ZBoA Minutes 1-3-07 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF JANUARY 3, 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

REORGANIZATION

Appointment of Temporary Chairman – Motion to appoint Mr. Buraszeski as Temporary Chair made by: Mr. Marinello; Second by: Mr. Driscoll.  Roll call: Unanimous.

Appointment of Chairman – Motion to appoint James Marinello made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Cartine, Roll call: Unanimous.   Moved to close nominations: Mr. Driscoll, Second by Mr. Braden Roll call: Unanimous

Appointment of Vice Chairman – Motion to appoint Maury Cartine made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous.  Moved to close nominations: Mr. Driscoll, Second by Mr. Braden Roll call: Unanimous

Appointment of Secretary & Assistant Secretary – Motion to appoint Linda White as Secretary and Jane Grogaard as Assistant Secretary made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Driscoll, Roll call: Unanimous

Appointment of Recording Secretary - Motion to appoint Jane Grogaard as Recording Secretary made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Cartine, Roll call: Unanimous

Appointment of Board of Adjustment Attorney & execution of Professional Service Agreement – Motion to appoint Bruce Ackerman, Esq. from Shapiro & Croland made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski, Roll: Unanimous

Appointment of Board of Adjustment Engineer & execution of Professional Service Agreement – Motion to appoint R. Henry Huelsebusch, PE from Bricker and Associates made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Buraszeski, Roll call: Unanimous

Appointment of Board of Adjustment Planner & execution of Professional Service Agreement – Motion to appoint William Denzler, PP from William Denzler & Associates made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Buraszeski, Roll call: Unanimous


Page 2

1/3/07

Designation of Meeting Nights for Board of                 Adjustment as follows:

                1st Wednesday of every month @ 8PM

January 3, 2007                                     July 5, 2007**

                                February 7, 2007                                    August 1, 2007

March 7, 2007                                       September 5, 2007

                                March 19, 2007*                                                October 3, 2007

April 4, 2007                                          November 7, 2007

May 2, 2007                                           December 5, 2007

June 6, 2007                                           January 2, 2008

                               

*3rd Monday of the month (additional meeting)

**1st Thursday of the month due to holiday  

Motion by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Cartine, Roll call: Unanimous

Designation of Official Newspaper for Legal Purposes

a)The Daily Record & The Citizen of Morris County

b)  The Star Ledger

Motion by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Buraszeski, Roll call: Unanimous

               

Adoption of By-Laws

Motion to adopt bylaws made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Buraszeski, Roll call: Unanimous

Adoption of Annual Report

Motion to adopt made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Buraszeski, Roll call: Unanimous

Mr. Braden made a motion to appoint Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Hug and Mr. Marinello to the Invoice Review Subcommittee; Second by: Mr. Driscoll.  Roll call: Unanimous

Mr. Hug made a motion to appoint Mr. Cartine, Mr. Braden and Mr. Marinello to the Water Conservation Subcommittee; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski.  Roll call: Unanimous

Swearing in of Professionals

The following application was carried with notice to 3/7/06 at the applicant’s request:

ZC18-03 Ptaszek - 21 Rockledge Rd. – B: 13, L: 22 – construction of a single-family residence – variances requested 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; grade changes of 1’ within 5’ of the property line; slope regulation in environmentally sensitive area – Carried w/notice from 5/3/06 Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Braden, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello                                                                                                                                                                               ACT BY: 3/8/07


Page 3

1/3/07

The following application was carried with notice required to 3/7/06 at the applicant’s request:

ZBC11-06 Abbott – 80A Stonybrook Rd.– B: 3, L:14.04 – interpretation pertaining to gravel as impervious surface/impervious coverage of 32,206 s.f. vs 13,300 s.f. allowed addition to single family home                                                                                                           ACT BY: 3/8/07

OLD BUSINESS

NOTE: Mr. Marinello & Mr. Braden stepped down on the following application:

ZSPP/FCD25-06 Lake Valhalla Club – Vista Rd. – B: 11, L: 29; B: 20, L:1 & B: 20.01, L: 1 – preliminary/final site plan/Use & Bulk relief and design waivers for expansion of

existing facility – Use not permitted in the zone – maximum building coverage of 7,690 s.f. vs 6,650 s.f. – maximum impervious coverage of 134,246 s.f. (123,967 s.f. existing) vs 13,330 s.f. – Carried from 11/1/06 & 12/6/06.  Eligible: Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, DiPiazza                                                                                                              ACT BY: 1/19/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; David Egarian, PE; Anthony Garrett, PP AIA

Mr. Cartine chaired this hearing.

Mr. DiPiazza certified to the previous hearings on this matter.

Mr. Schepis – At the last meeting we concluded testimony on the engineer.  We left off with questions of Mr. Garrett and the Board Professionals.

Mr. Garrett – Previously sworn

 Reviewed variances as D variance for expansion of existing nonconforming use, C variance for impervious coverage and building coverage which are diminimis requests due to size of the property.  The existing building footprint is about 7,500 s.f. and we are proposing a 1,500 s.f. addition to the building.  This is a functional and aesthetic improvement to the building.  We are advancing the purposes of planning, the building will be safer, the building will be sprinkled and the kitchen will be updated.  We are increasing the building and impervious coverage by .1% or .2% over existing.  The gravel parking has existed for many years.  The lighting will make the area safer.  There is no existing lighting in the parking lot.  The neighborhood was built around the country club.  We are preserving open space.  There will be adequate light, air and open space to the neighborhood.

Mr. Denzler – How can the club control the parking with several events going on at one time (i.e. tennis, swimming, parties) since the lodge area is being expanded?  Mr. Garrett – The members are aware of any events going on at the club and are dissuaded against using the main club house parking.  They are allowed to use the remote parking areas.  Mr. Denzler – The plan has been revised to indicate the crosswalk as requested, however, it is located in the middle of the exit drive, can that be located elsewhere?  Mr. Garrett – We will re-locate the crosswalk.  Mr. Denzler – Reviewed the variance and waivers for the Board.  There are waivers requested from site lighting standards, parking space size, pavement, and parking setback.  Mr. Huelsebusch – You had previously agreed to a valet parking plan to be submitted and approved for events that might exceed the parking on site.  Mr. Garrett – Correct, I believe a drawing was submitted.  Mr. Huelsebusch – I have not seen the plan.  Mr. Garrett – I defer to the engineer.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Did you receive a closure permit for the tank removal?  Mr. Garret – Yes.  Mr. Hug – Did you add a pole by the tennis court?  Mr. Garrett – Yes. 


Page 4

1/3/07

Mr. Hug – Have you considered paving the parking lot?  Mr. Garrett – The main parking field is paved, the expansion will be paved, and we are asking to keep the gravel area near the tennis court to remain.  Mr. Hug – Asked about installing proper sized spaces for the lot.  Mr. Garrett – The current parking spaces are even smaller than what is proposed.  A 9’x 18’ spot is more than acceptable for this use.   Mr. Hug – Would rather see larger spaces on site even if it reduced the number of parking spaces.  Mr. Schepis – 9’ x 18’ may be less than standard according to the township ordinances but the DCA allows for this size space in a residential area.  Mr. Denzler – 9’x 18’ spaces are acceptable from a planning standard for this use.   Mr. Buraszeski – Is the membership all Montville residents?  Mr. Garrett – 90% of the membership is from Montville.  Mr. Buraszeski – Do you have to be a member to use the clubhouse?  Mr. Garrett – No.  Mr. Driscoll – How do you preclude people from using the parking in the summer when there is a wedding planned and people want to swim?  Mr. Garrett – We schedule weddings off season.

Mr. Cartine – Explain what the additional building coverage will be used for?  Mr. Garrett – To house the food prep area in the kitchen.  Mr. Cartine – So it is not allowing for additional space for more people to use the club?  Mr. Garrett – No.  Mr. Cartine – Ancillary use for food service?  Mr. Garrett – Yes.  Will there be a 55% less runoff with the installation of the seepage pits?  Mr. Garrett – That was the testimony of the engineer. 

Open to public – none – closed

Motion to approve the application along with design waivers, benefit of controlling runoff, addition of fire sprinklers will make the site safer, the building and impervious coverage requests were minimal, increased lighting to parking lot is beneficial, this will be a benefit to the public good, no detriment to the land use law, subject to relocation of the crosswalk, all recommendation of the professionals made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Hug;

Roll call:  Yes – Mr. Hug, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Cartine

Mr. Garret requested that the board recommend, should we meet all the conditions of approval according to the Land Use offices, to be allowed to receive footing and foundation permits prior to the adoption of the resolution.  We have a limited schedule to complete the job.  Mr. Ackerman – The board can recommend but it is just a recommendation.  Mr. Garrett – I understand. 

Motion to recommend release of footing and foundation permits prior to the adoption of the resolution with the Land Use Administrators approval made by: Mr. Buraszeski, Second by: Mr. Hug; Roll call: Unanimous

NOTE: Mr. Marinello & Mr. Braden returned.  Mr. Marinello resumed the chair.

                                               

ZMS/D04-06 Raykov– 778 Rt. 202 – B: 110, L: 1 – certificate of pre-existing non-conformity, expansion of non-conforming use and minor site plan; accessory structure setback from principal building .5’ vs 10’; accessory structure rear setback 2.5’ where 5’ required - carried w/notice from 11/1/06.  New notice acceptable -  Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Braden, Mr. DiPiazza; Mr. Moore; Mr. Marinello                ACT BY: 1/4/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Raymond Raykov, applicant; Joseph Mianecki, PE

Mr. DiPiazza certified to the previous hearings on this matter.

Mr. Schepis – We appeared before the Board on December 6th where the board suggested that the proposed storage container should be replaced with some other structure.  The Board has received modified plans.


Page 5

1/3/07

Mr. Mianecki – previously sworn

Reviewed revised plan of 12/19/06 for the Board. 

                A2 – colorized version of plan last revised 12/19/06

Mr. Mianecki – A storage shed to replace all outdoor storage is now proposed.  8’ x 17.5’ storage shed proposed with a rear setback of 2.5’.  There is an above-ground waste oil tank proposed.  There will be a pipe inside the building where the oil will be dumped into the tank.  The vinyl fence behind the building has been shown to be removed. 

Open to public - none

Mr. Denzler – How will the oil tank be unloaded and how frequently will it be unloaded?  Mr. Mianecki – It will be unloaded as needed, depending on number of oil changes done.  A truck will come on site and a hose will pump the tank.  Mr. Denzler – Is there any safety features associated with the tank for spillage?  Mr. Mianecki – There will be secondary spillage containment.  Mr. Denzler – I do not see details on the plan.  Mr. Mianecki – Mr. Raykov was to get me the details of the tank but it will provide for secondary containment.  Mr. Denzler – There was a request at the last meeting for the parking spaces to be striped has that been done?  Mr. Mianecki – I put together an exhibit.

                A3 – parking exhibit prepared by Mr. Mianecki

Mr. Ackerman – With regards to spill containment, will there be any type of underneath coverage and the gallonage of the tank proposed for the secondary spillage container.  Mr. Mianecki – The spillage container will be 275 gallons which is the same size of the oil container.  Mr. Huelsebusch – It is my understanding that the spillage container be 150% of the oil container.  Mr. Mianecki – There will be a roof over it and the tank is double walled.  Mr. Huelsebusch – You will still have to have containment.  Mr. Ackerman – Make sure it is at least equal to the oil container.

Mr. Mianecki – I have indicated that there will be 25 display spaces and 5 other spaces for employees and customers.  This puts the plan in conformance with what I believe was approved by the township committee.  Mr. Huelsebusch – What is the degree of separation from the parking spaces to Rt. 202 it looks like a foot or less.  Mr. Mianecki – About a foot.  Mr. Huelsebusch – I believe his is unsafe.  Mr. Ackerman – Morris County Planning Board requested to review the setback regarding dedication in that area.  Mr. Schepis – They had asked for the centerline and setback line on the plan, we have sent it to the surveyor to review.  There is really nothing to give as it relates to additional right of way. 

Mr. Denzler – Concerned with the safety of the spots near Rt. 202 and the safety of the customers to the site.  Mr. Denzler reviewed the variances and waivers requested by the applicant.  Mr. Denzler – Is 8’ x 18’ spots adequate for the display vehicles?  Mr. Mianecki – Yes.  Right now they are stacked so the new layout makes it easy to get the cars in and out as long as there is space to put them.  Mr. Denzler – Is this going to be a repair facility?  Mr. Mianecki – Yes.  Mr. Huelsebusch – I have concerned with it being a repair facility, if this site is sold there may be an increased repair use and that would be unsafe.  There is very little area between edge of pavement and the parking area.  Mr. Mianecki – This plan was to make it in compliance with the previous approval.  Mr. Huelsebusch – The difference with this plan and the previously approved plan was that previously the cars were to be parked behind the building and if you drew a straight line across the front of the building it would not be completely in compliance with the previous approval.  Mr. Mianecki – It is in compliance with the previous approval as it relates to the number of parking spaces approved.  Mr. Ackerman – If the previous approval stated that the cars had to be parked behind the building than this application would not be in compliance with that approval.  Mr. Huelsebusch – It was indicated on the previous application that was approved and a copy of that application was submitted with this request. 


Page 6

1/3/07

Mr. Huelsebusch – What will be stored in the shed?  Mr. Raykov – Used tires and parts to cars.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Nothing that would be considered hazardous?  Mr. Raykov – Do not know.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Nothing hazardous would be allowed to be stored in that shed.  Mr. Raykov agreed.    Mr. Ackerman – According to the approval from the township committee, no more than 25 vehicles for sale shall be on site at any one time, all such vehicles shall be parked behind the front building line.  Mr. Cartine – The documents submitted about vehicles sold on site, there was not information about the number of vehicles repaired on site, is that correct?  Mr. Ackerman – The information submitted indicated that the vehicles were purchased as salvage and rehabilitated in the repair shop for sale.  Mr. Cartine – None of these are repairs only for customers that come to the site for a repair.  Mr. Raykov – No.  Mr. Cartine – Do you own another place of business?  Mr. Raykov – I own property in Ringwood which is my construction site, I do not sell used cars anywhere else.  Mr. Cartine – Some of this information doesn’t show the cars were purchased from RRR Autos and there are some without dates.  There is no sales information just a title where RRR is not indicated in the chain of title.  Mr. Marinello – Do you have any other proofs on the repair only part of the application?  Mr. Cartine – Is this a corporation?  Mr. Raykov – This is a privately owned business.  Mr. Cartine – Do you file a schedule C when you submit your tax returns?  Mr. Raykov – Yes.    Mr. Cartine – If you submitted your schedule C then we can see what the sale rate on the property is.  Dr. Kanoff – The parking spaces against the road are unsafe, can that be changed?  Mr. Mianecki – I was not aware that the township council did not allow any parking in front of the building and that would have to be up to the applicant to decide. 

Mr. Hug – Why do you need so many parking spaces when it looks like over the past few years there has been only about 30 cars repaired and sold on site?  The parking lot as shown is not safe, would like to see a reduction of parking on site.  Mr. Marinello – The goal here is that the property was cited and needs to be cleaned up, keeping in mind that this is a county road and safety of the site.  The challenge here is to get back to the goals for this property.  Mr. Buraszeski – Would the applicant could soften the site with landscaping that would make the site more aesthetically pleasing. 

The application was carried with notice to 3/7/07 with an extension of time to act to 3/8/07.

NEW BUSINESS

ZCD28-06 Lignac – 18 Glen Terr – B: 9, L: 13 – Use & Bulk relief – existing dwelling to remain during construction of a single family dwelling/slope disturbance.  Notice Acceptable           

                                                                                                                                ACT BY: 1/23/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Alex Lignac, applicant; Frank Matarazzo, PE

Mr. Matarazzo, PE -sworn

Mr. Matarazzo reviewed the site for the board. The existing dwelling has a front setback of 5’ where 50’ required from the right of way line and a side setback of 40.6’.  There is a parking area located at the southwest area of the lot off Glenn Terrace. There is no garage for the existing dwelling.  The house is serviced by septic and well.  Recently sewers have been installed.  Propose to tie into the sewers.  The lot is steep.   The majority of the site is in slopes in excess of 15%.  Propose to construct a new dwelling to the rear of the existing dwelling and then will demolish the existing dwelling prior to certificate of occupancy. 

                                Exhibit A1 – colorized site plan that was submitted previously to the board.

Mr. Matarazzo – The new house will be about 70’ from the center line of Glenn Terrace. The new house will be conforming to the setback requirements along with building and impervious coverage requirements.  The applicant intends to build a modular house so construction time would be less than stick built house so the 2 houses would only be on the site for about 2 months.  Mr. Matarazzo reviewed the slope deviations


Page 7

1/3/07

for the board.  There is no slope less than 15% in the driveway area.  We will install the turnaround as requested by the Board engineer.

Mr. Matarazzo - We will install a drywell that will service the new house until the old house is taken down.  We can accommodate the site triangle as the engineer requested after the existing house is removed.  Glenn Terrace is a narrow, steep, winding road and the cars typically drive less than the speed limit.  The proposed driveway is the typical size as the surrounding area. 

Open to public – none

Mr. Denzler – Is the steep slope disturbance because of the existing house remaining during construction?  If the existing house was demolished first would there be less of a slope disturbance?  Mr. Matarazzo – The house was placed where it would meet the setbacks, if placed in the same location of the existing house then we would need more variances.  Mr. Denzler- Does the lot area include the right of way area?  Mr. Matarazzo – No.  Mr. Denzler – Are you going to dedicate additional right of way since existing house to be demolished?  Mr. Schepis – We received DEP approvals since we are in the Highlands with the requirements that the property lines do not change.  I have discussed this with the Township Attorney and we will give an easement across the property to the town so that the lot lines do not move.  Mr. Ackerman – If the board approves the application the dedication will be required but if the Township Committee agrees to make it an easement then and easement will be acceptable.  Mr. Denzler – Bonding will be required for demolition of the existing dwelling.  Mr. Schepis agreed. 

Mr. Huelsebusch – Just so the Board is aware, my parents owned this house for 14 year and I did live in the house.  There are no speed limits signs on Glenn Terrace that says it is 25 miles per hour.  There is not enough site distance for the existing or proposed driveway.  Mr. Mattarazzo discussed site triangle but that is not the same as site distance.  I do not believe site distance could be satisfied on this lot.  I am concerned with blasting on site.  Mr. Matarazzo – It is the applicant’s desire to live in the existing house during construction.  We are not sure if blasting will be required.  Mr. Marinello – Can that house be safely occupied if blasting is going on?  Mr. Matarazzo – There will be a pre-blast survey.  Mr. Huelsebusch – If approved it should be conditioned upon a detailed soil erosion control plan to be approved by myself or the Township Engineer.  Recommend safety fencing be installed along the driveway.  Mr. Schepis agreed. 

Mr. Marinello – How important is the setback as opposed to the importance of steep slopes?  The houses along Glenn Terrace all vary in setbacks.  Concerned with the safety of the occupancy of the existing house during construction.  Suggest the applicant and the professionals speak over the next month.  Mr. Braden – Have you checked with the modular home company to see if they will even be able to access the property?  Mr. Driscoll – What is the time period between the house being built and removing the existing house? 

Due to time constraints the application was carried with notice to March 7, 2007, with an extension of time to act to 3/8/07.

NOTE: Mr. Buraszeski stepped down on the following application:

ZC8-06 Juniper Creek – B: 100, L: 9 – 6 Berlin Ln. – demolition of existing dwelling and

construction of a new single-family dwelling – front setback to unnamed right of way 17.27’

proposed (6.7’ existing) where 45’ required                Notice Acceptable                ACT BY: 1/4/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Gary Needleman, Esq.; Marc Walker, PE

Mr. Needleman – Applicant proposes to demolish the existing single family dwelling and build a new dwelling.  Variances requested are front setback of 17.27’ where 6.7’ exists and 45’ required.


Page 8

1/3/07

Marc Walker, PE - sworn

The lot is undersized. There is an existing dwelling and a detached garage.  The unnamed street services lot 6.  Prior to the redevelopment of Berlin Lane there was only 3 structures in this area.  There a currently all new homes built across the street.  We meet the building coverage and impervious coverage requirements.

                Exhibit marked in A1 – colorized version of plan previously given to the board.

Mr. Walker - The lot is in the R-20 zone and are currently undersized for the lot area requirements.  All the homes in the area have 2-3 car garages.  We propose a dwelling that best fits the lot.  We meet the side setbacks with the proposed structure.   This is a corner lot.  The unnamed street is actually driveway access to the house next door.  We reduced the impervious coverage from what exists with the proposed dwelling approximately 700 s.f.   The setback from the unnamed street is being increased from what exists.  We will comply with Mr. Huelsebusch report but would like to discuss #1.  He would like the circular access removed.  We will remove if requested but the loop makes sense since unnamed road only accesses one lot.  Mr. Denzler – Is there adequate room in the back to increase the front setback?  Mr. Walker – We can shift the house back 2’ without creating a rear setback variance.  Mr. Denzler- What about reducing the house by 1’?  Mr. Walker – We would agree.  Mr. Denzler – Continue to recommend the driveway to the unnamed street be removed. 

Mr. Huelsebusch – There is a small wall existing on the unnamed street where you propose the driveway so that could not be built as shown.  Still suggest that it be removed as does the Township Engineer.  All roof runoff shall be routed to Berlin Lane.  Mr. Walker – Yes, and we are reducing the impervious coverage on site to help with drainage.

Open to public – none

  Mr. Hug – You have an undersized lot and you are putting up a house that is larger than any house in the area.  You are building to the extent of the envelope and not taking into consideration a future owner wanting a deck.  All the other houses in the area have decks.  They would have to come back to this board for a variance based on an existing condition that this board created.  Concerned with a house of this size on an undersized lot.  I believe a smaller house should be put up there.  What is the maximum building coverage you can have on a 20,000 s.f. lot?  Mr. Walker – Approximately 2,800 s.f.  Mr. Hug - Then we are creating a situation where if the home owner wanted a deck he would have to go for a variance. 

Mr. Cartine – How much impervious coverage are  you asking for?  Mr. Walker – The driveway will be made smaller since the loop is not favorable so the homeowner can have a patio.  Mr. Walker – We are allowed 4,200 s.f. of impervious coverage and we are requesting 3,200 s.f.

Mr. Marinello – Can you explain the unknown street?  Mr. Denzler – It is essentially used for a driveway.  Mr. Driscoll – Since this is a spec home and no one is living in it why can’t you build a house that does not max out the lot.   Mr. Needleman – We are talking about a 2,500 s.f. house which would fit in with a neighborhood of newer homes.  Mr. Walker- If we had to shrink the house it would be less appealing. 

Closed to public

Mr. Cartine – The y have done a pretty good job on setting the house as it relate to the setbacks.  I think this is as good as it gets on an undersized lot. 

Motion to approve the application subject to moving the house back 2’ and all recommendations of the Board Professionals made by: Mr. Moore; Seconded by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call: Yes - Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Braden; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore; Mr. DiPiazza; Mr. Marinello; No - Mr. Hug


Page 9

1/3/07

NOTE: Mr. Braden left the meeting

NOTE: Mr. Buraszeski stepped down on the following application:

ZC20-06 Apple Creek – 4 Berlin Ln..– B: 100.1, L: 8 – front setback 17.37’ vs 45’ to unnamed

right of way and 42’ to Berlin Ln./rear setback 23.10’ vs 50’ for construction of a new home 

Notice Acceptable                                                                                            ACT BY: 1/4/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Gary Needleman, Esq.; Marc Walker, PE

Mr. Needleman – This is a vacant lot, the applicant wishes to build a single family house.   Requesting a variance from front setback of 17.37’ vs 45’ to unnamed right of way and 42’ to Berlin Ln along with a rear setback 23.10’ vs 50’.  The size of the house will be reduced to conform with  the maximum building coverage of 1,930 s.f.

Marc Walker, PE – sworn

We are constructing a home on an undersized lot of 9,301 s.f. where 20,000 s.f. is required.  There is a limited building envelope.  We are proposing the same house from the previous application.  We have centered the house on the lot. 

                Exhibit A1 – highlighted plan previously submitted to the Board

Mr. Walker – By making the house smaller we are meeting the building coverage requirements.

Open to public – none

Mr. Denzler – Reviewed the variances for the Board.  This lot is even smaller than the previous.  Concerned with the rear setback variance.  The Board was concerned with the same sized house on a larger lot.  Mr. Walker – The adjacent property has a detached garage which causes less impact on that property and we can install screening to decrease any impact.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Have you done soil testing?  Mr. Walker – No, we located the infiltrator system where there is fill.  There is a potential for bedrock in this area.  We will install a drainage system.  Mr. Huelsebusch - There should be additional escrow submitted with the Engineering Department in case there is a problem during construction.   Mr. Walker - Agreed. 

Dr. Kanoff – Concerned about approving the same sized house on a smaller lot.  Mr. Needleman – This house is smaller than the first house.  We are about 1,000 s.f. under the impervious coverage requirements. 

Closed to public

Mr. Cartine – This house is too much for this size lot. 

Motion to deny the application, the house it too big for the size of the lot made by Mr. Hug

Mr. Needleman requested that the Board allow for the applicant to come back with a smaller house plan.  We miscalculated.  Mr. Marinello stated that he would leave that up to the discretion of the Board since the public portion has been closed and the motion has begun.  Mr. Ackerman – If an applicant, before a vote asks for an adjournment. 

Mr. Hug – I rescind my motion.


Page 10

1/3/07

Motion to carry with notice to March 7, 2007 with an extension of time to act to March 8th made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call:  Yes – Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore; Mr. DiPiazza; Mr. Marinello

NOTE: Mr. Hug left the meeting

NOTE: Mr. Buraszeski returned

ZC42-04 Nelson – B: 125.16, L: 8 – 31 Sunset Ct. – maximum building coverage 3,627 s.f. vs

3,472 s.f. addition to single family home      Notice Acceptable                ACT BY: 3/15/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Linda & Peter Nelson, Applicants

Linda Nelson – Sworn

Ms. Nelson – We have modified and downsized the plan considerably.  We have the smallest model house in our neighborhood with the largest lot.  We will have 4 adults with 4 cars so we need an additional garage.  My husband has anaphylactic reactions to insect bites so we would like to have a screen porch to enjoy the outside of our property.  We took out things that we wanted when the report came back since they thought it was too much. 

Open to public – none

Christine Miseo, Arch. - sworn

We are putting on a rear addition to this home. 

                Exhibit marked in

                                A1 – colorized version of plan previously submitted

Ms. Miseo – Requesting a variance from maximum building coverage 3,627 s.f. vs 3,472 s.f.  We are well under the impervious coverage.  We are not asking for any other variances.  The existing building coverage is 2,362 s.f.    We are addition a 3rd car garage which would not be seen from the front of the house.  We are adding a rear bedroom, bathroom, closet, kitchen expansion and screened porch to the rear of the house.  It is a 2 story addition.  Our first submission was about  422 s.f.  over building coverage then reduced to 300 s.f. and once again reduced to 155 s.f. over building coverage.  Mr. Denzler reviewed the variance for the Board.  Based on the size of the house proposed how will it fit in with the neighborhood?  Ms. Nelson – The existing house is the smallest house in the neighborhood and the proposed addition will still be a smaller house then the houses in the neighborhood.  

                                A2 – tax records of house sizes in the neighborhood

Mr. Denzler – That is the taxable living area, not the building coverage

                                A3 – 7 pages of photos of houses in the area and applicant’s home

                                A4 – photo of 34 Sunset Ct.

                                A5 – photo of 4 Peachtree Ct.

                                A6 – photo of 24 Sunset Ct.

                                A7 – photo of 17 Sunset Ct.

Ms. Nelson – 34 Sunset is across the Street.  4 Peachtree is behind our lot.


Page 11

1/3/07

Mr. Marinello – If the garage was removed what would the variance request be down to?  Mr. Denzler – They would not need a variance. 

Ms. Nelson – Our lot size is much larger than the other lots in the neighborhood.  We would not be overbuilding the lot.  There are homes that are larger on much smaller lots in our neighborhood.

Mr. Huelsebusch – Recommend drywells be provided for additional impervious coverage.

Mr. Driscoll – Your lot is one of the larger lots in the area, it was one of the smaller models correct?  Ms. Nelson – Yes.  Mr. Driscoll – It won’t stick out like a sore thumb.  Ms. Nelson – It would improve the aesthetics of the area.   Dr. Kanoff – I do not see a hardship to the property.  Ms. Nelson – It is a benefit to the neighborhood, it will improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood.  Dr. Kanoff – Why the 3rd car garage.  Ms. Nelson – We have 4 cars and it is a straight driveway.  Other homes in neighborhood have 3 to 6 car garages. 

Closed to public

Mr. Buraszeski – Any concerns with driveway turnaround?  Mr. Huelsebusch – No.  Mr. Cartine – How many 3 car garages in the neighborhood?  Ms. Nelson – More than half.

Motion to approve the application, diminimis request, and improvement to the neighborhood, subject to drywell and all professional comments made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. DiPiazza; Roll call:  Yes –

Mr. Buraszeski; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore; Mr. DiPiazza; No - Mr. Marinello

OTHER BUSINESS

ZD9-06 de Szendeffy – 24 Redding Pl. – B: 109, L: 44.01 – request for extension

Mr. Denzler – The board approved the application in April of last year.  It was for 2 principal houses on one lot during construction.  The Board conditioned upon removal of the house within 12 months.  They did not receive a building permit until July and they are requesting an extension of the 12 months from the date of the building permit.  They will demolish existing structure by July 2007.

Motion to made by: Mr. Driscoll; Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call:  Yes – Mr. Buraszeski; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore; Mr. DiPiazza; Mr. Marinello

MINUTES:

Minutes of December 6, 2006 - Eligible: Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski, Second by: Mr. Driscoll. Roll call: Unanimous

INVOICES:

Bricker & Associates – Trust for: $300, $360, $360, $300, $360, $480, $480, $1,560, $90, $120, $420, $360, $270, $120, $720, $270, $600

Robert Catlin & Assoc. – O/E for: $30

Shapiro & Croland – O/E for: $350

               

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


Page 12

1/3/07

RESOLUTIONS

ZC43-03-29-06 Hager - B: 50, L: 5 - 21 Montville Avenue – roofline expansion – front setback 7.52’ vs 35’; side setback 0.3’ vs 12’ – Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore; Mr. Marinello – Approval Resolution

Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call:  Yes – 6

ZC10-06 Horan – Stonybrook Rd. – B: 3, L: 16 & 14.04 – lot not fronting on approved street/ impervious coverage 17,890 s.f. vs 13,000 s.f./ steep slopes   Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore  – Approval Resolution

Mr. Schepis – There is language in the resolution that states there will be no other structures allowed on the property.  What I inferred was that we were at the maximum impervious coverage.  Mr. Marinello – No, there was lengthy discussion on this and it was a major concern.  Mr. Marinello – Any future owner would have to come back before the board if they wanted another structure.  Mr. Schepis – I was concerned with the 1 year time period for the variance.  Mr. Ackerman – They can come back for an extension and if the zoning requirements change they may have to come back before the Board. 

Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski

Roll call:  Yes – Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore

CORRESPONDENCE

NONE

Mr. Marinello – Has anyone heard the status of Jim Glick? Mr. Driscoll – I will call Linda to find out. 

Motion to authorize expenditure of $50 to the budget to send Jim Glick something made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call: Unanimous

Motion to authorize expenditure of $50 to the budget to send Amanda Grogaard something since we have never sent anything all the time she has been sick made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call: Unanimous

Mr. Marinello – Mr. DiPiazza you are aware you need to have a course that is required?  Mr. DiPiazza – I am aware I need to take a course.  Mr. Ackerman and Mr. Buraszeski will share educational materials in the meantime.

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 February 7, 2007.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.

Must certify to 5/3/06 hearing

Must certify to 5/3/06

Certified to 11/1/06 & 12/6/06

Must certify to 11/1/06 & 12/6/06 hearing

Must certify to 11/1/06 & 12/6/06

 

 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack