ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF JULY 5, 2007
Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
for the record.
Braden - Absent Thomas
Buraszeski - Absent
Kanoff - Present James Marinello - Present
Driscoll - Present Richard Moore (Alt #1) – Absent
Maury Cartine – Present
Carl DiPiazza (Alt #2) - Present
Hug - Absent
Present: William Denzler,
for the record
in of Professionals
The following application was rescheduled with
notice required to 8/1/07:
Dunkin Donuts – 263 Changebridge Rd. – B:
149.04, L: 6 – amended site plan/use/bulk variances for fast food restaurant –
Use variance/off street parking /sign variances
ACT BY: 9/1/07
The following application was carried with
notice preserved to 8/1/07:
Paul Miller Auto - B: 160.2, L: 9 – 51
Stiles Ln. – site plan/use and bulk
variances for occupancy of existing
industrial warehouse and associated parking lot to store new
and used automobiles associated with the
various local Paul Miller dealerships
ACT BY: 9/30/07
The following application was carried with
notice preserved to 9/5/07:
ZAC38-06 Lynch - B: 100.1, L: 9 – 36 Two Bridges Rd. – Appeal/Variance filing – rear
setback 18.19’ vs 50’ required Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 9/6/07
Ptaszek, Waldemar - 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, Carried with notice from 5/2/07 - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr.
Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Braden,
Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza,
on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Waldemar Ptaszek, Marc
Schepis agreed to go forward with 5 members at this time.
Walker previously sworn
– Plot development comparison dated 6/26/07
Walker – Reviewed the exhibit as a comparison of the previously approved site
plan, a conforming site plan and the proposed site plan. The conforming site plan would have a 24’ of
undisturbed area in the rear yard and the slope would be 24% and there would be
a 10’ retaining wall. The proposed site
plan has a front yard of 33.7’, from the right of way there is 50’ of
undisturbed area to the rear, and a 10%
driveway grade that would be conforming.
The proposed plan has captured all the runoff from the site. The 1988 plan is superimposed over the
proposed house. This house would have
been located 1.35’ back from what is proposed.
The proposed dwelling is 225 s.f. larger than what was approved in 1988. The proposal is very similar to the 1988
approval. Currently there are sanitary
sewers to the site where in 1988 a septic was required. Since there are sewers we are able to better
capture the stormwater runoff from the site.
The previous approval had no drainage improvements shown. The location of the driveway is similar to
the 1988 plan. In 1988 the driveway was 13.3% where the proposed plan is at
Walker - We have increased the site distance with this plan. We provide a driveway turnaround so there
will be no cars backing out into the street.
The design exception for the grade of the driveway is unavoidable. The design exception for steep slopes was
impossible to avoid. The entire front
portion of the lot has grades greater than 25%. The slope along the entire terrain along Rockledge Road exceeds
25%. We are requesting a variance for
6’ high retaining wall and 3’ handrail on top.
The handrail is imperative to get pedestrian traffic from the driveway
area to the rear of the property. We
did not want to put up a 9’ high barrier so decided to go with a handrail to
make people aware of the wall. We
propose to plant shrubs under handrail to breakup the visual impact. The handrail with the hedges will meet
Walker - The house next door is 31’ from the right of way line. We are 2’ back from the house next
door. Cannot meet the 50’ front setback
without increasing the slope of the driveway to 20.4% where 10% is proposed and
a higher retaining wall of 10’ where 6’ proposed. The new height ordinance was used and the height of the house
is 23.5’ using average grade to midpoint of the roof peak where 35’
allowed. The section of the ordinance
allowing any point to the roof to the grade to be 45’ we are at 38’. The pitch of the roof is relatively
flat. We added a stone sediment swale
to trap water during construction as required by the Board Engineer. There will be no impact on downhill property
owners. We will reduce the drainage
that runs off this property currently, which will make it a better situation
after construction. Currently the water
runs off the property to the east to adjacent property owners. We comply with the side setback
requirements. We comply with impervious
and building coverage requirements.
Denzler- As it relates to the comparison between the 1988 plan and proposed
plan, do you have the area of disturbance.
Mr. Walker – There was none shown on the plan in 1988. Mr. Denzler – Would the previous plan meet
the new height ordinance? Mr. Walker –
I believe it would. Mr. Denzler – Has everything been done to reduce the amount
of grading on the property? Mr. Walker
– Yes, we are maintaining most of the large trees on the property.
Mr. Huelsebusch – What is the impact of the
trucks on the roadway where fill is required?
Mr. Walker – 152 trucks will be required to come in and out of the
property. There will be a need for a
backhoe on the site to create a turning area on the site for the trucks to pull
in, drop the load and turnaround on the site. We will need to go before the
Council for soil movement. The Council
will require a bond for any damage that may be done during soil movement. Mr. Huelsebusch – Will there be a glare
from the safety mirror? Mr. Walker –
The mirror will be faced to the north so there will not be a glare.
Driscoll – The Traffic Safety Officer wanted the driveway to meet the Township
standards. Mr. Schepis - We did get a
May 1, 2007 memo which did not approve the flashing warning sign, we will
comply with a manual warning sign. Mr.
Walker – We looked at realigning the road, taking the hump out of the road and
by far this is the best location for ingress and egress to the property. Dr. Kanoff – How does the size of the
proposed house compare to the surrounding homes? Mr. Walker – Mr. Steck will respond to that. Mr. Cartine – What is the time period of the
152 truckloads of fill and is this excessive?
Mr. Walker – No, this is not excessive, the dredging of the lake had
over 3,000 square yards of soil trucked out.
We have not defined the time period yet.
to public –
Randy Pearce, Esq. for the opposition.
My clients would prefer to give a presentation instead of comments on
this witness. Mr. Marinello – You wish
to do your presentation after the planner is heard? Mr. Pearce – Yes.
Marinello – If you are not represented by counsel you can ask questions for
this witness now and they may not have answers tonight. No public presented.
Marinello – Commented that the Board
members are prohibited to take emails on cases any concerns must go through the
Land Use Office.
Waldemar Ptaszek, applicant - sworn
have owned the property for 35 years.
Have received 2 building permits to build a home on this lot but
personal issues did not allow us to build at that time. Our lot is undersized by today’s
standards. We attempted to purchase the
lot next door in 2003 and were not interested in selling. In 2004 we proposed to purchase ½ the lot, during negotiations we found they
were not interested in selling. In the
interim the Highlands Act was enacted and were required a letter of exemption
if we enlarged our lot. The price went
from $135,000 up to $195,000 for 50’ strip from which we could only use 30’ and
the negotiations were stopped by the adjoining property owner.
Exhibit A7 – documents of
negotiations to acquire adjoining property
to the public for this witness
Pearce, Esq. – Do you have paperwork indicating that the neighbor declined your
offer? Mr. Ptaszek – We sent a contract
for their approval and they never responded.
Mr. Pearce – Did they say that they would agree to the sale of the
property if you put up a house that conforms to the zoning code on the
property. Mr. Ptaszek – No I have
nothing in writing from them.
to time constraints the application was carried with notice preserved to 9/5/07
and an extension of time to act was granted to 9/6/07.
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. Notice Acceptable ACT
on behalf of the applicant: Joseph Vena, Esq.; Ted Mirkhani, CEO of proposed
facility; Adam Remick, PE
Vena, Esq. – This is an application for re-approval of an application approved
years ago. The only changes are those
changes necessary due to engineering constraints.
Mirkhani, CEO of proposed facility - sworn
of Cambridge Healthcare. Manage long
term care facilities. This application
is for a 120 nursing home with 60 assisted living beds. Self contained for the residents. It will include dining services, healthcare
services and laundry services. Nursing
home section has 24-hour medical care.
60 bed assisted living portion does not required 24 hour medical
care. Will have a contract with an
ambulance company for immediate 911 care.
There will be a maintenance staff for all parts of the facility
including snow removal and landscaping. Food will be provided on site. I manage 6 other facilities.
Denzler – Total number of staff members?
Mr. Mirkhani – 120 employees over 3 shifts. The majority of the staff is during the day.
Remick, PE - sworn
120 long term care and 60 bed assisted living care building. All exhibits are previously submitted to the
board with the exception of the landscape plan that is a colorized
version. The property is 6.32
acres. The property has frontage on
Hook Mountain Road. It is an unused
facility. There are residences to the
west and north. Bayer Labs are to the
north of the property. The lot conforms
to the zoning size. There are the
remains of a healthcare facility similar to what is proposed. The remains of
the previous facility will be removed according to state regulations. I am aware of the previous approvals for
this site. There are minor
modifications to this proposed application to the approvals granted in the
1990’s. Located in the R-27A zone, use
variance required since use not allowed in the zone, height variance requested
of 4 stories and 40’ where 2 ½ stories and 35’ allowed. Building coverage of 28,222 s.f. where 6,650
s.f. allowed and impervious coverage of
118,091 s.f. where 13,300 s.f. allowed. Variance requested from maximum wall height of 11’ where 6’
allowed. Variance requested for 4’
distance between walls where 11’ allowed.
Variance requested for freestanding sign where signs not allowed in
Remick - Waiver requested from submission of EIS, submitted previous EIS. Waiver requested from steep slopes. Waiver
requested from survey within last 5 years.
Waiver requested from off street traffic aisle and parking. Waiver
requested from lighting. Waiver from
driveway grade 11% proposed 10% allowed.
Waiver from slopes not exceeding 3:1; 2:1 proposed. Waiver requested
from parking from residential zone.
Previous building was a 5-story masonry building. There is an emergency
access way along Bayer property and an emergency access way along a neighboring
property. Propose a new access drive
from Hook Mountain Road with a 20’ minimum width. Guide rails proposed along access drive.
Remick - Proposed larger turning radius for emergency vehicle access. There will be a looping driveway around the
building. Will allow for parking around
the entire site. There will be 2 main
entrances to the building, 1 to the long-term care bed section and 1 to the
assisted living section. Propose 90
parking spaces distributed throughout the site. All interior drives are 20’ wide. Maintaining emergency access drive along Bayer site and proposing
a breakaway chain. Propose to maintain
the emergency access drive to the west.
Fire Prevention wanted it to be widened to 18’ where 15’ exists, we will
agree. The property owner has put up a
2’ fence and put in grass where it was previously stone in the access
drive. Proposed grass pavers per the
Ping Brook Fire Department instead of stone in the emergency access
drives. Eliminated existing retaining
wall along the easterly side of the access drive from Hook Mtn and will not
exceed 6’ in height. Water will drain
from a westerly direction to the east and will be captured in a stormwater
Exhibit marked in
colorized version of landscape plan dated 8-18-06
Remick – The applicant will maintain existing mature woods to the north and
west of the site. Where we were not
able to keep the woods we will be planting evergreens along residential
district and the proposed site. Provide
ornamental landscaping to beautify the site.
Exceed .5 foot candles along Hook Mountain Road for safety
Marinello asked the Board and professionals for comments for next hearing. Mr. Denzler – Requested pedestrian
circulation, streetscape lighting along Hook Mountain Rd. Mr. Huelsebusch – Have you preformed testing
in the detention area? Mr. Remick – Not
yet. Mr. Huelsebusch – Please do
before next meeting. Mr. Marinello –
Focus on testimony that this is the right use for the property as it exists
today since this has not been a use that has been ongoing and has been not used
for years. Mr. Cartine – Readdress the
emergency access easement. Mr. Driscoll
- What provisions have you made for pedestrian access up the driveway? Mr. DiPiazza - What will the environmental
impact be to the area with the removal of the existing facility.
Evans, Esq. attorney for 12 Windsor
Marinello - Please provide a list of you objectors prior to the next
hearing. Mr. Evans – How long have they
owned the property? Is it 60 beds or 60
units? Did you own the property before
the fire? Has there been any work done
on the site to indicate existing conditions as it relates to the waiver of
existing survey within the last 5 years.
Would the fire affect the conditions of the property, which will require
an EIS? What is the knowledge of any
environmental effects to the property due to the fire?
LeBlanc – 14 Windsor Drive - What are the impacts to the neighboring properties
as it relates to wandering patients?
What is the necessity of 2 emergency easements to the property? Why is this an appropriate use for this
Hemel – 14 Windsor Dr. - sworn
with waiver form EIS? Does the 1991 EIS
include descriptions of the property after the fire of 2006? Is there a possibility of contamination
after the end of use and after the fire on the property? Was the neighborhood character the same in
1991 as it is now? Did the fire have an
impact on the existing vegetation and trees?
What impact to the neighboring lots will the exceeding of the .5
DeMaio – 1 Effingham Low Ct. - sworn
with the entrance to the site? Is it 1 lane or 2 lanes?
Khadid – Windsor Dr. - sworn
is the environmental impact and what has been done? When the nursing home was open several patients wandered to our
property and rang the doorbell. I am
concerned with drifters from the property.
How are ambulances going to be handled?
Lablanc – Would like to see statistics on daily ambulance calls on other
Patel - sworn
with noise from ambulances scaring my children.
Vain – 19 Sylvan Dr. - sworn
will workers get to property with no sidewalks on Hook Mountain Road?
Kahlid – sworn - is there going to be a wall around the entire property?
Walsh – 42 Windsor Dr. - sworn
concerns with stress to the existing emergency squads within the township.
Sutten – 29 Windsor Dr. - sworn
we get a report from an existing facility on the number of diesel vehicles on
site and how long they stay on site?
Seiden – 37 Windsor Dr - sworn
like to know about hiring and screening policy of workers
Jerolinic – sworn
the emergency access on Windsor have a break away chain too?
Platinsky - sworn
does the number of patients and workers affect the neighboring properties?
Marinello - Recommended the applicant open with their EIS waiver request next
time and asked them to identify for the record their next nearest
to time constraints the application was carried with notice preserved to:
9/5/07 and an extension of time to act to: 9/6/07
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. Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 8/19/07
on behalf of the applicant: Thomas Malman, Esq.; Kenneth Fox, Arch; Daniel
Malman – The application is for preliminary and final site plan with use and c
variances and minor subdivision. This
application has already been approved at the Fairfield Board of
Adjustment. The application involves a
mixed-use building. Minor FAR variance
required. Bulk variances for signs
Fox, Arch - sworn
A1 – rendering of building
Fox – Propose a 2 story building 33,753 s.f. in size which will consist of
office, retail and storage facility.
Part of building is in Fairfield and part in Montville. Propose brick columns along front. End areas
will be 2 story tenant space, office space on both levels, center area
self-storage. Propose sign on façade
2’x12’ signs for tenants. Propose
signs on each side of building, left side of building would be in
and right side would be in Fairfield.
Interior of building has 11 tenant spaces. Propose retail along front façade and offices on either end. 14% of the building is in Montville. Self storage facility section of building
would consist of 5 storage bays in Montville.
The majority of the bays are in Fairfield.
Lamonthe, PE- Board professionals sworn by Michael Carroll, Esq.
A2- aerial photo of site
A3 – colorized site layout plan
A4 – colorized subdivision plan
A5 – colorized topo map
Lamonthe – Reviewed the aerial photo for the Board. Looking to subdivide off part of lot 1 to make a new lot 2. Combined with a portion of the lot in
Fairfield we will make a 3-acre lot.
Propose 2-way circulation on site.
No additional access proposed to Rt. 46. Loading area will be to the south end of the property. There will be access to the rear of the
property to the Pio Costa site. Propose
to upgrade lighting to be consistent with the Home Depot light fixtures. Propose to add lighting and
landscaping. Propose detention system near
front of parking lot approved by DEP.
Water quality treatment device will be installed in detention
system. Rear landscaped island will
also clean water for water quality treatment.
The proposal meets DEP recharge requirements. Swales proposed in southeasterly portion of the property. Utilities will be serviced from Fairfield
except for electric and gas.
to public – none
Denzler – Does the rendering show the chain link fence proposed? Mr. Fox – No. Mr. Denzler - Can you get an overlay? Mr. Fox – Yes. Mr. Malman
– Mr. Huelsebusch suggested an ornamental fence. Mr. Denzler - Suggest
ornamental fence and additional landscaping.
Can you provide the height in Fairfield as it relates to the height in
Montville that is proposed? Mr. Huelsebusch
– DOT permit required since you are doing work in the right of way? Mr. Lamonthe – Just re-grading. Mr. Huelsebusch - Recommend that fence be
6’ along the basin for safety reasons.
Mr. DiPiazza – Was there ever environmental review done on the staging
area where soil was piled for construction of Pio Costa site? Mr. Driscoll – Will the existing retail
building on Rt. 46 be upgraded to match this site? Dr. Kanoff – Will the building have a Montville or Fairfield
address and to which town will they be paying taxes? Mr. Cartine – Why the self-storage facility? Mr. Fox – There is a demand for that and the
existing facility works well.
Board requested copies of all approvals and correspondence, and required
testimony on slope from curb despite other approvals obtained.
application was carried with notice to: October 3, 2007 with notice preserved
and an extension of time granted to October 4, 2007.
of June 6, 2007 - Eligible: Mr. Braden, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug,
Mr. Moore, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Marinello
to adopt made by: Driscoll, Second by: Kanoff; Roll call: Unanimous
Omland Engineering – Trust for:
$420, $300, $330
Bricker & Assoc – Trust for:
$480, $420, $240, $240, $150, $180, $390, $180, $1,440.00, $72,
$150, $360, $360, $360, $1,080
Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $60, $180, $30, $210, $30, $270, $30, $60,
$300, $60, $210, $180
Murphy – Trust for: $165
& Croland – O/E for: $210; Trust for: $300, $300, $870
to approve made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Driscoll, Roll call: Unanimous
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 – Eligible: Mr. Braden, Mr. Buraszeski,
Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Visco, Dr. Kanoff - Approval
to adopt made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second
by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call: Yes – Dr.
ZC8-07 Ackerman, Art – 3 Ward Witty – B: 21, L:
15 – side setback 24.2’ vs 30’ allowed for garage addition Eligible: Mr. Braden, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello – Approval Resolution
Mr. Ackerman - Correction of the lot number to 15
to adopt as amended made by: Mr.
Driscoll; Second by: Mr. Marinello; Roll call:
Yes – Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Marinello
ZC2-07 Bott, Marilyn – 122 Jacksonville Rd. – B:
28, L: 13 – construction of a new 2-story
front setback variance for 35’ vs 50’ required; side setback of 15’ vs 21.5’
Eligible: Mr. Braden, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore – Approval
to adopt made by: Mr. Driscoll; Second
by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Mr.
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 – Eligible: Mr. Braden, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr.
Driscoll, Mr. Moore, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Marinello – Approval resolution
to adopt made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second
by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Mr.
Driscoll, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Marinello
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 –
Eligible: Mr. Braden, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Dr.
Kanoff, Mr. Marinello – Denial Resolution
to adopt made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second
by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Mr.
Driscoll, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Marinello
Request for extension of approvals – ZD9-06 de
Szendeffy – B: 109, L: 44.01 – 24 Redding Place
De Szendeffy – sworn
am here if the Board has questions as to my extension request.
to approved 90 day extension to October 31 2007made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by:
Dr. Kanoff; Roll call: Unanimous
being no further business there was a
motion to unanimously adjourn made by Mr. Cartine, Seconded by: Dr. Kanoff.
true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of August 1, 2007.
M. White, Sec.
to 5/3/06 hearing