|
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.
Certified to
9/6/06 & 12/6/06
Certified to
11/1/06 & 12/6/06
|
