|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER
5, 2007
Montville Municipal
Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular
Meeting
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated for the record.
ROLL CALL:
Christopher Braden – Present 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.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
Swearing in of Professionals
NEW BUSINESS
Ms. Grogaard stated that the use applications attorneys
agreed to allow the c variance to go forward first on the agenda.
ZAC38-06 Lynch -
B: 100.1, L: 9 – 36 Two Bridges Rd. – Appeal/Variance filing – rear setback
18.19’ vs 50’ required Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 9/6/07
Present on behalf of the applicant: Michael Rubin, Esq.;
Joseph Mianecki, PE, PP; Paul Lynch, applicant
Mr. Rubin – This is an application for an appeal of the
zoning officer’s decision as to a determination of the appropriateness of than
plan, and in the alternative, requesting a rear yard setback variance. This plan is the last of many plans developed
in the attempt to abide by the ordinances.
This plan is the best plan for the site. The house is located on a corner lot.
Mr. Paul Lynch, applicant – sworn
I am the father of the applicant and the builder of the
site. There is an existing home located
on the site. It is an older home which
we intend to demolish and rebuild a new home.
The front of the proposed home faces Berlin Lane. Historically, the house faces Two Bridges
Road and we wish for it to remain facing Two Bridges Rd. There is an entry door facing Two Bridges
and the garage doors but front entry way faces Berlin Lane and the driveway
swings around to Berlin Lane. Since there is the garage entry and another entry
door on Two Bridges we wish to call Two Bridges the front.
Mr. Mianecki, PE, PP – sworn
Exhibit
marked in:
A1 – plan showing existing and
proposed home
A2 – colored version of existing and
proposed home
Page 2
9/5/07
Mr. Mianecki – The existing home is non-conforming with the
front setback. Proposed home will meet
the front setback requirements. If the Board determines that the house shall
front on Two Bridges there will be no need for a variance. If the Board determines that the frontage is
Berlin Lane then a rear setback variance would be required. From an engineering perspective this is
the best layout and would be a home without variances. If Berlin Lane were the frontage than a rear
setback would be required and the building envelope would be smaller which would
not be in keeping with the neighborhood.
The proposed plan is the best for the property and the neighborhood.
A3 – 2002
aerial map of neighborhood
Mr. Denzler – The
first part of the application is an appeal of the zoning officer’s
decision. I agree with the township
that because of the shift of the driveway any protection would be lost. The existing house does not meet the
definition of the ordinance. This is
new development on the property so I agree that a rear yard setback is
required. Why is it important that the
house be reoriented to Berlin? The lot
width best fits toward Two Bridges Road.
Mr. Lynch – Berlin Lane is a new road, it conforms to the neighborhood
and the homes on Berlin Lane are more in line with the proposed home. Mr. Denzler – The proposed house is twice as
large as the existing house, how will the rear setback affect the neighboring
property, which would be there side yard.
Mr. Mianecki – The neighboring home would be at least 30’ from the
proposed home and the back yard of this house would be facing the rear yard of
the neighboring property. Mr. Denzler –
Since this is a rear yard there should be a minimum of 65’ from the neighboring
home where you indicate 30’. Mr.
Mianecki – The patio would be facing the back yard of the neighboring house,
not the actual house. Mr. Denzler – I
have a newer aerial that shows the other property that has been developed and
is not shown on Mr. Mianecki’s exhibit.
Board Exhibit 1 – aerial from Morris
County 2006
Mr. Huelsebusch –
What if you move the garage on the opposite side? Mr. Mianecki – Then the patio would be moved closer to the
existing neighboring home.
Open to public –
Mark Werheim – 4A
Berlin Lane - sworn
I live directly
behind this property. I get an enormous
amount of runoff from this property. I
am concerned with flooding on my property.
I hope the Board takes that into consideration.
Mr. Mianecki – There
will be onsite drywells to alleviate drainage concerns.
Mr. Rubin – We are
demolishing the existing home, which is in variance and will be creating a
conforming situation so we will be abiding by the ordinance. Mr. Ackerman – If you put the true front of
the house on Two Bridges than there would not be an issue. Mr. Buraszeski – At what point would he be
allowed to chose frontage? Mr. Denzler
– If it was a vacant property. Mr. Hug
– Concerned with the affect on the property next door and the runoff to the
other properties. Mr. Rubin – It should
not make a difference that this is not a vacant lot since the house will be
demolished.
Mr. Cartine – If you
built the front door where the garage doors are then there would not be an
issue. Mr. Hug – I am concerned with
the runoff and until I am sure that our professionals are convinced that there
will not be drainage problems, then I am not in favor of the application. Mr. Huelsebusch – I do not have enough
information to make a determination.
Motion to deny the appeal part of the application, the
town’s interpretation that this property does not qualify to designate it’s own
front yard made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Mr. Hug; Roll call: Mr. Buraszeski,
Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Braden
Page 3
9/5/07
The board suggested the
applicant comes back with additional drainage information at a later date.
The application was carried
with notice to 12/5/07 with an extension of time to act to 12/6/07.
TRACK 2
OLD BUSINESS
Mr. Buraszeski, Mr.
Hug & Mr. Moore certified to the 7/5/07 hearing; Mr. Braden
certified to the 5/3/06 & 7/5/07 hearings for the following application.
ZC18-03 Ptaszek - 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 - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski,
Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr.
Braden,
Mr. Moore,
Mr. DiPiazza,
Mr. Marinello ACT BY: 9/6/07
Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.;
Waldemar Ptaszek, Marc Walker, PE; Peter Steck, PP.
Peter Steck, PP – sworn
Exhibits
marked in:
A8 – Planning Analysis by Steck dated 7/5/07
A9 – aerial photo of property from
Morris County dated 5/05 with the proposal overlaid
on the plan
Mr. Steck – Reviewed the Planning Analysis for the
Board. Reviewed photos of properties in
the neighborhood showing the character of the other homes. 19 Rockledge has 4 levels. 17 Rockledge shows 3 levels on rear
façade. 20 Rockledge shows 3 levels on
side façade. According to the satellite
photograph the proposed home is smaller than the other homes in the area. I used the tax records for living area
though tax records do not include garages in their numbers.
Mr. Steck - This is a heavily wooded area. The houses have varying setbacks. There are downhill houses and uphill
houses. Many houses have driveways of
17-19% and have paved pads in front of the houses for parking when weather does
no allow for cars to go up driveways.
The applicant is proposing a safe driveway at 10% with no pad in
front. The driveway is not out of
character with the neighborhood.
Mr. Steck - There is a hodgepodge of different styles and
development formats in the neighborhood.
The dwelling will appear small from the street. The proposed home will
be done in clapboard and natural stone so would be in character with the other
homes in the area. The lot was produced
in 1928 before there was zoning. IN
1954 the lot size allowable was 10,000 s.f. and was upgraded in 1957 to 27,000
s.f. The lot is less than required but
is an existing condition. Variance
requested for front setback of 25.2’ from the right of way if it was a 50’
right of way or 33.7’ from existing right of way, lot size, waivers requested
due to
Page 4
9/5/07
steepness of land.
If the house was pushed back on the property it would meet the ordinance
but would have a 20% grade for driveway which is unsafe. The applicant tried to purchase additional
land to no avail. The benefit of a
safer driveway outweighs the detriments.
If a one-story building constructed it would look the same from the
street as the proposed. No substantial detriment
to public good and zoning ordinance.
Other variance requested is wall height of 9’ due to handrail, which is
proposed for safety reasons. The
handrail does not have the visual impact as the wall. The proposal complies with coverage ordinance.
Mr. Steck – The variances requested are lot size 18,564 s.f.
where 27,000 s.f. required; front setback of 25.2’ where 50’ required;
wall/fence height of 9’ where 6’ allowed; design exception driveway slopes
exceed 10%; development within steep slopes; slope regulation in
environmentally sensitive area. The
landscape plan submitted shows a masking of the retaining wall.
Mr. Denzler – How was your study area determined. Mr. Steck – The prime study area was
Rockledge Road because that is the area of the property, the secondary area was
Lake Shore Drive since structures similar to the proposed site. Mr. Denzler – Will the applicant agree to
50’ in the rear as an area to be undisturbed.
Mr. Schepis – The applicant has agreed to grant a conservation easement
to the township in that area.
Open to public
Mr. Pearce, Esq. for Mr. McNally, Mr. Kriegman & Mr.
Mikoski
Mr. Pearce – Mr. Steck did you do an analysis of the size of
the neighboring home as it relates to the size of their lots. Mr. Steck – No, I don’t remember a request
for the size of the lots but the lots are depicted on A9 of my report. Mr. Pearce – What was the area of
disturbance from the 1988 approval to the present as requested by the Board
Engineer? Mr. Steck – I did not testify
to that so I did not do an analysis.
Mr. Pearce stated that Mr. Mikowski is an expert on the
testimony he is to give this evening as well as being the property owner next
door.
Mr. Mikowski – previously sworn
Exhibit
O-1 – comparison of the house designs
and site planning data from 1998, 2005 and 2007
Applications done by Mr. Mikowski
O-2 – satellite site image of
proposed home view from the south
Mr. Mikowski – Compared the plans of the 1988 plan and the
current plan, the disturbed area is greatly larger than the 1988 version. In 1988 the driveway was steeper and the
house was further down the hill. The
current proposal has retaining walls elevating the house further. 1988 application had 1retaining wall. The 1988 application shows removal of few
trees where this proposal shows removal of many trees. Using O1 Mr. Mikowski compared the height
and mass of the rear elevation of the 1988 application and the present
application. The proposed house will
tower over the 2 adjacent homes. The
proposed house is massive compared to the existing homes. The 1988 proposal had fewer disturbances to
the property and the home would be less massive. I proposed to sell part of my property to Mr. Ptaszek on the
condition that the home built would be more like the McNally home. We could not reach an agreement because
applicant would not agree to a reasonable design.
Mr. Denzler – I have not received this exhibit previously
and would like to do a memo form as to the methodology of the exhibit. Mr. Huelsebusch – The exhibit does not show
accurate slope. Mr. Mikowski – The
County does not have that information.
Mr. Marinello – There are additional questions that need to be answered
at the next meeting. Mr. Hug – I would
like to see dimensions on the CAD exhibits.
I would
Page 5
9/5/07
also like to see photos of the houses along Rockledge from
the front. Mr. Marinello – I would like
testimony on the conservation easement suggested this evening and if that
mitigates any concerns.
Mr. Schepis – None of the exhibits are signed or sealed
since you are testifying as an expert though we did not received your
curriculum vitae. What are you an
expert in? How did you come up with
computer generated drawings? Was the
1988 plan done by and architect or an engineer and was there a septic system on
the site? The vacant lot next door is
held in a LLC why have you not merged the lots so you can maintain your
buffer? Was your purpose in establishing
a LLC to maintain the integrity of the lot so that you can one day build on it?
The application was carried with notice preserved to:
12/5/07 with an extension of time to act to 12/6/07
TRACK 3
Mr. Buraszeski, Mr.
Hug & Mr. Moore certified to the 7/5/07 hearing; Mr. Braden certified to
the 5/3/06 & 7/5/07 hearings for the following application.
ZSPP/FDC10-89-29-06
Hook Mountain Care Center – Hook Mountain Rd. - B: 159, L: 4 -
preliminary/final site plan/use variance/bulk variances for construction of a 4
story, 75,538 s.f. Assisted living facility containing 120 nursing beds and 60-
residential health care beds. Use variances required for height and use not
permitted in zone. Bulk relief
requested for maximum building coverage, total lot impervious coverage, wall
heights and signage, along with disturbance of steep slopes and off-street
parking setbacks. Carried with notice
from 7/5/07 – Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr.
Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr.
Braden,
Mr. Moore,
Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello ACT BY: 9/6/07
Present on behalf of the applicant: Joseph Vena, Esq.; Ted
Mirkhani, CEO of proposed facility; Adam Remick, PE
Mr. Vena – I plan to have the witnesses that were asked
questions at the last hearing respond this evening. Unfortunately Mr. Mirkani had to leave so we have to leave his
answers for another meeting.
Adam Remick , PE– previously sworn
Discussed the proposed lighting on site. Propose traditional shoebox fixtures. The property is lower than the other
properties so the impact of the lights to the neighboring properties will be limited. Propose 250 watt fixtures with a completely
concealed light source. Cannot be
viewed from the side of the fixture.
Propose full cutoff fixture, which will eliminate any light above a 90
degree plane and is the most restrictive fixture developed. The fixture is 15’ high from the base. We are below the spillage requirements on
the property with the exception of the entrance driveway.
Mr. Remick – We propose A substantial amount of evergreens
along the residential properties, previously proposed 5-6’ planting height but
have now decided to plant 7-8’ high evergreens along northern and western
boarders of the property. Propose
multiple layers of trees in some areas.
Open to discuss streetscape issue further but do not see any properties
that this site would tie into in the area.
Would comply with any security measures that the police department might
deem necessary during construction.
Mr. Remick - The access easements along the office park and
Windsor drive are under discussion with the fire department to put in grass
pavers instead of pavement. We will
comply with the fire departments
Page 6
9/5/07
recommendations as it relates to those access
easements. The main access drive is not
within the flood hazard area so do not see any problems with flooding blocking
access to the site. The improvements
currently on the lot will be removed.
NOTE: Mr. Hug left the meeting
Mr. Remick – I have been to the site on numerous occasions
before and after the fire so I am aware of current improvements on the
site. Row of large pine trees to the
westerly portion of the property will remain and the improvements can be
constructed without impact to the root structure of these trees, there may be
retaining walls required during construction to protect root structure. We do not propose a wall or fence around the
entire property, providing dense planting area to demarcate the limits of the
property.
NOTE: Mr. Hug returns
Mr. Remick – Driveway proposed is pulled away from the north
side of the property away from the residences and added additional
vegetation. Building also to be moved
closer to commercial property and will be approximately 10’ lower than
residential properties. Snow removal
will be a contract firm and will be done in accordance with any other
commercial site. The snow is to be
piled away from vegetative areas.
Proposing a breakaway chain on the access driveways but it is still
being addressed with the fire department and first aid squad.
Mr. Marinello requested permission from the Board to go past
10:30PM. Approval granted
unanimously. Mr. Marinello indicated
that Mr. Hug will listen to the portion of the tape that he missed and will
certify prior to the completion of this application. There are several questions that need to be answered; the
engineer has answered the questions directed to him. The remaining questions will be answered in the future by other
professionals.
Michael Donnelly, Architect – sworn - reviewed credentials
The building steps up on the site. The building is 4 levels.
A2 – 4
floor plans/2 elevations
Mr. Donnelly - Reviewed A2 for the Board. 2nd level is the main entrance to
the building. All deliveries are to be
in the horseshoe area and any fumes will affect our residence before it goes
off site so we will know before anyone if there is a problem with fumes. The building steps in and out to reduce the
apparent scale of the building. It will
be a fireproof building. The 4 story
façade location is in the rear courtyard by the commercial site. The façade along Hook Mountain Road is 3
stories all the way across. Propose
differing roof heights to make the building look more residential. Propose a brick building; newer homes in the
area are made of brick.
Mr. Ackerman – Explained the issue of res judicata as it
relates to this application. Typically
it comes up when an application has been denied and then an applicant comes
back before the Board with something nearly the same and it is up to the Board
to determine if the applicant can proceed.
This case is the opposite. This
site has a prior approval where the Board made certain decisions and even if it
expired and it was exactly the same case then the Board can be bound by it and
it may get an automatic approval. This
proposal is substantially the same. The
board must consider if the changes from the prior case are minimal. There was a prior application with the same
use. If they came back with the exact
same application the board would be bound to grant the approval. The board must look at if there were
substantial changes in zone from the last application and if the changes
requested were substantial.
Page 7
9/5/07
Mr. Marinello requested questions for the architect. Mr. Buraszeski – How much light will reflect
back up from the pavement? What about
lighting on building itself? How will
it affect adjoining properties? The 4
story elevation, how much will it be above the Windsor drive properties. Will there be diesel trucks operating at
night which will affect the residents?
How significantly different is this application from the last since I
was not here at the previous application.
Geoff Evans, Esq. – Why are the A/C units located through
the wall units and what is the noise effect from these units? What is the size of the current existing
footprint as it relates to the proposed?
Is there a design or demarcation for employee parking? Pedestrian access to the property was never
answered.
Mr. Denzler – I want to see height calculations.
Open to public –
Richard La Blanc 14 Windsor Dr - Previously sworn
How do 7’ trees protect the properties that are 10’ higher
than the property? How many accesses
are required for a facility of this nature?
Brad Rothbeuler – 17 Windsor Dr - sworn
Will medical waste be stored inside or outside the
building? Will the garbage be stored
outside and how often will it be removed?
Deborah La Blanc 14 Windsor Dr – previously sworn
Believe that the conditions have changed significantly on
site. There was a subdivision approved
in the area which changes the conditions of the area.
Helen Chan 18 Windsor Dr. - sworn
Where will cooking oil be dispensed, through vents? Concerned with security issues due to the
operation.
Kurt Killinowski - sworn
Want to know if security concerns are worked out with the
school since it is so close to Woodmont Rd.
Ms. La Blanc – Are the current conditions of the property
valid in the paperwork? Was the property abandoned in 1996 changing the nature
and the use of the property?
Discussion ensued on the possibility of a special
meeting. Mr. Vena requested more time
and not skipping months, or would like a special meeting. Mr. Ackerman – You would have to re-notice
if a special can be done before December and a special meeting would be at your
client’s expense. Mr. Vena – I would
re-notice. Mr. Vena – Last week we
scheduled a meeting with the residences in the area and only 1 person
came.
Mr. Cartine – We have one meeting a month and many major
applications pending before this board currently. What makes this application more important than the other
applications pending?
Mr. Marinello – We will pursue with the land use office will
look into scheduling of a special meeting, it is not always easy to get the
room and all the professionals and board members together but will try.
Carried with notice preserved to 12/5/07 with an extension
of time to12/6/07
OTHER BUSINESS
NONE
Page 8
9/5/07
MINUTES:
Minutes of August 2, 2007 - Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff,
Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Braden, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski, Second by: Kanoff; Roll
call: Unanimous
INVOICES:
Shapiro & Croland – O/E for:
$288
Bricker & Assoc. – Trust for: $720, $120, $720, $420,
$240, $1,200, $210, $240, $360, $480,
$360, $480, $420, $600
William
Denzler & Assoc – Trust for: $90, $450, $30, $270, $60, $210, $210, $360,
$450, $210
Motion to approve made by: Kanoff, Second by: Driscoll, Roll
call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
ZC05-06 Lazo - B:
111, L: 12 - 32 Alpine Rd – demolition
of existing dwelling and construction of a new dwelling – front setback 11.5’
vs 45’ to Alpine Rd. and 11’ vs 45’ to right-of-way/rear setback of 22.4’ vs
50’ – Eligible: Dr. Kanoff, Mr.
Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Braden, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Moore, Mr.
Marinello - Approval Resolution
Motion to adopt made
by: Buraszeski; Second by: Cartine;
Roll call: Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Braden,
Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello
CORRESPONDENCE
ZC1-99 Strickland – 4 Church Ln. - B: 100, L: 15 –
Approved 12/1/99 – no changes to zoning ordinance since approved - request for
extension to 8/1/08
Mr. Denzler- I
reviewed the resolution and recommend that the extension be granted. There have been no substantial change to neighborhood.
Motion to: grant
extension of approvals to 8/1/08 made by: Kanoff; Second by: Driscoll; Roll
call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr.
Braden, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello; Abstain - Mr. Hug
ZC11-03-18-05 Addval
Corp. – B: 40, L: 31 – 6 Jacksonville Rd. – request for extension of
approvals until October 1, 2007
The Board Secretary
indicated that the applicant received approval on September 7, 2005 and were
granted an extension to February 6, 2007.
Inadvertently, the applicant failed to apply for a building permit so
they are requesting an extension of approvals to October 1, 2007 so that they
can file an application for a building permit.
Motion to grant
extension to 10/1/07 made by: Hug; Second by: Cartine; Roll call: Unanimous
Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr.
Hug, Mr. Braden, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello
Respectfully submitted,
Jane Grogaard
Recording Secretary
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of October 3, 2007.
_______________________________________
Linda M. White, Sec.
Certified to
5/3/06 & 7/5/07
Certified to
5/3/06 & 7/5/07
|
