ZBoA Minutes 8-1-07 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 – Present                                   Carl DiPiazza (Alt #2) - Present

Gerard Hug - Present

Also Present:                 William Denzler, Planner

                                Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.


Stated for the record

Swearing 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              

                ACT BY: 10/3/07



Page 2



ZC3-07 Badami, Christopher – 28 Montville Ave. – B: 51.02, L: 12 – construction of a 2 ½

story 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

ACT BY: 9/1/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: John Barbarula, Esq.; Thomas Berami, PE

Thomas Berarni, PE – sworn  

Reviewed 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. 

Exhibit marked in:

                A1 – plan showing building envelope without variance

Mr. 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. 

Mr. 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. 

Due to time constraints the application was carried with notice to 10/3/07 with an extension of time to act to 10/4/07


Page 3


NOTE: 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 BY: 9/11/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Marc Walker, PE; Jose Lazo, Applicant

Exhibit marked in:

                A1 – photos of existing house

Mr. Schepis – Mr. Lazo agreed to reduce the size of the structure to meet the building coverage requirements to the satisfaction of the zoning official.

Mr. Marc Walker, PE - sworn

Exhibit marked in:

                A2 – plan showing surrounding area to the subject property with dwellings located on the plan

Mr. 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.

Mr. Schepis – The applicant agrees to any conditions of the Board of Health, Water and Sewer and the Township Engineer. 

Mr. 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.   

Open to public for this witness – none

Mr. 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 the Board

Page 4


of Health?  Mr. Schepis – Will satisfy the Board of Health conditions.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Any impervious area eliminated must be vegetated. Mr. Schepis agreed.

Mr. Lazo -sworn

The photos shown in A1 were taken 5 days ago and depict the property as it is today.

Mr. 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. 

Linda Prescott  30 Alpine Rd. - sworn

How 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. 

Closed to public

Motion 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, Moore, Marinello

Track 3

NOTE: 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

Present on behalf of the applicant: Bernard Berkowitz, Esq.; Samir Shah Applicant, Michael Napolitano, PP; Frank Truillo, Architect, Elizabeth Dolan, Traffic PE

Mr. 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 colors. 

Samir Shah Applicant - sworn

I 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

Space 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. 

Elizabeth Dolan, Traffic PE - sworn

Did 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.

Page 5


Michael Napolitano, PP - sworn

Changebridge 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.

Open to public –

Jean Bader 290 Changebridge Rd. - sworn

Concerned with time that the donuts would be delivered.  Concerned with early morning noise. 

Mr. 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 landscaping. 

Sandy Tuminelli, property manager - sworn

We cannot upgrade the landscaping until the sprinkler system is repaired.  Have a landscaping plan.

Exhibit marked in

                A1 – sprinkler system proposal

                A2 – landscaping plan

Ms. 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. 

Mr. 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

Page 6


does 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 all stores

Due 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.

NOTE: 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

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                Notice

Acceptable                                                                                                            ACT BY: 9/30/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Michael Sullivan, Esq.; Nick Devita, applicant, Patrick McClellen, PE; Kenneth Ochab, PP

Mr. Sullivan – We are requesting preliminary and final site plan with variances for outdoor storage of vehicles and 57.7% impervious coverage where 55% allowed.

Nick Devita, applicant – sworn

Currently 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. 

Patrick McClellen, PE  - sworn

Currently 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 exists. 

Mr. Sullivan – The applicant will comply with all agency findings and conditions. 

Kenneth  Oschab, PP - sworn

The 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.   

Page 7


Open to public –

Jean Bader 290 Changebridge Rd. - sworn

Concerned 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. 

Ester Moran 262 Changebridge Rd. - sworn

Concerned with additional noise and traffic to the area.

Mr. 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. 

Mr. 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? 

Due to time constraints the application was carried with notice to: 11/7/07 with an extension of time to act to 11/8/07.


Mr. 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. 

The Board endorsed the approach taken at the joint meeting and recommended that chair attend future meetings on the Board's behalf.

Page 8



Minutes of July 5, 2007 - Eligible: Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello

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


                Bricker & Assoc – Trust for: $360, $1,200, $180

Shapiro & 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,

$480, $60

                Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $187.50

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


ZD9-06 de Szendeffy – 24 Redding Pl. – B: 109, L: 44.01 – extension granted to 10/31/07

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


ZC1-99 Strickland – 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

The Board requested previous approval/plan before decision made.

Mr. Cartine recommended that we have a traffic expert look at the Dunkin Donut property, Mr. Hug second; Roll call vote: call unanimous. 

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of September 5, 2007.


Linda M. White, Sec.

Must certify to 10/4/06


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack