ZBoA Minutes 2-6-08 Print E-mail



MINUTES OF February 6, 2008

Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting


Stated for the record.


Richard Moore – Present                                   Thomas Buraszeski – Present

Donald Kanoff – Present                                  James Marinello – Present

Deane Driscoll – Present                                  Carl DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Present

Maury Cartine– Present                        Kenneth Shirkey (Alt #2) – Present

Gerard Hug – Present

Also Present:             William Denzler, Planner

                        Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer

                        Bruce Ackerman, Esq.


Stated for the record

The following application was rescheduled to 5/7/08 at the applicant’s request 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: 5/8/08


ZC18-03 Ptaszek, 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. 

Page 2


Mr. Schepis – We have received a report from the opposition and Mr. Walker will review said report this evening. 

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 – previously sworn

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 submitted. 

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 property. 

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 officer.

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 undevelopable. 

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. 

Page 3


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 objector’s 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 site. 

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


Page 4



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, applicant

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.

            A4-A6 – 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 the structure. 

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

Page 5


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 s.f.. 

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

Page 6


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, Shirkey, Marinello


            Bricker & Assoc. Trust for: $240, $600, $480, $375, $93.75, $343.75, $500, $360

            William Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $90, $30. $180, $30, $240, $120, $30, $30

            Shapiro & 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




ZAC38-06 Lynch, 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 resolution

Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call:  Yes – Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Moore

ZSPP/FCD24-97-03-06 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

ZC21-07 Daghash, 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

Page 7


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 Resolution

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, Marinello


ZSPP/CD24-97-03-06 Allbrite Car Wash - 11 Bloomfield Ave. - B: 162, L: 3 – request for

extension of 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 – Unanimous

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of March 5, 2008.


Linda M. White, Sec.

Must certify to 10/4/06


< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack