BoA minutes 7-19-12 Print E-mail

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

 

Last Updated ( Thursday, 02 August 2012 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack