ZONING BOARD OF
MINUTES OF DECEMBER
Building, 195 Changebridge Road
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated for the record.
Christopher Braden –Absent
Donald Kanoff - Present James Marinello - Present
Deane Driscoll - Present
Richard Moore (Alt #1) – Present
Maury Cartine –
Present Carl DiPiazza (Alt #2) - Present
Gerard Hug – Present
Also Present: William
Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
Swearing in of Professionals
The following application was rescheduled to: 1-3-08 with
new notice required:
Michael - B: 100.1, L: 9 – 36 Two Bridges Rd. – Variance filing – rear
setback 18.19’ vs 50’ required Carried with notice from 9/5/07 ACT
The following applications were carried with notice
preserved to 2/6/08:
ZC18-03 Ptaszek, Waldemar - 21 Rockledge Rd. – B: 13,
L: 22 – construction of a single-family residence – variances for lot size
18,564 s.f. vs 27,000 s.f.; front setback 25.2’ vs 50’; wall/fence height 9’ vs
6’; design exception driveway slopes exceed 10%; development within steep
slopes;; slope regulation in environmentally sensitive area – Carried
w/notice from 5/3/06; New notice acceptable 4/27/07, carried with notice from
7/5/07 & 9/5/07 - Eligible: Mr.
Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Braden, Mr.
Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello
ACT BY: 2/7/08
Donuts – 263 Changebridge Rd. – B: 149.04, L: 6 – amended site
plan/use/bulk variances for fast food restaurant – Use variance/off street
parking /sign variances – carried
w/notice from 8-1-07- Eligible: Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Driscoll, Braden,
Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello ACT
ZC24-06 Kapitula –
10 Old Ln. – B: 21.01, L: 35.04 – construction of a single family home on a
vacant lot variance requested maximum wall height of 10’ where 6’ allowed and
slopes - Notice Acceptable ACT BY:
Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.;
Charles Carbone, PE
Mr. Schepis – The property was created by subdivision in
November of 1986 with finals granted in January of 1991. Relief was granted from 5,000 s.f. buildable
area at that time. Slopes were not met
at that time. Planning board created a
lot that was steeper than the ordinance allowed. Consequently the township adopted a new slope ordinance which was
adopted after this lot was created.
Charles Carbone, PE – sworn
colorized version of plan submitted sheet 2 of 5 dated 6/8/06 revised 7/07
Mr. Carbone – Lot is in the R-27A zone. Lot has more than 42,000 s.f. which is well
above what is allowed. Lot width
conforms with ordinance. The lot is
wooded and steeply sloped. Propose a
single family residence. Will meet all
requirements of the ordinance with the exception of slopes and wall
height. The proposed driveway cuts
across the lot to minimize the slope of the driveway. Attempted to minimize disturbance of grades over 15%. The grades of the driveway need to be
re-graded and once re-graded the slope of the driveway will meet the 10%
allowable grade. The septic system is
on the eastern side of the lot limiting location of the driveway. The grading around the house meets the
Mr. Carbone - Retaining walls will be required along the
front of the house with highest being 6’ but need to put a fence on top for
safety purposes which will create an overall height of 10’ . Split rail fence proposed along top of
retaining wall and landscaping proposed between retaining wall and 6’ fence. Tried to soften the look of the rail wall
with landscaping. There are retaining
walls proposed in rear of house to make a usable back yard. Fence proposed on wall in rear yard. Walls perpendicular to house in rear yard
are currently at 9’ but with regarding can make the walls meet the
ordinance. Fence in rear yard will be
set back 10’ so variance no longer required for that section. Will not require a wall height variance in
rear yard. The location of the septic
determines the location of the house.
Cannot move driveway or an impervious coverage variance will be required. Municipal sewers are not available in this
existing condition and slope map
Mr. Carbone – Reviewed the slope disturbance proposed for
the board. Neighboring lots have longer
driveways and the same amount of slopes.
We kept the house as close to the front property line as possible. Mr. Carbone reviewed the storm water
management controls proposed for the lot.
There will be no adverse effect to any other property as it relates to
storm water runoff. Prepared soil
erosion control plan as it relates to county requirements and will comply with
plan. Propose re-vegetation of the
disturbed area and the remaining existing vegetation will be untouched. Will
comply with the Township Engineer’s report.
The property is on the boarder of the Highlands Protection Area. This property meets the requirements for an
exemption from the Highlands. Will
comply with the Board Engineer’s report.
Mr. Denzler – Would it be appropriate to have a safety fence
by the patio. Mr. Carbone – Will comply. Mr. Denzler – How does this structure
compare with the other structures in the neighborhood? Mr. Carbone – Will be about the same size as
neighboring structures. Mr. Huelsebusch
– Did you do soil samples? Mr. Carbone
– We used the septic samples. Mr.
Huelsebusch – What if you encounter rock.
Mr. Carbone – Will redesign to your approval. Mr. Huelsebusch – Suggest board condition curbing along driveway. Mr. Schepis – Agreed.
Mr. Cartine – Curbing location? Mr. Carbone – Along outside edge of the driveway. Mr. Marinello – There is a variety of styles
of homes in the area how will the proposed home as it relates to height/stories
look from some of the other streets in the area? Mr. Carbone – There will be 2 ½ stories from the right side; from
the garage side may not see much of house possibly just the garage. Mr. Cartine – Building height? Mr. Carbone – 32’. Mr. Cartine – Could the house be built higher and still meet
code? Mr. Carbone – Yes. Mr. Buraszeski – If you did not have such a
generous back yard would it create fewer disturbances into the slopes? Mr. Carbone – Yes. Mr. Denzler - It would not be much of a difference in the rear of
Open to public
Robert Estava – 11 Old Ln - sworn
My property is directly downhill from the building
site. I was here for the first
application which was denied.
Everything north of Old Lane is solid ledge rock. Do not think drywells
will be able to be dug in the property.
When 6 Old Lane was developed I had a severe issue with water runoff on
my driveway. Have since installed berms
and drains. There is erosion due to the
construction. Concerned with underground
water. Springs come off my property in
the spring until well into June. Do not
want my property affected from the development of this lot. The storm drains on the north side of Old
Lane do not capture the water.
Dr. Gina Wertenberg – 15 Old Ln - sworn
I have had persistent problems with water. Water is causing damage to my driveway. My basement floor has fallen due to the
water and had to be repaired. Excessive
settlement is happening on my property along with sinkholes. Concerned with additional water runoff onto
my property. Would like a copy of the
Township Engineer’s report. Concerned
with effect on drinking water.
Concerned with any blasting that may be done on site. Concerned with cutting down the trees as it
relates to global warming. Concerned
with the impact of natural habitat.
Bill Scalzitti – 15 Old Ln - sworn
I had to have the entire driveway dug up since the base is
sinking. There must be underground
water on the property. They did not
install sewers because they did not want to affect the underground water. Had to have sink holes fixed on our
property. Every tree cut down will allow
for more water to come down that hill.
Shahid Lodhi – 6 Old Ln. – sworn
I own the subject property.
The proposed construction will allow for catching the water where now
there is nothing catching the water today.
This will reduce the runoff problems across the street. The applicant is trying to construct the
property which will allow for containment of the water.
Mr. Esteban – There is a mountain behind Old Lane that goes
back 300 yards. I had no problems with
water until 6 Old Lane was developed. I
also have a sink hole on my property.
Mr. Huelsebusch – We are not sure that the soil is adequate
for a drywell but they agreed to come up with a redesign if not adequate. The walls will be collecting groundwater and
directing it into the drainage system.
I think they should do soil testing for the drywells. Mr. Cartine – Can all of the water be
captured? Mr. Huelsebusch – With a
trench at the end of the driveway, possibly.
Mr. Marinello – We had a request from a resident to have further time to
review the township engineers report why don’t we give the applicant additional
time to review the board engineer’s comments.
Carried with notice to 3/5/08 with an extension of time to
act to 3/6/08
ZC13-07 Bancala –
33 Forest Place – B: 109, L: 29 -
construction of a 2-car detached garage variances for accessory structure
height of 16.6’ vs 14’ allowed; accessory structure in a front yard which is
not allowed - Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 12/20/07
Present on behalf of the applicant: Louis Bancala,
applicant; Alfred Stewert, PE; Arthur Kamein, Esq.
Louis Bancala - sworn
Mr. Marinello – Most of us just received the application
tonight so bear with us on questions that may have been answered in the
Mr. Bancala – Requesting a front setback variance and height
variance for detached garage. The
existing one car garage attached to the house is small and does not accommodate
a car. Requesting 2 car detached garage
with a loft on top. The existing one
car garage will remain as storage. Mr.
Kamein – What is the garage height requested?
Mr. Bancala – 16.6’ where 14’ is required. If built shorter it will not match the gables on my house to fit
it in with the current architecture of my house. I would like it to look like a carriage house to make it more
aesthetically pleasing. The loft area is for storage. Mr. Marinello – Is this a traditional front yard? Mr. Bancala – I see it as a side yard. It is the flattest part of the yard and will
create the least disturbance. Mr.
Kamein – Has already dedicated a right of way to the builder who is building on
Forest and a cul de sac will be installed.
Mr. Stewert, PE - sworn
Intend to place a garage which is technically in the front
yard. The applicant is requesting a
front setback variance for accessory structure. A cul-de-sac bulb was dedicated to the township. The applicant will dedicate a right of way
to the township. There is a right of
way along the side of the property.
This is logistically the best place for the location of garage. We are attempting to keep the impervious
coverage down so locating garage on existing driveway. A drywell is proposed to the rear of the
garage. The property is serviced by
water and sewer. There are no
underground tanks on the property.
Mr. Denzler – Would there be impacts to lot 30.20 based on
the location of the proposed structure?
Mr. Stewert – No. Mr. Denzler –
Have you submitted proofs that no construction occur within 4’ of the seasonal
high water table? Mr. Stewert – Will
agree to test holes prior to construction permit. Mr. Denzler – Did you attempt to attach garage? Mr. Stewert – There are a fair amount of
windows on that side and will block windows.
Mr. Huelsebusch – The 16 ½’ right of way is existing? Mr. Stewert – Yes the other ½ was
vacated. Mr. Huelsebusch – Will the
other ½ be requested to be vacated? Mr.
Bancala – It will become a part of my existing lot. Mr. Hug – With the dedication, wouldn’t it reduce the amount of
variance? Mr. Denzler – It would meet
the setbacks but not the location.
Open to public – none - closed
Motion to approve the application with installation of
drywell, existing garage to continue to be used as storage, subject to
dedication per township engineer made by: Driscoll; Second by: Hug; Roll
call: Yes - Kanoff, Driscoll,
Buraszeski, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello; No - Cartine
NOTE: Mr. Buraszeski left the meeting
Miller Auto - B: 160.2, L: 9 – 51 Stiles Ln. – site plan/use and bulk
variances for occupancy of existing industrial warehouse and
associated parking lot to store new
and used automobiles associated with the various local Paul
Miller dealerships - carried /notice from 8/1/07, carried with
new notice required from 11/7/07 – Eligible: Kanoff, Cartine, Hug,
Driscoll, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello – New Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 12/6/07
Present on behalf of the applicant: Michael Sullivan, Esq.; Patrick McClellen,
Mr. Sullivan – Reviewed request for the board. The applicant
has re-noticed for fence variance for fence in front yard and less than 40%
open due to new fence ordinance.
Mr. McClellen , PE – previously sworn
Propose on the south and east side of the property a 6’
chain link fence with green fence slats that will be inserted.
A2 – PBS
fence slat brochure.
Mr. McClellen – On the north west side of the property
propose a 6’ high synthetic fencing
that is solid and emulates a redwood finish.
Synthetic fence brochure
Mr. McClellen – Fences in the front yard is no longer
permitted. The property is a corner
lot. Fence does not have 40% open face,
is solid. Proposed fencing required for
protection of the cars to be stored on site and will create a more
aesthetically pleasing view on site. No
impact to neighboring properties. No
impact on zone plan or ordinance. Mr.
Denzler – Clarify location of solid synthetic fence. Mr. McClellen – Along Bader and Stiles frontage. Mr.
Denzler – Recommend that he synthetic fence be brought along all 3 sides
visible from the street and chain link where facing the building. Mr. McClellen – Along the easterly edge
there is a lot of landscaping and we would like the chain link fencing along
that area. Mr. McClellen – Installing
additional landscaping along Bader. Mr.
Denzler – My recommendation stands.
Open to public - none
Mr. Cartine – Why 2 different fences instead of one
continuous type of fencing? Mr.
McClellen – Chose chain link fence due to gating issues, chain link opens wider
than wood type fence. Mr. DiPiazza – Do
not understand why the synthetic fence cannot be located on 3 sides. Mr. Sullivan – Will agree to the 3 sides
with redwood synthetic and chain link in front of building.
Mr. Sullivan – Proposed use is less intense than other uses
that would be permitted in the zone.
Requesting a use variance since this is a unique use and not included in
the current zoning ordinance. Also,
seeking a variance for additional 1% impervious coverage. Along with preliminary and final site
plan. There will not be more than 16
employees on site. 7:30am-5:30pm
Mon-Fri hours of operation. No retail
repair on site, no customers on site, no signage on site. Propose additional landscaping along
Bader. Will trim the landscaping to the
east of the property to increase sight distance. Request one light pole to stay on 24 hours for security
purposes. The remaining lights are on
a timer and they go off at 1:30am and on at 5:30am. Truck route will be as testified to at the November hearing. Mr. Denzler – What about streetscape
lighting and sidewalks? Mr. Sullivan –
The applicant will install sidewalks if required, do not want to put in the
streetscape lighting and a resident testified that they do not want the
Public portion closed
Mr. Marinello – No site in town allows new or used outdoor
parking of cars. Have not heard
testimony on how the neighborhood would not be changed due to this use. Mr. Cartine – I believe this use is less
invasive than a heavy tractor trailer use that could be far worse than some
trucks moving some cars. Mr. Cartine –
With the fencing the cars would not be visible. Mr. Driscoll – This is a greener application of the property than
wholesale distribution. Mr. Cartine –
16 employees would be less of an impact than a heavy industrial use. Mr. Huelsebusch – The township engineer may
require additional right of way along Stiles Lane.
Motion to approve the application subject to all
stipulations described, sidewalks to be installed, streetscape lighting not to
be installed, synthetic fence on 3 sides, variance can be granted without
detriment to public good, lesser of a impact use than others permitted in the
zone, dedication of right of way subject to approval of the township engineer
made by: Cartine; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Kanoff, Driscoll,
Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello - No
Minutes of November 29, 2007 - Eligible: Kanoff, Driscoll,
Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Driscoll, Second by: Moore; Roll
& Assoc. – Trust for: $360, $90, $240, $840, $600
Denzler & Assoc – Trust for: $450, $90, $240, $120, $60, $60, $30
& Croland – O/E for: $210; Trust for: $120, $1,110.00, $270
Motion to approve made by: Kanoff, Second by: Driscoll, Roll
ZC18-07 Berte, M.
John – 18 Van Riper Ave. – B: 134, L: 3 – construction of an addition it
single family residence and deck, variance for rear setback of 32.26’ where 50’
required and maximum building coverage of 2,897 s.f. vs 2,420 s.f. Eligible: Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug,
Moore, DiPiazza – Approval Resolution
Mr. Cartine – Would like clarification of building coverage
issue being reduced to the extent of the reduction of the deck. Mr. Ackerman – Will revise
Motion to adopt as
amended made by: Hug; Second by:
Cartine; Roll call: Yes - Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore,
Michael – 49 Horseneck Rd. – B: 139, L: 4 – variance for front setback of
21.9’ (existing and proposed) where 50’ required for 2 story addition –
Eligible: Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello – Approval
Motion to adopt made
by: Hug; Second by: Cartine; Roll call: Yes – Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine,
Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
Associates – 43 Bellows Ln. – B: 41, L: 15 – request for 6 month extension
to 6/7/08 – Eligible: Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza,
Motion to adopt made
by: Hug; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Kanoff, Driscoll,
Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
Mr. Marinello – I assume this will be the last meeting that
Mr. Braden will be with us. He balanced
his interest as a homeowner and businessman to benefit the Township. He will be missed. W appreciate his efforts.
Discussion re: 2008
Budget – No comments
Discussion re: 2008
Meeting dates – The first meeting is January 3rd which is a
Discussion re: Draft Annual Report – No comments
ZC42-04 Nelson – 31 Sunset Ct. – B: 125.16, L: 8 – request for 6 month extension of
approvals to 6/3/08
Motion to approve
made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Dr.
Kanoff; Roll call: Unanimous
There being no
further business there was a motion to unanimously adjourn made by Mr. Hug,
Seconded by: Mr. Cartine
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of January 3, 2008.
Linda M. White, Sec.