ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 2012
Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road
NOTE: No New Business to be conducted past 10:30 P.M.
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Richard Moore – Present Keith Olsen – Absent
Donald Kanoff - Present James Marinello – Present
Deane Driscoll - Present Kurt Dinkelmeyer (Alt #1) -
Kenneth Shirkey - Present John Petrozzino (Alt #2) -
Gerard Hug – Present
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Swearing in of Professionals
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
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
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
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.
to public – none
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.
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
Agnes Koczo – sworn
– 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.
Mark Hovaniak – 25 Douglas Dr. –
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
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
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
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
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,
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.
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.
Morris Plaza – 350 Main Rd. B: 57.01, L: 6 – request for extension of approvals
to: June 4, 2013
Burgis – No changes to the Master plan for this property
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
Jane Mowles-Rodriguez, Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of July 19, 2012.
Meghan Hunscher, Sec.
 Absent with explanation