ZBoA Minutes 5-2-07 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF May 2, 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 rescheduled to 7/5/07 with notice required:

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: 7/6/07

OLD BUSINESS

ZC6-07 Levitt, Barbara – 51 Douglas Dr.. – B: 86, L: 8 – front setback 35.2’ vs 50’ for deck; side setback 15.9’ vs 20’ for addition; rear setback of 49.2’ vs 50’ for addition to single family residence  - Notice Acceptable                                                                            ACT BY: 7/17/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Barbara Levitt, Applicant

Barbara Levitt - sworn

Wish to update the house.  Want to remain in the front footprint of the house as it stands today.  Requesting a variance for front setback 35.2’ where 50’ is required for a deck; a side setback 15.9’ where 20’ is required for addition; and rear setback of 49.2’ where 50’ is required for addition to single family residence.  This is a corner lot so I have 2 front yards.  There is an existing screened porch that is at 49.2’ rear setback and I want to add along that line.  Want to keep the existing side setback and go back from that.  Mr. Denzler – The addition is to the rear.  Mr. Denzler - Reviewed the proposed variances for the board.  This is a corner lot.  The existing side is at 15.3’ where the applicant is requesting 15.9’.  Why can’t the 50’ be met along the back?  Ms. Levitt – I am trying to keep the house symmetrical.  The proposal would not effect anyone in the surrounding neighborhood.  Mr. Denzler – Possible future driveway turnaround shown on the plan. Mr. Huelsebusch – Turnaround should be installed in driveway and a drywell should be installed along lot 9.


Page 2

5/2/07

Open to public –

Stephanie Trizinski, lot 9 - sworn

Concerned with the existing runoff.  Want to ensure that the problem does not get worse. 

Mr. Buraszeski – If we condition the driveway turnaround would they still be under impervious coverage?  Mr. Denzler – Yes.  Mr. Cartine – Is it true that the dwelling next door is closer than this proposal.  Mr. Denzler – Yes. Dr. Kanoff – Are most of these variances existing?  Mr. Denzler – Yes.  Mr. Hug – Requested a description of the drywell.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Explained the operation of a drywell and best location. 

Public portion closed

Motion to approve the application subject to installation of a drywell and installation of driveway turnaround, minimal effect to the neighborhood made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore; No - Mr. Marinello

ZC18-03 Ptaszek - 21 Rockledge Rd. – B: 13, L: 22 – construction of a single-family residence – variances 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;; slope regulation in environmentally sensitive area – Carried w/notice from 5/3/06; New notice acceptable 4/27/07 -  Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Braden, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello                               ACT BY: 5/31/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Peter Steck, Planner; Waldemar Ptaszek, applicant; Mr. Puzio, AIA; Marc Walker, PE

Mr. Schepis – This is our 2nd meeting before the Board.  Reviewed the lot and surrounding area for the Board.  The applicant is requesting a front setback variance; deviation of slopes and handrail on top of retaining wall as well as existing lot size.

Mr. Puzio, AIA – previously sworn

The recent architectural plans are dated 3/30/07.  The revisions show that the height and size of the house have been reduced.  We have reduced the overall height by 8’.  We have reduced the height of the basement floor to 9’.  Reduced kitchen to 9’ where it used to be 14’.  The rear elevation has been reduced to 32’.  We have eliminated the attic.  The front elevation is a single story structure.  The 2nd floor (street level) has a living room; dining room and kitchen.  The 2 bedrooms are on the floor below.  2 bedrooms are in the basement.   The highest point of the roof from the basement to the peak of the roof is 35’.  We made 5 different changes to make the house look smaller than it is.  The width of the house was reduced by 1 ½’.  Overall reduction was close to 30 square feet. 

Marc Walker, PE – sworn

                Exhibit

                                A3 - development map exhibit – highlighted area of lot and surrounding area

                                A4 - Topo map of surrounding area

Mr. Walker - Average slope on the lot is less than 35%.   The proposed footprint is considerable smaller than the housing in the surrounding area.   We start the driveway at the lowest elevation we can.  House looks like a 1-story structure from the front.  The rear of the house is 3 stories because of the grade of the


Page 3

5/2/07

property.  The driveway is relatively flat.  I have created a highpoint at the end of the driveway to look over the hump in the road making less of a sight distance problem.  The neighboring house is 2’ closer to the street than what we propose.  We have a turnaround area as required so there will not be backing out on Rockledge Road.  We made application to the Township Committee to change the speed limit but they did not agree.  They agreed to post a sign in that area with 15 mph speed limit.  We can either re-align the road or lower the hump in the road.  There are 2 houses already on the hump so that would increase the steepness of their driveways.  Re-aligning the road would create a significant amount of disturbance.  We can add a curve but there will still be a hump there. We decided that moving the driveway, as far away from the hump as possible was the best bet.  We moved the driveway to the far south of the property.  We propose a 15 mph warning sign.  Propose a flashing sign that says, “When flashing vehicle exiting driveway”.  This would be a solar powered sign that turns on when a plate on the driveway is driven on.  The homeowner insists on having a mirror that would give 155 feet of sight distance.  A recent report from Traffic Safety Officer indicated that he would not approve the sign unless it met DOT regulations.  We will consolidate the flashing sign and the 15 mph sign into one sign as required by DOT.

                A5 – sign detail

Mr. Walker – The Town Council will have to approve the sign and DOT will have to authorize construction.  Garage floor is located on the 2nd floor.  The proposed house meets the Township ordinances as it relates to height and stories.  There is a series of 3 retaining walls in the rear.  1st two are 6’ and the final one is 5’ in height.  Pedestrian access from front of garage on south side is a series of steps that go adjacent to the house to the rear yard.  The access is along a retaining wall and for safety purposes propose a 3’ high handrail.  Since we raised the driveway to reduce sight distance problem, need a guide rail, which is 2’10” in height.  There is a chain link fence on the other side of the house so there will not be pedestrian traffic along that side of the house.  This is the best design for this property.  The front setback requested is 33.7’ but the right of way along the property is 34’ and had to measure as it was a 50’ right of way.  If we moved the house back to conform to the setback it increases the grade disturbance and the garage elevation would be higher.  It would make it look like the garage is not related to the living space.  If we had a parking pad instead of a garage we would have to back out onto Rockledge and it would require a 12’ high retaining wall.  This proposal minimized the effect to the neighbors.  The house on lot 21 is only 2’ further back from the road.  Many of the driveways in the area exceed the 15% slope.  No matter what the proposal there is no avoiding development into the slopes. 

Mr. Walker – Will require soil erosion approval from Morris County Soil Conservation District.    Collected all impervious coverage runoff on site.  Propose 3 - 1,000 gallon drywells.  There were 2 prior approvals one in 1978 and one in 1988.  The 1988 approval shows the garage 23’ from the right of way where we proposed 33’ from the right of way.  Our proposal has a flat driveway.  The 1978 plan is similar but was to be constructed 25’ from the right of way.  We will be hooking up to sewers where the previous plans had septic systems proposed which would require more disturbance than what is proposed.    There are 72 houses in the area that are built on slopes higher than 25%.  Once the site is constructed do not see any effect to surrounding area or Lake Valhalla. 

TRACK 2

Mr. Denzler – Requested the square footage of overall house.  Mr. Puzio – Approximately 5,000 including 3 floors and garage.  Mr. Denzler – How many truckloads of fill is required?   Mr. Walker – 2,286 cubic yards, so about 152 trucks.  Mr. Huelsebusch - Adequacy of turning radii on the driveway.  Mr. Walker – will be adequate for any car and will be able to turnaround and head out face first.  Mr. Huelsebusch – I believe that A5 is in conformance with DOT requirements.  Mr. Barile did a letter dated today that would have to be conformed to.   Mr. Schepis – Agreed.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Suggest a geotechnical engineer be on site during construction. 


Page 4

5/2/07

Mr. Marinello – We will open to the public for these witnesses, if represented by counsel then attorney shall go first.  The application will not be finished tonight.  Any comments as to for or against the application will beheld to the end of the testimony.  We will be requesting questions that may not be answered at this hearing but the applicant’s professionals can come back at the next hearing with the answers to those questions asked.

Open to public

Randy Pearce attorney for several property owners.

We wish to do a power point presentation at the next meeting. 

Wojciech J. Micakowski, AIA - sworn

I am testifying on my own behalf.  Ihave compared the 1988 design.  I would like to have opportunity to do a complete presentation at a later date.

                O1 – poster board of photocopies of 1988 site plan and 2005/2007 site plan

                O2 – east elevation of 1988 and 2005

In comparing data from the past and today, how did Mr. Walker determine that this house is smaller than the houses in the area?  Why does the current plan require many retaining walls and excessive land disturbance when the 1988 plan did not?  How was this house designed specifically for this site?  We would like an independent architect to determine what the real square footage is. Will the house be about 16’ above the driveway?  Did you develop road profiles to determine how much this house will be above the road?  Most houses along this road are below street level.  How do you justify that this house is above the road where the rest of the houses are below the road. 

Bob Batik – 24 Lakeshore Dr. - sworn

I am concerned with the number of trucks that will be required for soil.  I would like impact information to the area of that number of trucks.  I am concerned with the amount of soil to be brought to the site.  What kind of soil is it?  What is consistency of the soil? 

Barbara Mickowski – 23 Rockledge Rd. - sworn

I would want to make sure that my husband’s presentation be allowed in power point.   Can an appropriate home be built on this lot?  The proposal requested seems egregious. 

Robert Mareiniss – 22 Lakeshore Dr.  - sworn          

Why does the 1988 design show less impact to neighbors and public as opposed to present design?

Mr. Cartine – How many drywells proposed?  Mr. Walker – 3.  Mr. Cartine – Only see 2.  Mr. Cartine – Identify properties that have the same or steeper slopes in the area.  Identify any other house that has 3 stories exposed?  Dr. Kanoff – Have you done the solar powered sign in any other project?   Mr. Walker – No.  Mr. Hug – Concerned with solar powered sign and mirror proposed.  Will sunlight shine off mirror to blind oncoming drivers?  Mr. Marinello – Concerned with the chain link fence.  Mr. Buraszeski – Are other properties in the area the same size as this lot?  Mr. Ackerman – Suggest a neighborhood theme be established as to size of lots and square footage of houses.  Mr. Driscoll – Concerned with dump trucks accessing the site.  Mr. DiPiazza – Who will take care of the sign in the future?

Carried with notice to: 7/5/07, which the Board Secretary advised the public is a Thursday and not a Wednesday due to the holiday, with an extension of time to act to 7/6/07.


Page 5

5/2/07

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 11/1/0, 12/6/06 & 1/3/07.  New notice acceptable1/3/07 -   Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Braden, Mr. DiPiazza; Mr. Moore; Mr. Marinello              

ACT BY: 5/3/07

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

Mr. Schepis – Reviewed the variances requested for the board.  We ran into an issue with the County and decided to give an 8 ½’ easement to the County.  It has been submitted to the County for approval.

               

Mr. Mianecki – previously sworn

Plan was last revised 4/4/07.  There is an 8 ½’ right of way easement dedicated along the front of the property to the County.  There will be no parking of display vehicles in front of the building line and will not exceed 25 vehicles.  5 spaces designed for employee parking.  Proposed 2 landscape planters and foundation plantings.  The 2 lights are wall mounted and are Towaco Style.  There will be a painted line extended in front of the building to designate where the County right of way is.  The County has not posted this as no parking but it is a viable area for customers to park or maneuver on site. 

Mr. Mianecki - The proposed shed will have a 2 ½’ rear setback where 5’ is required.  The purpose of the shed is to clean up the site of items that are currently stored in the fenced in area.  The existing building is at 7.8’ so the rear setback cannot be met for the shed.  The rear neighbor is the railroad track so it will not affect a neighbor.  Mr. Denzler – Requested additional landscaping along easterly property line.  Mr. Mianecki – There are currently bushes in front of the southerly end of the rock wall.  They are about 3-4’ in height.  I would not want to put landscaping too close to the road.  Mr. Denzler – Do you have to walk out into the right of way to get into the car along Rt. 202?  Mr. Mianecki – Yes.  Mr. Denzler – Customers come out of the building and have to go out onto the street to get around that car.  Mr. Mianecki – We are trying to make establish a more aesthetically pleasing view to the site with the landscaping.  Mr. Denzler – Recommend concrete planters.  Mr. Mianecki – Agreed.  Mr. Denzler – 2 or 3 planters can be installed along right of way.  Mr. Schepis – Would make it less maneuverable on site for display area. 

Mr. Denzler - As it relates to the lighting detail on the plan the light source must be 150 High Pressure Sodium.  Mr. Mianecki – Yes, with yellow bulbs, as per the specs that I received from Omland Engineering.  Mr. Denzler - Can the lights be turned off ½ hour after closing?  Mr. Mianecki – Yes.  Mr. Denzler – Requested the height of the existing sign?  Mr. Mianecki - 18’ high.  Mr. Denzler- How is a 55 s.f. sign in keeping with the Towaco theme?  Mr. Mianecki – It does not.  Want to use the existing pole, the pole juts out to the front of the building, if hung off the jut out area it would be about 7’ in height and would prevent access from delivery trucks.  There is no other location on the site for this sign.  Mr. Denzler – Only that sign will work?  Mr. Mianecki – Yes.  Mr. Denzler- Looking for ½ that size for the sign and lower than what exists.  A smaller sign at a lower height would be more aesthetically pleasing, even if placed in the same location.   Mr. Schepis – We have not been able to come up with any different signage. 

Mr. Huelsebusch –Do you believe that 30 cars can be parked on this site safely?  Mr. Mianecki – Depends on the size of the cars.   Mr. Hug – Asked the Board Engineer if he thought that 30 cars could be parked safely on the site.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Maybe Mini Coopers.  Mr. Schepis – All the display vehicles will be parked behind the building as required.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Stripe should be 8” wide not 4” wide.  I am concerned with the parking on site and the rights that go along with this type of use. 


Page 6

5/2/07

TRACK 3

               

Open to public – none

Mr. Schepis – Mr. Raykov has brought 3 of his customers to testify to the site. 

Mr. Denzler – There was a Board of Health report received this evening.  Mr. Schepis – In lieu of waste oil being stored in 5 gallon containers, this board requested tanks and containment.  This was not reviewed by the Board of Health previously so I sent them a letter clarifying same and they reported back accordingly.

Vikram Shah, customer of Mr. Raykov – 89 Hunter Rd Lincoln Park - sworn

I have had repairs done by Mr. Raykov for the past 2 years.  Mr. Cartine – Have you ever bought a car from this site?  Mr. Shah – No.

Rousid Ispreai – 2102 Cedar Knolls, NJ -sworn

Mr. Raykov has been servicing my cars for years at the Rt. 202 site.

Donald Bott – 8 Sheeprock Rd. Kinnelon - sworn

I have known Mr. Raykov since 1984.  He has been servicing my car since then.

Mr. Schepis – Request painted line along the right of way instead of blockage by planters.  The County has approved this plan.  As it relates to the sign we do not know what to do.  Think it is in the Towaco theme and any lower it will be smacked by a delivery truck.

Mr. Denzler – Reviewed the variances for the Board.  Requesting a 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. 

Mr. Marinello – Concerned with the maneuverability of the site onto the County right of way.  I have not seen definitive proofs that the County has approved that.  Mr. Cartine – Concerned with the lack of proofs that this use has been the same since before the ordinances.  Mr. Cartine asked for an explanation of the use of the right of way.  Mr. Ackerman – This Board cannot approve the use of a County right of way for maneuverability on site and the applicant has not agreed to the beautification of the site by using concrete planters that would prohibit the crossover onto the County right of way.  Mr. Marinello – Would prefer it remain open for safety purposes, but make it clear that the Board does not approve of the use of the right of way.  

Mr. Driscoll – What are we doing about the signage?  Mr. Marinello – There has been no decision on the signage yet.  Mr. Driscoll – Suggest that the signage be in conformance with the Towaco Center specifications.  Mr. Driscoll – Suggest that we get review by the Design Review Committee.  Mr. Hug – Can we do this subject to the Design Review Committee and meeting the Towaco Design Standards?   Mr. Ackerman – Yes.  Mr. Marinello – You are in effect denying the sign at this time.  Mr. Cartine – Can we deny the certificate of pre-existing non-conforming use due to lack of proofs?  Mr. Marinello – Yes but we can approve the non-conforming use.  Mr. Cartine – I have not seen proof that the sale of vehicles has continued since before 1952. 

Motion to approve the application the use is compatible with location as non-conforming use and is a good use for a site that abuts a railroad, no more than 25 cars behind the line and no more than 30 total on site, approval of the shed location due to location of railroad and no residential lots, subject to all professional and agency recommendations with the exception of the planters on the west side of the property, subject to signage must be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee with respect to Towaco Standards, sign as proposed and as exists is not approved made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Mr. Hug; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore; Mr. Marinello


Page 7

5/2/07

NOTE Mr. Buraszeski stepped down for the following application:

ZC20-06 Apple Creek – 4 Berlin Ln.– B: 100.1, L: 8 – front setback 18.9’ vs 45’ to unnamed right of way /rear setback 27.98’ vs 50’ for construction of a new home and deck carried w/ notice from 1/3/07   Eligible: Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore; Mr. DiPiazza; Mr. Marinello                                                                                                               ACT BY: 5/3/07

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

Gary Needleman, Esq. – Have reduced the house to meet the building coverage requirements.  The applicant is requesting front and rear setbacks variances.  Mr. Marinello – You have gone from 5 variances to 2?  Mr. Needleman – Yes.

Mr. Walker – previously sworn

9,321 s.f. lot size where 27,000 s.f. required.  We have shrunken down our proposed house from the previous proposal.  Variances requested are due to the size of the lot.  This house will be substantially smaller than the other houses in the area.  The applicant is requesting a variance from unnamed street and rear setback.  There is one issue, recently the ordinances has been interpreted as the height of the structure and relates to the side setback.  We have to move the house to 17.4’ from the unnamed right of way.  I would like to amendment our application to be 17.4’ instead of 18.9’.  Mr. Marinello – Did you notice for it.  Notice was reviewed and the applicant has notice properly.  Mr. Huelsebusch – The applicant has proposed extension of the stormwater drain in Berlin Lane.  The application would require approval from the Township Engineer.  The revised plan must show the elevations along with moving the house further from the side property line.  Mr. Walker – The drainage from the site will be brought to the detention system off the subdivision.  There will be no added infiltration to the aquifer. 

Open to public – none – closed

Motion to approve the application, applicant has made adequate changes to the plan subject to professional reports, township engineer review and approval of proposed drainage system extension and if not approved then adequate drywell to be installed made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. DiPiazza; Mr. Marinello; Mr. Moore - abstain

NOTE: Mr. Buraszeski returned

NEW BUSINESS

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

ZB11-07 Boiling Springs Savings – 446 & 448 Rt. 202 – B: 39.11, L: 78.1 & 78.2 – interpretation of the ordinance    Notice Acceptable

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.

Mr. Schepis – Requesting an interpretation of the zoning ordinance as it relates to a potential development located at 446 and 448 Rt. 202.  The properties are located in the B-1 zone.  The ordinance requires that bar/taverns exist in stand along buildings where the bar/tavern is part of this strip mall.  The applicant is proposing to create a bank at the residential building in front of the strip mall.  There will be cross parking easement to both properties.  Propose an increase of parking on site.  Request an interpretation that the bar use is not being expanded since the parking will be changed on site.  I agree with Mr. Denzler’s memo.  Mr. Denzler – There is no reduction in the Red Barn lot property, there is no taking away of parking, and there are no improvements to be done to the building where the existing non-conforming use stands.  Do


Page 8

5/2/07

not see this as an expansion of a non-conforming use.  I would interpret this application as being considered under the jurisdiction of the Planning Board.  Mr. Marinello – We are not condoning any use on the property, just interpreting the ordinance as it relates to the non-conforming use of the bar.  Mr. Ackerman – Based on the fact that the bank does not exceed FAR or height. 

Motion to grant the interpretation as not being an expansion of a non-conforming use made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski; Kanoff; Cartine; Driscoll; DiPiazza; Moore; Marinello

OTHER BUSINESS

ZBC11-06 Abbott – 80A Stonybrook Rd. – B: 3, L: 14.04 – request by applicant to dismiss without prejudice

Motion to dismiss without prejudice made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Buraszeski; Hug; Kanoff; Cartine; Driscoll; DiPiazza; Moore; Marinello

MINUTES:

Minutes of April 4, 2007 - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Braden; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello

Mr. Buraszeski requested that on Page 2 change hose to house.

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

INVOICES:

                Bricker & Assoc. – Trust for: $180; $300; $180; $360; $180; $360

                William Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $150; $150; $150; $30; $180; $420; $270; $240; $870; $90

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

RESOLUTIONS

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 hose and rebuild – Approval resolution.  Eligible: Cartine, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Braden, Driscoll, Marinello

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

Amended resolution 2 story to 1 story and a preposition was changed.

Motion to adopt as amended made by: Hug; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call:  Yes – Driscoll, Buraszeski, Hug, Kanoff, Cartine


Page 9

5/2/07

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 – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Cartine, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Braden, Driscoll, Marinello

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

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 – Denial Resolution – Eligible: Kanoff, Buraszeski, Braden, Driscoll

Mr. Ackerman - Amended to state in #5 “there are 15 potential parking spaces located on the plans as being capable of being constructed along Horseneck Rd., but they are not presently in existence at the property. Applicants do not propose to construct these spaces”.

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

Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll

               

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

Mr. Ackerman - Amended date to June 3, 2008

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

CORRESPONDENCE

Copies of draft ordinance for Building Height and R-27D Childcare/Eldercare have been distributed to the Board.  Please contact the Land Use offices with comments as soon as possible.

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 June 6, 2007.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.

Must certify to 5/3/06 hearing

Must certify to 5/3/06

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

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

 

 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack