ZBoA Minutes 2-7-07 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 7, 2007

Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated for the record.

ROLL CALL:

Christopher Braden - Absent                   Thomas Buraszeski - Present

Donald Kanoff - Present                                     James Marinello - Present

Deane Driscoll -Present                                    Richard Moore (Alt #1) - Present

Maury Cartine – Present                                   Carl DiPiazza (Alt #2) - Present

Gerard Hug - Present

Also Present:                 William Denzler, Planner

                                Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

Swearing in of Professionals

The following application was carried with notice to 4/4/07 at the applicant’s request:

ZSPP/FCD02-06 Old Towne Properties – B: 40; L: 52, 53, 54, 55 – 630 & 632 Rt. 202; 3 & 5 Waughaw Rd. - Prelim & Final Site Plan; “D” use variances for mixed retail/residential in a B-1 zone; Commercial Off-Street parking is not a principal permitted use in the R-27A zone; Floor Area Ratio 199.5% where 25% is allowed; Building Height of 35.33’ where 30’ allowed; “C” variances for Front Setback of –2.0’ (Waughaw Rd) where 25’ required and 51.5’ exists; Front Setback 4.9’ (Route 202) existing and proposed where 25’ required; Side Setback .6’ (existing and proposed) where 10’ required; Maximum Building Coverage 65.4% where 20% allowed; Maximum Impervious Coverage 81.1% where 55% allowed; Off-Street Parking 69 spaces where 204 spaces are required; Design Waivers for Residential Buffer of 10’ where 20’ is required; Minimum distance for location of traffic aisles, parking and loading 5’ where 10’ (to building) required and 20’ (to residential zone) required; Fence screening; Minimum parking space size 9x20 required and 9’x18’ proposed  Carried w/notice from 10/4/06.  Eligible: Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello              

                ACT BY: 4/6/07

ZSPP/FDC33-06 Casha & Casha – 115 Horseneck Rd. – B: 139.03, L: 7.03 – amended prel/final site plan/maximum Floor Area Ratio (11,602 s.f. proposed vs 10,030 s.f. allowed)/minimum required off-street parking spaces (107 spaces required vs 80 spaces provided) in order to occupy 2,600 s.f. of basement level in an existing 2 story office building.                  ACT BY: 4/5/07

The Secretary indicated that on the Casha application the matter was carried with notice preserved other than one further notice to be verified.
Page 2

2/7/07

OLD BUSINESS

ZSPP/CD24-97-03-06 Allbrite Car Wash - 11 Bloomfield Ave. - B: 162, L: 3 – amended prelim/final site plan expansion of existing car wash to add car wash lane enclosures, interior

business office, lobby and 2-bay detail service garage – use variance for non-conforming use/lot area 39,658(existing and proposed) s.f. vs 43,750 s.f. required/lot width at street (existing

and proposed) 150’ vs 175’ required/ lot width at building 150’ (existing and proposed) vs 175’ required/ front yard (Bloomfield Ave.) 18.6’ (existing and proposed) vs 40’ required/ impervious

 coverage 22,298 s.f. allowed vs 36,155 sf. proposed/minimum off street parking 25 vs 33 required/front setback 19’ (vacuum canopy to Rt. 46) vs 40’ is required/min. parking space size/parking space separation parking aisle width/sign area, 2 signs at  72 s.f. each vs 58 s.f. (1st sign) & 11.6 s.f. (2nd sign) allowed/combined sign are of 122 s.f. vs 87 s.f. allowed/sign setback 1’ vs 10’ required/sign height (Bloomfield Ave.) of 17’6” vs 15 allowed.  Carried w/notice from9/6/06 & 12/6/06 Eligible: Mr. Braden, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Moore  ,Mr. DiPiazza Mr. Marinello                                              ACT BY: 2/8/06    

Mr. DiPiazza certified to prior hearings on this matter.

Present on behalf of the applicant: Robert Garofalo, Esq.; Joseph Mianecki, PE; James Cutillo, AIA; Michael Tobia, PP

Mr. Garofalo – We were at the December 6th meeting.  We met with the Design Review Committee and revised our plans in accordance with the Design Review Committee.  We did everything the Design Review Committee requested that we do.  Mr. Burgis reported on revised plans as it relates to Route 46 Revitaliazation.

Michael Tobia, PP – previously sworn

The plan changes are outlined in Mr. Mianecki’s memo.  The freestanding signs have gone through a number of changes.  The Design Review Committee has signed off on the changes.  The Rt. 46 sign was reduced to 12’ and moved 10’ back out of the right of way to help with visibility of the neighboring sign.  We received resistance on the digital sign.  We agreed to a manually changeable message board on the bottom of the sign.  There will be no more than 2 message changes per day.  The Bloomfield Avenue sign will be a monument sign and is coordinated with the Rt. 46 sign as to color and copy.  The sign came down from 10’ to 6’.  There is one discrepancy.  We agreed to a 36 s.f. sign where the Design Review Committee report says 6’x6’.  The sign is actually about 9’ wide. 

Mr. Tobia – The parking spaces near the canopy-covered vacuum has been changed to 20’ parking stalls with the exception of one space as requested by the Board Planner.  There was a change in the light fixtures on the plan.  There will be security lighting on the building.  Mr. Burgis wants a decorative fixture.  The applicant and Design Review Committee have agreed to a gooseneck light at 15’ mounting height.  Landscaping material has been changed as requested on the west side.  Junipers were changed on east side of detail center as requested. 

Mr. Tobia – Reviewed the Design Review Committee report of January 19th for the Board.   We agreed to non-digital sign.  The applicant greed to 12’ high sign on Rt. 46.  The applicant agreed to 3 basic colors on sign which will be white, blue and yellow.  The Design Review Committee picked the light fixtures now shown on landscaping and lighting plan.  All lights will fire down.  The applicant agreed to comply with submission of all colors and details prior to construction permit process. 


Page 3

2/7/07

Mr. Tobia – Reviewed Mr. Sniekus, Burgis Associates memo of 2/6/07.  The message on the sign panel will be a light color and the blue background will suppress the light.  Does not agree with sign material matching the material of the building and Design Review Committee does not want that done.  The signs will be softened with landscaping but did not change the sign to be made of stone and stucco as Mr. Burgis requested.  We will meet the requirement of site lighting and would agree to a condition of it.  The weather barrier will be changed to meet t he architecture of the building.  The canopy was changed to match roofing material on car wash.  Bollards will be placed around all the supports of the canopy for safety.   Sidewalks can be installed but then there would be no landscaping along Bloomfield Avenue.  We think there is a better opportunity for landscaping in this area but will leave the decision of sidewalks up to the Board. 

Mr. Tobia – The Design Review Committee report says that the Old Bloomfield Avenue sign must be reduced to 6’x6’.

                Exhibit marked in:

                                A10 – sign plan by Butler Sign last revised 1/12/07

Mr. Tobia – The representation to the Design Review Committee was that the sign would have 36 s.f. of copy.  The report says reduce the sign  to 6’x6’ but that is not what was approved by the Design Review Committee.  We submit that this sign shown in A10 was the one approved by the Design Review Committee which is 6’x9’.  We request that you approve this sign as shown. 

Mr. Denzler – Requested a summary of the sign variances currently requested.  Mr. Tobia – The walls signs variances are the same as in your report.  The aggregate size is down to 72 s.f. on Route 46 and 36 s.f. on Old Bloomfield.  The sign setback variance has been eliminated.  The freestanding sign height was reduced to 12’ on a 2’ berm which complies.  No other changes to sign variances.  Design standard changes are that 10 more spaces comply with the 10’x20’ parking space size.  These are at the most used part of the site, so the larger spaces were located in that area.  There are no signs proposed on the canopy.  Mr. Denzler – Recommend no sidewalk be installed, that the landscaping would be preferable.

Mr. Huelsebusch – How does someone using the handicapped space access the building? 

Mr. Saunders, applicant – previously sworn

There are 3 doors in that general location.  2 doors are for employees; they would have to use the 3rd door.  Most of our customers do not leave their cars; they ride through the car wash.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Did you meet with Mr. Omland on the streetscape lighting.  Mr. Mianecki – I spoke with Frank Russo and the lights shown are an alternate manufacturer for the streetscape light.

Open to public

Mitch Abrahams, Esq. – represents Pine Brook Plaza

Is there to be more than one sign on Bloomfield Ave.  Mr. Tobias – The existing signs will be taken down and a new freestanding sign will be put up away from your client’s property.

Mr. DiPiazza – Will the sign be illuminated when the business is closed?  Mr. Tobia – For safety reasons all lights will be left on.  Mr. Driscoll – Are the supports for the sign solid?  Mr. Tobia – Yes. 

Mr. Ackerman – Are the hours of operation still 7am-6pm as represented in the July Design Review Committee report?  Mr. Saunders – Those are our current hours but customers suggested that we request 6am-10pm even if we will not be using all of those hours.  Mr. Ackerman – Do you agree that there will be no windscreens placed on the buildings in the future?  Today there are 3 weather barriers, one on the exit, one on the entrance and an L shaped one on the Bloomfield Avenue side.  The exit and entrance ones will


Page 4

2/7/07

be removed but we wish to keep the L shaped one.  It is a wind issue in the winter.    Mr. Cartine –What would happen without it?  Mr. Saunders – The employees get cold and the equipment freezes. Mr. Marinello – We are trying to make the building better looking but the weather barrier, even seasonally, would be ugly. 

Mr. Marinello asked about the sign on the Bloomfield Aveue side.  Mr. Denzler – There would not be a visibility problem and the proposed is more aesthetically pleasing.  The current condition of the site can remain as is if not approved, but with the addition the site would be in a better condition than what exits.  Mr. Hug – Is this a franchise? Mr. Saunders – Yes, there are 3 other facilities.  Mr. Hug – Can you get rid of the Krew and the happy car on the sign and just leave car wash along Bloomfield Avenue? You then would be able to meet the 6’x6’ sign.  Mr. Saunders – It is a franchise.  Mr. Hug – But you would have the logo along the Route 46 side and there is a building sign and everyone would know it is a car wash.  Mr. Saunders – The logo is not on the building.  We reduced that sign from 43 ½ s.f. down to 36 s.f. at the Design Review Committee meeting, we never discussed 6’x6’.  Mr. Hug –  According to their report the Design Review Committee recommended 6’x6’. 

Track 2

Mr. Hug - I find the canopy a big distraction.  How much of the car does the canopy protect?  Mr. Saunders – All of it.  Mr. Hug – I am concerned about the weather barrier.  Mr. Saunders – We will eliminate the remaining weather barrier.  Mr. Hug – Can you meet the setbacks from Bloomfield Aveue without the enclosure of the existing weather barrier.  Mr. Saunders – Yes but the equipment will freeze and the car wash won’t work.  Mr. Cartine – It doesn’t matter if you have your logo on the sign, just make it 6x6’.  Mr. Garofalo – We think there is a miscommunication in the Design Review Committee report.  We believe that the Design Review Committee approved this sign. Can you make it subject to approval of the Design Review Committee? 

Closed to public

Mr. Marinello – This is our chance to get sidewalks and we do not know how the town will be urbanized in 20 years.  Mr. Buraszeski – There is a well-defined walking path on the north side of the property, I would suggest sidewalks be installed.  Mr. Denzler – I would rather see as much buffer along the backside of that property as possible.  Mr. Hug – The path shows that people are using that area for walking.  Mr. Cartine – It would be safer to have sidewalks.  Mr. Cartine – Do not see why the hours of operation should be until 10pm. 

Motion to approve the application subject to the Design Review Committee recommendations, the installation of sidewalks along Bloomfield Ave., the determination of the Design Review Committee that the sign be 6’x6’ or 36 sq. ft. of text, the hours of operation are to not extend past 8pm, condition of all site lighting meeting ordinance, and removal of all temporary weather barriers: Mr. Moore; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello              

NEW BUSINESS

ZC40-04-37-06 Locantore - B: 4, L: 11  - 23 Turkey Hill Rd. – side setback/combined sides addition    - Notice Acceptable                                                                            ACT BY: 5/10/07

Present on behalf of the Applicant: Anthony Locantore, Applicant

Mr. Locantore – sworn


Page 5

2/7/07

Mr. Locantore – There was an error on the building of the house.  It was built as per the plans approved.  When an as built was done it was determined that the corner of the house was over the variance previously approved.  Mr. Denzler- 16.2’ was previously approved, 15.1’ indicated on as built and combined sides difference of 1.4’ indicated.  Mr. Denzler – Is there an impact on your neighbor near the addition.  Mr. Locantore – No, he is happy with the addition.  Mr. Buraszeski – Was the error based on the architectural plans or the site plan?  Mr. Denzler – 16.2’ was shown on the architectural plans but it was not dimensioned properly. 

Open to public – none – closed

Mr. Cartine – I am tired of granting variances where houses were built in the wrong location.  Mr. Marinello – The only distinction is that it was built as approved, but was not measured correctly when it was proposed to us on the architectural plans.  We approved what was in front of us even though the measurements were wrong. 

Motion to approve the application since the board approved the plan as shown previously made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call:  Yes – Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello             

OTHER BUSINESS

Discussion of Creation of Additional Subcommittees

Mr. Marinello – Suggest Mr. Driscoll be a liaison to the Planning Board to keep the Board up to date on applications that are pending before the Planning Board.  Mr. Driscoll agreed.  Motion by: Mr. Hug; Second: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call vote: Unanimous

Mr. Marinello – Would like more information on the lots as it relates to flood zone as per the report from the 1990’s.   Mr. Marinello agreed to be on that subcommittee to work with the professionals.  Motion made by: Mr. Hug; Seconded by: Mr. Cartine Roll call vote: unanimous.

Mr. Marinello – Asked Mr. DiPiazza if he wanted to be on the Water Subcommittee as it relates to the CWR zone, the invoice committee or the outreach committee.  Mr. DiPiazza will let the board know at the next meeting.

ZDC26-06 Coastal Outdoor Advertising – 23-25 Rt. 46E – B: 183, L: 14 & 15 – dismissal

Motion to dismiss without prejudice made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call: Unanimous

ZC16-06 Walker – 12 Hemlock Dr. – B: 7, L: 10 – dismissal

Motion to dismiss without prejudice made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call: Unanimous

MINUTES:

Minutes of January 3, 2007 - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Braden, Mr. DiPiazza; Mr. Moore; Mr. Marinello

Mr. Buraszeski indicated that during the Horan application, on the last page 3rd line where it says “in the future” please change to show that Mr. Marinello was the one speaking.


Page 6

2/7/07

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

INVOICES:

Robert Catlin & Assoc – O/E for: $60; Trust for: $120, $180, $300, $150, $120, $180, $360, $120,

$180, $30, $210; $450, $660, $30, $150, $210

                Shapiro & Croland – O/E for: $420; Trust for; $450, $630

Bricker & Assoc – Trust for: $210, $360, $420, $240, $180, $780, $360, $180, $480, $150, $180

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for; $90

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

RESOLUTIONS

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 - Approval Resolution           

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

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                Eligible: Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Braden; Mr.

Driscoll; Mr. Moore; Mr. DiPiazza; Mr. Marinello Approval Resolution

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

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 Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore; Mr. DiPiazza  Approval Resolution

Mr. Ackerman I will make a minor change and will resubmit the original.  In paragraph 2 of conditions a sentence was dropped off about getting permit for tree removal according to tree removal ordinances so this will be added.

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

CORRESPONDENCE

ZC32-06 Krzyworzeka - B: 124.7, L: 3 – 35 Bromely Ct. - WITHDRAWN

Mr. Marinello – Requested that the Land Use Office send a message to Mr. Burgis that the reports must be in earlier than the day before the meeting. 


Page 7

2/7/07

Mr. Marinello – Informed the Board that Ms. White would be receiving Chamber of Commerce award of employee of the year.

Mr. Huelsebusch – Suggested that with all side setback variances the setbacks be staked when the foundation is put in prior to the construction of the rest of the building so there are no issues with building at the wrong location.  Mr. Cartine – I would make that recommendation.  Land use office to make the recommendation to the planning board and the Township Committee.

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 March 7, 2007.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.

Must certify to 10/4/06

Must certify to 12/6/06

Certified to 9/6/06 & 12/6/06

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

 

 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack