BoA Minutes 5-2-12 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 – Present

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

Kenneth Shirkey - Present                  John Petrozzino (Alt #2) - Absent[1]

Gerard Hug – Absent[2]



Swearing in of Professionals




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 




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



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


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


Planning Board Liaison Update

Mr. Driscoll – No comments.


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


Last Updated ( Friday, 08 June 2012 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack