|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF JULY 19, 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 – Absent[1] John Petrozzino (Alt #2) -
Present
Gerard Hug – Absent[2]
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated
Swearing in of Professionals
Joseph Burgis, PP
Also Present: Bruce Ackerman,
Esq.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION
None
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
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 – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 9/4/12
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Michael Mulholland, applicant; Andrew Kohut, Esq; Michael McCagney,
AIA; Peter Korzan, PE, Mia Petrou, PP
Mr. Kohut – Described the
property for the Board. Reviewed the
variances requested as front setback 12.3’
to Prospect & 31.7’ to Highland
where 35’ is required for 1 and 2 story additions to single family home. Shed will be relocated to a conforming
location. The garage is currently in the
Right of Way. Do not propose to relocate
the garage. Found a property record in
town that showed the garage was built between 1910 and 1965. Mr. Ackerman – The applicant has 2 choices;
the applicant can ask the township to vacate the right of way and the applicant
would have to cover township’s out of pocket expenses or the applicant can go
into a right of way agreement with the township, which would require having the
applicant’s homeowners insurance add the township as an additional
insured. Mr. Kohut – We will agree to
one of these requirements.
Michael
McCagney – reviewed credentials – sworn
Page 2
7/19/12
The applicant is looking to
expand the existing house, which is currently small. They plan to expand the family room to the
rear of the property; expanding living room and bedroom in the back. The 2nd floor will have additional
bedrooms. The exterior will have new
siding similar to the existing material.
The design is in character with the existing house.
Peter Korzen, PE –
reviewed credentials - sworn
Reviewed the site for the
board. Reviewed the variances requested
as front setback 12.3’ to Prospect
& 31.7’ to Highland
where 35’ is required. There are several
existing non-conforming conditions.
Impervious coverage is reduced by 367 s.f. by removal of gravel area
which is considered impervious per code; even without the reduction would still
be in compliance with impervious coverage requirements. There is no safety issue as it relates to the
garage and traffic. There is a dead end at the end of this street with a Route
287 sound wall at the end.
Ms. Petrou, PP – sworn
Requesting bulk
variances. Required front setback is
35’, but the existing porch is at 9.4’. Asking for 12.3’ toward Prospect Street for
additional bedrooms on the 2nd floor. The existing layout of the existing home
requires the location shown for the rooms desired. To Highland
Ave, we are asking for a setback of 31.7’ where
35’is required. No addition would be past the existing 9.4’
setback. This is one of the larger
properties in the neighborhood.
A1 – aerial photo of property
Ms. Petrou – The setbacks are
in conformance with other properties in the neighborhood. No detriment to the zone plan or the
neighborhood. Building coverage is
complying. The homes in the neighborhood
were built between the 1880 and 1910.
This application promotes the integrity of the Master Plan.
Mr. Burgis – The addition is
setback further than the existing setback from the porch. The addition is in conformance with the
neighborhood. They are reducing the
amount of impervious coverage.
Open to public – none –
closed
Mr. Marinello – Can this
addition be done on any other place on the property without variances? Ms. Petrou – The proposed is preserving the
existing feel and character of the neighborhood. Mr. Marinello – Will the house look like it
is falling into the street visually?
Mr. Burgis – No, the addition is consistent with the neighborhood. Mr. Marinello – Relief required for
K-turn? Mr. Burgis – I do not see the need
for it. Mr. Driscoll – I do not see the
need for a K-turn. I backed out of the
driveway with no issues. Mr. Moore –
There are 2 kitchens. Mr. Korzen - There is a common foyer that separates the
kitchens and they are existing. The Board discussed having the building
department validate the use with two kitchens as conforming without variance.
Mr.
Kohut summed up testimony.
Motion
to approve the application subject to relocation of the shed to a conforming
location, as to the garage encroachment - subject to option A in Mantyla memo,
including garage and any additional areas used by applicant as may be agreed by
township, if option A not possible than option B would be required, no K-turn
being required, building department to validate the present use with the two
kitchen setup as lawful without variance, consistent with the neighborhood, no
tree removal without proper permits, made by: Mr. Driscoll; Second by: Moore;
Yes - Roll call: Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore,
Olsen, Dinkelmeyer, Petrozzino, Marinello
MINUTES
Minutes of June 6, 2012
Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Hug, Shirkey, Dinkelmeyer, Petrozzino, Marinello
Page 3
7/19/12
Motion to adopt made by:
Driscoll; Second by: Moore;
Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Dinkelmeyer, Petrozzino, Marinello
INVOICES
Omland Engineering – Trust
for: $438.75
Burgis Associates – Trust
for: $67.50, $337.50, $472.50
Murphy McKeon – Trust for:
$150
Motion to approve: Kanoff;
Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Olsen, Dinkelmeyer,
Petrozzino, Marinello
RESOLUTIONS
ZC3-12 Patel, Dikesh – 26
Douglas Dr.
– B: 88, L: 28 – front setback;
rear setback; side setback; building coverage variances for construction of an
addition – Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Shirkey, Dinkelmeyer,
Marinello – Approval
Motion to adopt made by: Driscoll;
Second by: Moore;
Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Dinkelmeyer, Marinello
ZSPP/FDC23-02 Morris Plaza – 350 Main Rd. B: 57.01, L:
6 – request for extension of approvals to: June 4, 2013 – Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Hug, Shirkey, Dinkelmeyer,
Marinello – Granted
Motion to adopt made by:
Driscoll; Second by: Kanoff; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore , Dinkelmeyer,
Marinello
OTHER BUSINESS
None
CORRESPONDENCE
ZSPP/FDC10-89-29-06 Hook Mountain
Care Center – Hook
Mountain Rd. - B: 159, L: 4 - request for
extension of demolition of building to 9/30/12
Charles Lorber, Esq. – Requesting an extension for a
condition that expired on June 30th.
Requesting condition be carried until September 30th to allow
for demolition of the building. My
client has obtained a demolition permit but the contractor cannot get the
machines up the existing road and they are not allowed to use the emergency
access easements. We need some time to improve
the road to demolish the building.
A1
– letter from contractor about accessing site with machinery
A2
– demolition permit
Mr. Ackerman – This is not an emergency so they
cannot use the easements. The applicant
would have to improve the road to demo the building. Mr. Lorber – We will hope to have this
accomplished by September 30th.
Mr. Marinello – This was a conditional extension to get something done
up there. Our encouragement didn’t
really work. There was plenty of time to
figure out easements or construction of the road. I am very concerned with the future of this
site. Mr. Moore – The building needs to
come down, it is a safety hazard. Do not
see an additional 90 days being detrimental as long as they get up there and
demolish the building within the 90 days otherwise that is it. Mr. Marinello – Applicant must return at the
October meeting with sufficient proof that demolition has commenced in a
material fashion and give a time period for
complete removal.
Page 4
7/19/12
Open to public – none - closed
Motion to grant the extension
to the October 3, 2012 meeting, conditioned upon the applicant returning to the October meeting to show
proofs of commencement of demolition in a material fashion with the schedule
for completion, made by: Moore; Second
by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, Dinkelmeyer,
Petrozzino, Marinello
Motion to go into closed
session to discuss legal issues made by: Mr. Driscoll; Second by: Moore; Roll call:
Unanimous
Upon return from closed
session the board made a motion to retain Pashman Stein for litigation purposes
on the Lou Carl Caggiano case. Motion
subject to budget submission and monthly updates by: Driscoll; Second by:
Kanoff; Roll call: Unanimous.
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Mowles-Rodriguez, Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of August 1, 2012.
_______________________________________
Meghan Hunscher, Sec.
[1] Absent
with explanation
[2] Absent
with explanation
|
