ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 7, 2007
Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
for the record.
Braden –Absent Thomas Buraszeski - Absent
Kanoff - Present James Marinello - Present
Driscoll - Present Richard Moore (Alt #1) – Present
Maury Cartine – Present
Carl DiPiazza (Alt #2) - Present
Hug – Entrance Noted
Present: William Denzler,
for the record
in of Professionals
following application was carried to 12/5/07 with notice preserved:
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 – carried w/notice from 8-1-07- Eligible: Kanoff, Cartine, Hug,
Driscoll, Braden, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello ACT
Mr. Hug enters
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 - carried /notice from 8-1-07 – Eligible: Kanoff, Cartine, Hug,
Driscoll, Braden, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
ACT BY: 11/8/07
on behalf of the applicant: Michael
Sullivan, Esq.; Nick Devita, applicant, Patrick McClellen, PE
Ackerman stated that the fence ordinance has been revised and asked Mr.
Sullivan how he wished to proceed. Mr.
Sullivan – The application will require additional variances for the fence, the
fence was always on the plan and we noticed for any and all variances, so wish
to proceed on application including variances for fence. Mr. Ackerman - Do you intend to apply and pay for those variance before the
next meeting? Mr. Sullivan – The fence
was always on the plan, let us see where we are going with the rest of the
application and then discuss the fence.
Mr. Marinello – Not comfortable with proceeding on the fence issue
without proper notice to the residents.
Mr. Sullivan – If the Board is not comfortable, then we will have to
carry. Mr. Ackerman reviewed the new
fence ordinance for the Board. Mr. Sullivan - The law in New Jersey states that
each and every variance does not have to be noticed for and the fence has been
on the plan from the beginning. Mr. Hug
– I am not comfortable with proceeding on the fence, the neighbors
be noticed and I rather hear this all at once instead of partial hearings. Mr.
Marinello – I am concerned that a neighbor that was noticed previously and there
was no variances required and now there are, they may want to be at a hearing
on a variance for the fence. Mr.
Driscoll – I agree. Mr. Cartine - The
neighbors may have other issues if the fence variance was noticed for. Mr. Marinello – Let us begin with the
testimony and not vote tonight until new notice is done for the fence
Sullivan – Requesting preliminary and final site plan and use variance. Currently no automobiles are allowed to be
stored outside. No more than 16
employees on site. Hours of operation
would be 7:30am-5:30pm Mon-Fri, there will be no customers to the site and no
signage. There is a variance requested
for impervious coverage of 57.7% where 56.7% exists.
Devita, applicant – previously sworn
2-3 tractor trailer deliveries per week with 8-10 cars per tractor trailer. The
trucks will enter by the horseshoe driveway and will leave the same way. No deliveries on off hours. Deliveries will occur between 10am-3pm. It takes about ½ hour to unload. The cars will come from the Stiles Lane
Bridge and will return the same way.
There will be about 8-10 trips with cars per day. There will be lifts inside the building, not
hydraulic, and the lifts will be greased once a month. There is passive exhaust through the roof
presently, if allowed 4-8 lifts will have system like we have in the dealership
currently. We have cameras on the
building at the Parsippany site which are monitored through the internet from
Paramus site. We plan to do the same in
Denzler- How many cars from dealership a day?
Mr. Devita – 8-10 will come in and the same will leave during the
day. Mr. Huelsebusch – It may be safer
to park the tractor trailer on Bader Road and unload. Mr. Devita – We can do that.
Mr. Hug – How many outside parking spaces will be utilized with cars
during a normal day? Mr. Devita – 45-50
approximately. Mr. Hug – How loud is
the alarm system and will it effect the neighbors on Changebridge Road. Mr. Devita – The sound can be lowered, we
are currently next to apartments on Route 46 and we have had no
complaints. Mr. Cartine – What way will
the cars be coming in and out? Mr.
Devita – Vail Road, the traffic is too backed up on New Road.
to public for this witness - none
McClellen, PE – previously sworn
property was upgraded in landscaping as a result of a planning board
application in 2004. There are 48
additional trees on site. The applicant
will add 10 additional white pine 10’ in height in the area by Bader Road that
the Design Review Committee had concerns with.
Site distance reviewed. Site
distance to the left leaving the driveway is fine to the right there is a small
hindrance from existing landscaping.
Existing on building there are 3 wall mounted lights at 1,000 watts each
on Stiles Lane side. 4 wall mounted 500
watt bulbs on easterly side of building.
3 lights on Barnet Road side 500 watts.
On the westerly side there are 2 lights at 500 watts. There are 2 poles existing in the parking
lot with 2 1,000 watt bulbs on each of them.
The poles are 15’ high. The configuration of parking lot will be the
same, but there will be some restriping and fencing in of 56 spaces.
Mr. Denzler – Will sidewalks be required for this project was a
question of one of the board members at the last hearing. I suggest sidewalks be installed along
Stiles Lane to other project currently under construction down the street but
not on Bader Road. Also suggest streetscape
lighting. Mr. Sullivan – The applicant
does not wish to put in streetscape lighting, we do not see the need. Mr. Marinello – I would agree that the
sidewalks should be installed. Mr.
Huelsebusch – Do you propose to remove landscaping in site triangle? Mr. Sullivan – We will either trim or remove
to improve the site distance. Mr.
Cartine – Do you propose any new lighting?
Mr. McClellen – No. Mr. Cartine
– Will the lights be now all night where previously not? Mr. McClellen – Will need some lighting due
to security cameras. Mr. Sullivan – The
parking lot lights are turned off by a timer at some point in the evening and
the applicant now requests that they remain on for security purposes.
Gage, owner - sworn
lights currently come on around 5pm and go off about 1:30am.
to public for this witness - none
ensued on when to carry the application.
Board discussion carried to end of the agenda of 12/5/07 and the board
will go past 10:30 for new testimony.
The applicant will apply, pay and renotice for fence variance.
application was carried to 12/5/07 with new notice required and an extension of
time to act to: 12/6/07
ZC18-07 Berte, M. John – 18 Van Riper Ave. – B:
134, L: 3 – construction of an addition it single family residence and deck,
variance for rear setback of 32.26’ where 50’ required and maximum building
coverage of 2,897 s.f. vs 2,420 s.f.
on behalf of the applicant: M. John Berte Applicant, Larry Quirk, Architect
Quirk, AIA - sworn
Exhibits marked in:
– Photo of front of applicant’s house
– rear view of applicant’s house
– photo of 20 Van Riper
– photo of 16 Van Riper
– photo of 18 & 20Van Riper
– photo of rear yard of 16 Van Riper
– photo of 17 John Henry Dr.
Quirk – Mr. Berte built this house in the 1960’s. The deck was built in 1970.
The property is undersized for the zone. The depth of the property in undersized. Requesting a rear setback of 32.26’ to the
deck where 50’ required. Requesting a
variance for building coverage of 2,897 s.f. where 2,420 s.f is allowed. Propose a new open front porch; expand the
kitchen, small dining area and family room.
Current bedroom will become a study and larger bedroom proposed. Adding 2nd floor with
dormers. Rear addition is proposed to be in scale with the existing
house. There are a number of different
rooflines that cuts down on the look of the rear addition. If the addition went to the side there would
be a side setback variance required.
The proposed addition will be in keeping with the neighborhood. The addition will be a positive influence on
the neighborhood. It will add character
to the neighborhood. Mr. Denzler – 2
variances and a design waiver requested.
Design waiver requested for driveway turnaround. Recommend that the turnaround be provided.
The house setbacks in the neighborhood seem to be in line with each other how
would this be consistent with the neighborhood? Mr. Quirk - The house behind the deck seems much closer than
Exhibit marked in:
exhibit 1 – aerial photo taken in 2005 submitted by Mr. Denzler
Denzler – Is there a hardship to the property that would allow for the
variances? Mr. Quirk – Yes, the
property is undersized. The depth of the
property is 140’ and if the depth was to code we would not need a rear setback
variance. Mr. Denzler – I believe that
the building coverage variance is excessive for this neighborhood. Mr. Huelsebusch – Drywells would be required
because of the additional impervious coverage.
Hug – The existing deck is how far from the rear yard setback right now? Mr. Huelsebusch – 38’. Mr. Quirk – 2 houses on the board exhibit
are not depicted as they stand today.
Mr. Hug- I have seen what was built to the left and right of you but I
am concerned with the coverage variance requested. Mr. Hug – Could the deck be square with the back of the house?
Mr. Cartine - I agree, put the deck no further than the proposed house setback
of 36.26’ instead of encroaching further into the setback. Mr. Hug – The deck can go further out the
side than proposed behind the mudroom.
Denzler – Though the houses to the side may be larger, this would set
precedence to the rest of the neighborhood.
to public – none – closed to public
Mr. Marinello - Has anyone done the math with
the proposal by Mr. Hug on the reconfiguration of the deck. Mr. Quirk – I propose to keep the building
coverage variance as requested since there is no usable space outside the
dining area for a table and reduce the setback to 36.26’. Mr. Denzler – The deck can be reduced to 195
to approve the application, subject to redesigning the deck to reduce to no
more than 195 s.f., rear setback to be reduced to 36.26’ to the deck, the
application is in keeping with the neighborhood, subject to drywells to be
installed, and installation of the driveway turnaround made by: Mr. Hug; Second
by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore,
DiPiazza, No - Mr. Marinello
Berte is to work with the engineer to design a turnaround that will not take up
the whole front yard.
ZC20-07 Perella, Michael – 49 Horseneck Rd. – B:
139, L: 4 – variance for front setback of 21.9’ (existing and proposed) where
50’ required for 2 story addition – Notice Acceptable
ACT BY: 12/20/07
on behalf of the applicant: Michael Perella Applicant
Perella, applicant – sworn
a front setback variance because of an existing non-conforming structure. The primary issue in the house is the
stairway to the 2nd floor is very narrow. This proposal changes the footprint the least from other
variations we looked at. We propose to
extend an existing wall not looking to make it any wider and will allow to have
a formal front door to the house which currently exists in the rear of the
house and will make it a safer way to enter the house. The current house is 1,200 s.f.
Denzler- The current front setback is 19’-21.9’. In review of the survey the actual setback is 21’ not 21.9’. It is less than a foot difference. They did cover themselves with notice. The variance will be for 21’. Are there other 2 story houses on Horseneck
Road? Mr. Perella – Most of the houses
in the area are 2 stories. Across the
street there are 3 new homes that are in excess of 3,000 s.f. The proposal will bring this house more into
comparison to the homes in the area.
Mr. Denzler – This is the only variance being sought and there is
adequate turnaround provided. Mr. Cartine
– This addition will not be encroaching further than what exists? Mr. Denzler – One portion of the house
exists at 19’ where 21’ is requested.
Huelsebusch- The deed to the property goes to the center of the road, there
should be some sort of agreement sent to the town since there is a wall in the
right of way. The township engineer should get a maintenance agreement for the
wall. Mr. Perella – The town rebuilt
the wall and the town required the wall to be there. Mr. Huelsebusch – I was not aware of that. Mr. Marinello – Suggest a maintenance
agreement be entered into with the wall unless there is already an agreement
with the town.
to public – none - closed
to approve the application, minimal variance request, setback 21’ where 19’
exists, maintenance agreement per testimony as it relates to the wall,
consistent with the neighborhood made by:
Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Kanoff, Driscoll,
Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
Marinello – Mr. Denzler there will be a new master plan next year and the Board
would like comments to come through you.
The Land Use office wanted a new subcommittee for review and comments of
the new master plan document. Mr.
Driscoll, Mr. Hug and Mr. Marinello volunteered.
of October 3, 2007 - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr.
Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello
to adopt made by: Driscoll, Second by: DiPiazza; Roll call: Unanimous
Shapiro & Croland - O/E for: 270, Trust for: $444, $90, $390, $90
Bricker & Assoc. – Trust
for: $270, $300, $480, $90, $120, $720, $300, $270, $360
William Denzler & Assoc. –
Trust for: $30, $390, $210, $450, $180, $150, $150
to approve made by: Kanoff, Second by: Driscoll, Roll call: Unanimous
ZC15-07 Scroggins – 5 Birch Pl. – B: 152, L: 1
– maximum building coverage 3,077 s.f. vs 2,708
for garage addition - Approval
Resolution – Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr.
Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Moore; Second by: Driscoll;
Roll call: Yes – Dr.
Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, 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 – Approval Resolution
– Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr.
Motion to adopt made by: Moore; Second by: Driscoll;
Roll call: Yes – Dr.
Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore
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. Approval Resolution - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr.
Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore,
Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Cartine; Second by:
Driscoll; Roll call: Yes –Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
ZD27-05 DAB Associates – 43 Bellows Ln. – B: 41,
L: 15 – request for 6 month extension to 6/7/08
The Board Secretary indicated that the site plan for
this application is scheduled for January and the variance approval runs out in
January so they are requesting a 6 month extension for the variances
granted. Mr. Denzler - From a planning
prospective I believe the extension should be granted.
Motion to grant the extension to 6/7/08 made by:
Cartine; Second by: Hug; Roll call: Unanimous
The planner and engineer were dismissed.
The Board Secretary reminded the Board that the next
meeting is the special meeting on Hook Mountain Care center on 11/29/07 at
Discussion re: reappointments Braden, DiPiazza – If
interested in reappointment please contact the clerk.
Discussion re: budget – Send comments to land use
Motion to go into closed session to discussion
personnel issues made by: Driscoll, Second by: Kanoff
Roll call: unanimous
return from closed session the Board made a motion to purchase 9 copies of Land
Use Administration for New Jersey Municipalities 2007 made by: Mr. Driscoll,
Second by: Mr. DiPiazza; Roll call: Unanimous
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 December 5, 2007.
M. White, Sec.