|
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
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
|
