Board of Adjustment 10-1-08 minutes Print E-mail



Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting



Stated for the record.



Richard Moore- Present                      Thomas Buraszeski - Present

Donald Kanoff - Present                     James Marinello- Present

Deane Driscoll - Present                     Carl DiPiazza (Alt #1) - Present

Maury Cartine - Present                      Kenneth Shirkey (Alt #2) - Present

Gerard Hug – Present


Also Present:        William Denzler, Planner

                                Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.



Stated for the record




ZC09-08 Corham, Todd  7 Roome Rd. – B: 108, L:4 – side setback 16.13’ required 8.67’ proposed; front setback 45’ required 42.17’, and driveway setback  proposed addition to single family home –Notice Acceptable                                                                            ACT BY: 12/24/08


Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq. Anthony Garrett, AIA, Todd Corham, Applicant



Mr. Schepis – Wish to mark in exhibit

                A1 – Photo array 11 photos


Todd Corham, Applicant – Sworn

Mr. Corham reviewed the existing home and property for the Board. The existing driveway is 3’ on the neighbor’s property.  The existing driveway on the neighbor’s property is to be removed along with the existing detached garage.  Currently a 4 bedroom house, one bedroom is used as a den since we do not have a family room. I cannot stand up next to the bed due to the pitch of the roof in the bedroom.   Want to keep the 1920 style of the house. 


Anthony Garrett, AIA – sworn


                A2 – colorized site plan


Mr. Garrett – Reviewed the property for the Board.  The eastern portion of the driveway has existed on the neighbor’s property and is proposed to be removed.   Proposing a 2nd floor addition with pre-existing non-conforming setback.  Also propose to go straight back with the addition.   We are not going beyond the existing setbacks.  We are wrapping the existing front porch around the side.  Propose the driveway to be 2’ from the property line for the rear 30’ of the driveway where 5’ is required.   We are reducing the non-conformity because the driveway on the other side of the house is over the property line.  The rear of the property is sloped.   There is less grading involved with the driveway on the proposed side of the property.   Benefits outweigh detriments.  This plan is a better planning perspective.  The house was built before the zoning ordinances.  The proposed house will be more aesthetically pleasing. No detriment to zone plan or ordinance. This proposal requires less grading. 

Page 2



Open to public – none


Mr. Denzler – How far away is the neighbor’s house to the proposed driveway? Mr. Garrett – It meets the setbacks. 


                A3 – aerial photo Google earth


Mr. Denzler- Is there additional buffer that can be provided in the area of the 2.9’ driveway setback.   Mr. Garrett – Yes.  Mr. Denzler – Will the applicant agree to a condition that the rear and front porch remain open at all times.  Mr. Garrett – Yes.  Mr. Huelsebusch – What about dedication of the right of way?  Mr. Schepis - We will work with the Engineering Department on an acceptable right-of-way.  Mr. Driscoll – Will the tree in photo 4 remain?  Mr. Corham – No, it will be removed. 


Closed to public


Motion to approve the application , most variances are pre-existing, subject to coordination of road dedication with needs of the shut off valve, check with landscaper on keeping tree by the proposed driveway, installation of a drywell in accordance with the Board Engineer specification, the porches are to remain open made by : Dr. Kanoff; Second by:  Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Moore, Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Hug, Marinello




ZC20-08 Krause– 20 Mary Dr. – B: 86, L: 10 - construction of addition to single family home side yard setback of 14.82’ where 20.7’ required; combined sides of 29.7’ where 35’ required and maximum building coverage of 2,853 s.f. where 2,650 s.f. allowed – Notice Acceptable

                                                                                                                                ACT BY: 1/15/09


Present on behalf of the applicant: Alan & Diane Krause, applicant


Mr. & Ms. Krause – sworn


Ms. Krause – We are looking to construct a minimally invasive addition. Setbacks are pre-existing non-conforming.  We are looking to add a family room on top of the garage. We did not want to create additional impervious coverage so we did not go out the back.  Mr. Denzler – Variances requested are side yard setback of 14.82’ where 20.7’ is required; combined sides of 29.7’ where 35’ is required and maximum building coverage of 2,853 s.f. where 2,650 s.f. allowed.  The applicant is trading a portion of the deck for house area.  The front foyer is being extended forward and are adding and additional 28 s.f.  Only 52 s.f. of the overage is due to building expansion.  Mrs. Krause – we are trying to maximize the aesthetics of the house to match the design of the neighborhood. 


Open to public – none – closed


Mr. Shirkey – This house is growing by an overall of 52 s.f. from what is existing?  Mr. Denzler – Yes.


Mr. Denzler- The foyer provides an aesthetic improvement to the house. 


Motion to approve the application benefits outweigh the detriments, no harm to zoning ordinance, pre-existing non-conforming conditions, overall expansion is diminimis, the tree line is to remain made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Moore, Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Hug, Marinello – No



Page 3






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 –carried with notice from 7/2/08 – Eligible: Moore, Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Hug[1], Moore, Shirkey, Marinello                                                                                                                                                                  ACT BY: 10/9/08


Present on behalf of the applicant: Renu Shevade, Esq.; Anthony Suppa, PE; Mark Brodsky, RF Engineer AT&T; Glen Pierson, RF Engineer Verizon, William Masters, PP 


Transcriber present for Optasite.


NOTE: Mr. Hug left the meeting


Ms. Shevade – Previously presented Civil Engineer and RF engineers. In the meantime T-Mobile has agreed to co-locate on the tower.


Anthony Suppa, PE – Previously sworn

Mr. Suppa reviewed the revisions for the Board.  There will be an overall of 4 co-locators on the tower. 


                A4 – colorized site plan drawing Z-3


Mr. Suppa – Reviewed the revisions to the plan for the Board. Moved the compound 3’ from the east to remove a variance.  Added AT&T and T-Mobile to the compound.  The size of the compound remained the same.  AT&T & T-Mobile will have weatherproof cabinets on concrete pads instead of compounds.  AT&T has 9 antennas at the top, Verizon with 12 antennas, then T-Mobile with 9 antennas, and a remaining co-location area.  There are currently 335 parking spaces on site which well exceeds the required number of parking spaces of 160 spaces; we will be using 17 spaces.  The tower will be designed in accordance with all requirements.  The DEP is currently reviewing the Highlands application which has been deemed complete.  We are on the existing pavement because if not, we would not meet the Highlands exemption requirements.  Verizon will have natural gas back up generators and remaining carriers will have battery back up generators.    


Chuck Regulbuto, Project Director for Development for Optasite – sworn

There are no other feasible sites in the area.  This is the only I-2 zone in the area the remaining area is residential.  The tower is tucked off to the back of the property.  The PSE&G easement is not a choice for the tower.  Mr. Marinello – Did you do and RFP or advertise for a site? Mr. Regulbuto – No we did not do an RFP.  Mr. Ackerman – Did you do a feasibility study of other sites in the area? Mr. Regulbuto – I think this was done by the RF Engineer.  This is one of the largest parcels in the area.  Mr. Marinello – Did you discuss sites with Land Use Office or Chamber of Commerce?   I don’t see a lot of local input for this application.   Mr. Regulbuto – We looked at the zoning map to find sites, industrial sites are superior sites, residential sites are not as acceptable.  The height was an issue that we looked at.  We looked at the visual impact of the area, would not like to put it in the middle of a residential subdivision.  Making the tower camouflaged with tree branches makes it more in line with the area. 

Page 4



Glen Pearson, RF Engineer T-Mobile – previously sworn

T-Mobile has an FCC license.


                Exhibit – A5 – Omni point RF Design base map with 2 overlays


Glen Person – Omni point and T-Mobile are the same company.  Reviewed the exhibit for the Board.  Reviewed the gaps in coverage for the Board.  Reviewed the proposed coverage for the Board. There are about 4,000 cars a day that go through this area.  The gap area includes 1,700 residents.  Issued the original search ring in 1994 for this site.  There is a substation to the south of Boonton Ave. but it is too low for coverage.  Need to use the top area in order to get the service. Could not go to the upper area because it is in the Highlands.  The power lines are too far north of the service area and would not help Taylortown or Rockaway Valley Roads.  There is a water tank in the area but it is too close to the residents and it is not tall enough.   This is a large lot and it is further away from the residents.   This is a typical unmanned facility.  Maintenance is once every 4-6 weeks.  Monitored at network operations centers for each co-locator. This site is well suited to provide service to this area. 


Ms. Shevade – I have Dan Collins, Health and Safety expert here to testify if the Board would like.  He did appear before the Board of Health and they have reported to the Board.   Mr. Marinello – If you do not have direct testimony they we can leave him for questions from the Board.


William Masters, PP – sworn

The applicant before the board is seeking Use variance relief, not a permitted use in I-2 zone.  Height variance requested since exceeds more than 10% allowed in this district.  Peak of monopole is proposed at 145’ where 35’ allowed.  The applicant is requesting a variance for more than one principal use on a lot. Variance for setback between accessory structures of 5’ where 25’ required is also requested.   This is a suitable site for this facility.  It meets the coverage objectives for the applicants.  It is located near major traffic corridors, is in a non-residential district, it is an existing large lot, the site promotes co-location, it is an existing developed property, and can be constructed without any tree removal.  These are licensed telecommunication carriers. The use serves the general welfare. It is an unmanned, unoccupied facility which is monitored 24 hours a day by each carrier at a remote location. 


                Exhibit A6 – aerial photo from Morris County Planning Board 2005

                Exhibit A7 – photo board of photos #1-3 with corresponding photo simulation


Mr. Masters – Added the location of the site on the photo and white circles where photo simulations were taken.  The photos on A7 were taken during a drive test for this proposed facility.   


                Exhibit A8 – photo board of additional photos #4-6 with corresponding photo simulation  

Exhibit A9 - photo board of additional photos #7-9 with corresponding photo simulation   


Mr. Masters reviewed the photos for the Board.  A crane test was done in July.  The visual impact does not arise to the level of a detrimental effect on the neighboring properties.   The pole is designed for future co-locations, the equipment area is to be constructed for the use of future co-locators and the board can condition the approval on adding tree branch camouflage for the tower.  Setbacks are significant due to size of the property. Benefits outweigh the detriments. There will be no interference with the principal use on the property. 


Mr. Marinello – Requested a reminder of limit of jurisdiction of the underlying use of the primary use.  Mr. Ackerman – The Marotta Corporation does defense work and has their own interior security, the board can look at exterior security about the proposed project.


Mr. Denzler – Do you have an opinion on the impact of the residential areas as to the location of the proposed tower.  Mr. Masters – I drove Pennbrook Ct and Patrick Ct. and did not see any visibility of the

Page 5



crane during the crane test time period.  Mr. Denzler – Will there be winter view of the tree monopole.  Mr. Masters – I did not do a winter view test. Mr. Denzler- Will there be any noise problems with all 4 users up and running?  Mr. Masters- No the only noise would be the generator which will be exercised once a week for about an hour otherwise will meet the noise requirements. Mr. Denzler – Is there still adequate site circulation with the construction of the facility in the parking lot as it relates to the dead end aisles.  Mr. Suppa – No there will not be an impact.  Mr. Denzler – Are you aware of the application filed about a mile down on Taylortown Road.  Mr. Pearson – Yes I am.  Mr. Denzler – Does that make this application redundant?  Mr. Pearson – That site is intended to cover Route 202 come down Taylortown and hand off to this site so it would work with this site.  Mr. Denzler- Is the parking lights that are being removed to be replaced?  Mr. Suppa – There is adequate lighting but if the owner wants them replaced we will but it will not be an issue.  Mr. Ackerman – Noise from generator?  Mr. Suppa – Generators are exempt from noise with just testing once a week.  We are far away from any residents and the generator is inside a building.  We will do noise test.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Is this an exemption from Highlands or is it a permit?  Mr. Suppa – This qualifies as an exemption.  Mr. Huelsebusch – You will have to provide bonding for the camouflage branches as well as restoration bond.  


Open to public – none


Mr. Shirkey – What is a tree canopy height in the area?  Mr. Suppa – About 60’-75’ the bare pole will not extend upon the surrounding tree heights.   Mr. Driscoll- Concerned that this may not be the right site, have you looked at other sites in the area.  Can you put it in another industrial area like Mars Ct.  Mr. Pearson – We have already testified to that.  Mr. Driscoll – What is the maximum number of carriers for this site.  Mr. Pearson – We are showing 4 on the plans but 5 or 6 would be the max.  Mr. Ackerman – Mr. Suppa designed the pole for 4 so there are three currently and there is room for one more.  Mr. Buraszeski – If you lowered the tower would it dramatically affect the usage. Mr. Pearson – Yes. Mr. Huelsebusch – If the tower became obsolete they would require a different type of bonding, not restoration bonding, in order to guarantee removal of the tower.  The applicant has agreed to remove the tower if obsolete so bonding would be required and it would have to be intact forever.  Ms. Shevade – The Board can make a condition of approval that if the tower is not used for one year it must be removed at the cost of the applicant.  Mr. Ackerman – The water tower by Rt. 80 is required to come down if the use becomes obsolete, it can be a condition of approval.   Mr. Cartine – How many equipment cabinets proposed on this site? Mr. Pearson – 4 cabinets are proposed. Mr. Cartine – How far are shelters off the ground?  Mr. Pearson – 10’ off the ground.     


Ms. Shevade – There is a need in this area for the cell site.  All sites in the area would require use relief. This site shields the tower by the woods and it is in an existing parking lot.  There is less site disturbance since on existing pavement. Disguised as a tree pole.  No water or sewer required.  Benefit to the township. 


Closed to public


Motion to approve the application for the cell tower as a tree pole subject to the plans submitted, suitable site, placed on existing impervious coverage, site is designed and limited to 4 providers, the fenced in area to remain as size shown, the need for the coverage is proven by 3 providers to provide continuous service, subject to bonding of tree pole and equipment area should it no longer be in use, bonding required for camouflage and restoration bonding required, lighting removed and striping of parking lot to be reviewed and approved by the Board Engineer, subject to noise test for generator, subject to all agency reports made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call: Yes - Moore, Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Moore, Shirkey, Marinello


Page 6




Minutes of September 3, 2008 - Eligible: Kanoff, Cartine, Hug, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Di Piazza,

Moore, Shirkey, Marinello


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



                Bricker & Associates – Trust for: $437.50, $625, $625, $437.50, $500, $1,062.50, $343.75, $125,

$687.50, $375, $468.75, $750, $1,000, $781.25, $500, $375, $625

William Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $62.50, $125, $31.25, $187.50, $250, $62.50, $62.50,

$218.75, $62.50, $375, $687.50

Pashman Stein – Trust for: $812.50

                Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $33


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




ZC17-08 Matias, Jeff– 4 Robert Rd. – B: 84, L: 1 – rear setback of 39.5’ where 50’ required for addition to single family home –Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello - Approval Resolution


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


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 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Mr. Moore – Approval Resolution


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


ZC08-08 Forte, Jerry 28 Abbott Rd. – B: 39.7, L:86.2 – disturbance of slopes for construction of in ground pool – Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, Marinello – Approval Resolution


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



ZCD28-06 Lignac – 18 Glen Terr – B: 9, L: 13 – request for extension of approvals and removal of dwelling to 12/31/09


Motion to grant extension made by Mr. Driscoll; Second by: Buraszeski

Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello


Mr. Marinello – If there is any reason to solicit new experts for next year please call Linda White this month.




Page 7



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 November 5, 2008.



Linda M. White, Sec.



[1] Must certify to 7/2/08 hearing


Last Updated ( Friday, 07 November 2008 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack