BoA minutes 9-3-08 Print E-mail

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.

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 – Entrance noted

Also Present:        William Denzler, Planner

                                Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.

                               

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

*NOTE: Mr. Hug enters

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, 9/5/07,  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

Present on behalf of the applicant: Jack Dusinberre, Esq.; Adam Remmick, PE; Peter Steck, PP

Mr. Hug certified to the 5/7/08 & 7/2/08 hearings.

Jack Dusinberre, Esq. – We have Mr. Steck, Planner here to testify this evening.

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. 


Page 2

9/3/08

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 zoned residential. 


Page 3

9/3/08

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


Page 4

9/3/08

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

TRACK 2

NEW BUSINESS

ZC17-08 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 Acceptable                                                                                                ACT BY: 11/14/08

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


Page 5

9/3/08

TRACK 3

ZC08-08 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 Schepis, Esq.

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

TRACK 4

Mr. Marinello stepped down for the following application and Mr. Cartine took the chair

ZC18-08 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: 12/25/08

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


Page 6

9/3/08

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 stamped approved

                                A3 – letter from Mark Mantyla to Mr. Foss 7/23/08

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. 

Mr. 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. 

Open to public – none - closed


Page 7

9/3/08

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, Cartine, Moore

*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 this year.

MINUTES:

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

INVOICES:

                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, $62.50, $31.25

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

RESOLUTIONS

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


Page 8

9/3/08

OTHER BUSINESS

*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 – New notice required                                                                                                                                                                   ACT BY: 9/30/08

*Escrow 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 them re-file. 

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

CORRESPONDENCE

None

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

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of October 1, 2008.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.

Certified to 5/7/08 & 7/2/08

 

Last Updated ( Thursday, 09 October 2008 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack