BoA minutes 5-7-08 Print E-mail

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF MAY 7, 2008

Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting

STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Stated for the record.

ROLL CALL:

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 – Absent[1]

Also Present:        William Denzler, Planner

                                Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer

                                Eric Keller, Traffic Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.

                               

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

The following application was carried with new notice required to 7/2/08:

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[2], Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello – NEW NOTICE REQUIRED                                                                                                      ACT BY: 7/5/08

The following application was rescheduled with notice required to 6/4/08:

ZC17-07 Malanga, William - B: 43, L: 4.01 – 4 Benefly Rd. – accessory structure setbacks; rear

setback 17.48’ vs 20’; side setback of 9.21’ vs 20’ detached garage           ACT BY: 7/14/08


Page 2

5/7/08

OLD BUSINESS

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, 9/5/0,  11/29/07 & 3/5/08  – Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello                                             ACT BY: 5/8/08

Present on behalf of the applicant Jack Dusinberre, Esq.; Rocco Palmiere, PE; Nicholas Verderse, Traffic PE; Subramanya Baliga, PE; Neil Jiorle, Sr. Project manager, Environmental Engineer

Mr. Driscoll certified to the 3/5/08 hearing

Mr. Ackerman – The applicant indicated that he would ask the Board to preserve the existing notice and would notice the additional names for the date the hearing is carried to.  Mr. Dusinberre – Agreed.

Rocco Palmiere, PE – previously sworn

Have submitted revisions to the board and the board professionals.

                A8- sites layout and landscaping exhibit colorized

Mr. Palmiere – There are 9 additional parking spaces shown.  We have added 32 new evergreen trees for screening for the project.  Have indicated the location of the entry sign.  We have asked for impervious coverage of 43.9% but the new parking spaces add .3% to the impervious coverage variance.  The lowest point of construction is the detention basin.  We hope to not hit rock but blasting may be needed for construction but will be in compliance with all Township codes.  We may be able to hammer out if we do hit rock.

                A9 – soil removal plan – potential snow storm removal and storage plan

Mr. Palmiere – We have taken a snowfall of 1’, calculated out the square footage and utilizing the detention basin and partial area along curb line, we can store 90,000 un-compacted volume of snow.  We have enough room for compacted snow.   They won’t wait until there are 12” of snow on the ground they will begin around 2”-3”.

Mr. Palmiere – The identification sign will not be in the right of way.  The directions sign will be at the top of side A of the driveway. 

               

                A10 -   detail of signage

Mr. Palmiere - The identification sign will be 4’6” wide x 3’ tall, will be on a pylon.  It will meet the 8’ height requirement.  At the top of the driveway there will be a 4’x1’9” directional sign with a maximum height of 4’.  We require variances for these signs since signs not permitted in R-27 zone.  We need the identification sign on Hook Mountain Road due to topography of site and to identify the site.  The directional sign is a safety issue because it directs deliveries, visitors, etc.  Signs of this type are needed to


Page 3

5/7/08

support this use.  The signs do not impair the intent of the local ordinances and believe the variances can be granted. 

Nicholas Verderse, Traffic PE – previously sworn

Since the last meeting we provided an updated study.  The sign will provide an identity for the driveway for motorists that are not familiar with the location.  We have shown sight lines in both directions as you exit.  The stop bar is set adequately for exiting motorist and will allow for entering motorist at the same time.  The sight line to the south projects onto the neighboring property, if the project approved, we will obtain a sight line easement on that property for maintenance purposes.  If the road was widened of if the neighboring property came in for any site plan application, this condition would disappear.  We received information from the operator on 3-4 facilities, contract visits of ambulances occur about 1 per day, 911 visits averaged out to 5 per month.  We did parking counts on a Saturday at the Norwood facility and the Saturday data was lower than the weekday.  We are providing .5 parking spaces per bed, which meets the RSIS standards.  A total of 99 parking spaces are proposed on site. 

Subramanya Baliga, PE; Project Manager CMX- sworn

Works with odor abatement.  The kitchen will emit odors during the preparation of food.  The equipment I propose to use on this site is electronically controlled equipment.

                A-11 – handout of restaurant scrubber

Mr. Baliga – Reviewed the restaurant scrubber machine for the board.  This is used in strip malls when there are residences in the area.  This is not a new technology, it is just very costly.  This scrubber has consistent pressure flow so there is no air flow concern and the odors will not become a problem.

Neil Jiorle, Sr. Project Manager, Environmental Engineer - sworn

We did a Phase 1 Environmental Assessment in August 2007.  There are 2 underground storage tanks and the boiler room which may have additional storage tanks.  Given the burned out state of the structure we could not enter, there was a data gap in the assessment.  During the course of demolition we will determine if additional mediation is required.  We opened up one of the tanks and determined it was heating oil.  We could not unearth the other tank.  The 2 tanks will have to be closed out according to state regulations.  There is medical waste on site that will be removed.  Believe the entire site can be managed environmentally during demolition.

Eric Keller, PE – The sign is indicated to be shown outside the right of way?   Mr. Palmiere – We have moved it back to be completely on our property.  Mr. Keller – Will the sign be clear of the retaining wall coming south on Hook Mountain Road?  Mr. Palmiere –Yes.  Mr. Keller - The landscaping plan has a note that the sight line will be cleared in both directions, this is not shown on the landscape plan. 

Mr. Huelsebusch – Did you obtain a revised detail for the tree planting?  Mr. Palmiere – I don’t remember.  Mr. Huelsebusch - The plans will have to be revised to meet with the tree planting detail.  Mr.  Palmiere – Agreed.  Mr. Huelsebusch – If the application is approved there may be more improvements required for Hook Mountain Road.  Any approval would be subject to the Township Engineer review and approval of the required improvements to Hook Mountain Road.  Mr. Palmiere – We will submit a contractors plan on snow removal as requested previously.

Mr. Huelsebusch – Is there any type of waste removal required for the scrubber described earlier.   Mr. Baliga – It is electronically monitored, there is an alarm that goes off if it is not attended to and it goes over the collected amount allowed.    Mr. Baliga – This equipment requires less maintenance than most other equipment.  Mr. Denzler – Is there any additional noise associated with the scrubber?  Mr. Baliga – No.   Mr. Denzler – Will it meet all state standards?  Mr. Baliga – Yes. 


Page 4

5/7/08

Mr. Denzler – As it relates to the underground storage tanks, can you describe how they will be closed out?  Mr. Jiorle – Both of the underground storage tanks will be removed by state administrative code.  Mr. Denzler – As it relates to the snow removal plan, how will you get to detention basin from the parking lot, there is landscaping.  Mr. Palmiere – There is an opening that allows access and snow can be dumped right over the retaining walls.  Mr. Denzler – What type of illumination will be used for the sign?  Mr. Palmiere – Ground level illumination directed up toward the sign.   It is not interior lit.  

Mr. Shirkey – I have never seen a guy push snow up a hill, where will the snow go at the bottom of the driveway?  Mr. Palmiere – They have a contractor in mind and I have seen snow plowed uphill.  The snow at the bottom will be pushed to the side by the driveway and the other snow will be pushed up to the detention basin.  This has been done in the past.  Mr. Shirkey – Can we see a snow removal plan at the next hearing?   Mr. Palmiere – Absolutely.  Mr. Driscoll – I have seen it back in the 60’s they are speed plowing down.  I would like to see a more detailed plan.  Shouldn’t the Design Review Committee see this sign?  Mr. Denzler – They have seen the plan, I just requested that the sign be moved out of the right of way.  Mr. Dusinberre – These plans have been before the Design Review Committee. 

Open to the public

Debra LaBlanc – 14 Windsor Dr. – previously sworn

There are mature white pines bordering the side of the property and 14 Windsor Drive, what is the protection around the root zone?  There is significant slope near access road, what plan do you have for minimum slippage since there is a slope? The contours on the plan do not show current conditions.  Mr. Palmiere – There is an oak, and ash and another oak.  Ms. LaBlanc – It is on my property but they will be cutting into the root zone.  Mr. Palmiere – The existing edge is about 15’ into our property.  The grading from the edges of the access road is in conformance with the township standards and will be vegetated.  I do not know exactly where they are since they are off site, but we will be 8-10’ inside our property line.  Ms. LaBlanc – Would you consider 10’-12’ trees?  Mr. Palmiere – We have gone beyond the requirements of the municipality and believe this is a significant plan.   Ms. LaBlanc – What is the total height of the building and what size trees are you proposing as screening?  Mr. Palmiere – The building height is 40’.  Ms. LaBlanc – Is a perimeter fence proposed?  Mr. Palmiere – We are not proposing a perimeter fence?  Ms. LaBlanc – What is the type of access the 911 calls will take?  Mr. Verderse – The main driveway.  Ms. LaBlanc – Is there an exception to that?  Mr.  Verderse   – If the main driveway is blocked then the access drive will have to be used.  Ms. LaBlanc – What are the chemicals required during the scrubbing process?  Mr. Baliga – They are like what you use in your wash.  Ms. LaBlanc – What are the bi products of the process?  Mr. Baliga – There will be grease that will be skimmed.  Ms. LaBlanc – How many individual air conditioning units will there be, are there 180 units?  Mr. Baliga – Yes.  Ms. LaBlanc- What is the heating source?  Mr. Baliga – We do not have a firm plan but would like to use gas.  An energy efficient system will be used.  Ms. LaBlanc – Did you find potential for asbestos in the building?  Mr. Jiorle – Phase 1 does not require location of asbestos but around the heating system it is believed that there may be asbestos.   Mr.  Marinello –The applicant testified to removal of all hazardous materials in accordance with state and local requirements.   Ms. LaBlanc – What assurance can you give the neighbors that the site will be safe during demolition and construction.  Mr. Jiorle – All demolition and construction will be done in accordance with all local and state requirements.   Air monitoring is a component of asbestos removal.  Ms. LaBlanc – Would you monitor the air quality inside the surrounding residences?  Mr. Jiorle – It is monitored at the source and if levels are found to be high than mitigation arrangements will be established.

Due to time constraints the application was carried with notice required to the additional residents as previously stated with the remaining notice carried to July 2, 2008 with an extension of time to act to July 3, 2008 


Page 5

5/7/08

NOTE: 5 minute break.

RESOLUTIONS

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

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

ZC23-07 Stitzel, Jeffrey – 61 Main Rd – B: 51.02, L: 17 – demolition of existing home and

construction of a new home rear setback of 25.7’ vs 40’ – Denial Resolution – Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug

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

ZC16-07 Bassil – 2 Herrman Way – B: 82.11, L: 8 – rear setback of 38.4’ where 75’ required; impervious coverage of 6,438 s.f. where 6,000 s.f. allowed and building coverage of 3,202 s.f. where 3,000 allowed – Denial resolution - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine

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

ZC34-08 Voss – 2 Craig Ct. – B: 125.2, L: 17 - request for extension of approvals from 7/5/08 to 7/5/09 – Granted - Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

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

ZC39-04 Carver – 32 Michelle Way – B: 163, L: 1.33 – request for extension of approvals to April 2, 2009 – Granted – Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

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

NEW BUSINESS

ZC03-08 Mason – 12 Lenape Dr. – B: 9, L: 27 – construction of a one story addition and deck –

variance for side setback of 13’ (2.97’ exists) vs 20’      Notice Acceptable     ACT BY: 7/15/08

Present on behalf of the applicant: Christopher Mason, Applicant

Mr. Mason – Sworn

We would like to put an addition on our home.  Mr. Denzler - The existing house is about 3’ from the side line and the proposed kitchen addition is 13’ from the property line. Is there any way to better mitigate the side line variance?  Mr. Mason – If I moved the addition over it would not be near the existing kitchen.  Mr. Denzler – What is the effect of the addition to the southerly property?  Mr. Mason – There is just a

Page 6

5/7/08

driveway there now.  Mr. Huelsebusch – A drywell will be required to be installed.  Mr. Mason – Agreed.  Mr. Huelsebusch – The addition is in an existing flat area but will come between 5’-6’ from a retaining wall.  The retaining wall does meet the requirements.  Since constructed in the last year or so there is one wall that exceeds 6’ and is less than 10’ from another wall.  The applicant stated it was a replacement of an existing wall.  Mr. Ackerman – The notice included the phrase “and any variance required by the Board”.  Mr. Mason – We did not want to take the wall down since a large evergreen tree would have to be removed.

Open to pubic

Jacqueline Vogt, 14 Lenape Dr. – sworn

We are the most impacted property.  We object to the variance.  The front corner of the family room they are less than 4’ from the property line and from the dining area they are less than 3’ from the property line.  The closeness does affect us and our air, light, open space and sound.  There is no public benefit to this addition.  There is sufficient room on the other side of the property for the addition.  The addition will affect our use of our property.  We ask that the Board deny the application.  Denying the variance will not prevent the property to be used as zoned.  If the Board decides to approve the application we would ask that a fence and evergreen buffer be a condition of approval. 

Mr. Cartine – You are objecting to an addition that has a driveway between your residence and the proposed addition? Ms. Vogt – Yes.  Mr. Buraszeski – Will be there windows?  Mr. Mason – I designed the addition so the windows are to the rear and the deck is on the opposite side of the addition to protect our privacy.

Donna Mason, Applicant – sworn

There are no fences on anyone’s property in the neighborhood but we do intend on putting up an evergreen buffer.  They just received a variance from side setback from the opposite site along with other variances. 

Ms. Vogt – Would request that the evergreen buffer be a condition of any approval.

Closed to public

Mr. Marinello - We have approved variances in the past on pre-existing non-conforming setbacks that are made better by the application.  There is an objector on this application.  I believe an evergreen buffer may diminish any issues that the objector may have. 

Motion to approve the application, there is already a non-conforming setback, proposed setback is less than existing, subject to buffer of evergreens to be placed subject to the approval of the board engineer and that they be sufficient to allow for adequate buffering from the neighboring property, the application does not seem to impair the zoning ordinance or to lessen the standards of Montville because there is a much worse setback existing, variance for walls also approved made by:   Mr. Cartine; Second by: Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes -  Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, No - Mr. Marinello

ZC16-07A Bassil – 2 Herrman Way – B: 82.11, L: 8 – rear setback of 38.4’ where 75’ required for sunroom addition – New Notice Required - Notice Acceptable           ACT BY: 7/8/08

Present on behalf of the applicant: Marlene Bassil, applicant

Ms. Marlene Bassil – sworn

This is a result of the denial from the previous application.  The plan involves the removal of 15’x15’ section of deck.  There will be construction of conservatory on other side of deck.  The property is a corner lot that is why it is pushed back.  The neighbor has a row of trees that gives privacy to my neighbor and to my property.


Page 7

5/7/08

                A1 – photo of tree buffer from neighbor property

Ms. Bassil – Removing 12’x15’ of the driveway.  We will now be under the building and impervious coverage allowed.  The only variance requested is the rear setback.

Open to public

Gary Defazio, Herrman Way – sworn

In support of the application, my side yard abuts their rear yard.  The sunroom will make the house look nicer.

Mr. Denzler – A rear setback of 38.4’ proposed where 75’ required.  They have brought total lot and impervious coverage into zone requirements.  They removed the remaining portion of the deck and a section of the driveway to meet the requirements.

 Mr. Cartine – So they were existing over coverage and they are removing deck to be under the ordinance?  Mr. Denzler – Correct. 

Closed to public

Mr. Marinello – I think that we totally missed that this was a corner lot at the last hearing. 

Motion to approve the application, corner lot causes hardship for the rear yard, improvement from what exists, benefits outweigh detriments made by: Mr. Driscoll; Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call - Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello

MINUTES:

Minutes of April 2, 2008 - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello

Minutes of 4/17/08 Joint Workshop Meeting Planning Board/Zoning Board – Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello

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

INVOICES:

Bricker & Assoc. – Trust for: $250, $156.25, $500, $375, $500, $343.75, $375, $312.50, $750, $250

William Denzler & Assoc – Trust for: $125, $62.50, $125, $218.75, $375, $125, $281.25, $93.75, $218.75,

$718.75, $62.50, $125

Pashman Stein – O/E for: $187.50; Trust for: $406.25

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $472.50

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $250

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

OTHER BUSINESS

A presentation was made to Mr. Ackerman with congratulations and best wishes on his move to a new law firm, in recognition of over 22 years of service to the board.  The Board presented Mr. Ackerman with a framed historical map of Montville.
Page 8

5/7/08

CORRESPONDENCE

ZSPP/FCD/ZMN35-06 – Anton Co. – 1275 Bloomfield Ave. – B: 181, L: 1 – request for one year extension of approvals until October 3, 2009

Motion to grant extension made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello

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 –Dismissed without prejudice

Motion to dismiss without prejudice made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello

ZC02-07 – Marilyn Bott – B: 28, L: 13 – 122 Jacksonville Road – Request for a one year extension to construct house until June 5, 2009

Motion to grant extension made by: Mr. Driscoll; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello

Z/FSPDC23-02 - Morris Plaza - B: 57.01, L: 6 - 350 Main Rd. – request for extension of approvals to June 4, 2009

Motion to grant extension made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello

There being no further business there was a motion to unanimously adjourn made by Mr. Driscoll, Seconded by: Mr. Cartine; Roll call – Unanimous

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of June 4, 2008.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.

 

[1] With explanation

[2] Must certify to 10/4/06

 
Last Updated ( Thursday, 05 June 2008 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack