ZBoA Minutes 4-4-07 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 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

Swearing in of Professionals

The following application was carried with new notice required to 6/6/07:

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: 6/7/07

The following application was rescheduled to 5/2/07:

ZSPP/FDC10-89-29-06 Hook Mountain Care Center– Hook Mountain Rd. - B: 159, L: 4  - preliminary/final site plan/use variance/bulk variances for construction of a 4 story, 75,538 s.f.  assisted living facility containing 120 nursing beds and 60- residential health care beds. Use variances required for height and use not permitted in zone.  Bulk relief requested for maximum building coverage, total lot impervious coverage, wall heights and signage, along with disturbance of steep slopes and off-street parking setbacks.                                               ACT BY: 5/22/07


Page 2

4/4/07

OLD BUSINESS

NONE

NEW BUSINESS

ZC35-05 Sachdev – B: 24.2, L: 32 – 10 Indian Ln – side setback10.5’ (existing and proposed) where 47’ required/setback from utility easement 11’ where 50’ required/lot area of 70,742 s.f. vs 120,000 s.f./ lot width 195’ (existing & proposed) vs 216’ demolish existing house and rebuild – Notice Acceptable                                                                                            ACT BY: 5/11/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Ravi Sachdev, applicant; Derek Hughes, PE; Patrick McHugh, PP

Mr. Sachdev - sworn

Mr. Sachdev – We have a 2-bedroom house with a 13 year old and a 4 year old.  We wish to demolish the existing house and construct a 4-bedroom house.  The property has a gas line easement through the property constraining the property.

Mr. Hughes, PE - sworn

The property is restricted by wetlands and a gas easement.  They have a front setback of 85’ existing and 63’ proposed where 60’ required.  Cannot build to the rear or right of the easement, must build to the front.  This is only location on property to locate house.  The proposed house is in conformance with other houses on Indian Lane.  The house will be more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood.

                Exhibit A1 – written responses to board professional reports

Mr. Sachdev reviewed responses for the Board.  There is a wetlands buffer to the rear and right side of property and a gas line easement to the left of the property.  There is a lack of space in the existing house for my family.  The proposed house will be in conformance with the other houses on Indian Lane.  

                A2–5 – photos of existing houses on Indian Lane

Mr. Sachdev – We will connect to municipal water.  There is no detriment to the surrounding area.  This is one of the smallest houses on the street.  The proposed house will not worsen any existing non-conformity.  Nothing can be built on the adjacent property closer to our house due to the gas easement.  There are no underground or aboveground fuel tanks on the property.  We use natural gas.  We did test pits for the high water table and there was no presence of water.  We could not purchase any adjoining lots due to wetlands, Township owned property and the gas easement.  Would be willing to move the water line if required as per the Planner’s report. 

Mr. Denzler – Have DEP permits been obtained?  Mr. Sachdev – Yes.  Mr. Denzler - Applicant is requesting side setback10.5’ which is existing and proposed where 47’ is required; setback from utility easement of 11’ where 50’ required; lot area of 70,742 s.f. where 120,000 s.f. is required; lot width of 195’ which is existing where 216’ is required in order to demolish existing house and rebuild.  Design exceptions for steep slope disturbance required due to new water line that is to be run to the house.  I suggest the applicant run the waterline along the driveway creating fewer disturbances in the slopes.  A design waiver required for gravel driveway.  Concerned with gravel making its way onto public roadway and suggest paving be installed at the driveway entrance to Indian Lane.  


Page 3

4/4/07

Patrick McHugh, PP - sworn

I performed test pits on the property and there was no evidence of water.  There is bedrock under the soil.

Mr. Denzler – The property is constrained by wetlands.  There will be no increase of existing non-conforming variances. 

Mr. Huelsebusch – I recommend drywells be provided.  Mr. Hughes – The amount of disturbance is minimal and I ask for relief from that.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Installation of a drywell will be required.  Mr. Hughes – We will install the drywell.  Mr. Huelsebusch – The Township Engineer can require 25’ of paved area for the driveway at the entrance of Indian Lane.  Mr. Sachdev – We will pave part of the driveway as requested. 

Open to pubic – none

Mr. Buraszeski – How much of the slopes to the right of the property will be disturbed?  Mr. Denzler – 5.1% of the property.  Mr. Buraszeski – Will the height of the building meet code?   Mr. Denzler – Yes.  Mr. Hug – Is there a garage on the proposed house?  Mr. Sachdev – No.  Mr. Hug – That is a large house on a small lot with no garage.  Have you thought about building a different type of home with a garage?  What is to stop you from coming back and asking for a garage at a later date?   Mr. McHugh – If  Mr. Sachdev wanted a garage at a later date he would have to come back before the board and he may have a hard case.  Mr. Hug – Concerned with a house with no garage in the wetlands.  Mr. Denzler – It is unusual to not have a garage for a house this large.  Mr. Hughes – The applicant will agree to a condition of approval to maintain the footprint and have a 2-car garage.  Mr. Huelsebusch – The location of the entry for the proposed garage may require a larger driveway.  Can you reconfigure your driveway and not violate the DEP permit?  Mr. Hughes – Yes, will propose a front entry garage on the left side of the house. 

Closed to public

Motion to   approve due to constraints of the property; no additional variances than what exists; fits in with the community; subject to driveway complying with DEP requirements and township ordinances, 2 car garage in existing footprint; waterline to run along driveway, paving of portion of driveway near Indian Lane.; hook up to city water; installation of drywell made by Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll

Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Braden, Driscoll, Marinello

ZC36-06 Vogt - B: 9, L: 26.01  - 14 Lenape Dr. – addition to single family residence which will create a side setback of 8.9’(existing and proposed) where 20’ required; combined sides of 28.8’  (existing and proposed) where 36.75’ is required   Notice Acceptable                ACT BY: 6/16/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Jacqueline Vogt, applicant

Ms. Vogt - sworn

Requesting side setback of 8.9’, which exists and is proposed where 20’ is required and combined side yards of 28.8’, which is existing and proposed where 36.75’ is required.  The house was built in the 1920’s and we are trying to keep the charm of the existing house.  The house currently does not have a family room and has a small dining room and no master bedroom.  There is a walk-in attic and we want to raise the roof for the master bedroom.  There are currently 2 bedrooms on the 2nd floor and we propose a total of 4 bedrooms.    The lot is steep sloped. 

Ms. Vogt – We recently filled the septic have proposed it to be converted into a drywell.  We are trying to maintain the character of the neighborhood.  Most of the proposed changes are to the side and rear of the property.  The adjacent property is vacant and that property owner put a letter in the file indicating he was in support of the application. 


Page 4

4/4/07

Ms. Vogt - We revised our application 3 times in accordance with the Board professional’s requests.  We have supplied a grading plan as requested.  There is a design waiver requested for disturbance in steep slopes and we are requesting an exception from the driveway turnaround.  There is enough room by the garage to turnaround.  No blasting will be required.  There is a 90’ conservation easement at the rear of the property that was granted by the planning board during the subdivision of the property. Our addition will not be near the conservation easement. 

Mr. Denzler – Reviewed the variances and design exceptions for the board.  The Planning Board approved the non-conforming setback in 2003 during subdivision.  Can the addition be set back to meet the setback of 21’?  Ms. Vogt – That cannot be done without damaging the footprint of the home.  Mr. Denzler – Can the patio be shifted over?  Ms. Vogt – There are doors there so it made sense to locate the patio there but would agree to any condition of the Board. 

TRACK 2

Mr. Denzler – Recommend evergreen buffer along side yard.  Mr. Huelsebusch – There is an additional design exception for 1 small area of wall where alteration of elevations in excess of 1’ within 5’ of the property line.

Open to public – none

Mr. Buraszeski – Is the patio above grade?  Ms. Vogt – It is slightly above grade.  Mr. Cartine – Is there any chance that the abandoned septic cannot be used as a drywell?  Mr. Huelsebusch – Yes, and if it cannot be used a second location would be required.  Ms. Vogt – We did pump out the septic and it was done with permits. 

Closed to public

Motion to approve subject to installation of drywell system; installation of evergreen buffer along variance request side of house, approval of all design exceptions and waivers requested made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Braden, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Hug, Kanoff, Cartine, No - Marinello

ZC19-04 Nieradka – B: 119, L: 20 – 102 Pine Brook Rd. – addition to single family residence which will create a front setback of 34.86’ vs 50’ on a corner lot Notice Acceptable

                                                                                                                                ACT BY: 6/16/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: David Nieradka, applicant; Steven Boshart, AIA

Mr. Nieradka - sworn

My home is existing 5’ into the right of way.  I want to put an addition along the back of the house.

Mr. Boshart, AIA - sworn

This is a small farmhouse that predates the development of the roads.  They have 2 front yards.  The proposal will not encroach any further than exists along Longview Road.  Anywhere we put an addition would require a front setback.  Mr. Denzler – The property is a corner lot.  There is an existing 34.86; front setback to Longview, which is proposed to remain.  The house is into the right of way along Pine Brook Road.  Does this proposal meet the maximum building height?  Mr. Boshart – Yes.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Are you planning on putting a garage in the future?  Mr. Nieradka – No.  Mr. Buraszeski – The variance requested exists today?  Mr. Denzler – Yes. Mr. Cartine – Are the stairs on the deck being removed?  Mr. Boshart - Yes they are to be relocated.   Mr. Hug – Is there the ability to put a garage in?  Mr. Nieradka – The cost to include a garage we could not do.  We wanted a larger basement for a play area for our twins

Page 5

4/4/07

and were willing to give up the garage.  We do not have any building or impervious coverage issues and a garage can be put on in the future is needed.

Open to public – none – closed

Motion to approved due to the property is constrained because it is a corner lot, there is no other location for addition, the request consistent with existing encroachment made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Mr. Braden; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Braden, Driscoll, Marinello

NOTE: Mr. Marinello left the meeting:

Mr. Cartine stepped up as vice chairman for the following application:

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. Notice Acceptable                                                                                                                                                            ACT BY: 4/5/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Geoff Evans, Esq.; Peter Steck, PP

Mr. Evans – I am concerned that the applicant has not arrived yet.  The application is for amended preliminary/final site plan for use of basement as offices.  There is a variances requested for parking.

Mr. Steck, PP - sworn

                Exhibit A1 – photos of existing site; zoning map; floor plan

Mr. Steck reviewed A1 for the Board.  The property is 40,118.1 s.f.  It is developed as a 2-story office building with 9,000 s.f. on 2 floors.  There is a fairly sizable common area in the building.  This site was part of the corner property with the same size building as Lakeland Bank.  There is a shared parking area with a recorded instrument that says each occupant of the buildings have access to all spaces.  There are 15 reserved parking spaces that currently are green along Horseneck Road.  Lakeland bank does not have a basement.  The Casha building has a basement currently used for file storage and mechanical equipment.  Propose to develop small office spaces in the basement. The net area for the offices is 1,220 s.f., which is exclusive of the file storage.  On the approved site plan it was shown as storage only.  Total basement area is 2,600 s.f.  Mr. Steck reviewed the surrounding area for the Board. The site is located in the OB-1 zone.  Offices are permitted uses. There is a FAR variance requested.  The applicant is requesting an amendment to the site plan since previously approved for storage only in basement.  There is a FAR variance 11,602 s.f. proposed where 10,030 s.f. is allowed. 

Mr. Steck – There were several variances approved at original site plan.  Since we are adding square footage the parking requirements are changed.  We are asking to occupy the space without paving the 15 reserved spaces, variance requested.  I viewed the site on 4 occasions and there were no less than 29 spaces vacant at any one time.  The applicant sent an employee out and counts were done on the hour and they range from 32-54 vacant spaces.  The use is permitted in the zone.  1,572 s.f. above the allowable FAR proposed.  There will be no change to exterior of building.  Only change is 8 small office spaces in the basement.  There are no windows.  The only noticeable land use change would be the number of cars.  According to the code, if I occupy the basement I need 11 more parking spaces.  There are plenty of spaces on site currently.  The benefits outweigh the detriments as it relates to the parking variance; there is no detriment to zone plan or zoning ordinance.  There is a high ratio of common area to occupied area. 


Page 6

4/4/07

TRACK 3

Mr. Denzler – The greater number of parking space vacancies was when the bank was closed?  Mr. Steck – Yes.  Mr. Denzler – Did you do a review of other properties in the area as it relates to FAR?  Mr. Steck – No.  If you look at the entire property there would not be a need for a FAR but there are 2 buildings on this site.  There are 11 spaces in the front of the Casha building that are marked for visitors.  Mr. Denzler – The office space used for existing uses?  Mr. Steck – No there will be additional users, up to a maximum of 8.  Mr. Denzler – Will you meet the uniform construction codes?  Mr. Steck – Yes.   Mr. Huelsebusch – If required by this Board, would the reserved parking be paved.  Mr. Steck – If required they would be paved.

Mr. Huelsebusch – Plans would have to be provided that meet building codes along with fire safety codes.   I am concerned with the lack of windows.  Mr. Steck – The architect is confident that the fire safety codes can be met and will agree to a condition of approval.  Mr. Denzler – Was there a specific trigger for paving of the additional parking in the resolution of original site plan?  Mr. Evans – Read the resolution into the record indicating it was up to the municipal officials as to whether it should be paved.

Mr. Buraszeski – Is there any area not to be calculated in the FAR calculations in the ordinances?  Mr. Denzler – Non- habitable areas are exempt. Mr. Steck – We have included all of the square footage of all floors for a worst-case scenario. 

Mr. Braden – Was the original application considered for offices in the basement?  Mr. Denzler – The planning board cannot approve a FAR variance.  Mr. Driscoll – Concerned with not enough parking on site during peak hours.  Mr. Buraszeski – How significant is this FAR request?  Mr. Denzler – The board has been rigid on FAR variances but this is already constructed and is not physically getting any bigger.  Mr. Buraszeski – Concerned with parking and additional number of tenants in the basement area.  Mr. Denzler – There are certain uses that are allowed in that zone that would require a larger parking demand.  Suggest a condition of office use only.  Mr. Cartine – There are a lot of office proposed and we do not know what type of tenants will be there.  The bank may not always be a bank so a higher use may come in some day which would require more parking.  I am concerned with restricting tenancy.  Mr. Denzler – Any new tenant would require approvals before a township board.

Open to public – none

Discussion continued on parking spaces. Discussion ensued on types of tenants that can go into the building.   Mr. Hug – This is basement space so high traffic uses wouldn’t be jumping through hoops to get basement space.  Mr. Buraszeski – Why should we take a risk on parking that may not be adequate by adding more tenants to the site.  Discussion ensued on number of people per office.  Board voiced concerns on a possible telemarketing use. 

Closed to public

Motion to approve variances and amended site plan conditioned upon any change of tenant must come before this board, additional parking spaces to remain green until such time that municipal officials require paving at such time number of spaces required by said township official shall be paved, subject to fire codes; construction codes, no more than 8 offices built and no more than one person per office made by Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Cartine; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Hug, Moore;  No - Kanoff, Buraszeski, Braden, Driscoll

Motion Fails the application is denied.

Mr. Evans – Would the Board prefer conditions upon certain tenants?  We do not intend on telemarketing use.  Mr. Cartine –The board does not want to set precedence on FAR variances. 


Page 7

4/4/07

OTHER BUSINESS

None

MINUTES:

Minutes of March 7, 2007 - Eligible: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Braden; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello

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

INVOICES:

Shapiro & Croland – O/E for: $270; Trust for: $330; $780

Bricker & Associates – Trust for: $270; $300; $300; $330; $720; $780; $720; $330; $360; $360;

$120

Burgis Associates – Trust for: $420; $420

William Denzler & Assoc. – O/E for: $120; Trust for: $510; $150; $270; $240; $330; $30; $180;

$210; $150; $180

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

RESOLUTIONS

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.  Approval Resolution– Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Braden; Mr. Driscoll

Mr. Ackerman - Revision to #3 change driveway to lot terrain.

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

ZC39-06 – Konvalinka - B: 78, L: 4 – 49 Hillcrest Ave. – front setback 47.5’ vs 50’ for roofed

entryway –Approval resolution Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Braden; Mr. Driscoll

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

CORRESPONDENCE

Morris Plaza – 350 Main Rd. – B: 57.01, L: 6 – request for extension of approvals to 6/4/08

Mr. Ackerman – It is out of the applicant’s control to meet the requirement of the roadway extension.  The Township is getting closer to building the extension of the roadway.  The applicant would like to bond their share of the improvements with no CO until constructed.  Discussion ensued on possible future changes to Rt. 202. 

Motion to grant the extension made by: Mr. Braden; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Braden; Mr. Driscoll, Marinello


Page 8

4/4/07

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 May 2, 2007.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.

Must certify to 10/4/06

 

 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack