ZONING BOARD OF
MINUTES OF February
Building, 195 Changebridge Road
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated for the record.
Richard Moore – Present Thomas Buraszeski
Donald Kanoff – Present James
Marinello – Present
Deane Driscoll –
DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Present
Maury Cartine– Present
Kenneth Shirkey (Alt #2) – Present
Gerard Hug – Present
Also Present: William
Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
following application was rescheduled to 5/7/08 at the applicant’s request with
new notice required:
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: 5/8/08
Waldemar - 21 Rockledge Rd. – B: 13, L: 22 – construction of a
single-family residence – variances for lot size 18,564 s.f. vs 27,000 s.f.;
front setback 25.2’ vs 50’; wall/fence height 9’ vs 6’; design exception
driveway slopes exceed 10%; development within steep slopes;; slope regulation
in environmentally sensitive area – Carried w/notice from 5/3/06; New notice
acceptable 4/27/07, carried with notice from 7/5/07 & 9/5/07 - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff,
Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Shirkey, Mr.
Marinello ACT BY: 2/7/08
Present on behalf of
the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Waldemar Ptaszek, Marc Walker, PE
Mr. Shirkey certified
to the 5/3/06; 7/5/07 & 9/5/07 hearings.
Mr. Schepis – We have
received a report from the opposition and Mr. Walker will review said report
Mr. Hug – To submit a
report the day of the meeting does not do justice to the board in the decision
making process. Mr. Marinello – We did
not have our professional’s review and use the applicants escrow so Mr. Walker
will review the report received in the Land Use office today.
Mr. Walker, PE –
The objector’s exhibit
previously submitted was not signed by anyone, the pictures in the documents
were not accurate, the document was not sealed. We trust the board will find the document irrelevant. I would like to review the project as we
Mr. Walker - The
building height requirements were changed during our application. We have complied with the northerly and
southerly side height requirements. We
reduced our building height by 8’ which complied with the zoning
ordinance. We cannot comply with the
fence requirements due to retaining walls; we have provided fence and handrails
for safety purposes, the existing grade along the centerline of the driveway
exceeds 15%, no development on the property can be done without relief from this
section of the ordinance, we also need relief from slopes above 15%, no
development of the property can be done without relief from this
ordinance. In the 1988 approval the
driveway grade did not conform where our proposal meets the grade. We need a front setback of 25.2’ from the
expanded right of way line where 50’ is required. The setback from the pavement is 41.5’. We need relief from lot width and lot area and they are
pre-existing non-conforming items. We
meet the coverage requirements. We have
addressed stormwater management; we have a 0 net increase from our
Mr. Shirkey – The
proposed property is 4 ½ baths and 2 full laundry rooms. The size of the house will dictate a pump for
a 500-1,000 tank due to the pump being above grade. Mr. Walker – We will use a low pressure pump that will work for
this site. The line has to be
constructed 4’ below grade. It is the
best pump for this type of site; it is an easy system for the homeowner to maintain. There is a reserve area in the system. Mr. Shirkey – If there is no electric in the
area then the pump will not work. At
what point does this house become inhabitable due to backing up of the system
when the electricity is out for an extended period of time? Mr. Walker – How often does the electricity
go out in this area? Mr. Marinello –
Monthly. Mr. Walker – I did not know
this was a problem in the area but we have not constructed the pump yet and
will take that into consideration. Mr.
Shirkey – When this tank overflows where will it go? Mr. Walker – We will address that.
Dr. Kanoff – In the past
we have discussed about the bump in the road, how will that be taken care
of? Mr. Walker – We have a mirror
proposed and a solar powered signal that will make people aware of when someone
is pulling out of the driveway and it has been approved by the traffic safety
Mr. Cartine asked for a
listing of the relief requested. Mr. Schepis handed out a list of the
proposed relief requested. Mr.
Marinello – We have heard testimony that no house could be built on this site under
the steep slope ordinance. Mr. Ackerman
– Under 15%. Mr. Marinello – If there
is a lawfully subdivided lot how can we deal with these variances requested? Mr. Ackerman – If it is a legally subdivided
lot and the board denied since it needs variances the applicant can file
lawsuit against the board saying that the board is making their lot
Open to public -
Randy Pearce, Esq. – We
were asked many questions by the applicant, board and professionals to give
specific answers to questions. We attempted to give a written response with
exhibits attached. When we came here on
September 5th the applicant gave us a document dated July 5th
and since that time I have worked with the neighbors to give you that response
but we could not get that response before today. I have 2 witnesses this evening a professional planner and the
president of theLake Valhalla Club.
Tony Garrett, AIA &President of the Lake Valhalla Club –
witness for the neighbors – sworn and accepted
I am here representing
the Lake Valhalla Club. We do not
believe the negative criteria have been satisfied. We feel the construction of this dwelling will have a significant
effect on the visual environment of this area.
exhibit marked in:
O4 – contextual map and site section from aerial topo
used from Lake Valhalla Club application
Mr. Garrett - There
will be significant effects to 19 Rockledge Road. This dwelling will have a significant visual impact on the Lake
Valhalla Club and the neighborhood. The
whole area was built in the 1920’s and the goal was to construct an appropriate
development in the area to create a community.
The applicant has pushed the ordinance to the limit as it relates to
building height. There is a significant
amount of change to the topography on the site. The site drops off significantly from the street grade and walls
require a lot of fill and retaining walls.
We are concerned that this proposed dwelling will have effect to the
light and air to the neighboring properties.
The negative criteria have not been effectively satisfied. I do not know where the traffic signal is
going. Who is maintaining this
signal? Concerned with fire safety
access to the property. Believe this
is an inappropriate development for the Lake Valhalla area. Mr. Marinello – Do you think the 1988 plan
was appropriate? Mr. Garrett – My
professional opinion is that the 1988 plan is more appropriate for this
Mr. Denzler – Do you
agree that as it pertains to the ordinance the proposed house meets the
ordinance as per average grade and height.
Mr. Garrett – I don’t believe the calculations are entirely accurate,
but I do not think it is enough to not require a variance.
O5 – table indicating information on adjoining properties
in the area.
Mr. Schepis – Is the exhibit
plan signed and sealed? Mr. Garrett -
No. Mr. Schepis- Is the person that
drew up the plan a licensed surveyor or engineer? Mr. Garrett – No. Mr.
Schepis – Does the designer hold any professional licenses? Mr. Garrett
- No, but it was reviewed by me and I am a professional architect. Mr. Schepis – Are you aware of the
regulation regarding copying plans not approved by the original professional
that are not signed and sealed by that professional and this action is illegal. Mr. Garrett - I am aware. Mr. Schepis – In exhibit O5, most of your
calculations did not cover basement area.
Mr. Garrett – Yes, but, the Ptaszek house is using the basement area as
livable area. Mr. Schepis- So you did
not do calculations on footprint but livable area. Mr. Garrett – Yes. Mr.
Schepis – Have you reviewed the previous meetings of this hearing. Mr. Garrett – No. Mr. Schepis – Are you aware that the fire safety and traffic
safety officers have approved this plan.
Mr. Garrett – No. Mr. Schepis
– Would you agree that this is a one story house. Mr. Garrett – No it appears from Rockledge Road that this is a
one story house but I would consider it a 1 ½ story house. Mr. Schepis – Are you aware of the 50’
conservation easement the applicant is granting? Mr. Garrett – No.
Questions for Mr.
Garrett for the April hearing. Dr.
Kanoff – Information as to sprinkling testimony. Mr. Hug – Revise chart to consider basements of the homes. Mr. Hug – What would you feel would be
proper to build on this property?
Mr. Pearce – I have a
professional planner to appear at the next hearing.
Carried with notice to
April 2, 2008 with an extension of time to act to April 3, 2008
ZC14-07 Danzi, Dominick – 86 Stonybrook Rd. – B: 3,
L: 13.1 - addition to single family home variances for side setback of 38’
where 44.2’ required; building height of 3 stories where 2 ½ stories allowed;
maximum impervious coverage of 11,782 s.f. (12,189 s.f. existing) where 8,868
s.f. allowed Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 3/14/08
Present on behalf of the applicant: Dominick Danzi,
Mr. Danzi, applicant - sworn
Our house is a small ranch.
We have my mother–in-law moving in with us soon and our son coming back from school.
Mr. Denzler – Reviewed the variances for the Board as side
setback of 38’ where 44.2’ required; building height of 3 stories where 2 ½
stories allowed. Mr. Hug – Is the story
variance because of the slope of the land?
Mr. Denzler – Yes and location.
Mr. Denzler – Impervious coverage of 12,189 s.f. exists, 8,686 s.f.
allowed and 11,782 s.f. proposed. Mr.
Denzler – How is the property currently over coverage? Mr. Danzi
- The improvements were done prior to me moving into the house. Mr. Denzler – When did you acquire this
property? Mr. Danzi – 10 years
ago. Mr. Denzler – Can you explain the
patio on the other property that is on your property? Mr. Danzi – It is pea gravel under ¾ inch in a play area, it is
not a patio.
Exhibit A1 – photo of play area
A2 – sample of gravel
Mr. Denzler – What is the metal shed in back used for? Mr. Danzi – Lawn equipment. Mr. Denzler- And the wooden shed? Mr. Danzi – Pool equipment. Mr. Danzi – I am trying to save the existing
house, it would have been easier to demolish and rebuild. My house is 1,675 s.f. and the other houses
in the area are larger. I have a large
lot for the area.
A3 – to of
other houses in area that are closer than mine.
Photo of homes in the area
A7 – photo
of Matisek home
A8 – land
between subject property and Matisek home
A9 – A10 –
2 homes in area
A11 - photo of front of subject home
A12 – photo of rear of subject home
Open to public –
Daniel Danzi, applicant’s brother and neighbor - 88 Stoneybrook Rd. - sworn
I am the applicant’s brother. I support the application.
The size of the houses in the neighborhood have grown larger. My brother is looking for a home more in
line with the neighborhood. The
proposal will be in line with the neighborhood. The house is cocked on an angle, so only a percentage of the
setback will be in variance. He will be
picking up many items that will reduce the impervious coverage. Trying not to burden the environment by razing
Jerry Matisek – 84 Stoneybrook Rd. - sworn
In favor of the application.
Mr. Denzler – The entire side addition will be in the
setback, not a percentage of the addition.
Mr. Denzler - The 2nd floor addition says it is storage but
there are windows like the living room.
Mr. Danzi – No it will be storage, we will not have an attic, and we
will have to put air conditioning in there.
Mr. Denzler – No
business from home? Mr.
Danzi – No. Mr. Cartine – Do you think
the applicant can reduce the impervious coverage more? Mr. Denzler – He can remove the metal
building in the rear which is 975 s.f. and the driveway leading up to it. Mr. Ackerman – There seems to be a discrepancy
as to if permits were granted for this building. Mr. Cartine – Why do you need a driveway to storage shed? Mr. Danzi – It is mostly mud now. Mr. Marinello – Is the pea gravel considered
impervious. Mr. Denzler – It may be
depending on the size. Mr. Denzler – Do
not see the need for the driveway to the metal building. Mr. Cartine – Would you have a problem with
removing the driveway to the metal building.
Mr. Danzi – I can put down grass.
Mr. Cartine – Do you need the driveway?
Mr. Danzi – No. Mr. Marinello –
How about the metal building? Mr. Danzi
– No, I do not want to remove the metal shed.
Mr. Hug – There is no hardship to the property. Mr. Hug – You are building a 6,000 s.f. home
with 3 bedrooms, it would be more expensive to demolish and rebuild. Why build storage on an entire floor, it
will be used in the future. The metal building
is not necessary for this property. We
would like to help you and make it work but you need to help us. Mr. Shirkey – Would you be opposed to
installation of the drywell system to collect all runoff from impervious
coverage. Mr. Danzi – No I would not be
opposed to that.
Mr. Marinello – What about the pea gravel, will that be
impervious? Mr. Denzler – I would need
to know the depth of the pea gravel. Mr. Dan Danzi – It is probably about 1”
to 1 ¼” and it is just under the swing
set. It is a light cover.
Closed to public
Mr. Cartine – Do not believe that the 975 s.f. metal
building the rear is in keeping with the neighborhood. The impervious coverage is over. Mr. Marinello – I am sure that after this
addition is done than the additional garage will be able to hold what is in the
metal building. Mr. Ackerman – Without
the metal shed and driveway they would still be about 200 s.f. over. Mr. Denzler – If you take down the driveway
and the shed you will meet the impervious coverage for this property by 96
Motion to approve the application subject to removal of the
extra driveway from the rear of the house to the metal shed, the 975 s.f. shed
be removed to the extent necessary to meet the impervious coverage ordinance,
drywell not required unless the impervious coverage exceeds the maximum
impervious coverage allowed, approved side yard variance and story variance,
the building will be in keeping with the neighborhood, beneficial to the
community made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Mr. Hug; Roll call: Yes - Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Buraszeski,
Hug, Moore, Marinello
ZC22-07 Pante, Anthony – 10 Eagle Dr. –
B: 39, L: 78.09 – construction of a conservatory to
existing home – variance for rear setback 42’ where 50’
required ACT BY: 3/14/08
Present on behalf of the applicant:
Mr. Pante, applicant - sworn
Would like 180 s.f. extension of a sunroom over an existing
deck. The deck was installed by the
builder in 1995. The house is hampered
by a gas line and the house had to be built at the rear of the lot due to the
gas easement. The house backs up to
woods. This is the smallest house in
the neighborhood. Requesting a setback of 42’ where 50’ required. No trees to be removed.
Mr. Denzler – Rear setback variance for sunroom on existing
deck. The deck actually extends further
into the existing setback than the proposed sunroom. The property is constrained by utility easements. No substantial impact to adjoining
properties. There is no disturbance
within 4’ of the high-water table.
Open to public
Wendy Sessen – 6 Eagle Drive - sworn
In support of the application. Would enhance the neighborhood.
Closed to public
Motion to approve due to constraints of the property made by:
Mr. Driscol; Second by: Mr. Moore; Roll call: Yes - Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Buraszeski,
Hug, Moore, Marinello
Minutes of January 3, 2008 - Eligible: Kanoff, Driscoll,
Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Hug, Buraszeski, Shirkey, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski, Second by: Mr. Driscoll.
Roll call: Yes- Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Hug, Buraszeski,
& Assoc. Trust for: $240, $600, $480, $375, $93.75, $343.75, $500, $360
Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $90, $30. $180, $30, $240, $120, $30, $30
& Croland – O/E for: $210, Trust for: $870, $120, $125, $336, $330, $300
Motion to approve made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug,
Roll call: Unanimous
Michael - B: 100.1, L: 9 – 36 Two Bridges Rd. – Variance filing – rear
setback 27.1’ vs 50’ required and front setback of 38.4’ vs 45’ required –
Eligible: Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Moore – Approval
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll;
Roll call: Yes – Kanoff, Cartine, Hug,
Driscoll, Buraszeski, Moore
Allbrite Car Wash - 11 Bloomfield Ave. - B: 162, L: 3 – request for
extension of approvals to August 6, 2008 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff,
Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, Marinello - Granted
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll;
Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Kanoff,
Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, Abstain - Marinello
Attallah – 115 Jacksonville Rd. – B: 31.2, L: 26.21 – variance for pool in
side yard and 8’ fence where 6’ allowed – Eligible: Kanoff, Cartine, Hug,
Driscoll, Buraszeski, Moore, Marinello - Approval resolution
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Burazseki; Second by: Mr. Cartine;
Roll call: Yes – Kanoff, Cartine, Hug,
Driscoll, Buraszeski, Moore, Abstain - Marinello
ZC7-07 Pecora, Martin– 6 Gathering Rd. – B: 141.04, L: 3 – side setback of 12.3’ (existing &
proposed) vs 15.61’ allowed for 2 story addition – Eligible:
Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Moore, Marinello – Approval
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr.
Cartine; Roll call: Yes – Kanoff,
Cartine, Hug, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Moore, Abstain - Marinello
Resolution adopting professional services agreements
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Cartine ; Roll call:
Yes – Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Buraszeski, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey,
ZSPP/CD24-97-03-06 Allbrite Car Wash - 11 Bloomfield Ave. - B: 162, L: 3 – request for
approvals to February 6,2009
Mr. Ackerman - Applicant has requested a 1 year extension
due to contract with neighboring property.
We have an approval tonight to extend to August. Applicant would like it to be extended to
February 6, 2009. Mr., Denzler – We
should limited to no more than a year.
Motion to grant extension of approvals for 1 year made by:
Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call – Yes - Buraszeski, Kanoff,
Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, Marinello
Motion to go into closed session to discuss personnel issues
made by Mr. Cartine; Second by Dr. Kanoff; Roll call: Unanimous
Upon return from closed session and there being no further business there was a motion to
unanimously adjourn made by Mr. Hug, Seconded by: Mr. Cartine; Roll call –
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of March 5, 2008.
Linda M. White, Sec.