ZBoA Minutes 6-6-07 Print E-mail




Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting


Stated for the record.


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


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





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


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


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. 


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


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


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


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


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


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



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.


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


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




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


                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


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


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


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.

With explanation

With explanation

Must certify to 10/4/06


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack