ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 3, 2008
Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated for the record.
Thomas Buraszeski - Present
Kanoff - Present
James Marinello- Present
Deane Driscoll - Present Carl DiPiazza (Alt #1) - Present
Cartine - Present
Kenneth Shirkey (Alt #2) - Present
Hug – Entrance noted
Also Present: William Denzler, Planner
Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
*NOTE: Mr. Hug enters
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 &
7/2/08 – Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski,
Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug,
Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello ACT BY: 9/4/08
on behalf of the applicant: Jack Dusinberre, Esq.; Adam Remmick, PE; Peter
Mr. Hug certified to the 5/7/08 & 7/2/08 hearings.
Jack Dusinberre, Esq. – We have Mr. Steck, Planner here to testify this
Peter Steck, PP - sworn
Mr. Dusinberre – The source of fuel for the generator is in a letter
dated 8/27/08 from the Architect. It
will be fueled by diesel. The standards
are governed by the state.
A15 – 8/27/08
report on generator fuel
Mr. Cartine – I am curious over the choice of diesel over natural
gas. Mr. Dusinberre – Any sound from
this equipment must meet all ordinance requirements as it relates to noise. The generator will not be used on a daily
basis. The decision was based upon the
fact that natural gas may not be available and if the electricity goes out using
natural gas, the generator may not work.
You are completely independent if you use diesel.
Peter Steck – submitted an outline of his testimony.
A16 – Steck
outline with exhibits of planning testimony
Mr. Steck – The property is 6.3 acres with 576’ of frontage on Hook Mountain Rd. Since 1904 this property has never been used
for single family use. There was an
approval for a nursing home in 1989 which was not built. Proposed is 120 bed nursing home and 60 bed
assisted living. From most of the
directions it is a 2-3 story building where a small section of the building is
4 stories. There will be 120 employees
total, approximately 50 per shift.
Landscaping will be supplemented.
Mr. Steck - Reviewed the surrounding properties for the Board. Hook
Mountain Road is a primary arterial road. The site is not a historic site. The facility was here when the Windsor Drive homes
were developed. This is a R-27A
district. Mr. Steck reviewed the
ordinance for residential zone. Nursing
homes are not permitted in this zone.
Mr. Steck – The applicant is requesting D variances for permitted use,
height exceeds 35’ maximum, and story height variance. The applicant is requesting C variances for
maximum building and impervious coverage, variances relating to retaining walls
height and separation. Variances requested for signage which are not permitted
in residential zone. There is a
directional sign, and identification sign at the driveway, entrance arrow sign,
and remote sign for advanced warning located in the Township right of way which
will need approval from governing body. Exceptions
requested area steep slope disturbance, parking closer than 25’ to the property
line, driveway grade of 12% existing where 10% allowed.
Mr. Steck - This is an inherently beneficial use. It promotes the public welfare. The State of New Jersey issues a need for nursing
homes. The use will be quiet in the
evening making it like a basic residential use.
The building is being shifted further to the south, the facades facing
the single family homes are the lower elevations. The site has been sensitively designed. This type of application has already been
approved in the past. The steep slope
ordinance has changed since the previous application; the footprint is
essentially the same. The changes are
due to laws that have changed since the previous approval. We have a buffer that is only bisected by an
emergency access route. The disturbance
of steep slopes is for public good. This
application fully meets the SICA test.
Mr. Denzler – Generation of affordable housing, explain what impact this
application will have on the Township.
Mr. Steck – It is the municipality’s decision as to if they want to
impact the applicant on it but hospital facilities are exempt.
Open to public
Richard LaBlanc – 14
Windsor Dr – previously sworn
When was the Masterplan last updated?
Mr. Denzler – Approximately 2006.
Since the property has been there doesn’t it seem that the Township
wanted the property to be residential?
Mr. Steck – As the neighborhood was built the planning board approved
subdivisions and there was no road stubs to this property so the site is
isolated so the non-conforming use was not intended to disappear. Is there a certificate of need for this
property? Mr. Dusinberre – A certificate of need was submitted previously. Mr. Steck – This building cannot be built
without State approval. Mr. Hug – How
long have you lived at Windsor Dr.? Mr. Lablanc –Since 2005. Mr. Hug – Did you believe that in the future
a nursing home could be built on that property.
Mr. LaBlanc – We had every belief that single family homes were to be
built at that property.
Debra LaBlanc – 14 Windsor Dr.
– Previously sworn
Why do nursing homes have specific zoning designations? Mr. Steck – Nursing homes are treated
differently in every town. They are
larger than single family residences so they are not treated the same.
Ms. LaBlanc – The master plan designated this property for change to
residential. When we built the house we
were told by the Township that the structure was to be demolished and it was
Mr. Steck – Some uses are not detrimental to the zone plan and a
variance can be requested for the use. Ms.
LaBlanc – I do not find the site beneficial, it is not handicapped accessible
site, there are steep slopes on site, there is limited area for recreation for
residents, the adjacent properties are residential, the impervious coverage variance
requested is almost 5 times what is allowed for this zone. Mr. Ackerman – A previous board already
approved this application as a beneficial use.
Ms. LaBlanc – The houses were not built at the time of the previous
approval, and now the houses are affected by this application. Mr. Ackerman – Is there any possible access
from this site though the residential properties. Ms. LaBlanc – Possibly, there may be through the
Bayer property and then through the new K&K subdivision. Ms. Lablanc – There will be noise during
construction, blasting, construction vehicles, which will impact the
neighborhood. I am concerned that the construction
equipment will use the emergency access easement to access the site. I am concerned with noise from the air
conditioners, kitchen exhaust fans, and delivery of diesel trucks will cause
noise. I am concerned with idling of trucks.
I am concerned with odor issues from kitchen and laundry
operations. I would like a perimeter
fence around the property for safety reasons.
Mr. Dusinberre – At this point in time the applicant does not see the
need for a perimeter fence. The
applicant will meet with neighbors to see what the extent of their concerns
will be. If an agreement is come to than
we would come back before the Board with the results of that agreement.
Ms. LaBlanc – Without a fence there would be security issues. Based on previous nursing home operations
some residents have had patients wander on their properties and knock on their
doors, concerned with safety of pedestrians and children in the area. I had previously requested a tethered balloon
test to show height of building which was not done so we do not know the impact
to the privacy of our back yards. Mr. Steck – You will have more privacy than a
single family residence behind you. Ms.
LaBlanc – Will there be an effect on water pressure in the area. Mr. Marinello – That would have been a
question for the engineer, if it was not answered to your satisfaction the
board will take that into consideration.
Adam Remick PE previously sworn our analysis said it was adequate and
will meet all local and state requirements.
Richard LaBlanc – I have a presentation that I would like to present an
exhibit to the board.
O1 – powerpoint
slides dated 7/2/08
Mr. LaBlanc – I will allow other members of the public speak first and
will return after.
Doreen Helmke - sworn
We do not feel that the nursing home is a good use for this
property. There are other nursing homes
in the neighboring communities in more commercial areas. I have had patients knock on our door as a
child. I think a fence is imperative to
this application. I was under the
impression that the property was zoned residential. Please think about all the variances and
waivers requested by the applicant. I
cannot put a commercial business on my property. The number of people for this site will not
contribute to school budgets.
Mr. Patel - sworn
I have an attorney, environmental expert and planner. I would like an entire meeting for my
experts. Mr. Marinello – At the last
meeting it was requested that anyone with experts were to give notice to the Land
Use Office of any experts that might testify.
Mr. Dusinberre – At the July meeting we knew we would be done with Mr.
Steck. At that meeting he was requested
to have his witnesses submitted to the board, I
do not see anyone here to start testimony and do not have the names of
these experts with fees paid to prove that they are retained. This sounds like more tactics to delay. Mr. Marinello – Can you give the names of the
experts. Mr. Patel – I will give you
these names at the end of the week. Mr.
Marinello – We planned and hour and a half for this application is there any
other public for this application. There
was none. Mr. Patel was requested to
submit the names to the Land Use Office by the end of the week. Mr. Dusinberre – I want to make it clear on
the record that this will not happen again.
Mr. Marinello – We do not have time
for Mr. LaBlanc to finish his presentation this evening either. Mr. Marinello – Mr. Patel your experts will
not be allowed to repeat testimony that has been heard over the last year.
Mr. Hug – Will there be a compactor for the garbage. The security fence is a valid issue, the
applicant may want to sit down with the residents to discuss that issue. Our First Aid Squad cannot handle 911 calls
for this site. Mr. Cartine – Why does
diesel a better choice than natural gas for generators. Mr. Marinello – At the next hearing we will
open with Mr. LaBlanc and then with Mr. Patel’s experts.
Carried with notice preserved to 11/5/08 with an extension of time to
act granted to 11/6/08
Matias, Jeff– 4 Robert Rd. – B: 84, L: 1 – rear setback of 39.5’
where 50’ required; impervious coverage 5,742 s.f. where 5,358 s.f. allowed for
addition to single family home – Notice
Present on behalf of the applicant: Jeff Matias, applicant
Mr. Matias –sworn
Todd Spellman, CTFM Contractor - sworn
Requesting a variance for rear setback of 39.5’ where 50’ required;
impervious coverage 5,742 s.f. where 5,358 s.f. allowed. The property is smaller than what is
permitted in the zone. The lot is pie
shaped. There is an existing
non-conforming rear setback of 24’ the proposed addition will be at 39.5’. The front setback is pre-existing
non-conforming but we will not be impacting that section of the building. The impervious coverage is less than 10% over
allowable. This is an existing ranch
style home. The applicant is anticipating
an elder family member moving in. The
bedroom that will be taken away is an antiquated bathroom and the applicant proposes
a master bathroom. Mr. Denzler – What
other alternative were considered, why not to the side or back? Mr. Spellman – We considered going up but the
foot print of the home would not make it cost effective. Due to the location of the existing rooms in
the home this was the best location.
Mr. Denzler – What is the effect to the neighbor t o the rear. Mr. Spellman – The addition is at 39.5’ where
the existing rear setback is at 24’ so it will be in closer than what
exists. Mr. Denzler – Reviewed the
variances requested for the Board. This
is a pie shaped lot causing the rear setback issue. Mr. Huelsebusch – The ordinance requires
drywells due to the increased impervious coverage. Mr. Hug – The shed in the back, what is it
used for? Mr. Matias – Lawn
equipment. Mr. Marinello – Is there a
way for the application to conform to impervious coverage? Mr. Driscoll – Do you plan to take down any
trees? Mr. Matias – No. Mr. Moore
– Would you consider removing the shed to reduce the impervious coverage? Mr. Matias – Yes. Mr. Huelsebusch – Not familiar with the soils
in this area but if the engineering department believes that the soil is not
adequate they may require additional removal of impervious coverage. Mr. Marinello – Work that out with the
engineering department for future applications. Mr. Denzler – The applicant can reduce the impervious
coverage with removal of sidewalks and part of driveway. Mr. Spellman – Will remove impervious in kind
with building addition no longer need a variance for impervious coverage.
Open to public – none – closed
Motion to approve the
application for rear setback only, withdrawal
of the impervious coverage variance made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr.
Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Kanoff,
Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
Forte, Jerry – 28
Abbott Rd. – B: 39.7, L:86.2 – disturbance of
slopes for construction of in ground pool -
Newspaper notice carried; Neighbor notice required – Notice Acceptable
ACT BY: 11/14/08
Present on behalf of the applicant: Jerry Forte, applicant; Steven
Mr. Schepis – Applicant is seeking relief of disturbance of slopes of
189 s.f. for construction of an in-ground pool
A1 – photo array
Mr. Jerry Forte, applicant – sworn
This was the only location for the pool; it is the only flat land on
the property. We cannot put it in the
location of the septic. A retaining
wall 3 ½’ tall will be installed as the town requires. We will improve the landscaping. There are no trees to be removed. Mr. Denzler – Disturbance of slopes in 25%
area. Can the pool be rotated and
shifted to the left to eliminate the slope disturbance? Mr. Forte – The septic field is there and
there are full grown pines in that area.
There is a vacant lot behind me so not impacting the neighbor. This is the best location for the pool. Mr. Denzler – How big is the pool? Mr. Forte – 900 s.f. Mr. Denzler – Do you still proposed sand
around the pool? Mr. Forte –May just
grass around it. Mr. Huelsebusch – My
comments have been addressed.
Open to public – none
Dr. Kanoff – What size pool would allow for no variance? Mr. Denzler – There is no correlation between
the size of the pool. A smaller pool
could reduce the variance request.
Mr. Schepis – The ordinance was adopted in 1999 because the Town was concerned
with large development. The engineering
concerns have been addressed. There is
no one behind him. This is a relatively
diminimis request. It is in character
with the neighborhood. There will be no negative impact.
Closed to public
Motion to approve the application, no
detriment to runoff, fits in with the neighborhood made by: Kanoff; Second by: Moore; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, Marinello
Mr. Marinello stepped down for the
following application and Mr. Cartine took the chair
Foss, Glenn – 9 Mulbrook Ln. – B: 21.01, L: 38 – impervious
coverage of 20,305 s.f. vs 13,300 s.f. allowed for addition to single family
home – Notice Acceptable – ACT BY:
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Michael Sullivan, Esq; Glenn Foss, applicant
Mr. Sullivan – Applicant
requesting variance for impervious coverage of 20,305 s.f. vs 13,300 s.f.
allowed for addition to single family home.
No other variances requested.
Oversized lot, 175,800 s.f. lot.
The impervious coverage maximum is 13,300 s.f. allowable. Unusually configured lot dictated the
original placement of the home which required additional driveway
coverage. Additional coverage 2,512 s.f.
is for MUA water tower easement access.
John Degrace, PE – sworn
Mr. Degrace - On site is a
single family house with a 3 car garage, a pool and a patio. Functionally it is a 2 car garage with
additional storage. The house was built
in the only level part of the property. There
is currently 18,943 s.f. existing impervious coverage on the property. Propose a 3 car garage with additional
storage though the architectural plan shows a 6 car garage. In order to put 6 cars in they would have to
be small and parked tandem. Runoff is
mitigated by changing some asphalt to pavers and addition of seepage pits. All surrounding properties are
residential. The property is sloped and
already has inlets and water drains that will capture all additional
stormwater. The property is exempt from
the highlands preservation area. There
is no high water table on this property.
There are no underground storage tanks.
Will not be sinking any wells and there will be no soil removal for this
project. We will supply a grading plan
if required by the Engineering Department.
We will comply with the Board of Health report. We will not be reconfiguring the septic
system. Mr. Degrace – A good portion of
the driveway macadam will be replaced with pavers.
Mr. Hug – I am concerned with
the size of the garage. It is a 6 car
garage with 3 doors. When we talk about size and impervious coverage we are
actually looking at a 6 car garage. Mr.
Sullivan – The increased impervious coverage will not impact anyone due to size
of property. Mr. Sullivan – The applicant owns the adjoining lot as well.
Mr. Cartine – The amount of
excess coverage, how did you get the pool built without a variance? Mr. Sullivan – We have permits.
Glenn Foss, applicant – sworn
I am not the original owner
of the property. I purchased the home in
1997. In 1999 we built a pool and
surrounding patio around the pool. I hired creative pools who handled the
permit application and approvals. They
were paid in full in 1999. At the time
of completion believed that it was all done according to Township. I did not know there was an issue until I
applied for this application. We have
paid additional taxes since the completion of the pool. Ms. White indicated the permit was still open
and a CO was not issued.
Exhibit A1 –
permit 73-99 dated 4/15/99 indicates in ground pool only
A2 – permit 206-99 issued 7/99 – plan
A3 – letter from Mark Mantyla to Mr.
Mr. Sullivan – Read Mr.
Mantyla’s letter into the record. A2
shows an approved plan for the patio around the pool. The coverage has been there for 9 years. Asking for minimal additional coverage. Mr. Hug – Did the applicant at that time need
a variance for this? Mr. Denzler – Yes
he would have required a variance. Do
not known why it was signed off.
Cartine – The pool company did file the fee for the pool permit. Mr. Sullivan –We are here for a .77%
increase of impervious coverage on the lot.
It is a substantially oversized lot.
Impervious coverage to accommodate the MUA water easement adds 2,512
s.f. to the site. Mr. Sullivan summed up
testimony. Mr. Denzler – 52.7% over
allowable coverage. Mr. Shirkey – Without
the access easement he is still over by 3,000 s.f. of pool patio which is of
his own making. Mr. Shirkey – What are
you going to do in the garage? Mr. Foss
– The first bay cannot fit a car so will use for storage and I may become a
collector in the future. Mr. Hug – We have made people tear up concrete walks that were
installed by pool companies, this application is substantially increase the
size of his house, and permits were never closed out for any work done on the
property. Mr. Cartine - This is a huge
lot. The impervious coverage is 11% of
entire property. Mr. Hug – No one can
see the property. Mr. Cartine –About
5,000 s.f. of the 20,000 s.f. is an easement.
to public – none - closed
Motion to approve the application, the MUA right of way increases the impervious
coverage, unusual shaped lot, no other feasible location for home causing
longer driveway made by: Moore; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll,
*NOTE: Mr. Marinello returned
If any board member’s term is
up please send letters into the Township Clerk’s office. Mr. Driscoll and Mr. DiPiazza’s terms are up
Minutes of August 6, 2008 -
Eligible: Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Di Piazza, Shirkey
Motion to adopt made by: Dr.
Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Driscoll, Roll call: Yes- Kanoff, Cartine, Hug,
Driscoll, Buraszeski, Di Piazza, Shirkey
Pashman, Stein – Litigation for: $523.34; O/E for:
$268.75; Trust for: $281.25, $312.50
William Denzler & Assoc – Trust for: $62.50,
187.50, $125, $156.25, $31.25, $375, $312.50,
$312.50, $281.25, $937.50, $281.25, $500, $156.25,
Motion to approve made by:
Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
ZC13-08 Feather - B: 155, L: 8 – 86 Konner Ave. – variance for rear
setback of 43.45’ (existing and proposed) where 50’ required for 2nd
story addition – Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Hug, DiPiazza , Shirkey,
Cartine - Approval Resolution
Motion to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski;
Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski,
Kanoff, Driscoll, Hug, DiPiazza , Shirkey, Cartine
ZC05-06 Lazo - B: 111, L: 12 - 32 Alpine Rd – request for
extension of approvals from August 2, 2008 to August 1, 2009 – Eligible:
Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Shirkey - Granted
Motion to adopt made by: Mr.
Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call:
Yes – Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Shirkey
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. (existing) 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 –
Eligible: Driscoll, Hug, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Cartine - Approved
Mr. Ackerman indicated that
there were some revisions to this resolution. Mr. Ackerman - Gave the Board a redlined
version of corrections of the resolution.
Motion to adopt as amended made
by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Cartine; Roll call:
Yes – Driscoll,
Hug, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Cartine
*ZC17-07 Malanga, William - B: 43, L: 4.01
– 4 Benefly Rd. – accessory structure setbacks;
17.48’ vs 20’; side setback of 9.21’ vs 20’ detached garage – New notice
unpaid and failure to notice – Discussion on dismissal or carry
Mr. Ackerman indicated that
the Malanga application was originally on to be heard this evening but a check
to cover escrow fees had been rejected by the bank. His attorney was called and he never noticed
for this evening either. It is up to the
board to keep it as an open matter and have the board professionals do work on
it for which they may not be paid or to dismiss it without prejudice and let
Motion to dismiss without prejudice made by: Mr. Hug; Second by:
Cartine; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey,
Motion to go into closed session to discuss litigation
made by: Mr. Driscoll, Seconded by: Mr. Cartine, Roll call: Unanimous
Upon return from closed
session and there being no further
business there was a motion to unanimously adjourn made by Mr. Driscoll,
Seconded by: Mr. Cartine; Roll call – Unanimous
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of October 1, 2008.
Linda M. White, Sec.
to 5/7/08 & 7/2/08