ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF AUGUST 1, 2007
Montville Municipal Building, 195
8:00PM Regular Meeting
for the record.
Braden – Present Thomas
Buraszeski - Present
Kanoff - Present James Marinello - Present
Driscoll - Present Richard Moore (Alt #1) – Present
Maury Cartine – Present
Carl DiPiazza (Alt #2) - Present
Hug - Present
Present: William Denzler,
for the record
in of Professionals
The following application was carried with
notice preserved to 10/3/07:
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
ZC3-07 Badami, Christopher – 28 Montville Ave. – B:
51.02, L: 12 – construction of a 2 ½
dwelling with variances for front setback 15’ vs 35’ required/side setback 6’
vs 13.88’ required/extension into yards 26” where 18” permitted for fireplace
location/maximum building coverage 1,586 s.f. vs 1,541 s.f. permitted/maximum
impervious coverage 3,467.5 s.f. vs 3081.4 s.f. allowed/accessory structure
setback 20’ rear and side setback required 5’ rear and 5’ side setback
proposed/accessory structure coverage 484 s.f. vs 162 s.f. allowed – Notice Acceptable
on behalf of the applicant: John Barbarula, Esq.; Thomas Berami, PE
Berarni, PE – sworn
the property for the Board. This is a
5,407 s.f. lot located in the R-15 zone.
15,000 s.f. is required. In
accordance with the zone, in order to build a complying building envelope it
would be 862 s.f.
A1 – plan showing building
envelope without variance
Berami – There are 3 pre-existing variance conditions. Requesting variances for front, side and
combined sides, extensions into yards for fireplace and building and impervious
coverage variances. The porch and the
dinette area are what make the variances required. It would not look architecturally pleasing without these
areas. If the garage was attached it
would take up most of the living area.
Propose a detached garage.
Provided for a longer driveway due to garage being in rear of the
property. The driveway is 70’ long,
could fit 3 ½ cars off street plus the utilization of the garage. Impervious coverage variance requested of
3,467.0 s.f. where 3,081.4 is permitted.
There is a difference of 381 s.f.
If you center the house on the property there would not be enough room
to drive past the house to the rear garage.
We slid the house to the left to allow for the location of the driveway. The side yard to the left of the property is
proposed to be 6’ and to the right of the property 16’ where 15’ is
required. The house was located in this
position to give the most side yard to the neighboring properties.
Berami - The permitted front setback is 35’; we positioned the front of the
building 33’ from the edge of pavement. The accessory structure (484 s.f.
garage) is to be located 5’ from rear yard and 5’ from side yard. If moved, the
cars could not turnaround and would increase the impervious coverage variance.
The driveway grade in front is at 5% within the first 20’ of the lot down to 2%
by garage. Propose curbing to retain water on site, which will drain to seepage
pits on site. We are trying to maintain
grade that is there now to have a front yard that looks relatively flat. Design exception for driveway less that 12’
wide requested. A 10’ wide driveway
would not have an effect on the neighborhood or the zoning ordinance.
to time constraints the application was carried with notice to 10/3/07 with an
extension of time to act to 10/4/07
Mr. DiPiazza stepped down on the following application:
ZC05-06 Lazo - B: 111, L: 12 - 32 Alpine Rd – demolition of existing
dwelling and construction of a new dwelling – front setback 11.5’ vs 45’ to
Alpine Rd. and 11’ vs 45’ to right-of-way/rear setback of 22.4’ vs 50’/building
coverage 1,715 s.f. vs 1,666 s.f. allowed (1,732 s.f. exists) – Notice Acceptable Eligible: Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug,
Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Braden, Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello – Notice Acceptable ACT
on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Marc Walker, PE; Jose Lazo,
A1 – photos of existing house
Schepis – Mr. Lazo agreed to reduce the size of the structure to meet the
building coverage requirements to the satisfaction of the zoning official.
Marc Walker, PE - sworn
A2 – plan showing surrounding
area to the subject property with dwellings located on the plan
Walker – Frontage of the property is off Alpine Rd. There was a dedication of an access easement of 10’ along the
rear of the lots. So there is frontage
and access off Rose Court as well. Rose Court is a fully improved road. There are pre-existing non-conformities on
this lot: lot area, minimum depth, frontage from Alpine Road, rear setback and building coverage existing
non-conformities. The front setback
from Alpine Road exists at 3.2’ where we propose 11.5’. Propose to demolish house and garage and
rebuild. The lot is substantially
undersized. The setback from the right
of way will be improved from 10’ to 11’.
Rear setback improved from 13.5’ to 22.4’. Building coverage was over as exists and will now comply. We have made all existing non-conformities
better by this proposal. Municipal
sewer is available to the site but municipal water has not been brought to his
house yet so there will be a well.
Schepis – The applicant agrees to any conditions of the Board of Health, Water
and Sewer and the Township Engineer.
Walker – I was the engineer on both the Forest Ridge subdivision and
Evangelical Mission property so I am very aware of the area. There is no room on the lot for a side
loading garage. There is plenty of
sight distance from the proposed driveway.
The applicant will comply with all conditions of the Board
Engineer. There is no groundwater table
above the bedrock, did studies as part of the Forest Ridge application. Closest neighbor is to the left of the
proposed house is within the allowable setbacks for that side.
to public for this witness – none
Denzler - What is the proposed size of the house? Mr. Walker 1,673 s.f. plus 42 s.f. front porch. Mr. Denzler – How will you eliminate the
building coverage variance? Mr. Walker
– We will work with the architect to take off 51 s.f. Mr. Denzler – Will it substantially change the architectural
plans as submitted? Mr. Walker –
No. Mr. Denzler – Was there any attempt
to purchase additional property? Mr.
Walker – The only property we could purchase would be if the road was
vacated. The Planning Board requested
that right of way in a previous application.
Mr. Huelsebusch – Did you address the memo from Mr. Barile? Mr. Schepis – Will satisfy Mr. Barile’s
concerns. Mr. Walker – I believe we
comply with current stormwater regulations.
Mr. Huelsebusch – Do you plan to have a metal structure as required by
Health? Mr. Schepis – Will satisfy the
Board of Health conditions. Mr.
Huelsebusch – Any impervious area eliminated must be vegetated. Mr. Schepis
photos shown in A1 were taken 5 days ago and depict the property as it is
Driscoll – Will the trees be removed?
Mr. Walker – No. Mr. Hug – Where
will you live during construction? Mr.
Lazo – Hotel. Mr. Hug – This is a small
lot, do not what to see you back in the future for a deck.
Prescott 30 Alpine Rd. - sworn
much closer will the house be to my property?
Mr. Walker – 20’ from the property line so 5’ closer than what
exists. When constructed the houses
will be about 35’ apart. Ms. Prescott –
Concerned with the closeness of the house.
Mr. Marinello – He can be that close without a variance.
to approve the application current house is pre-existing non-conforming,
reducing current variances, compliance with all professional and agency
conditions, waived the driveway turnaround made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr.
Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Driscoll, Braden, Buraszeski,
Mr. DiPiazza returns
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 – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 9/1/07
on behalf of the applicant: Bernard Berkowitz, Esq.; Samir Shah Applicant,
Michael Napolitano, PP; Frank Truillo, Architect, Elizabeth Dolan, Traffic PE
Berkowitz – Application for Dunkin Donuts at Changebridge Plaza. D variance required for fast food
restaurant, variance for parking and for signage as it relates to logo
Shah Applicant - sworn
have 2 other locations, West Orange and Livingston. Hours of operation 5am-11pm.
Will sell coffee, coffee products and breakfast sandwiches. Peak hours are 5am-9:30am and 4pm-6pm. There will be 4 employees in morning and 2
employees in afternoon. The employee’s
usually car pool to work. No ice cream
to be sold and no drive through.
Frank Truillo, Architects – sworn – reviewed credentials
to be 1,421 s.f., propose16 seats and 2 handicapped restrooms. This is the smallest Dunkin Donuts
application I have done, typical site is about 1,800 s.f. Propose sign 16.4 s.f. which is under
allowable size. Since national brand,
trademark colors requested which requires a variance.
Dolan, Traffic PE - sworn
traffic counts in October 2006. From
6:30-9am there were 56 available spaces on site. November of 2006 9am-1pm there was 26 spaces available parking
spaces for this use. March 2007 from
4pm-7om counts were done and at least 19 vacant spaces were available. There is sufficient parking available on
site. No negative impact associated
with the parking variance requested.
Napolitano, PP - sworn
Road is a thoroughfare suitable for this site and this use. This use is
appropriate for this site. Service
provides a demand. The impact that this use will have to the site is
minimal. No detriment to zone plan or
ordinance. This use should be
considered retail not fast food. This
use will have less congestion than KFC or McDonald’s. Fast food restaurants have larger menus and longer period of time
that people stay at those restaurants.
to public –
Bader 290 Changebridge Rd. - sworn
with time that the donuts would be delivered.
Concerned with early morning noise.
Denzler – Is this a 7-day a week operation?
Mr. Shah – Yes. Mr. Denzler –
Are the donuts baked on premises? Mr.
Shah – No, they are delivered by small pick up truck on racks to the rear of
the building twice a day. They will be
there when we open. Mr. Denzler – Were
the counts done when the last tenant was still open. Ms. Dolan – Yes. Mr.
Denzler – There are 68 spaces on site the approval resolution said there should
be 88 spaces, do you know what happened since then? Mr. Napolitano – No. Mr.
Denzler – Why can Dunkin Donuts not comply with the ordinance as it relates to
the signage. Mr. Napolitano – All the
corporations have their signature logo to tell the public that they are
there. They are consistent throughout
the country. The color of the sign
would not be detrimental to the neighborhood.
Mr. Denzler – Sign area? Mr.
Berkowitz – The sign will now meet the ordinance as it relates to size. Mr. Denzler – Concerned with the landscaping
and freestanding sign as exists request additional landscaping and renovation
of freestanding sign. Mr. Berkowitz –
We are a tenant and have not control over those issues, do not agree. Mr. Denzler – How will solid waste and
recycling be removed. Mr. Truillo -
Dumpsters located in the rear of the property.
This use will generate less waste than a restaurant. Mr. Huelsebusch – Peak demand for this
proposal? Ms. Dolan – 6am-9am, average
15 spaces. Mr. Huelsebusch – Are you
going to address streetscape lighting?
Mr. Berkowitz – This is not a new structure, so do not propose
streetscape lighting, only single user within an existing structure. Mr. Huelsebusch – Recommend streetscape
lighting be provided along with repair of freestanding sign and additional
Tuminelli, property manager - sworn
cannot upgrade the landscaping until the sprinkler system is repaired. Have a landscaping plan.
A1 – sprinkler system proposal
A2 – landscaping plan
Tuminelli – The owner of the property is agreeable to certain upgrades to the
site. We attempted to take over the
closed portion of Stiles Lane for additional parking but were denied. The owner is agreeable to working with the
Township to upgrade the freestanding sign, and streetscape lighting along with
landscaping. We were waiting for Dunkin
Donuts to be approved before we changed over to a monument sign. The large tree that is covering the sign
will be moved to another location in the fall.
Mr. Marinello - Do you have a tenant for the remaining Montville meats
unit? Ms. Tuminelli – I cannot make a
decision on tenants until Dunkin Donuts is approved.
Marinello – When you did your parking counts did you take into consideration
full occupancy of the site? Ms. Dolan –
Dunkin Donuts has different peak hours than other uses on the site. Mr. Marinello – How many tables? Mr. Shah – 8 tables with 16 seats. Mr. Cartine – What does the average customer
pay per visit? Mr. Shah - $3-$4. Mr. Cartine – Wouldn’t that require a
tremendous amount of cars per day? Dr. Kanoff – Will there be baking on
site? Mr. Shah - Muffins and bagels
baked on site use convection oven which bakes in 15-20 minutes. Mr. Hug – Tables not shown on plan
correctly. Mr. Truello – 5 tables with
2 seats at each and 6 counter spots.
Mr. Hug – Voiced concerns on the parking on site. Mr. Braden –How
traffic flow compare to the Montville Meats use? Mr. Driscoll – The deliveries are not done by pickup truck, they
are done by boxed truck. Mr. Driscoll –
Concerned with traffic on Saturday’s and no counts done on that day. Mr. DiPiazza – Reason for 11pm
closing? Mr. Shah – Typical timing for
to time constraints the application was carried with notice preserved to:
11/7/07 with an extension of time to act to 11/8/07.
Mr. Buraszeski stepped down for the following application:
ZSPP/CD4-07 Paul Miller Auto - B: 160.2, L: 9 – 51
Stiles Ln. – site plan/use and bulk
for occupancy of existing industrial warehouse and associated parking lot to
used automobiles associated with the various local Paul Miller dealerships Notice
Acceptable ACT BY: 9/30/07
on behalf of the applicant: Michael Sullivan, Esq.; Nick Devita, applicant,
Patrick McClellen, PE; Kenneth Ochab, PP
Sullivan – We are requesting preliminary and final site plan with variances for
outdoor storage of vehicles and 57.7% impervious coverage where 55% allowed.
Devita, applicant – sworn
occupying 45,000 s.f. for storage of cars with 2 offices. Fire dept requires door in rear of building
to Barnet Road which has not been complied with to date from the waiver of site
plan that was approved previously.
Would like a prep center with lifts in ½ the building, checking fluids,
setting up computer functions, no fluid changes on site, may just have to top off fluids. No waste oil on site. Basic storage of parts. New and used vehicles to be located outdoor
in a gated area in parking lot. 16
maximum employees to be on site. Hours
of operation 7:30am-5:30pm Mon-Fri. No
sales of vehicles on site, no customers on site, no signs for this use.
McClellen, PE - sworn
on site is a 1 story building 57,000 s.f. occupied by Associated Graphics and
Paul Miller. There are 83 parking
spaces on site. There are 4 loading docks on site. 2 freestanding light poles in parking area each with 2 lamps each
1,000 watts, there is adequate for lighting of parking area. There are currently 12 building mounted lights. 1,000 watts in front of building and 500
watts for remainder. Property accessed
from Bader Road. 48 trees and 12 shrubs
were added to the site in a site plan approved by the Planning Board in
2004. Exterior site changes: 12’ wide
loading dock for Associated Graphics out to Bader Road; secondary emergency access to southerly end
of building per fire dept requirement; 8’ fence to surround 56 parking spaces
and minor striping alterations; construction of façade of 3 loading areas to
match existing building and 3’ wide planter against loading area. The additional 1% of impervious coverage
will have no effect on drainage or neighboring properties. On site traffic circulation is safe as
Sullivan – The applicant will comply with all agency findings and
Kenneth Oschab, PP - sworn
site is in an industrial area. I-2
zone. Use not permitted in this
zone. This is a unique use. Not found in many municipalities. Consistent with the uses permitted in this
zone. Low intensity use, no customers,
low number of employees, low demand for parking. Adequate loading area.
Site suited for use proposed.
Consistent with the master plan.
No impact to surrounding area since industrial and commercial area. Existing landscaping blocks view of main
parking area. Use is close to permitted
uses so no detriment to zone plan. 1%
increase in pavement is diminimis.
to public –
Bader 290 Changebridge Rd. - sworn
with impact to my property since located at the corner of Stiles and
Changebridge. Would have liked a
courtesy notice. Do not want to see
this area turn into another Bloomfield Avenue.
How would it be controlled for people coming to the lot to look at the
cars? Concerned with the traffic on
Stiles Lane with trucks coming and going from the site. Have traffic studies been done on this
site? Do not want to see any more
lighting on the site. Feel it is an
inappropriate use for this site.
Moran 262 Changebridge Rd. - sworn
with additional noise and traffic to the area.
Sullivan – Ms. Bader a permitted use can have the parking lot full, is that
better than cars not coming in and out of the site. Ms. Bader – Do not want to see cars parked 24 hours a day 7 days
a week. Mr. Sullivan – You do not
believe that the fencing would look better around the cars to screen them. Ms. Bader – Not chain link. Mr. Sullivan – There is no new lighting
involved in this application.
Denzler – Is the applicant going to address the June 27th Design Review
Committee report on fencing and landscaping?
Mr. Sullivan – If the board wants a different material for the fence
then we will comply, the landscaping was installed in 2004, can put a few trees
along Bader if the board wants. Mr.
Denzler – Were variances granted for light illumination at rear of property. Mr. Huelsebusch - The Engineer should
address issue on if there is adequate sight distance. There is no detail on the plan for the 8’ fence. Want to make sure there is no more
additional security features on top of the fence. Property adjacent was required to have streetscape lighting. Dedication may be required. Need more testimony on unloading of
vehicles and type of vehicles that will be unloaded. Mr. Marinello – Will
sidewalks be required? Mr. Hug – How
many trucks per day to site. Mr. Cartine
– Do lifts use oil base?
to time constraints the application was carried with notice to: 11/7/07 with an
extension of time to act to 11/8/07.
Marinello indicated that a meeting was held last week with the chairman of the
Planning Board and Board of Adjustment and the board attorneys to discuss the
growing complexity of planning in our town, the balancing of the needs of new
applicants with existing homeowners and business owners. It was a good way of getting the boards to
look at common goals and issues facing them especially since we are dealing
with many different complex-planning applications. We also looked at ways to balance the needs of new applicants
against existing homeowners and business owners. Different ways of approaching uniformity discussed resulting in
asking that both board professionals share their professional reports on major
site plans to assist in heightening their sensitivity to the issues facing us,
and to look towards coordination of improvements in same manner. The chairs would also like these
professionals to advise the land use office when development applications are
filed and there is off-site easements/disturbance and/or a major affect, then
extension beyond MLUL 200’ should be considered by township. Also discussed,
that the Board of Adjustment is allowed to request a report from the Planning
Board on certain applications, and they may start that practice.
Board endorsed the approach taken at the joint meeting and recommended that
chair attend future meetings on the Board's behalf.
of July 5, 2007 - Eligible: Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Dr. Kanoff, Mr.
DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello
to adopt made by: Driscoll, Second by: Hug; Roll call: Unanimous
Bricker & Assoc – Trust for:
$360, $1,200, $180
& Croland – O/E for: $270; Trust for: $360, $384; $810, $450
William Denzler & Assoc. –
Trust for: $30, $60, $240, $30, $60, $660, $150, $150, $60, $60,
Anderson & Denzler – Trust
to approve made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Driscoll, Roll call: Unanimous
de Szendeffy – 24 Redding Pl. – B: 109, L: 44.01 – extension granted to
to adopt made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second
by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Mr.
Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello
– 4 Church Ln. - B: 100, L: 15 – Approved 12/1/99 – no changes to zoning
ordinance since approved - request for extension to 8/1/08
Board requested previous approval/plan before decision made.
Cartine recommended that we have a traffic expert look at the Dunkin Donut
property, Mr. Hug second; Roll call vote: call unanimous.
true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of September 5, 2007.
M. White, Sec.