ZBoA Minutes 10-3-07 Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF OCTOBER 3, 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 - 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.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

Swearing in of Professionals

The following application was carried to 2/6/08 with new notice required:

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: 2/7/08

The 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

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 – carried w/ notice from 8/1/07- Eligible: Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Driscoll, Braden, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello                                                                                                               ACT BY: 1/4/08


Page 2

10/3/07

Anton Company agreed to be heard at the end of the meeting to allow the residence applications to go first.

NEW BUSINESS

ZC15-07 Scroggins – 5 Birch Pl. – B: 152, L: 1 – maximum building coverage 3,077 s.f. vs 2,708

s.f. for garage addition – Notice Acceptable                                                            ACT BY: 12/20/07

Present on behalf of the applicant: Christopher Scroggins, Applicant; Bruce Messina, PE

Christopher Scroggins, Applicant – sworn

We 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.

Bruce Messina, PE - sworn

Currently 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. 

Mr. 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 – Yes.

Open to public - none

Mr. 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.

Mr. 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.

Closed to public

Motion 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

TRACK 2

ZC19-07 Brazinsky & Montemorra – 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. 


Page 3

10/3/07

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

OLD BUSINESS

TRACK 3             

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. Braden, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello                                                                                                                                               ACT BY: 10/4/07

Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Hug and Mr. Moore certified to 7/5/07 hearing.

Present 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, applicant

Thomas Malman, Esq.

We 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 last hearing. 


Page 4

10/3/07

Daniel Lamonthe, PE – previously sworn

Reviewed 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. 

Mr. 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. 

Mr. Fox, Arch – previously sworn

                Exhibit – A6 – revised rendering with 6’ fence across detention basin

Mr. 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 your request.

Judd Rocciola, Traffic PE - sworn

I 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

I 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. 

Peter Steck, PP - sworn

                Exhibit marked in A7 – aerial photo of site with notations superimposed

Mr. 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


Page 5

10/3/07

steep 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.

Mr. 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 the area. 

Mr. 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 Route 46. 

Mr. 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. 

Mr. 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


Page 6

10/3/07

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. 

Open to public – none – closed

Mr. 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 Montville. 

Motion 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

OTHER BUSINESS

NONE

MINUTES:

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

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

INVOICES:

Shapiro & Croland – Trust for: $330

Bricker & Assoc. – Trust for: $300, $600, $270, $180, $360, $150, $840

William Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $210, $60, $120, $210, $210, $180, $90, $180, $150, $120,

$120, $180, $180, $180, $30, $180

Motion to approve made by: Kanoff, Second by: Hug, Roll call: Unanimous


Page 7

10/3/07

RESOLUTIONS

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 – Granted - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Braden, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello              

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              

Cartine – 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

CORRESPONDENCE

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 available.

Mr. 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.

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

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of November 7, 2007.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.

Must certify to 10/4/06

Certified to 7/5/07

Certified to 7/5/07

Must certify to 5/3/06 & 7/5/07

Certified to 7/5/07

 

 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack