ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF JULY 2, 2008
Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated for the record.
Moore – Present Thomas
Buraszeski – Present
Kanoff – Present James
Marinello – Present
Deane Driscoll – Present Carl DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Present
Cartine– Present Kenneth
Shirkey (Alt #2) – Present
Hug – Absent
Also Present: William Denzler, Planner
Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
following application was rescheduled with notice preserved to 9/3/08:
Foss, Glenn – 9 Mulbrook Ln. – B: 21.01, L: 38 – impervious
coverage of 20,310 s.f. vs 13,300 s.f. allowed for addition to single family
home – Notice Acceptable – TENTATIVE
ZC12-08 Grossman - B: 139, L: 15 – 26 East Cheryl Rd. – variance for
side yard of 17’ vs 20’ required; combined side yards of 45.3’ existing and
proposed where 50.87’ required for addition to single family home - Notice Acceptable ACT
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Sharon Grossman, applicant; Stefanie Pantala, AIA
Stefanie Pantala, AIA - sworn
The lot is in the R-27A zone. This lot has 22,282 s.f. where 27,000 s.f.
required. It is an irregularly shaped
lot. There is existing non-conforming
lot depth and lot width. The variances requested are for side yard of 17’ where
20’ required and combined side yards of 45.3’ existing and proposed where
Exhibit marked in:
A1 – colorized version of site plan last revised
A2 – photo array
A3 – aerial photo of subject property
Ms. Pantala - The lot width
toward the front of the lot is larger and makes the combined side yard
requirement larger. The house is built
toward the narrower part of the property.
Propose to extend the family room back 12’ and extend the mudroom area. Additions to be in rear of property cannot be
seen from the front of the property.
This is a 1 story addition. The
addition will not be closer than existing sideline. The addition meets all other zoning
Ms. Grossman, applicant -
Ms. Grossman - Reviewed photo
array for the Board. The property
closest to the addition is woods. Want
to expand the den and laundry room.
Mr. Denzler – The only lot
impacted would be lot 1 which is a large land locked lot. They are going along existing non-conforming
lot line. Mr. Huelsebusch – If approved
the application should be subject to removal of impervious surfaces shown on
Open to public – none –
Dr. Kanoff – So you will no
longer have a deck? Ms. Grossman – Stated
that was correct. Mr. Schepis – The
house has a side entrance garage and has enough room for turning a car. Mr. Denzler and Mr. Huelsebusch agreed that the
turnaround area would not be required.
Mr. Cartine – There should
have been testimony that an attempt was made to purchase land from the land
Motion to approve the
application, unique shaped lot, existing non-conformity, subject to removal of
impervious coverage made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes
- Moore, Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll, DiPiazza, Buraszeski, Marinello
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, 3/5/08, 5/7/08 – Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll,
Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug,
Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello ACT
Present on behalf of the applicant:
Jack Dusinberre, Esq.; Adam Remmick, PE; Nicholas Verderse, Traffic
Baliga, PE; Neil
Jiorle, Sr. Project manager, Environmental Engineer; Lou D’Agosto, Landscape
Contractor for Snow Removal
Mr. Dusinberre – At the
previous hearing it was requested that I bring back my witnesses to discuss
questions left at that hearing. Mr. Lou
D’agosto will be here to discuss snow removal.
Mr. Verderse will discuss signage; Mr. Remmick will discuss trees and
visibility; Mr. Steck will also present planning
Louis D’Agosto, Landscape
Contractor - sworn
Have done work for this
applicant before at other sites. I hope
to be the snow removal contractor for this site. Have reviewed exhibit A9. I have 8 trucks, front loaders and bucket loaders.
I will push the snow up the driveway
and a bucket loader will dump the snow in detention basin. I will have to be there during the snow storm
before the snow stops and stay on site to keep the roadway is clear. I can bring equipment to the site before a
snow storm if needed. Mr. Shirkey – What
size are the trees on the outside of the detention basin and what size are they
supposed to grow to? Mr. D’Agosto –
About 30’. Mr. Shirkey – How will you
dump snow over the trees? Mr. D’Agosto –
Will dump in between trees, they are 30’ on center.
Open to public for this
witness – none
Mr. Driscoll – Have you
plowed this property before? Mr.
D’Agosto – When it was abandoned.
Mr. Verderse, Traffic PE
– previously sworn
Exhibit marked in:
A-12 – site plan landscaping exhibit dated 7/2/08
Mr. Verderse – The applicant
has added 10 additional parking spaces per board traffic engineer. We have also added an advisory sign to give
advanced notice to drivers. It will be a
30’x24’ sign with white letters on green background that will say Hook Mtn.
Care Center. There is heavy brush along front of property
so this is a supplemental sign to be located 500’ from the entrance of the
driveway. The second sign that is new to
the application is an “enter” sign with a logo located in the right of way 4’
behind the curb line and is a two faced sign 18” high x 30” high.
A-13 – sign variance exhibit plan dated 7/2/08
Mr. Verderse – Plan shows
sign details and location. The other
sign is 14’ from the curb line in the right of way but out of the sight
line. Variances would be required for
these signs. The “enter” sign will be
internally lit, black letters on white base on 12” high base with a 6” sign on
top. Mr. Dusineberre – Ongoing
discussions are proceeding with Bayer Laboratories to have a sign in their
sight triangle easement, but approvals have not been received to date. Mr. Verderse – The larger identification sign
is to be ground lit.
Adam Remmick, PE – previously
A14 – cross section prel/final site plan dated 7/2/08
Mr. Remmick – Cross section
line indicated on the plan from the LaBlanc residence to the proposed
building. The plan also shows existing
and proposed landscaping. There are
evergreens and fencing on the rear of the LaBlanc property. There are 50-60’ high evergreens on our
property and propose 6-8’ high evergreens by the parking area which will grow
2-3’ per year. At the rear of the
structure, only 2 ½ stories are visible toward the rear of the property even
though it is a 4 story structure. There
is a gap in the vegetation due to the emergency access driveway. The proposed building is well over 100’ from
the property line and the Lablanc property is 75-100’ from their property line. Due to topography the proposed building will
be 10’ lower in elevation than the LaBlanc property. If this was a residential property there
would be no requirement for additional buffering.
Michael Donnelly, AIA –
Using A12 Mr. Donnelly
testified on noise from the proposed property.
The emergency generator is located in the rear court yard of the
property. The cooling tower is located
at the end of the lower portion of the building. The cooling tower has a super low fan with a
sound pressure of about 70db. Shouting
or a noisy restaurant would be about 70db.
The building represents a sound wall shielding the direct path of the
sound from the cooling tower. The sound
decreases with distance. The emergency
generator is about 74db which is slightly louder but shielded by the building
in the courtyard. I would be surprised
if any resident could hear either one of these machines when running. There is also a lot of vegetation between the
machines and the houses. I do not see
any detriment as it relates to sound to the residences in the area. The fire department wants the portico raised
to 14’ and we will do so. I will revise
the plans accordingly.
Mr. Denzler – The sound
limits in a residential area is 50db and commercial property is 60db. There is a commercial property adjacent to
the property which is closer to these machines, how will you meet the sound
requirements to this property? Mr.
Donnelly – I do not have an answer. Mr.
Denzler – Suggest that noise testing be done and they be required to meet all
Mr. Denzler – Will the
evergreens grow and encroach onto emergency drive. Mr. Remmick – It would have to be trimmed and
maintained. Mr. Denzler – The Township Design
Review Committee had requirements and are maintained within this plan. Mr. Denzler – Were the signs recommended by
the board traffic engineer? Mr. Verderse
– Not all of them one was recommended by the board. We will clear the sight line for a driver
looking toward the north; we wanted to give a driver advanced notice with an
advisory sign for safety purposes. Mr.
Denzler – The Board does not have jurisdiction for signs in a right of
way. Mr. Ackerman – Variances will be
required for the signs. Mr. Dusinberre –
The signs are for safety purposes. Mr.
Huelsebusch – How high is the advisory sign?
Mr. Verderse – It would be mounted at 7’. Mr. Huelsebusch – Suggest that the Traffic
Safety Officer review the advisory sign.
Mr. Huelsebusch – Regarding Fire Prevention report as it relates to Windsor Drive
access road. Mr. Remmick – Emergency
access to be paved on site and left as gravel off site, break away chain
required, additional hydrants to be provided and additional no parking signs
are requested have been added to the plan.
Mr. Cartine – What would the
decibel be at the residential property line.
Mr. Donnelly – I do not have readings, but when you get to the property
line the decibels should drop to less than 56db, this is unobstructed decibels
and this equipment is obstructed and the residences are further away than the
property line. Mr. Cartine – Is the
generator an emergency generator? Mr.
Donnelly – Yes it will be running during emergencies but also will be exercised
once a week for about an hour. Mr.
Marinello – If this was subdivided for residential how many houses could be put
here. Mr. Cartine – How much noise does
an air conditioner cause? Mr. Donnelly –
Open to public for these
Mark Platszinsky – previously
Does the cooling tower rise
above the sound wall? Mr. Donnelly – The
cooling tower is 18’ high and the wall is 32’ high. Mr. Platszinsky – The cooling tower is for
air conditioning? Mr. Donnelly – Yes and
will run in the summer. Mr. Platszinsky
– Request sound data that the sound levels meet requirements.
Richard LaBlanc – previously
Which trees are to be
removed? Mr. Remmick – There will be
tree removal within the area of disturbance.
There is no inventory taken at this time. There are some mature trees to be removed. The majority of the existing vegetation along
that property will be maintained. Mr.
Marinello – It was testified to that the only gap in vegetation along your
property line will be at the emergency access easement. Mr. LaBlanc – Will the cooling tower and
generator be running at the same time?
Mr. Donnelly – They will both run only for about 1 hour a week during a
hot season for testing.
Gindu Patel - sworn
Are there windows in the
kitchen? Mr. Donnelly – No. Mr. Patel - Concerned with smell from the
kitchen. Mr. Baliga – The odors will be
collected and exhausted through the roof through a new technology. Mr. Patel – The neighbors will like to bring
their own experts when can this happen?
Mr. Marinello – Most likely in September. Mr. Patel – There is no fencing proposed
between this properly and my property how will you keep people coming on my
property? Mr. Dusinberre – That witness
is not available this evening. Mr. Patel
– Is the emergency access easement important?
Mr. Remmick – The emergency services requested it remain, it is a
pre-existing easement that will have a break away barrier which was requested
by the emergency services.
Mr. LaBlanc – The fire safety
report indicates that there is no objection to a fence or gate.
Debra LaBlanc – previously sworn
What is the cross section of
the emergency access road and what protection is there to my evergreens? There is a 60’ tree to be removed that acts
as a shield to my property. Mr. Remmick
– We took the cross section to show important structures from your
property. Ms. LaBlanc – How did you get
the elevations without going on my property?
Mr. Remmick – I believe it was based on an aerial but I would have to
double check but there are many ways to get elevations on a property without
going on a property. Ms. LaBlanc – How
high is the light poles in the parking lot are it higher than the 6’ proposed
trees? Mr. Remmick – It meets the
requirements for lighting in the Township
of Montville. Ms. LaBlanc – What is the lighting intensity
at the property line. Mr. Remmick – I
estimate it at 0 foot candles. Ms.
LaBlanc – What is the combustion of the cooling tower? Mr. Donnelly – I do not have an answer to
that question this evening. Mr.
Marinello – The cooling tower will have to meet all health codes for this
application. Ms. LaBlanc – What are the
emissions on the test runs of the generator?
Mr. Donnelly – I do not have that information this evening.
Ms. LaBlanc – Table 1 in
noise ordinance 8.36 was placed before the Planner. Mr. Denzler – This ordinance is from the Montville general code
and I will look into it further.
Saeyd Hadri – previously
I am concerned with the
amount of additional variances and waivers being requested by this
Jenna Eng – 23 Windsor Dr. -
How many parking spaces
proposed on site? Mr. Verderse – 99
parking spaces are proposed. Ms. Eng –
How many employees? Mr. Marinello – Will
have to go back to testimony to look up.
Ms. Eng – Do not want extra parking on Windsor Dr.
Mr. Marinello – Will have Mr.
Steck’s testimony in September and opposition’s experts at that time.
Carry with notice to 9/3/08
with an extension of time to act to: 9/4/08
ZSPF11-96-14-08 Dunkin Donuts – 38 Rt. 46W – B: 176, L: 4.2 – request for change of
– extension of existing hours of 5am-midnight to 24 hours from March 1st
to October 31st and request to sell soft serve ice cream - Notice
Present on behalf of the
applicant; Nita Panchal, applicant
Ms. Panchal, applicant –
Mr. Marinello – We are
familiar with the resolution and the site, what is the change you are
requesting and what precipitated the need for the change? Ms. Panchal – We are requesting to change a
condition of the resolution. We request an
extension of the existing hours of 5am-midnight to 24 hours from March 1st
to October 31st. Dunkin
Donuts is requiring the sale of soft serve ice cream so request to be allowed
to sell soft serve ice cream. Mr.
Denzler – Does the applicant need to be represented by an attorney? Mr. Ackerman – Yes, when you are a business
entity you must be represented by an attorney.
Carried with notice to 8/6/08
with extension of time to act to: 8/7/08
NOTE: Court Reporter in attendance
for the following hearing:
ZSPP/FCD04-08 Optasite Towers - B: 1, L: 29 – 78 Boonton Ave – Preliminary/Final
Site Plan w/variances – installation of a wireless communication facility –
145’ high monopole, 24 antenna (12 per user), 25’x100’ compound area containing
up to 4 equipment buildings; Use variance; 2 principal buildings on 1 lot;
height 145’ vs 30’ allowed; accessory structure setback 5’ vs 25’; accessory
structure side yard 142’ vs 145’ allowed - Notice
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Renu Shevade, Esq.; Anthony Suppa, PE; Mark Brodsky, RF Engineer
AT&T; Glen Pierson, RF Engineer Verizon
Ms. Shevade – The application
if for a monopole on the Marotta property.
Bell Atlantic made application in 1999 which was denied. It went to court and was remanded to the
board in 2000 where it was subsequently approved. The tower was never built. Optasite surveyed other carriers and there is
a significant interested by other carriers for this tower.
PE - sworn
Optasite is proposing a 140’
tree monopole against wooded buffer with 4 carriers inside the compound. The proposed site is located at least 500’
away from the nearest residence. A site
like this is visited by each carrier about once every 4-6 weeks for
maintenance. The proposed compound is 25’x40’;
there will be 2 - 12’ sliding gates; electric and telephone will be taken from
existing pole on site; the generator uses natural gas; the site is alarmed
24/7. The compound will be constructed
to fit all 4 carriers. The monopole will
be camouflaged with tree branches. There
will be 10’ of separation between antennas; all antennas will be hidden by
branches. The cables run inside the monopole,
there is no lighting on the tree monopole.
There will be private property signs on fencing which will be smaller
than 1’. We can eliminate the accessory
structure side setback by moving the compound 3’; we will lose about 3 parking
spaces but will still meet parking requirements. We will have to file for Highlands
Exemption. There will be no impact on
municipal services; this is an unmanned site with exception of maintenance
visits. The entire site is on existing
impervious surface, there will be no impact on drainage.
Mr. Suppa – Reviewed the
Board Engineer’s report. This is a large
site so we surveyed the area to be disturbed which was sealed by the
surveyor. There is more parking than
required for the site. Propose to submit
manufacturing details to the building department if approved, our branches will
be brought down to match the top of the existing tree line. Verizon Wireless is the only carrier with an emergency
generator; all other carriers have battery backup. Each carrier will have security card to
access the property. The Highland’s application
will be sent next week.
Mark Brodsky, RF Engineer for
AT&T - sworn
AT&T is interested in
this site due to a gap in service.
Exhibit A1 – Coverage plot
Mr. Brodsky – The exhibit was
prepared by an AT&T RF Engineer. It
is a coverage plot to show existing sites on our network. The green shows the coverage that exists for reliable
service and the white shows gaps in coverage.
AT&T is trying to provide coverage by Rockaway Valley Road, Boonton Avenue and Taylortown Road. There is at least a 2 mile gap on Boonton Avenue where
there is no service.
Exhibit A2 – plan indicating if tower built what
service would be
Mr. Brodsky – A2 shows
proposed new coverage for AT&T if the site were constructed which considerably
reduces gaps in service. We completely
solidify Boonton Avenue
and Taylortown Road
and there is a vast improvement to Rockaway
Valley Road and Kingsland Road. AT&T will be located at 138’ centerline. Antenna’s on a cell site need to be above the
tree line in the area because trees and leaves effect coverage service. We will comply with all FCC emission
standards. This site is well suited for
Mr. Marinello – We will allow
the next expert to speak but the public will have the opportunity to speak at
the next hearing.
Mr. Pierson, RF Engineer
Verizon - sworn
A3 – overlay plan dated 7/2/08
Mr. Pierson – Reviewed A3 for
the Board. He reviewed other sites in the
area for the Board. He reviewed the existing
Verizon coverage in the proposed location area.
There is a gap in service on Boonton
Ave for about 2.5 miles and all of Taylortown and
Rockaway Valley Roads. Pennbrook Court,
Kingsland, Masar Road,
as well as Pyramid
are included in the gap in current service.
The proposed space on the monopole is 130’. Reviewed proposed service
coverage if the site was built out. We will
comply with all FCC standards. The site is
well suited for this type of service.
Open to public for these 2
witnesses – none
Mr. Denzler – The site is in
the Highlands area, has approval been received
from DEP? Mr. Denzler - Requested proofs
of adequate parking on site.
NOTE: Mr. DiPiazza left the
Mr. Huelsebusch – What is the
actual separation of antenna? Mr.
Pierson – AT&T will be at 140’ and Verizon at 130’.
Mr. Buraszeski – Is there a
preferred back up system? Mr. Ackerman –
The board is historically interested in knowing that the co-locators can be
successful with their coverage at the heights remaining on the tower. Ms. Shevade – We may have another carrier
before the next hearing. Mr. Marinello –
Request testimony on security for the overall site if cell tower built on this
sensitive property. Mr. Cartine – Would
like health and safety testimony.
Carried with notice to 10/1/08
of June 4, 2008 - Eligible: Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Shirkey,
Motion to adopt made by: Dr.
Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Driscoll, Roll call: Yes- Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Driscoll, Mr.
Moore, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello
Pashman, Stein – Trust for:
$93.75, $437.50, $187.50
Bricker & Assoc – Trust
for: $250, $500, $1,125.00, $500, $675
William Denzler & Assoc.
– O/E for: $125; Trust for: $62.50, $31.25, $125, $218.75, $62.50, $218.75,
Motion to approve made by:
Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Cartine, Roll call: Unanimous
ZC25-07 Schachman, David - B: 59.01, L: 8.03 – 35 Kanouse Ln. – maximum
building coverage of 3,273 s.f. where 3,226 s.f. is allowed; maximum impervious
coverage of 6,941 s.f. where 6,452 s.f. is allowed for pool patio/walkway – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr.
Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Mr.Driscoll;
Second by: Mr. Moore; Roll call: Yes – Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr.
Driscoll, Mr. Moore, Mr. Shirkey, Abstained - Mr. Marinello
ZC05-08 Armenti, Gary – 1
Sunrise Way – B: 130, L: 20 – construction of an addition on existing single
family home; front yard setback of 39.3’ vs 50’ along Pine Brook Rd – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr.
Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Mr.
Driscoll; Second by: Mr. Moore ; Roll call:
Yes – Dr.
Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Moore, Mr. Shirkey, Abstain - Mr.
ZC24-07 Kroll, John – 75 Passaic Valley Rd – B: 124.3, L: 13 – addition
to single family residence variance for front setback of 30.1’ (existing and
proposed) where 50’ required – Approval
Resolution – Eligible: Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Shirkey,
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Driscoll;
Second by: Mr. Cartine; Roll call: Yes –
Dr. Kanoff, Mr.
Cartine, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Moore, Mr. Shirkey, Abstain - Mr. Marinello
ZSPP/FDC33-06-02-08 Casha, Lawrence
& Debra – 115 Horseneck Rd. – B:
139.03, L: 7.03 – amended preliminary and final site plan/use/bulk variances in
order to occupy 1,367 s.f. of basement level of existing 2 story office building
– FAR of 27.23% where 25% is allowed; off street parking of 80 spaces (existing
& proposed) where 104 required – Approval
Resolution - Eligible: Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr.
Driscoll, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. Shirkey, No - Mr. Marinello
The amendments previously
sent to the Board.
Motion to adopt as amended made
by: Mr. Driscoll; Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call: Yes – Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Moore,
Old Towne Properties – B: 40; L: 52,
53, 54, 55 – 630 & 632 Rt. 202; 3 & 5 Waughaw Rd. – TRANSFERRED TO PLANNING BOARD
The board secretary indicated
that the Old Towne Properties application has been transferred to the Planning
ZSPP/F27-05-31-06 DAB Associates – 43
Bellows Ln. – B: 41, L: 15 – extension of time
request for Use variance From June 7, 2008 to March 5, 2009
Motion to grant extension
made by: Mr. Moore; Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call: Yes - Moore, Kanoff,
Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Marinello
Motion to go into closed session to discuss legal
issues made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Unanimous
Upon return from closed session the Board mad a motion
to retain Pashman Stein to defend the Board of Adjustment on the Wertenberg suit made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second
by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Unanimous
There being no further business there was a motion to
unanimously adjourn made by Mr. Driscoll, Seconded by: Mr. Cartine; Roll call –
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of August 6, 2008.
Linda M. White, Sec.