Township of Montville

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF JULY 5, 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 - Absent

Donald Kanoff - Present                                     James Marinello - Present

Deane Driscoll - Present                                    Richard Moore (Alt #1) – Absent

Maury Cartine – Present                                   Carl DiPiazza (Alt #2) - Present

Gerard Hug - Absent

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 with notice required to 8/1/07:

ZSPP/FCD5-07 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:

ZSPP/FCD4-07 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

OLD BUSINESS

Page 2

7/5/07

ZC18-03 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, Mr. Marinello                              

ACT BY: 7/6/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Waldemar Ptaszek, Marc Walker, PE

Mr. Schepis agreed to go forward with 5 members at this time.

Mr. Walker previously sworn

Exhibit marked in

A-6 – Plot development comparison dated 6/26/07

Mr. 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 10%. 

Mr. 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 safety concerns.   

Mr. 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. 

Page 3

7/5/07

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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. 

Open to public –

Mr. 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. 

Mr. 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.

Mr. Marinello –  Commented that the Board members are prohibited to take emails on cases any concerns must go through the Land Use Office.

Mr. Waldemar Ptaszek, applicant - sworn

I 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

Open to the public for this witness

Randy 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. 

Page 4

7/5/07

Due 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.

TRACK 2

NEW BUSINESS

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.  Notice Acceptable                ACT BY: 7/6/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Joseph Vena, Esq.; Ted Mirkhani, CEO of proposed facility; Adam Remick, PE

Joseph 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. 

Ted Mirkhani, CEO of proposed facility - sworn

CEO 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. 

Mr. Denzler – Total number of staff members?  Mr. Mirkhani – 120 employees over 3 shifts.  The majority of the staff is during the day. 

Adam Remick, PE - sworn

Proposed 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 residential zone. 

Mr. 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. 

Page 5

7/5/07

Mr. 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 detention facility. 

                Exhibit marked in

A1- colorized version of landscape plan dated 8-18-06

Mr. 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 purposes. 

Mr. 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. 

Geoff Evans, Esq. attorney for 12 Windsor

Mr. 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?

Richard 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 property?

Deborah Hemel – 14 Windsor Dr. - sworn 

Concerned 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 footcandles be? 

Ralph DeMaio – 1 Effingham Low Ct. - sworn

Concerned with the entrance to the site? Is it 1 lane or 2 lanes? 

Syed Khadid – Windsor Dr. - sworn

What 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? 

Page 6

7/5/07

TRACK 3

Mr. Lablanc – Would like to see statistics on daily ambulance calls on other facilities.

Pridi Patel - sworn

Concerned with noise from ambulances scaring my children.

Susan Vain – 19 Sylvan Dr. - sworn

How will workers get to property with no sidewalks on Hook Mountain Road?

Ms. Kahlid – sworn - is there going to be a wall around the entire property? 

James Walsh – 42 Windsor Dr. - sworn

Voiced concerns with stress to the existing emergency squads within the township.

Michael Sutten – 29 Windsor Dr. - sworn

Can we get a report from an existing facility on the number of diesel vehicles on site and how long they stay on site?

Donald Seiden – 37 Windsor Dr - sworn

Would like to know about hiring and screening policy of workers

Brent Jerolinic – sworn

Will the emergency access on Windsor have a break away chain too?

Mark Platinsky - sworn

How does the number of patients and workers affect the neighboring properties?

Mr. Marinello - Recommended the applicant open with their EIS waiver request next time and asked them to identify for the record their next nearest facility. 

Due 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

Present on behalf of the applicant: Thomas Malman, Esq.; Kenneth Fox, Arch; Daniel Lamonthe, PE

Mr. 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 required. 

Kenneth Fox, Arch - sworn

                A1 – rendering of building

Mr. 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

Page 7

7/5/07

Montville 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. 

Daniel 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

Mr. 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. 

Open to public – none

Mr. 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. 

The Board requested copies of all approvals and correspondence, and required testimony on slope from curb despite other approvals obtained.

The application was carried with notice to: October 3, 2007 with notice preserved and an extension of time granted to October 4, 2007.

OTHER BUSINESS

None

MINUTES:

Minutes of June 6, 2007 - Eligible: Mr. Braden, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Driscoll, Second by: Kanoff; Roll call: Unanimous

Page 8

7/5/07

INVOICES:

                Omland Engineering – Trust for: $420, $300, $330

                Bricker & Assoc – Trust for: $480, $420, $240, $240, $150, $180, $390, $180, $1,440.00, $72,

$150, $150, $360, $360, $360, $1,080

William Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $60, $180, $30, $210, $30, $270, $30, $60, $150, $150,

$150, $300, $60, $210, $180

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $165

Shapiro & Croland – O/E for: $210; Trust for: $300, $300, $870

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

RESOLUTIONS

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 – Eligible: Mr. Braden, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Visco, Dr. Kanoff - Approval Resolution

Motion to adopt made by:  Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call:  Yes – Dr. Kanoff

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

Motion 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

dwelling front setback variance for 35’ vs 50’ required; side setback of 15’ vs 21.5’ required

Eligible: Mr. Braden, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore – Approval resolution

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

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

Motion 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

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

Page 9

7/5/07

CORRESPONDENCE

Request for extension of approvals – ZD9-06 de Szendeffy – B: 109, L: 44.01 – 24 Redding Place

Mr. De Szendeffy – sworn

I am here if the Board has questions as to my extension request.

Motion to approved 90 day extension to October 31 2007made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call: Unanimous

There being no further business there was a motion to unanimously adjourn made by Mr. Cartine, Seconded by: Dr. Kanoff.

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of August 1, 2007.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.