|
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 1, 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 – Present
Also Present: William Denzler, Planner
Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
NEW BUSINESS
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
10/1/08
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
TRACK 2
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
TRACK 3
Page 3
10/1/08
OLD BUSINESS
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,
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
10/1/08
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
10/1/08
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
10/1/08
MINUTES:
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
INVOICES:
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
RESOLUTIONS
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.
CORRESPONDENCE
None
Page 7
10/1/08
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.
|
