ZBoA Minutes 12-5-07 Print E-mail




Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting


Stated for the record.


Christopher Braden –Absent                          Thomas Buraszeski - Present

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 Denzler, Planner

                        Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer

                        Bruce Ackerman, Esq.


Stated for the record

Swearing in of Professionals


The following application was rescheduled to: 1-3-08 with new notice required:

ZAC38-06 Lynch, 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 BY: 12/6/07

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

ZSPP/FCD5-07 Dunkin 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 BY: 2/7/08

Page 2



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: 12/20/07

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

            A1 – 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 allowable slopes. 

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 area.

            A2 – 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. 

Page 3


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 the property. 

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


Page 4


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 application. 

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

ZSPP/CD4-07 Paul 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

Page 5


Present on behalf of the applicant:  Michael Sullivan, Esq.; Patrick McClellen, PE

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. 

            A3 - 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 streetscape lighting. 

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.

Page 6


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 call: Unanimous


            Bricker & Assoc. – Trust for: $360, $90, $240, $840, $600

            William Denzler & Assoc – Trust for: $450, $90, $240, $120, $60, $60, $30

            Shapiro & Croland – O/E for: $210; Trust for: $120, $1,110.00, $270

Motion to approve made by: Kanoff, Second by: Driscoll, Roll call: Unanimous


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, DiPiazza

ZC20-07 Perella, 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 Resolution

Motion to adopt made by: Hug; Second by: Cartine; Roll call: Yes – Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello

ZD27-05 DAB Associates – 43 Bellows Ln. – B: 41, L: 15 – request for 6 month extension to 6/7/08 – Eligible: Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello

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.

Page 7



Discussion re: 2008 Budget – No comments

Discussion re: 2008 Meeting dates – The first meeting is January 3rd which is a Thursday.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of January 3, 2008.


Linda M. White, Sec.


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack