BoA minutes 6-6-12 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 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 – Absent[1]

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

Swearing in of Professionals

PUBLIC DISCUSSION

None

OLD BUSINESS

None

The following application was carried with notice required to 7/19/12:

**ZC4-12 Mulholland, Michael - 7 Prospect St. – B: 48, L: 4 – front setback 12.3’ to Prospect & 31.7’ to Highland where 35’ is required for addition to home                            ACT BY: 9/4/12

NEW BUSINESS

ZC3-12 Patel, Dikesh – 26 Douglas Dr.  – B: 88, L: 28 – front setback 29.4.’to Douglas Dr./45’to Toby Ter. where 50’ required; rear setback 28’ to house/22’ to deck where 50’ required; side setback 14.5’ where 20’ required; building coverage 16.4% where 14% allowed for construction of an addition                                                                                                           ACT BY: 9/4/12

Present on behalf of the applicant: Dikesh Patel, applicant

Mr. Dikesh Patel – sworn

Purchased house in 2007 and would like to make the house livable for us to live in.  It is currently a rental property and we now wish to live in it.  I would like to make this house comparable to those existing in the neighborhood.

Glenn Stubaus, AIA – sworn

The property is a corner lot in the R-27A zone.  This lot has 15,280 s.f. existing.  The applicant must meet front yard requirements for both streets.  The actual building envelope is extremely small for any development.

                A1 – colorized version of site plan supplied to the board.

Mr. Stubaus – The existing house is a ranch and exceeds the building envelope in all aspects.  Propose a 2nd floor over the existing ranch and a 2nd garage along with a deck along with a sunroom.  Any addition to this house requires a variance.  Deck is proposed to be low to the ground (less than 30”  off the ground) with no railing so it would not be obtrusive.    There are 71 properties in the area and only 4 of them have 1-car garages.  It is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood to have a 2-car garage.  Most of the houses in the area have non-conforming side yard setbacks.  The average lot size in the neighborhood is 19,000 s.f., where the applicant’s property is 15,280 s.f.  There is particular hardship to this property.  Unique shaped lot. 

Mr. Burgis – Describe to the board the relationship from the proposed garage addition side to the neighbor.  Mr. Stubaus – The neighbor house is setback on the lot and the garage proposed is forward from that house, the neighbor’s house is more in line with the rear of the applicant’s house.  Mr. Burgis – Would you agree to provide for a K-turn if the board requires?  Mr. Stubaus – Yes, if the board wishes it can be done.  If this lot were the size of the average properties of the area it would not require a building coverage variance.

Mr. Omland – Will the applicant be willing to capture roof runoff from these additions and dispose of rainwater into drywells.  Mr. Patel – Yes, drywells for the roof runoff will be installed. 

Mr. Stubaus – Variances requested - front setback 29.4.’to Douglas Dr./45’to Toby Ter. where 50’ required; rear setback 28’ to house/22’ to deck where 50’ required; side setback 14.5’ where 20’ required; building coverage 16.4% where 14% allowed.

Open to public – none

Mr. Dinkelmeyer – The rear yard is very wet.  Can you do something about that issue?  Mr. Stubaus – There is a drainage ditch that runs along the property and it is connected to the storm drain in the street. 

Mr. Marinello – Would you agree to a condition of approval that no rail be installed on deck ever?  There was no response.  Mr. Marinello – Requested that a K-turn be installed that requires the most minimal amount of pavement.  Mr. Stubaus – It can be between 60’-100’.  Mr. Hug – The property is too small for this amount of additions, what is the necessity of the sunroom?  Mr. Patel – It is for my parents as a sitting room.  I always wanted a 2nd car garage for this property.  This house would be comparable to the other houses on the street.  I spent substantial amount of time over 2 years to come in with this application.  Dr. Kanoff – Concerned with the sunroom addition.  Would you consider removal of the sunroom?  Mr. Patel – I made the size of the sunroom as minimal as possible in size.  Mr. Shirkey – Would you be willing to provide landscaping along the Toby side of the deck.  Mr. Patel – Yes.  Mr. Shirkey – Would you be agreeable to the installation of monuments by a surveyor prior to construction?  Mr. Patel – Yes.  

Mr. Burgis – The side property line angles back toward the back of the building, which is a conforming setback.

Agnes Koczo – sworn

O-1 – a plan from a 1978 variance from my father for a radio tower on 24 Douglas Dr. – unsigned and unsealed

Mr. Marinello – The house on 24 is set considerably further back from the house on 26 Douglas. 

Ms. Koczo –The ditch is on my property, so his water already goes on my property into the ditch.  Concerned with the house encroaching further toward my property.  Mr. Stubaus – 24 Douglas is equidistant to the property line as Mr. Patel’s.

Mark Hovaniak – 25 Douglas Dr. – sworn

Mr. Hovaniak - I am in favor of improvement to this house.  It would be an asset to the neighborhood.  I had to come before this board for a variance myself to put on a 2nd car garage.  Concerned with the water problem on that property, but do not see any other issues with this development. 

Closed to public

Mr. Shirkey – Both residents had concerns with the storm water runoff.  Mr. Ackerman – You can require offsite improvements on this application for capture of runoff condition created by this development.  Mr. Omland – The roof drainage system should collect all the runoff from the roof where previously it did not.  If there is a high water table then the drywells would be filled up.  A subsurface disposal system that addresses a high-water table can be installed along with overflow to inlets instead of the ditch.  I would recommend that no runoff be drained into the ditch.  Test pits can be done at building permit and when digging footings.  Field changes may be made on site to make it work. 

Mr. Shirkey – Concerned that the survey is not correct.  Suggest they survey the property to make sure they will build the addition in compliance with accurate setbacks.  Discussion ensued on the possibility of installation of a K-turn.  Mr. Petrozzino indicated that he is concerned with the impact of the garage addition visually.  Suggested trees/landscaping be planted near that corner of the addition.

Mr. Marinello – The Board can consider some variances, it does not have to consider all of them.  The deck can be a patio and that eliminates a variance.  Mr. Dinkelmeyer – Traffic is not bad on Douglas Drive and everyone backs out of their driveways.  Mr. Marinello – There is a visual benefit to a 2-car garage, it keeps cars out of the driveway.  Mr. Marinello overviewed the concerns of the board.  Can landscaping be installed along the proposed garage to make it less obtrusive?  Mr. Shirkey – The addition does slide back toward the rear of the house to a conforming setback.  Visually it is 43’ setback from the curb even though its 14.5’ from the property line on the corner of the addition.  Mr. Burgis – We have just finished the Circulation Element of the Master plan and there are no plans to enlarge Douglas Drive.  Landscaping can screen the corner of the building. 

Motion to approve the application subject to the corner of the addition by the proposed garage to be landscaped, do not see the necessity of a K-turn, drywells and roof leaders to be installed, deck to have no rails, installation of shrubbery along the deck required, addition will be in conformance with the neighborhood, usual conditions, made by: Kanoff; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Dinkelmeyer, Marinello, No - Hug

NEW BUSINESS

None

MINUTES

Minutes of May 2, 2012 Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Olsen, Shirkey, Dinkelmeyer, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Driscoll; Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Dinkelmeyer, Marinello

INVOICES

Pashman, Stein – O/E for: $209.25. $135; Trust for: $135, $357.75, $999, $486, $411.75, $1,242, $135, $135, $135, $135, $1,242, $411.75, $486, $999, $357.75, $135, $1,491.75

Burgis Associates – Trust for: $303.75, $270, $101.25, $337.50, $540, $540, $337.50, $101.25, $270, $303.75, $405, $270, $303.75, $44.55, $236.25, $135

Omland Engineering – Trust for: $101.25, $337.50, $135, $135, $708.75, $202.50, $438.75

Motion to approve: Kanoff; Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Hug,  Shirkey, Dinkelmeyer, Marinello

RESOLUTIONS

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 – Eligible: Driscoll, Moore, Olsen, Shirkey, Marinello - Denial

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

OTHER BUSINESS

Planning Board Liaison Update

Mr. Driscoll – On May 24th the Planning Board met to discuss Lake Valhalla and the changes that they would like to make. 

Discussion ensued as to whether the planning board had full benefit of the Board of Adjustment experience with LVC, including a full history of testimony and resolutions on previous approvals at Board of Adjustment and Planning Board.

CORRESPONDENCE

ZSPP/FDC23-02 Morris Plaza – 350 Main Rd. B: 57.01, L: 6 – request for extension of approvals to: June 4, 2013

Mr. Burgis – No changes to the Master plan for this property

Mr. Shirkey – Can we make the approval extension for a longer period of time?  Can we give him 30 days to check the statute to see if we can give him 2 years?  Mr. Ackerman – Grant a one-year extension and if the road is not built they can have another year.

Motion to grant extension for 1 year and if the road is not built by that time another year will be granted without having to return to the board made by: Shirkey; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Unanimous

The extra meeting in June is cancelled.

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Mowles-Rodriguez, Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of July 19, 2012.

_______________________________________

Meghan Hunscher, Sec.


[1] Absent with explanation

 

Last Updated ( Thursday, 26 July 2012 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack