majorca Rd. -
sworn
I have an email from Anthony
Petrillo the Township Engineer that indicated he did an on site inspection that
6 children were sleeping and there were 10 children enrolled. It also indicates that you said that your mother
did not live on site.
Ms. Enriques – I have never
had anyone from the Township come in and count the children and this is my
mother’s primary residence.
Ms. Quatrone – I have filed a
complaint with Green Acres because the property was purchased from the Township
illegally. It is open space and should
not have been sold. In a 1 ½ mile radius
there are currently 4 day care centers so there is not a need in this area for
another day care center. The Board
should deny this application.
Regina Burel – 6
Park Ave – sworn
There have been bears on that
property. I feel that this application
should not be approved. There is a
traffic situation currently with the 5 children. There are many times when we have to wait on
Route 202 to get onto our own road.
Concerned that an emergency vehicle will have a hard time getting to
us. Her clients turn around in our
driveways due to the narrowness of the road.
Do not want a commercial operation on our residential street.
Henry Burel – 6 Park Ave – sworn
I have lived at 6 Park Avenue for 49
years. I do not want any commercial uses
on our street. The number of children
frequently exceeds 5. I have seen 13
children being led down the street to play on several occasions. Not in favor of the application.
Christine Dorenbush – 8 Park Ave - sworn
The road width is very small;
you can barely fit 2 cars coming down the street. There are no sidewalks. I am concerned that when my kids start to
walk to the school bus I would hope that the people picking up and dropping off
would be safe.
Tina Scangarello – 8 Midvale Ave -
sworn
I am a real estate agent and
the property values of the surrounding properties would not be devalued.
Kim Wilkisson – sworn
I have never had a problem
with drop off or pick up for the site.
They keep a home environment. In
favor of the application.
Marcy Tarnoff – sworn
This type of day care is
personal and unique. It is a family
environment. It is like dropping your
kids off with your parents. It is a secure
feeling having my children under Millie’s care.
I am in favor of this application.
Linda Gentile – Rathbun Rd. – sworn
Both of my children have been
under Millie’s care. I have experienced
both types of day care in town. Millie
provides a home environment. Millie’s
fence is higher than the fence at Apple Montessori and the bear does go right
by Apple Montessori.
Kris Scelba – 1 Park Ave - sworn
I live across the street from
the proposed project. I have no issue
with this day care. I am all for small
business owners. What Millie is
proposing will help the property. I own
a commercial day care center and I know the work process on how it works and
there are staggered drop offs and pick-ups.
Before the traffic light was installed there were accidents constantly
but since installed it has slowed down the flow of traffic. Widening the road would help the
traffic. This use would help better our
street.
Mr. Evans – As it relates to
the Green Acres, during the application process it was determined that the
garage that was constructed prior to Ms. Enriques’ purchase of the property was
encroaching on the Township Property.
The Township suggested that Ms. Enriques purchase that strip of land to
fix the encroachment; the Tax Assessor gave an assessment of the 604 s.f. strip
of land and Ms. Enriques purchased that strip.
It was done in full compliance of Township ordinances. It is appalling the character assassination
by the neighbors to my client. We are
asking for a increase of 5 children to what exists. That impact would be minimal. This is a unique property along a noisy
street and in between a town owned wooded area.
Bears are located throughout the township not just on this site. There is enough parking proposed. This is an inherently beneficial use. A policy will be implemented to make sure
there are no back ups of cars into Park Avenue. The applicant is willing to comply with all
Town and State requirements. This is a
positive improvement to the area.
Closed to the public
Discussion ensued on possible
restrictions if granted approvals. Mr.
Moore – Provided detailed explanation of concerns. Not convinced that the inherent benefits
outweigh the substantial detrimental effect to the zoning plan, ordinance and
especially public good.
Mr. Shirkey – I do not see
how the use fits this property location.
The master plan was just redone and this property never came up in those
discussions. This would substantially
impair the new zone plan.
Motion to deny the
application, detriments substantially outweigh benefits, inadequate proofs of
how this increased use from 5 children to 15 can be managed and function on
this site with the site limitations, proof lacking to justify variances and
waivers requested, made by: Moore; Second by: Shirkey;
Roll call: Yes - Driscoll,
Moore, Olsen, Shirkey, Marinello; No – Kanoff & Dinkelmeyer
NEW BUSINESS
None
MINUTES
Minutes of April 4, 2012
Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino, Dinkelmeyer
Motion to adopt made by:
Shirkey; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Olsen,
Shirkey, Petrozzino, Dinkelmeyer
INVOICES
Burgis Assoc. – Trust for:
$371.25, $101.25, $168.75, $270, $303.75, $438.75
Pashman Stein – O/E for:
$155.25
Murphy McKeon – Trust for:
$120
Omland Engineering – Trust
for: $67.50, $67.50, $405, $33.75, $236.25, $270, $168.75
Motion to approve: Kanoff;
Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes - Kanoff, Driscoll, Moore, Olsen, Shirkey,
Dinkelmeyer, Marinello
RESOLUTIONS
ZC11-11
Laden, Denise –14 Virginia Rd. – B:18, L: 1 –
variance for front yard setback for addition – Eigible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino,
Dinkelmeyer
- Approved
Motion to approve made by:
Driscoll; Second by: Moore;
Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Olsen, Shirkey, Dinkelmeyer
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 - Eigible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore,
Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino, Dinkelmeyer – Approved
Motion to approve made by:
Driscoll; Second by: Moore;
Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Olsen, Shirkey, Dinkelmeyer
ZC25-08 Caggiano – Hog
Mountain Rd. – B: 33, L: 32 – request for
extension of approvals to 3/2/13 – Eligible: Kanoff, Olsen, Shirkey, Petrozzino
- Denial
Motion to adopt denial made
by: Kanoff; Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes - Kanoff, Olsen, Shirkey
OTHER BUSINESS
Planning Board Liaison Update
Mr. Driscoll – No comments.
CORRESPONDENCE
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Mowles-Rodriguez, Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of June 6, 2012.
_______________________________________
Meghan Hunscher, Sec.
[1] Absent
with explanation
[2] Absent
with explanation
|
