ZBoA Minutes 9-5-07 Print E-mail




Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting


Stated for the record.


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.


Stated for the record

Swearing in of Professionals


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


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


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.



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


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 


                        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


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


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


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


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



Page 8



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


            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


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


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 7/5/07

Certified to 7/5/07

Certified to 5/3/06 & 7/5/07

Certified to 7/5/07

Certified to 5/3/06

Certified to 7/5/07

Certified to 7/5/07

Certified to 5/3/06 & 7/5/07

Certified to 7/5/07


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack