ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 2007
Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
for the record.
Braden –Absent 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
following application was carried to 2/6/08 with new notice required:
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: 2/7/08
following application was carried with new notice required to 1/3/08:
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 – carried w/ notice from 8/1/07- Eligible:
Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Driscoll, Braden, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello ACT
Company agreed to be heard at the end of the meeting to allow the residence
applications to go first.
ZC15-07 Scroggins – 5 Birch Pl. – B: 152, L: 1
– maximum building coverage 3,077 s.f. vs 2,708
for garage addition – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 12/20/07
on behalf of the applicant: Christopher Scroggins, Applicant; Bruce Messina, PE
Scroggins, Applicant – sworn
bought a ranch due to my disability. We
have grown out of our house. We would
like to change the existing one car garage into a family room and attach a
2-car garage to the west. It makes it
easier for me with weather conditions for ingress and egress to the house. We are requesting a variance from maximum
building coverage 3,077 s.f. vs 2,708 s.f.
Messina, PE - sworn
there is a small one-car garage that makes it difficult due to Mr. Scroggins
disability to get in and out of the house.
A 2-car garage would make it easier to maneuver the car out of the
garage. We are not asking for
impervious coverage. There is a good
distance between neighbors.
Denzler – The applicant requires an impervious coverage variance for the
proposed. They are requesting 369 s.f. over what is allowed. If a detached garage was built they would
have to have both impervious and building coverage variances so this is a
better plan. The applicant will provide
a driveway turnaround. This will not require a variance for impervious
coverage. Mr. Huelsebusch – There will
only be 200 s.f. of impervious coverage added to the site. Are you sure you will not violate the front
setback requirements? Mr. Messina –
to public - none
Marinello – Can you add a 2nd bay on your existing garage? Mr. Scroggins – It would create additional
variances and would encroach further on our neighbors, which we were trying not
to do. There is no more room to expand
on the end of the house. Most of our
neighbors have 2-car garages and some have more than 2 car garages.
Cartine – Can they go out the side without additional variances? Mr. Messina – There is currently a 15’
setback and any additional projection will require a variance.
to approve the application, 2-car garages are commonplace in the neighborhood
so no detriment, subject to installation of a driveway turnaround made by: Mr.
Cartine; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff,
Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello
ZC19-07 Brazinsky &
– 12 Dahl Dr. – B: 52.01, L: 6 – rear setback of 42’ where 50’required for
sunroom addition – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 12/20/07
Present on behalf of the applicant: Kim
Montemorra, applicant; Yuvall Welish, AIA
Kim Montemorra, applicant –sworn
We wish to extend our kitchen. We are located on a corner lot and the house
is a bi-level so it limits what we can do.
Yuvall Welish, Architect – sworn
This property is a corner lot. There is a 50’ setback along the curve of
the lot. The house is currently built
within the setback. The addition is
small. The addition cannot be moved
over because it will cover existing windows.
The addition is going over an existing deck. Requesting 42’ setback where 50’ required.
Mr. Denzler – Rear setback variance of 42’
where 44.6’ existing and 50’ required.
Can the addition be shifted? Mr.
Welish – It would cover windows in the bathroom, would not be practical, the
windows are already small. Mr. Denzler
– The property is pie shaped creating the hardship. Mr. Welish –You want the kitchen to be one piece, if shifted, it
would be an L shape. Ms. Montemorra –
It would actually end up in my bedroom.
Open to public – none
Mr. Marinello – I haven’t heard any testimony
from a planning perspective. When was
the house built? Ms. Montemorra –
1978. Mr. Welish – No one builds
bi-levels anymore. Mr. Cartine – This
is the last old house in that area, all the other homes are larger. It is small for the neighborhood. Ms. Montemorra – We are just extending onto
what is there. I am staying within the
footprint. Mr. Cartine – Is it a legal
deck? Mr. Denzler – There was a change
in the ordinance for decks in 1995. Ms.
Montemorra – When I bought the house in 2003 the deck was there. Mr. Buraszeski – Are they decreasing the
setback from what exists? Mr. Denzler –
No it is due to the shape of the lot.
Closed to public
Motion to approve the variance for setback,
the property is a pie shaped lot, difficult to build on, existing deck is
within the setback, and addition will sit on existing deck, lesser impact, the
addition is in keeping with the neighborhood, improvement to the neighborhood
made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Mr. Hug; Roll call: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr.
Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, No - Mr. Marinello
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. Carried with notice from 7/5/07 Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski,
Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug,
Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello ACT
Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Hug and Mr. Moore certified to
on behalf of the applicant: Thomas Malman, Esq.; Kenneth Fox, Arch; Daniel
Lamonthe, PE; Judd Rocciola, Traffic PE; Peter Steck, PP; Robin Pio Costa-LaHue,
last appeared in July. Property sits in
both Fairfield and Montville. Approvals
have been received from Fairfield. The
majority of the development appears in Fairfield. We heard testimony from the architect and the engineer at the
Lamonthe, PE – previously sworn
testimony from the last hearing for the Board.
We tried to align the building with the building on lot 1. We aligned the driveways with the driveway to
the industrial park. We located the
detention basin in the front of the site to reduce construction in
wetlands. DEP requested a landscape
swale in the rear of the site for water quality then would connect to the
detention basin in the front. We submitted
an application for grading and guide rail with DOT, verbally they have no
problems with the application. Intend
to give lot 1 a facelift with lighting treatments, landscaping, striping etc. We are attempting to bring it into
compliance with Township standards.
Denzler – At the last meeting there was discussion on the detention basin
fencing and landscaping. Mr. Lamonthe –
We will install streetscape lights and landscaping. Mr. Malman – Fairfield thought 4’ would be better but will agree
to 6’ if the Board requires. Mr.
Denzler - Would like ornamental fence as opposed to chain link. Mr. Malman – We will work with you on your
request. Mr. Lamonthe – We will update
the plans showing an ornamental fence.
Mr. Huelsebusch – Why was the location of the steps put there? Mr. Lamonthe – Safety issues if someone gets
stuck in the basin.
Fox, Arch – previously sworn
Exhibit – A6 – revised rendering
with 6’ fence across detention basin
Fox – The fence will be ornamental metal fence. Mr. Buraszeski – Why fence at all? Mr. Malman – Safety reasons, would prefer 4’ but will comply with
Rocciola, Traffic PE - sworn
met with the DOT on this application. I
did an analysis of trip generation for DOT and DOT issued a letter of no
interest, which does not require an additional entrance to the site. Traffic impact would be minimal to the
site. Mr. Denzler – The letter from DOT
is dated 2002 are the plans the same as they are today? Mr. Rocciola - The building is slightly smaller
but there is no impact. Mr. Denzler –
How is the trip generation different from 5 years ago. Mr. Rocciola –There is no difference with
trip generation today. Mr. Huelsebusch
– Is the letter of no interest the same criteria today as it was 5 years
ago? Mr. Rocciola – Yes. Mr. Huelsebusch – The interior access drives
has been shifted from Route 46? Mr.
Rocciola – No, there was a shift in the driveway in the back of the lot.
Robin Pio Costa LaHue, applicant - sworn
am the owner of the properties. On lot
1 we have retail sales, distribution, deli and mini-storage on site. Intend to build a similar building on lot 2
with same type of uses. The
self-storage use has been there since the building was built in the
1980’s. There is very little traffic to
the self-storage use. It is 24/7
access. There is a lock in code which
is changed twice a month. Mr. Denzler –
Is the self-storage on lot 2 proposed to be run by the same establishment on
lot 1? Ms. Pio Costa LaHue – Yes.
Steck, PP - sworn
Exhibit marked in A7 – aerial
photo of site with notations superimposed
Steck – On the exhibit I emphasized the property in Montville in yellow, dashed
line where subdivision is proposed and Fairfield site is in purple, the dark
blue portion is already approved in Fairfield and light blue part of the
building is the portion of the building under Montville’s jurisdiction. This is a relatively simple application,
there is one building being built intended to be a mirror of the building
existing on lot 1. Lot 1 building has
storage facility on 2nd floor.
It is a mixed use building that has been there for a while. This property is remote from the body of
Montville. The lot will have sewers
from another town. Most people think
this lot is in Fairfield. Looked at the
master plan. It was recommended for a
highway business type of use to provide services to the traveling public and
services to the local residences. The
slopes on the property are artificial steep slopes from a construction business
on the Fairfield side of the property.
This Board has jurisdiction because we have a self storage use on lot 1
and that is not allowed in the code so this is considered an expansion of a
non-conforming use, technically there is no change since it already
exists. There is only a small portion
of the building that is in Montville.
The D variance is a minor portion of the building. Fairfield allows self-storage facilities in
the zone. The applicant did not require
a variance from Fairfield. There is a
FAR variance of 26%, which exceeds the 25% allowed. There is an issue of impervious coverage 55% permitted and the
applicant is requesting 63% on lot 1 if the subdivision is granted. There is a
sign variance required for freestanding sign, height variance for sign, and
signage proposed on side of building which is not allowed. The applicant is requesting a variance for
parking since the lot is split by the municipal boundary line. If you look at the fact that the site is
split between towns and one building exists the variances are minimal. Requesting variance for separation of
pavement from property line for shared access on site.
Steck - The site is partially wooded but is deciduous. No substantial detriment to public good or
zoning ordinance. The bulk of the
building is essentially uses permitted in the zone. Self-storage exists and most people did not know it was there
since it is integrated into the building.
The new building has a small portion on the 2nd floor that
does not permit self-storage facilities.
Most of the users come there by car.
The self-storage facility is used more as domestic use as opposed to
contractor use. There will be state of
the art security system installed. The
bulk of the building is permitted uses in the B-4 zone. There are office uses on the side of the
building and it would be convenient to the public if there were signs on the
side of the building to give people passing by advanced notice to slow
down. This is an unusual property. There is very little impact to any uses in
Denzler – additional variance pertaining to detention basin as it relates to
retaining walls. Is there any impact to
the public? Mr. Steck - No, the fence
is adequate for safety reasons and this is not a pedestrian part of the highway
it is mostly vehicle traffic. Mr.
Denzler – Is this section of Montville being over developed? Mr. Steck – No, there is a fair amount of
open space provided by the river. There
will not be an appearance of overcrowding.
Mr. Denzler - Is the sign still proposed as digital? Mr. Steck – Yes. Mr. Denzler – This is not permitted. Mr. Steck – Digital signs are becoming more popular, the sign
proposed is not designed to change quickly to get the attention of the
motorists it is a mechanism to reach the motoring public but can be changed
without having to physically go to the sign.
The sign can be used to advertise a new tenant or a service that will be
provided for a limited amount of time.
Mr. Denzler- My biggest concern is the digital sign; it is a common
driveway, out of character with the corridor and the redevelopment area along
Denzler – Were there any FAR variances
approved with the Fairfield application?
Mr. Steck – Yes. Mr. Denzler –
There are 2 design waivers requested. Mr. Steck reviewed the steep slope
disturbances for the Board. Mr.
Huelsebusch –Would a different applicant own both these lots or would they both
be owned by the Freedom Group? Ms.
Pio-Costa LaHue – My family owns all of the buildings. Mr. Marinello – What provisions are in
effect if this was sold in the future?
Mr. Malman – The site would have to be sold as one unit. Mr. Marinello – Will there be a cross
easement? Mr. Malman – No, the parking
is all on lot 2, there is no sharing of parking all under one ownership the
deed will reflect that. Mr. Marinello
– If subdivision granted would like to protect the impervious coverage from
future redevelopment. Mr. Malman – Any
future application would have to come back before this Board. Mr. Steck – Since this is a use application
any change to the use on site would have to come back before this Board.
Driscoll – Isn’t the sign required to be reviewed by the Design Review
Committee? Not on required reports listing. Mr. Fox –Did a review of the signage for the
Board. Mr. Hug – Are you asking for a
variance for the height of the freestanding sign? Mr. Steck – The ordinance allows for 10’ this is 15’. Mr. Hug – I would like Design Review
Committee involved in the sign review.
The Town is against digital signs.
Internally lit sign with placards would suffice. Mr. Hug – Could the building be pushed to
the right? Mr. Fox – To maintain safe
circulation and due to environmental constraints it cannot be moved to the
right. Dr. Kanoff – If we were to approve this can
we make it subject to Design Review Committee approval? Mr. Malman – We will dispense of the digital
sign request. Mr. Fox - We can bring
the underside of the sign to 5’ but 8’ is required by ordinance. Mr. Denzler – If the sign was setback
further it would be allowed. Mr. Fox -
We can make adjustments to the sign.
Mr. Denzler – Can you separate out the sign from any approval and send
them to the Design Review Committee.
Mr. Ackerman - We would have to know exact dimensions if they are making
changes now. If you decline the sign
this evening they would have to make a conforming sign. You can still condition upon review by
Design Review Committee. Mr. Cartine –
I think we can say subject to Design Review Committee. Mr. Ackerman – Once you approve a sign
variance, it is approved. Mr. Driscoll
– We are trying to create a theme along Route 46. Mr. Malman –We will build
a conforming sign.
to public – none – closed
Cartine – The fencing around detention basin, the ordinance requires 4’ but you
recommend 6’? Mr. Denzler – It is a
deep detention basin so recommends 6’ for safety purposes. Mr. Hug – The applicant has done an
outstanding job on the design of the building, upgrades the area. Upgrades to the site plan of lot 1 with
lighting and landscaping will make the area a nice entrance into
to approve the application for site plan, subdivision, variance for expansion
of non-conforming use, FAR variance, impervious coverage variance, common
driveway, use variance for self storage facility, minimum lot area, off street parking variance, wall signage on
side of building, wall sign overall
square footage, retaining wall in front yard height, 6’ ornamental fence since
chain link not permitted, the digital sign is not approved it was withdrawn by
the applicant, a conforming monument sign to be installed, deed restriction to
be conditioned that lots 1 and 1.2 be owned by the same owner, would condition
that no restaurants be approved by variance at a later date due to the parking,
no impairment to zone plan and zoning ordinance, all sign colors, font, style
will be subject to Design Review Committee review made by: Mr. Hug; Second by:
Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr.
Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello
of September 6, 2007 - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr.
Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Braden, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello
to adopt made by: Driscoll, Second by: DiPiazza ; Roll call: Unanimous
& Croland – Trust for: $330
& Assoc. – Trust for: $300, $600, $270, $180, $360, $150, $840
Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $210, $60, $120, $210, $210, $180, $90, $180,
$180, $180, $180, $30, $180
to approve made by: Kanoff, Second by: Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
– 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 – Granted - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr.
Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Braden, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr.
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Cartine ; Second by:
Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr.
DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello
ZC11-03-18-05 Addval Corp. – B: 40, L: 31 – 6
Jacksonville Rd. – request for extension of approvals until October 1, 2007 – Granted – Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr.
Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Braden, Mr. Moore, Mr.
DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello
– Is there a date issue? October 1st date requested by the
applicant? Secretary – That was the
applicant’s request in order to apply for permit.
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff,
Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello
ZAC38-06 Lynch - B: 100.1, L: 9 – 36 Two
Bridges Rd. – Appeal from zoning officer’s decision – Denied
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by:
Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug
The Board Secretary indicated that the January
meeting date has been changed to Thursday 1/3/08.
The Board Secretary requested the availability of
members for a possible special meeting on Hook Mountain Care center for
11/29/07 at 8PM. Consensus - All present will be
Hug – Olde Towne, what can we do about this application carrying for so
long? Mr. Ackerman – The Board could
either tell them to proceed or dismiss the application. Mr. Cartine – We should let them carry since
they are trying to see what they can build.
Board consensus Allow the applicant to continue to carry.
being no further business there was a
motion to unanimously adjourn made by Mr. Hug, Seconded by: Mr. Cartine
true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of November 7, 2007.
M. White, Sec.
to 5/3/06 & 7/5/07