Zoning Board Minutes March 5 2008 Print E-mail



MINUTES OF March 5, 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 – Absent                                   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.

                                Eric Keller, Traffic PE


Stated for the record

The following application was rescheduled to 5/7/08 at the applicant’s request with new notice required:

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, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello - New Notice required.                                                                    ACT BY: 5/8/08


ZSPP/FDC10-89-29-06 Hook Mountain Care Center – Hook Mountain Rd. - B: 159, L: 4 - preliminary/final site plan/use variance/bulk variances for construction of a 4 story, 75,538 s.f. Assisted living facility containing 120 nursing beds and 60- residential health care beds. Use variances required for height and use not permitted in zone.  Bulk relief requested for maximum building coverage, total lot impervious coverage, wall heights and signage, along with disturbance of steep slopes and off-street parking setbacks. Carried with notice from 7/5/07, 9/5/07 & 11/29/07  – Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello                                                                           ACT BY: 3/6/08

Mr. Shirkey certified to the 7/5/07, 9/5/07 & 11/29/07 hearings

Present on behalf of the applicant: Joseph Vena, Esq.; Rocco Palmiere, PE; Nicholas Verderse, Traffic PE

Mr. Vena – Tonight we will present traffic testimony as it relates to the entrance way.

Rocco Palmieri, PE – sworn – credentials accepted

Page 2


Mr. Palmieri – Submitted revised site layout plan and grading plan on 2-25-08. 

                Exhibit marked in:

                                 A5 – colorized version of 2-25-08 site plan

Mr. Palmieri – The only changes were to the entrance way, the remainder of the plan remains as previously reviewed.  The driveway has been realigned to allow for right turn into the site for emergency vehicles.  The entrance has been widened to make it a safer intersection.  A sidewalk has been added from Hook Mountain Road to the existing stairway.  The stairs will lead up to the main parking area and a pedestrian cross walk will be installed.  There will be 2 tiers of retaining walls that will be 8’ in height and a variance will be required.  There will be 6’ of separation between walls and evergreen plantings will be installed for screening of a portion of the wall. The applicant is attempting to provide a safer entryway into the site. 

Nicholas Verderese, Traffic PE – sworn – credentials accepted

We have redesigned the driveway to allow for a 90 degree intersection. 

                Exhibit marked in:

                                A6 – fire truck turning plan – dated 3-5-08

                                A 7 - passenger vehicle turning plan dated 3-5-08

Mr. Verderese – Reviewed the exhibits for the Board.  Proposing a right turn into the site.  Automobiles can make the right turn while a vehicle is simultaneously leaving the site.  Exhibit A6 shows that a fire truck can enter the site, but will need to use the entire roadway to do this.  The fire truck will have to travel over the center line but that is not unusual.  There is an area on the inside of the radius near the detention basin that allows for snow to be placed out of the driveway.  There are some open grassed areas on site that will allow for snow to be placed.  Weekday data for parking is higher than weekend.  During the weekday you have full complement of employees where weekends there are fewer employees.  There is no significant spike on the weekends.  We met with the fire departments since the last hearing.  They were comfortable with the turning movements of the fire truck on A6. The only item related to traffic circulation is that they wanted us to increase the canopy to 13’ which we will do.  They were comfortable with the circulation on site. 

Mr. Palmieri – There are portions of other proposed walls that are higher than the proposed new 8’ walls which were noticed previously.  The justification for seeking the variance is under C2, where benefits outweigh any detriments.    The change was to make the intersection on Hook Mountain Road be a safer intersection, we had to move the roadway and the walls are required.  We added landscaping between the 2 tiers, added the sidewalk as required by the board.  Mr. Marinello - You have to amend the application for the 3 walls.  Mr. Vena – Agreed. 

Mr. Keller – Any passenger vehicle coming in can make a right turn?  Mr. Verderese – Yes.  Mr. Keller – I received the plans late so I did not have time to do a full review, the original traffic study analyzed the site as no right turn in.  Have you revisited the traffic counts for what is now proposed?  Mr. Verderese –Yes, I ran traffic analysis and will submit prior to the next hearing.  Mr. Keller – Will the site distance be improved with the proposed intersection.  Mr. Verderese – Yes.  Mr. Keller – So there won’t be the need for traffic to turn around on side streets?  Mr. Verderese – Correct.  Mr. Keller – Did you look at small tractor trailers?  Mr. Verderese – We can look into that but I am comfortable that if a fire truck can make the turn so could a small tractor trailer.  Mr. Keller – You do have food service so I would like to see that information.  Mr. Verderese – Will supply.  Mr. Huelsebusch – This is a better plan for access for vehicles and pedestrians.  The pedestrian improvements are great on the site but the pedestrian access along Rt. 46 and Hook Mountain may need to be improved which would have to be up to the Township Engineer.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Suggest a snow removal plan be put in place.  Mr. Verderese – We will provide. 

Page 3


Mr. Denzler – Proposing identification sign in right of way which is prohibited, is there an alternative location for the sign?  Mr. Palmieri – We would have to push it to the west and back.  Mr. Denzler – Will there be changes to the grade with the driveway relocation?  Mr. Palmieri – There are no significant changes. 

Open to public

Geoff Evans, Esq – Opposition attorney

Did you perform any studies on weekend vs weekday trips at the applicants other facilities.  Mr. Verderese – No I used published dated.  Mr. Evans – Were there any other parking differences on weekends vs weekdays? Mr. Verderese – There are more trips in and out of site but employee demand on weekends are less.  Mr. Evans – Was there an attempt at making walls at 6’ with additional wall?  Mr. Palmieri – We evaluated it and it was better to disturb less land and provide the proposed walls at 8’.  Do not see a significant impact to the area.  The walls will not be seen from the roadway.  Mr. Evans – Is there safety measures so no one falls off a wall.  Mr. Palmieri – The wall is in a wooded area that is in its natural state and is not an accessible area.  Mr. Evans – Is there a handrail on the pedestrian walkway along the driveway?  Mr. Palmieri – It is not a handicapped accessible walkway but we will look into a handrail for safety purposes. 

Debra LaBlanc – previously sworn

Since the driveway is now accessible for emergency vehicles will you need any other access points?  Mr. Verderese – It is unlikely that the other 2 access points will be used if the driveway is not blocked but it is a benefit to have other access to the site in an emergency.  If the fire department required us to do improvements along the access road we would add gravel or whatever they required. 

Richard LaBlanc – previously sworn

I am concerned with number of ambulances that would visit the site.  Mr. Verderese – I would assume they would not have their sirens blaring once they come off Hook Mountain Road.  There are no engineering numbers on how many times an ambulance would visit the site that would be more of an operation item.  It would not change my traffic analysis. 

Michael Sutton – previously sworn

It is my understanding that the ambulances visit the Chelsea 4 times a day.  This is an assisted living/nursing home where the people require more care.  What kind of strain will it put on the Montville Ambulance service volunteers?  Mr. Buraszeski – This facility has there own medical people on staff which is believe is different from the Chelsea.  Board Secretary – They testified in July that they have a contract with their own ambulance services for emergency 911 services.

Efzal Amanat – 25 Sylvan Dr. - sworn

I am concerned that there will be more visitors on the weekends.

Mark Platinsky – previously sworn

Would like to know where the private emergency vehicle facility is located and which route will they take?

Mr. Buraszeski – Requested Mr. Keller to look into his database on weekend vs weekday parking on assisted facility sites.  Mr. Keller – Will include in next report.  Mr. Moore – Is there any additional lighting plan for the stairwell?  Mr. Palmieri – I will get that information to the board.  Mr. Shirkey – I have never seen a plow truck operator plow uphill.  Mr. Verderese – We will supply a snow maintenance plan.  Mr. Cartine – Why didn’t you do an analysis of your own facilities traffic as it relates to weekday vs weekend, and see how it compares to the book numbers since you have real life experience.  Mr. Verderese – We can do it if requested by the Board.  Mr. Cartine – Would like to see it for next time.

Page 4


Due to time constraints the application was carried with notice preserved to: April 2, 2008 with an extension of time to act granted to: April 3, 2008


ZC24-06 Kapitula – 10 Old Ln. – B: 21.01, L: 35.04 – construction of a single family home on a vacant lot variance requested maximum wall height of 10’ where 6’ allowed and slopes  - carried with notice from 12/5/07 - Eligible: Kanoff, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello                                                                                         ACT BY: 3/6/08

Mr. Shirkey certified to the 12/5/07 hearing.

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Frank Matarazzo, PE, PP

Mr. Schepis did a quick overview for the Board.  Previous subdivision granted on this property in 1986.  Slope variance required due to additional slope regulation.  Requesting wall height/fence height variance.  6’ high retaining wall with 4’ high safety fence on top.  Requesting slopes relief.  

Frank Matarazzo, PE, PP - sworn

                Exhibit A2 – colorized grading and utility plan sheet 2 of 5 latest revision 2-20-08

Mr. Matarazzo – Increased the size of the drywell and added new curb along proposed driveway for the purposes of catching stormwater surface runoff.  The runoff will discharge toward the stormwater system along Old Lane.  Eliminated need for one wall height variance.  Propose 3 tanks 8’ in diameter to be located in the corner of the proposed driveway.  It is a vacant lot that slopes downhill from the back of the property to the front.  Stormwater sheet flows toward the roadway; there is no existing curbing along the street line.  The existing inlets along the street are clogged and don’t accept the amount of water running off the property.  With the proposed construction, the storm water runoff will be better managed.  The amount of surface runoff from the site will be dramatically reduced.  The project meets the zero net increase to water runoff as required by the township ordinances.  By providing the stormwater management proposed on site there will be a benefit to the surrounding properties.

                Exhibit A3 – copy of original slope map which was part of the 1986 subdivision application

Mr. Matarazzo – A3 shows that the slopes on this property are the same as the other 2 lots in the subdivision.  The other 2 lots have been developed.  Our development will have the house closer to the road with lesser of an impact to the slopes, less impervious coverage and a smaller house is proposed.

                Exhibit    A4 – photo of house immediately to the west of the subject property

                                A5 – photo of other house within the 1986 subdivision

                                A6 – aerial photo from the county sketched in location of proposed house on subject


Mr. Matarazzo – Reviewed the photos for the board.  The height of the wall in the front yard of the 2nd house has a 7’ high retaining wall with a 3’ fence on top.  The wall and the fence was required due to the topography of the lot.  The other 2 lots that are part of the original subdivision are fully developed with the houses to the rear of the property.  The slopes have been dramatically disturbed on the other 2 lots.  The front yards were regraded, trees were removed.  Proposed lot has smaller house than surrounding houses in the neighborhood.  There is no negative impact on the zone plan as it relates to the height of the walls/fence.  We meet all other bulk requirements.  There will not be any substantial negative impact to the neighbors due to the walls.  There will be a reduction from stormwater runoff from the property so that will

Page 5


be a benefit to the surrounding area.    There is no way to develop the site without slope disturbance.  We designed the site to minimize slope disturbance. 

Open to public

Mr. Marinello – Mr. Berkowitz you can put your questions on the record and the applicant will answer at the next hearing due to time constraints.

Bernard Berkowitz attorney for Gina Wirtenberg - 6 Old Ln.

We do not have specific questions at this time, but will probably be hiring an expert for the next hearing. 

Mr. Huelsebusch – Would like a maintenance manual be submitted for detention system. 

Mr. Schepis – We are finished with our case.  The applicant would like to proceed with a vote tonight.  Mr. Berkowitz – We would like to present our objections.  Mr. Schepis – We will not sign an extension of time so if the board carries it I will pursue an automatic approval. 

Mr. Buraszeski – Can’t we vote on the application?  Mr. Ackerman – You are faced with an objector that has not had the opportunity to speak.  The time allowed for the hearing is over and the objector would not have the opportunity to have his expert testify this evening anyway.  Mr. Ackerman – Mr. Schepis, if you insist on a vote even though you have not allowed for the objector to speak you will compel the board to vote and most likely it would be to the negative.  Mr. Schepis this meeting was noticed; they had an opportunity to cross examine.  Mr. Ackerman – The board chairman stated that there is no time for the objector to testify this evening.  Mr. Cartine – I requested previously what the grade would be in front of the driveway and I have not heard an answer.  Mr. Matarazzo – It will be 4’ x 2’ wide flat grade on the driveway but have also added 2 more inlets on the driveway. 

Mr. Marinello – We have never been forced into a vote without hearing the public’s full objection in the time allowed.  Mr. Hug – If there was more time available to the applicant would the objector have the expert available or would he ask for an adjournment to get his expert here?   Mr. Marinello – He was told ahead of time that there would not be time for his expert.  Mr. Schepis – The applicant does not have the time to carry any further, the applicant will be finished with this property after tonight.

Mr. Buraszeski – Based on the testimony provided by the applicant they are trying to mitigate an existing condition.  What the applicant is doing is in compliance with what the town ordinance and is consistent with other improvements in the neighborhood.  The lot itself has a lot of challenges.  The slopes of the 3 lots approved in the sub division in 1986 are consistent, there was no other place to put the house, We have heard this twice, the lot has had many challenges and the applicant is trying to comply to the best of his ability with the ordinances.  This lot is no different from the other homes on the street.  The applicant demonstrated that there was no other place to put the house.  Motion made by:  Mr. Buraszeski

Second by: Mr. Hug

Mr. Wirtenberg - Our professional could not be here, we have drainage issues that need to be resolved. We were told that we could bring him in April. 

Mr. Marinello – We have objectors, I have not opened to public or taken unsworn comments from the public.  Mr. Cartine – Well the motion is not complete yet.  Mr. Marinello – Frankly, we are out of time and we have a motion and a second on the table.

Dr. Kanoff – Requested Mr. Ackerman’s opinion.  Mr. Ackerman – The only time that his board had an applicant that did not want to sign an extension, the board has not heard full testimony, and was compelled to vote.  When the board does not have the full record the published opinions show that the board should deny it and the courts can remand it back to the board for continuance.  If you did not make a motion the application would be automatically approved.  The vote in favor has problems to the public and objector

Page 6


that could be appealed by the court.  Mr. Cartine – Just because the applicant has some urgency, we have not heard a reason as to why this vote is an emergency to vote today.  I don’t understand why we feel compelled to get to a yes vote because the applicant says we need to do it now. 

Mr. Buraszeski –Based on attorney advice I withdraw my motion, Mr. Hug withdrew his second.

Mr. Schepis – I have discussed this with my client and will sign an extension for 1 month

The application was carried with notice preserved to 4-2-08 with an extension of time to act granted to 4-3-08



ZSPP/F27-05-31-06 DAB Associates – 43 Bellows Ln. – B: 41, L: 15 – pre/final site plan 6 unit

town homes – variances for impervious coverage 17,649 s.f. vs 13,300 s.f. allowed, parking

setback to street 11’ vs 25’, environmentally sensitive areas regulation of slopes – Notice

Acceptable                                                                                                            ACT BY: 3/6/08

Present on behalf of the applicant: Robert Hueston, Esq.; George James, PE, PP

Mr. Hueston – This is the second part of a bifurcated application that was approved in 2006.  There will be 6 buildings on site.  Variances requested for variances for impervious coverage 17,649 s.f. vs 13,300 s.f. allowed, parking setback to street 11’ vs 25’, and environmentally sensitive areas regulation of slopes. 

George James, PE, PP – previously sworn

                Exhibit    A1 – colorized site plan

                                A2 – environmental constraints colorized map

Mr. James – Much of the site is taken up by the wetlands.  There is relatively limited space to place the buildings.  The parking setback waiver requested due to location of detention basin.  We will only be disturbing 425 s.f. of slope greater than 25%.  The impervious coverage variance is due to the driveway accessing lots with a common driveway which puts the site over allowable coverage.  Stormwater system to pick up roofs of buildings and parking area to infiltration basin and then discharged piped to the rear of the property.  DEP has already approved this.  The sanitary line is located in front of the building.  No spillage from lighting off site.  Propose a 6’ fence along property line on access road side of property.  Ornamental fence will be proposed along detention basin.   Mr. Huelsebusch – The fence should be black in color.  Mr. James – There will not be basements in the buildings.  Mr. Hueston – If we agree to the Township Engineer’s report then this would make the property a corner lot with additional variance for setback. 

Mr. Marinello asked for a motion to take new business past 10:30pm.  Motion to go past 10:30 with new business made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second: Mr. Hug Roll call: Unanimous.

Mr. Marinello – We would need additional information on the issue of it being a corner lot. 

Open to public

Robert Rasp – 42 Bellows Ln - sworn

What is the size of the parking area.  Mr. James – There are 1 car garages in each unit, 2 parallel spaces at the front of the property and 9 other spaces including handicapped space in the front.   It is a standard

Page 7


town house design.  Due to the environmental constraints of the property, the units are proposed in the location shown.  Mr. Rasp voiced concerns about effect on Bellows Lane due to construction vehicles. 

John Bott – 53 Bellows Ln - sworn

Providing trees along access road?  Mr. James – 6 trees proposed.  Mr. Bott – Concerned with paving of the access road and people speeding. 

Mr. Denzler – How is this development going to address solid waste and recycling?  Mr. James – Private cans that they would have to put out for pickup.  Mr. Denzler – Reviewed the request for the board, suggest additional landscaping along 2 parking spaces out front.    Slopes were man made.  Ornamental fence to be installed along detention basin and solid wood fence to be installed along access drive.  Mr. Denzler – Do you have a time when lights would go off at night in the parking lot?  Mr.  James- Probably 11pm.    Mr. Huelsebusch – Recommend you consolidate stormwater calculations on 1 sheet for construction plans. Mr. James – Will comply.  Mr. Hug – Would prefer a fence that is more open along access road.

Mr. Marinello – The application will be subject to Design Review Committee review of fence along access road, as well as landscaping.  Mr. Hueston - We would provide 6’ high evergreens instead of the fence, if the board would like. Mr. Marinello – The application will be subject to DRC input. 

Motion to: Approve the application with no fence along access road, trees instead, subject to design review committee review made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Moore; Roll call:  Yes - Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello


ZC30-06 Ambrose - B: 106, L: 20 – 30 Barney Rd – addition to single family home variance for front setback of 32’ vs 45’ required; rear setback of 46.42’ vs  50’ required; side setback of 14.9’

vs 16.3’ required; combined setbacks of 32.8 vs 35.1’ required  Notice Acceptable               

ACT BY: 4/4/08

Present on behalf of the applicant: Albert Zaccone, PP AIP; Mary Ambrose, applicant

Mr. Zaccone, PP AIP - Sworn

This is an undersized lot.  Existing ranch built in 1955 approximately 1,700 s.f.  Existing non-conforming setbacks.  Rear setback is just a corner of the building due to severe angle of the rear yard.  Looked at many other options and this better suited the site.  Looking to square up the front of the house. Side setback combined and side setback there are no changes.  Front setback only change is cover over porch.  Rear setback will encroach 3’ 7” into setback on a corner of the building.  No detriments to the zone ordinance or neighborhood.  Will be improvement to the neighborhood.     

Open to public – none – closed

Mr. Denzler – You added a turnaround area?  Mr. Zaccone – Yes.  Mr. Huelsebusch- You need to dedicated 25’ to the centerline of the road.  Mr. Zaccone – Yes. 

Motion toapprove, diminimus change to front setback, side setbacks are a continuation of existing non-conformity, rear yard is a hardship due to property shape, subject to dedication of right of way, in keeping with the neighborhood, and construction of turnaround made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Hug

Roll call: Yes -Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Page 8



Minutes of February 6, 2008 - Eligible: Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Buraszeski, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Yes- Kanoff, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Hug, Buraszeski, Shirkey, Marinello


                Pashman Stein – Trust for: $312.50, $125, $312.50

                Shapiro & Croland – O/E for: $59, Trust for: $31.25, $75, $31.25

                 Bricker & Assoc. – Trust for: $750, $375, $312.50, $100, $312.50, $3,250, $437.50

                William Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $62.50, $31.25, $218.75, $31.25

                Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $165

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


ZC12-06 DeRocco – 20 Horseneck Rd. – B: 125.06, L:9 – dismissal

Motion to dismiss without prejudice made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call – Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

ZC11-05 Walsh – 14 Morris Ave. – B: 50, L: 14 - dismissal

Motion to dismiss without prejudice made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Moore; Roll call – Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello


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 – Eligible: Yes - Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Buraszeski, Hug, Moore, Marinello - Approval Resolution

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

Cartine, Buraszeski, Hug, Moore, Marinello – Approval Resolution

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

Page 9


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

 extension of approvals to February 6, 2009 - Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug,

Moore, Marinello – Granted

Mr. Buraszeski – Allbrite erected a new canopy on the property.  Mr. Marinello – The board secretary will alert the zoning officer.

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



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 April 2, 2008.


Linda M. White, Sec.

With explanation

Last Updated ( Tuesday, 29 April 2008 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack