|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF JUNE 6, 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 – Absent
Carl DiPiazza (Alt #2) - Absent
Gerard
Hug - Present
Also
Present: William Denzler,
Planner
Hank
Huelsebusch, Engineer
Bruce
Ackerman, Esq.
John
Visco – Planning Board Member
PLEDGE
OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated
for the record
Swearing
in of Professionals
The following application was carried with notice to
8/1/07:
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: 8/2/07
The following application was rescheduled to
7/5/07 with notice required:
ZSPP/FCD/ZMN35-06
– Anton Co. – 1275 Bloomfield Ave. – B:
181, L: 1 – minor subdivision/prel/final site plan with Use and bulk variances
for construction of a 2 story mixed use commercial building. ACT BY: 8/19/07
Page 2
6/6/07
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW
BUSINESS
NOTE:
Mr. Visco from the Planning Board is in attendance for eligibility for the St.
Pius application
NOTE:
Mr. Marinello and Mr. Driscoll stepped down for the following application: and
Dr. Kanoff assumed the chair
ZSPP/FCD18-98-10-07
St. Pius Church - B: 82, L: 10.01 - 24 Changebridge Rd. – amended
pre/final site plan for construction of a scaled down version of the site
plan/variances previously approved – D variance for building height of 49.4’
(previous approval was 57.4’) vs 35’ allowed; D variance for steeple height of
82.4’ vs 45’ allowed; c variance maximum impervious coverage 247,387 s.f.
(218,175 s.f. existing) vs 13,600 s.f. allowed; minimum parking spaces required
591 where 385 proposed; minimum parking setback to building 10’ permitted where
6.5’ proposed; wall height permitted is 6’ where 6.5’ proposed; design waiver
for slope disturbance
Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 7/28/07
Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq., Joseph
Mianecki, PE; James Hunt, AIA
Dr. Kanoff welcomed the applicant and indicated that it has been
pleasure working with the church in the previous applications and was happy to
see that the town has worked hard to the fast track this application so it
could be heard at tonight’s hearing.
Dr. Kanoff asked Mr. Schepis to begin his testimony.
Mr. Schepis – Mr. Mianecki will be here in an engineering and
planning aspect as an expert.
Joseph Mianeki, PE PP - sworn
Mr.
Mianecki had prepared an analysis of the project dated 6-6-07
Exhibit A1 – Mianecki analysis
dated 6-6-07
Exhibit A2 – Previously approved
site plan colorized
Exhibit A3 – Phase 1 plan
colorized
Exhibit A4 – Proposed Phase 2
plan colorized
Mr.
Ackerman – The comparison chart in unclear, are the numbers cumulative? Mr. Mianecki – No the Phase 2 numbers are
the overall numbers requested.
Mr.
Mianecki reviewed the exhibits for the Board.
Mr.
Mianecki– The applicant is requesting a building
height of 49.4’ at Phase 2 reducing from the previously approved 57.4’, at
Phase 1 the building height is proposed at 28.5’. The maximum steeple height was previously approved at 68.36’ and
requesting 65.6’ at Phase 2. The
overall maximum height to the peak of the cross approved previously was 82.4’,
propose 82.3’ for this application.
Maximum impervious coverage 29,118 s.f increase previously approved, at
Phase 1 it will be 15,627 s.f. increase and at the end of development there
will be a total increase of 29,212 s.f.
Parking previously approved was 378 where 688 was required, we are now
requesting 408 where 443 required at Phase 1 and a total of 381 where 594
required at the end of development.
Requesting a variance from parking setback to buildings of 6’where 10’
is required. Maximum wall height
variance previously approved was 9.3’; the applicant proposes 6.5’ at phase
2. Area of disturbance 6.59 acres
approved previously, 1 acre disturbed under phase 1 and 4.81 acres disturbed at
the end of construction. Steep slopes
0%-15% 190,858 s.f. requested; 15%-20% 8,705 s.f.; 20%-25% 6,377 s.f.; 25% +
3,457 s.f. requested. I met with Mr.
Eric Keller on site and have incorporated all comments into my plans.
Page
3
6/6/07
Mr.
Mianecki – The bulk of the stormwater management will be diverted to an
underground system, which will be infiltrated underground. Converted detention basin into an
infiltration basin as per DEP regulations.
There will be no negative impact to water quality.
Exhibit
A5 – photos of existing retention basin
Mr.
Mianecki – reviewed the photos for the Board.
Exhibit
A6 – photos of existing vegetation on site
Mr.
Mianecki reviewed the photos for the Board
Mr.
Mianecki reviewed the application from a planning perspective. As it related to impervious coverage, the
13,600 s.f. allowed is the most allowed for a conventional lot. This property sits in a bowl and is oversized. The property fits for the variances
requested. The proposed application
does not have exposed foundations like the first application. Do not see a detriment to the surrounding
area.
Mr.
Denzler – How long will the ultimate build out take? Mr. Mianecki – We do not have a time period for Phase 2 it will
be completed as funds are available.
Mr. Denzler – Additional landscaping along Ashland will be
required. Mr. Schepis – Request that no
additional landscaping be required since the property is heavily buffered. Mr. Denzler – There is no landscaping at the
entrance to Ashland and that residence has a direct view. Mr. Schepis – Will it create a site distance
issue? Mr. Denzler- The landscaping
would have to be installed far enough back as to not create a sight distance
problem. The existing buffering is
deciduous 6 months out of the year. Mr.
Schepis – About 8 more? Mr. Schepis –
Will work with the Board Planner as it relates to additional landscaping in
this area. Mr. Denzler- Streetscape
improvements, can lighting be installed as it relates to the entrance
driveway? Mr. Schepis – We have limited
frontage, do not see it as our obligation, and prefer that the Board grace us
with an exception.
Mr.
Denzler – The steeple height previously was 11’ now 16’; cross was 16’ now 17’,
what is the effect to the neighbors for the lighting to the steeple? Mr. Mianecki – Only the cross will be lit
not the steeple, the cross will be mat finish and the lights will be turned off
at 11pm except on those few occasions that the church is open later. Mr. Denzler – There is a shared parking
ordinance, will there be adequate parking for a church and school? Mr. Mianecki – Yes. Mr. Denzler- How many spaces exist now? Mr. Mianecki – 347. Mr. Denzler – Why would you add 408 spaces
in Phase 1 and reduced to 381 in Phase 2?
Mr. Mianecki – It has to do with circulation between Phase 1 and Phase
2. Mr. Denzler - What is the purpose of
the gathering room? Mr. Mianecki –
Social gatherings. Mr. Denzler –
Equating preliminary and final site plan approval, there are statutory time
limits. Mr. Schepis – We can come back
and request an extension.
Mr.
Huelsebusch – No drainage calculations have been submitted for Phase 2 and
Phase 1 calculations require minor modifications to meet today’s
ordinance. It is the policy of the
Township to request streetscape lighting along this corridor. Mr. Schepis – Agree to all comments in the
Board Engineer’s March memo with the exception of the streetscape
lighting.
Open
to the public
Edward
Gerter – 26 Changebridge Rd. - sworn
Our
rear property line is located 23’ from the parking area. Most of the growth in that area is gone in
the winter and we get headlights into our house. I would like to be assured
that there will be additional screening to stop the headlights and sound
protection from the cars. Currently
there is a light that shines in our window until 11PM. I am worried about additional lighting from
the steeple. School busses park along
that parking area and we smell the fumes.
As the church has expanded we have had more problems that we
Page
4
6/6/07
have
had to live with. I would like
assurances that we would have some protection from the additional
construction. I would like a buffer
zone along the rear of our property.
Mr.
Carney – 32 Hillcrest Ave. - sworn
I
have the same concerns with screening.
During the winter we have direct view of the trees. I would like additional plantings along my
property. I would like the additional
planting along the perimeter of the detention basin since my property is lower
than the church property. The lights
were on at 1:30AM this weekend and it happens quite a lot. I was under the understanding that the basin
was to be un-mowed but it is mowed every week.
I would like a 10’ or 12’ swath to remain untouched to let nature take
its course. Request that any additional
plantings be done in Phase 1, not Phase 2.
Mr.
Schepis – Agree to work with the Board Planner on plantings for the 2 property
owners and agree to additional planting along Ashland with the exception of the
slope since no one will be affected.
Mr. Hug – Will the planting be done in Phase 1? Mr. Schepis – Yes.
Mr.
Hug – Would the streetscape lighting effect Mr. Gerter as it relates to
glare? Mr. Gerter – No.
Dr.
Kanoff – The size of the steeple and cross was hashed over at the last
hearings. The building height is lower
but the steeple and cross were increased and the board was against the larger
height of the cross during the last application. Mr. Ackerman – The previous approval was 24.8’ for steeple and
cross and what is the total now? Mr.
Schepis – We intended to keep the approved overall height as approved
previously even though the building height is lower.
TRACK
2
James
Hunt, Architect - sworn
The
configuration of this building is different so the previous proportion of the
steeple was for a flat roofed building.
This is a pitched roof proposal so it will be in proportion. This is the minimum height that it needs to
be, we would prefer it higher.
Exhibit
A7 – rendering of the building
Mr.
Hunt – The proposed building is gabled roofed and we set the elevation of the
steeple and cross with the roofing.
Closed
to public
Dr.
Kanoff – What improvements must be in before a building permit is
released? Mr. Denzler - That would be
spelled out in the resolution, landscaping, stormwater, etc. They would be required to apply for 1 permit
for the 1st phase and a 2nd permit for final build
out. Mr. Huelsebusch – There are no
Phase 2 improvements that need to be in before Phase 2 begins.
Motion
to approve preliminary/final site plan, reducing size of building, steeple
height increase acceptable since architectural issue, approval of variances,
additional landscaping to be installed for both neighbors and Ashland
Drive. drainage calculations must be submitted for both phases, subject
to streetscape light be installed at entrance, all professional reports, made
by : Mr. Hug; Second by: Moore; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Braden, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr.
Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Visco, Dr. Kanoff
NOTE:
Mr. Marinello and Mr. Driscoll return and Mr. Visco left the meeting; Mr.
Marinello resumed the Chair
Page
5
6/6/07
ZC8-07 Ackerman, Art – 3 Ward Witty – B: 21, L:
15 – side setback 24.2’ vs 30’ allowed for garage addition Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 7/28/07
Present on behalf of the applicant: Art Ackerman, Applicant
Mr. Art Ackerman - sworn
Requesting a side setback variance of 24.2’ where 30’ is
required. We have a small 2 car garage
and requesting an additional 15’ to widen existing bays for the garage and add
a 3rd bay. We have 4 cars, we collect antique cars. Mr. Denzler – Did you consider building a
detached garage? Mr. Ackerman – It
would not give us the width and there would be another structure on the
property. Mr. Denzler – How close is
your neighbor closest to that side yard.
Mr. Ackerman – The neighbor is at a 10’-12’ higher elevation and about
50-60’ from my property line. Mr.
Denzler – Will the driveway need to be expanded. Mr. Ackerman – No. Mr.
Denzler – Would you agree to a condition that there would be no 2nd
story addition allowed on this house due to setback variance requested? Mr. Ackerman – Yes. Mr. Huelsebusch – The property is flat so
did not ask for a drywell.
Open to the pubic –
Eugene Tensen – 5 Ward Witty Dr. - sworn
We are next door to the property.
The past few years there has been increased traffic from this property,
repairs done in the property, flat bed trucks delivery cars. I have counted as many as 6 or 7 cars in
various forms of repair on the property at any one time. We have complained to the Township and the
police. We strongly oppose this
variance for garage addition. The
addition will increase the activity on this residential street.
Mr. Hug – Can you respond to the neighbor comments. Mr. Ackerman – We have lived here 5 years,
there has been 1 flatbed truck to the property to pick up our van that had a
dead battery. We own a 52 Ford pickup a
62 Chevy convertible and 2 other Chevy’s a 62 and a 64. I am not repairing cars. The police have not ever been to my
property. The zoning officer did show up I showed him the cars are registered
and licensed and there were no further concerns. Mr. Marinello – Asked about the neighboring properties. Mr. Ackerman – There were a couple of
variances approved before this board within the past few years and there are
several 3 car garages on the street.
Dr. Kanoff – What is the hardship? Mr. Ackerman – The current garage is small and it is hard to get
in and out of the cars now. Mr.
Buraszeski – Is there something unique about the property that would require
the variance? Mr. Braden – If you had
the 3rd car garage bay would 3 of your 4 cars be in the garage so
there would be less in view of the neighbors?
Mr. Ackerman – The current cars are parked behind the house, not in
view. Mr. Driscoll – There is quite a
bit of space between the homes. Mr.
Denzler - How do you get the cars behind the house? Mr. Ackerman – I drive on the lawn.
Closed to public
Mr. Marinello – We can grant a simple side yard variance but we
cannot condone commercial use on the property.
Motion
to deny the application due to failure to identify the hardship of the property
made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call: Yes - Mr.
Buraszeski, Mr. Moore, Dr. Kanoff; No - Mr. Braden, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr.
Marinello
Motion
fails
Page
6
6/6/07
Motion
to approved the variance application, benefits outweigh the detriments from a
zoning perspective, more visually pleasing, large distance from neighbors
house, better use of property no other place to locate expansion, minimal
setback request, no 2nd story addition allowed in the future made
by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call vote: Yes - Mr. Braden, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello; No - Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff
ZC2-07 Bott, Marilyn – 122 Jacksonville Rd. – B:
28, L: 13 – construction of a new 2-story
dwelling
front setback variance for 35’ vs 50’ required; side setback of 15’ vs 21.5’
required
Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 7/28/07
Present on behalf of the applicant: Marilyn Bott, Applicant;
Joseph Mianecki, PE
Marilyn Bott , applicant - sworn
Mr. Mianecki, PE - sworn
Ms. Bott – Looking to construct a one family dwelling on the
property. Due to wetlands we need to
request a variance from front and side yards.
Mr. Mianecki – Reviewed the property for the Board.
Exhibit A1 – colorized version of site
plan
Mr.
Mianecki – There is a valid LOI on the property along with a wetlands
delineation. Requesting a front setback
of 41’ where 50 is required to the dwelling and 35’ to the front stoop. Also requesting side setback of 15’ where
21.5’ is required. The lot exists
undersized. We are well under the
maximum building and impervious coverage requirements. The location of the house was chosen due to
wetland conditions. There is water and
sewer access to the site.
Open to public
Jerard Fazio – 14 Fidelian Way - Sworn
Concerned about the lot size not
conforming to the ordinance and the variance is doing the same. Concerned with precedent being set. This construction will disturb and possible
kill the trees and the animals in that area. Our grade in the house is
high. Would like some privacy. In the summer time the trees buffer the
noise from Jacksonville Rd., if removed there will be more noise. The wetlands on that property keep
increasing. Opposed to construction of
a house on the property. If approved
would like a buffer of trees for privacy.
Ms. Crawford – 14 Fidelian Way - sworn
Concerned with disturbing a natural
environment.
Mr. Marinello – How did this lot
occur? Mr. Denzler – Could have been an
out parcel to the subdivision behind it.
This was probably an isolated lot and not part of a subdivision. This is a 25,700 s.f. lot in a 27,000 s.f.
zone. What size house is proposed? Mr. Mianecki – 2,735 s.f. total floor
area. Mr. Denzler – can it be reduced
to eliminate the side setback? Mr.
Marinello – How big of a house could you do without variances? Mr. Mianecki – The house would be reduced to
a house that would not be marketable.
Mr. Denzler – This is in the CWR zone and requires no work within 4’ of
high water table. Mr. Mianecki – Propose
a crawlspace to meet requirements. Mr.
Mianecki - The split rail fence is required by DEP. Mr. Denzler- Can you provide buffering along right side of
property? Mr. Mianecki – Will agree to
work with Board Planner on additional buffering.
Page 7
6/6/07
Mr. Huelsebusch – Soil erosion plan
required. Mr. Mianecki – Yes. Mr. Huelsebusch – Recommend that a cast iron
connection to gas line be conditioned instead of PVC or it has to move to a
different location. Mr. Mianecki – I
will move the line.
Ellie Weidenshilling – Hewlett rd -
sworn
Mother, Catherine Butts owns lot
12. This lot was never filled in.
Bernadette Rodriguez – owner of this lot
The lot was filled in 1991 and was part
of a subdivision. We have attempted to
build but could not get a septic on the site, now there are sewers. The owner to the back have pipe that drains
to our property which has been requested to be removed but has not been
removed.
Dr. Kanoff – If a house is built there,
will the wetlands increase and eventually give them no yard at all? Mr. Mianecki – Once the site is stabilized
the wetlands will not encroach into the lawn.
Mr. Burazeski – This is a small house
and the applicant is trying to work within the constraints of the lot.
Closed to public
Motion to approve, modest home, constraints on
property, subject to landscape screening, moving of the gas pipe, and all
professional reports made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Mr.
Braden, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore; No - Dr. Kanoff, Mr.
Marinello
TRACK 3
ZC34-06 Voss, Duane - B: 125.2, L: 17 – 2 Craig
Ct. – front setback49’ vs 50’ required; side setback 23.46’ required vs 15.6’
proposed; maximum building coverage of 3,276 s.f. where 3,019 is allowed for
addition to single family residence. Notice acceptable ACT BY: 7/28/07
Present on behalf of the applicant: Duane Voss, Applicant
Ms. Voss, applicant - sworn
I am the original owner of the house. It is a 4 bedroom colonial.
The property is a corner lot requiring that we have 2 front yards. We are requesting front setback and side
setback and building coverage variances for 2 story addition. We are a growing family; there are 4 of us
right now and soon to be 5. We need
more space. We would like to remain in
Montville. We need functional living
space. The improvements will benefit the
neighborhood.
Exhibit A1 –
page 7 of the plan colorized
Ms. Voss – I colored the corner of the proposed building showing
the 9” encroachment into the front setback.
The side setbacks at the time we built the house were 15’ but now
require 23.46’. The house will not be
any wider than exists. We cannot
build over our garage without a variance.
Many of our neighbors built over their garages before the regulations
changed. We tried to make this as
architecturally pleasing as possible since 3 sides of our house are viewed from
the streets. The current house is 37
years old and is an eyesore.
Exhibit A2 – photos album of neighborhood houses
Exhibit A3 – photo of existing house and page A3 of the plan
previously submitted
Ms. Voss – 1 Craig Ct. across the street the garage was closed in
around 1978 to make a law office. There
is no sign out front. 3 Jotham Rd.
built their addition before the zoning changed and they built over the garage
and this house also has a 15’ setback, with the same sized property.
Page 8
6/6/07
Exhibit A4 – photo board of 3 Jotham and 1 Craig Ct.
Exhibit A5 – photo board of 1 Jotham and 11 Jotham
1 Jotham is a mother daughter with 2 separate entrances a variance
was granted for this property and 11 Jotham has the same 15’ side setback.
Ms. Voss – Request a waiver from the driveway turnaround. Have complied with professional
reports. Our house is 40’ from the
house next door. We are one of the few houses not expanded in the
neighborhood. We cut the proposal down
considerably from what we previously wanted.
Benefits outweigh detriments.
Mr. Denzler – Building coverage 3,276 s.f. where 3,019 is
allowed. Can you modify the house to
reduce the coverage variance? Mr. Voss
- If we had to. Ms. Voss – The building
coverage was different before the ordinance change, 3 houses in the area would
require variances today if they did their additions to today’s standards.
Mr. Huelsebusch – Drywells?
Ms. Voss – Will install drywells.
Mr. Huelsebusch - As it relates to turnaround, I backed out of the
driveway and there should be a turnaround installed,, There is room for a
turnaround.
Open to public
Tony Arcaria – 4 Craig Ct. - sworn
Have lived here for 47 years.
Totally in favor of the house addition.
Janice Nasisi – 7 Jotham Rd. sworn
My house faces this house and I am for the improvements proposed
to their home.
Closed to public
Dr. Kanoff – Can the addition be reduced to meet the building
coverage variance? Mr. Denzler –
There is ways to shave off to reduce coverage.
Dr. Kanoff – Would you be agreeable to cut off a small amount. Ms. Voss – A small amount but not the entire
amount. Mr. Driscoll - What amount of
square footage will be shaved off? Ms.
Voss we can take 2’ off sunroom and 2’ off family room, which shaves off a
total of 60 sq.ft.
Motion
to approve proposed addition will be in conformance with neighborhood, corner
lot, subject to driveway turnaround and drywell installation and shaving off 60
sq ft of building coverage made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call:
Yes - Mr. Braden, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Moore, Dr. Kanoff, Mr.
Marinello; No- Mr. Hug
ZC9-07 Ransom – 5 Melissa Ct. – B: 139.11,
L: 40.4 – building coverage 4,003 s.f. vs 3,449 s.f./impervious coverage 7,580
s.f. vs 6,898 s.f. for construction of an addition to single family home – Notice Acceptable ACT BY : 9/8/07
Present on behalf of the applicant: Mark Ransom, Applicant; Lenny
Mancuso, Alfred Stewart, PE
Lenny
Mancuso, builder - sworn
Alfred
Stewart, PE –sworn
Mr.
Stewart – Propose an addition to the side of the property, removing deck,
walkways and a porch. Adding a couple
of bedrooms the applicant’s parents are moving in. Expanding garage to 3 car for additional vehicle. Propose paver
driveway for 8% reduction in impervious coverage.
Page
9
6/6/07
Mr.
Stewart - Variance for building coverage requested 4,003 s.f. where 3,449 s.f.
allowed and variance requested for impervious coverage 7,580 s.f. where 6,898
s.f. allowed. Placing proposed addition
on top of existing driveway to reduce additional impervious coverage. We will provide a drywell.
Mr.
Denzler – Where are the hardships or benefits to coverage variance
requested?
Exhibit
A1 – summary of lots within the area prepared by Mr. Stewart
Mr.
Stewart - The summary includes lot
area, building coverage and percentages of the lots in the area. Our proposal at 11.15% of lot area is under
the average for the neighborhood.
Mr.
Marinello – Mr. Mancuso what is your status with the application. Mr. Mancuso – I am the builder
designer. Marinello – We will use you
as a fact witness but not an expert.
Mr. Denzler – The summary shows that only one house is more than what is
proposed.
Open
to public
Joan
Tegen –7 Cambray Rd. - sworn
We
will have additional water problem with the addition to this home.
Objector
exhibit O1 - 2 Aerial photos taken 8-9-97 photo of when construction started
Objector
exhibit O 2- 5 Photos of property prior to construction
Ms.
Tegen – We not get water since the construction of this subdivision. Additional construction will create more
water to our property. Our property is
lower than the site.
Mr.
Huelsebusch – A drywell will be installed to alleviate additional impervious
coverage. Suggest a drywell sized
larger than normal since there is a drainage problem.
Mr.
Mancuso – We can reduce the addition to the current overage. Mr. Stewart - We
will reduce the proposal to below the existing 7,148 s.f. impervious coverage.
Exhibit
A2 – proposed plan reducing driveway width, is shaving off a portion by the
garage (about
1
½’) shaving 2-3’ off patio and take off bubble by corner of porch.
Mr.
Stewart – The proposal in Exhibit A2 shows an impervious coverage 7,142 s.f.
which is below the 7,148 s.f. existing.
TRACK
4
Mark
Ransom, applicant – 5 Melissa Ct. - sworn
Mr.
Hug – You are requesting the addition for your parents to move in? Mr. Ransom – I have twins and my in laws
will be moving in? Mr. Hug – You would
be building a master bedroom that would be 1,254 s.f. ? Mr. Ransom – Yes. Mr. Ransom – There is a wetlands buffer zone to one side of the
property so there is no way to put the addition in another location. Other houses on the lot have 3 car
garages. The current garages are narrow
and our larger cars do not fit. We need
the larger car for transporting a special needs child, thus the need for a
larger garage. We are looking to
improve the land.
Mr.
Mancuso – There is a balcony off the back of the 2nd floor which is
included in the building coverage, this can be reduced by 200 s.f.. Mr. Denzler – That would bring the overage
to 10.3%.
Closed
to public
Page
10
6/6/07
Mr.
Hug – I think the proposal is too big.
Motion
to deny the application, over built, potential drainage problems, no hardship
shown made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Braden, Mr.
Buraszeski, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Marinello
OTHER
BUSINESS
None
MINUTES:
Minutes
of May 2, 2007 - Eligible: Buraszeski; Kanoff; Hug; Cartine; Driscoll; DiPiazza;
Moore; Marinello
Motion
to adopt made by: Mr. Driscoll, Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call: Unanimous
INVOICES:
Shapiro & Croland – O/E for:
$120; Trust for: $510; $300; $390; $336; $120
William
Denzler & Assoc. – O/E for: $30; $210; Trust for: $300; $330; $180. $90,
$180, $150,
$30,
$90, $210, $150, $360; $360
Bricker & Assoc – Trust for:
$360, $240, $330, $180; $1,440; $120
Motion
to approve made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
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
– Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug;
Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore Approval Resolution
Mr.
Buraszeski – On page 4 can we change as to the removal of the driveway
turnaround. Can we change the time for
the one-year approval from the day of approval to the day of adoption of the
resolution
Motion
to adopt as amended made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll
call: Yes – Buraszeski; Hug; Kanoff;
Driscoll; Moore
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 – Eligible: Mr.
Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore; Mr.
Marinello – Approval Resolution
Mr.
Ackerman – The Board approved the right to repair vehicles but the use was
subordinate use to the sale of vehicles.
Mr. Schepis stated that it could be read that the repair of vehicles was
only related to the sales. I added to
condition #10 that the repairs be limited to the 2 bay garages and that there
is only one user for this operation.
Repairs to be done only inside the building and no vehicles in disrepair
shall be outside the building.
Page
11
6/6/07
Motion
to adopt as amended made by: Mr. Hug;
Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll
call: Yes – Buraszeski; Hug; Kanoff;
Driscoll; Moore; Marinello
ZC20-06
Apple Creek
– 4 Berlin Ln.– B: 100.1, L: 8 – front setback 17.4’ vs 45’ to unnamed right of
way /rear setback 27.98’ vs 50’ for construction of a new home and deck –
eligible: Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. DiPiazza; Mr.
Marinello – Approval resolution
Motion
to adopt made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second
by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Hug; Kanoff; Driscoll; Abstain -
Marinello
ZB11-07 Boiling Springs
Savings –
446 & 448 Rt. 202 – B: 39.11, L: 78.1 & 78.2 – interpretation of the
ordinance – Eligible: Buraszeski; Kanoff; Cartine; Driscoll; DiPiazza; Moore;
Marinello - Approval Resolution
Mr.
Ackerman - Mr. Schepis had 2 comments on resolution. I revised the ordinance section.
The other comment was about parking and since testimony said 6 spaces
then that condition remains.
Motion
to adopt as amended made by: Mr.
Driscoll; Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call:
Yes – Buraszeski; Kanoff; Driscoll; Moore; Abstain - Marinello
CORRESPONDENCE
Height Ordinance discussion – The height ordinance
that was previously copied for the board, has been sent to the Township
Committee for adoption. If there are
any comments please contact the land use office immediately.
The
Board Secretary reminded the members that the July meeting will be held on
Thursday the 5th of July at 8PM.
Mr.
Braden, Mr. Buraszeski and Mr. Hug will not be in attendance at the July
meeting
There
being no further business there was a
motion to unanimously adjourn made by Mr. Hug, Seconded by: Mr. Buraszeski
Respectfully
submitted,
Jane
Grogaard
Recording
Secretary
Certified
true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of July 5, 2007.
_______________________________________
Linda
M. White, Sec.
|
