Board of Adjustment Minutes 12-3-08 Print E-mail

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OFDECEMBER 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) – Entrance Noted

Gerard Hug – Present

Also Present:        William Denzler, Planner

                                Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.

                               

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

OLD BUSINESS

ZSPP/FDC07-08 Lowes (Avila/Nemeth GI Auto) – 85 Bloomfield Ave. – B: 167, L: 28-32; B: 178, L: 3; B: 179, L: 1 – pre/final site plan/use variance/bulk variances for construction of Lowe’s Home Improvement Center and mixed use retail building – Carried w/notice from 11/5/08 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

                                                                                                                                ACT BY: 1/29/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: James Kelly, Esq., Kevin Boswell, PE, Kevin Bolger, Lowe’s Representative

Mr. Kelly – We would like to answer the questions from the last meeting first and then go into further discussions on the proposed plan.

Kevin Boswell, PE – previously sworn

Mr. Boswell reviewed the previous questions from the last hearing of the Board.  The location of the HVAC systems will be answered by Mr. Bolger.  Mr. Petrillo did not design the 2nd building but was hired to make it architecturally compatible with the Lowe’s building.  Lowe’s will oversee the construction of the project.  Do not anticipate any extensive delays due to environmental cleanup.  The site will be constructed to the highest standards of the Township as well as Lowes.  The building coverage is 12.7%.  The customers will be able to enter the site from Bloomfield Avenue and will be directed out on Rt. 46.  Truck traffic will use a U-turn at the Bloomfield Avenue Home Depot location and will exit onto Chapin Road or Van Winkle Road and are acceptable access points per DOT.  We have provided elevation views for all 4 sides of both buildings and they are architecturally compatible with the front of the buildings.  The buildings cannot be flipped due to the access from Rt. 46 which is a fixed point.  The building offers some shielding effect to Maple Avenue.   The second building can be occupied by one or two tenants.  HVAC units will not be visible.  The co-location of Home Depot and Lowe’s happens in many areas, it is a common occurrence.  Both function quite well.  Big Box is not defined in the zoning ordinance.  Bed Bath and Beyond and Sports Authority would be considered Big Box.  The term that best fits our proposal is a home improvement center.  The water and sewerage usage is 21% of a normal retailer.  3,549 gallons a day as opposed to 16,000+/- for a normal retailer.


Page 2

12/3/08

                Exhibit marked in:

                                A6 – DEP Letter 8-5-08 acceptable design flow figures for Lowe’s Centers

Mr. Boswell – The DEP regulates the flood plain, freshwater wetlands, discharge of an oil tank, sewer and water extension and stormwater management and water quality.  Currently there is 21 acres disturbed on site, there is a restoration proposal for about 4 acres of the site, and the remaining acreage is to be designated open space to be barred from future development.  There are 2 trailers proposed for the site.  Bloomfield Avenue is an integral part for Montville residents to access the site.  There will not be any light spillage onto neighboring properties.  The minimum setback to any home is 400’.  DOT will be involved with the Bloomfield Avenue access.  There will be garbage containers assembled outside the store so customers can drop their garbage in the containers.  A single maintenance contractor will be hired to take care of cleaning, snow plow operations, etc. 

Mr. Driscoll – Suppose trucks use the U-turn by Wendy’s?  Mr. Boswell – They could but Lowe’s controls the trucking for Lowe’s and they have strict rules on traffic patterns to be used.

Mr. Bolger, Lowe’s representative – previously sworn

The HVAC units are on top of the building and the parapets will block visibility of units.

Mr. Kelly – We requested 3 D variances.  We believe that we not longer need the D variance for height over 35’.  Retail is permitted in this zone provided that a hotel is associated with the retail use.  We termed it a Big Box but maybe we should ask for a waiver that it is not associated with a hotel then it would be a C variance. 

Mr. Boswell – The D variance is requested due to the lack of a hotel.  There is no definition for the term hotel in the ordinance except it can’t be higher than 60’.  When we went through the rezoning request we never commented on any other use because we always intended a Lowe’s.  If there was a hotel on the site it would be permitted except for the size of the Lowe’s project. 

                A7 – display board showing hotel instead of 2nd building dated 11-3-08

Mr. Boswell – We designed the display to show the effects of traffic, water and sewer usage and quality of life issues.  We broke the Lowe’s building down to 5 retail spaces and a 200 room 6 story hotel with a restaurant associated with it.  All of the stormwater management issues are identical.  This plan meets the ordinance with the exception of a few C type variances and the only D variance would be the distance to the Passaic River.  Went through all the trip generation, water and sewer details and factors associated with times of traffic and we have determined that 37,000+/- gallons of sewer would be used a day as opposed to the Lowe’s project which is 8,000+/- gallons a day.  The weekday traffic was 37% less with the Lowe’s project than the Hotel plan and about the same on the weekends.  During holidays the traffic is reduced on a Lowe’s site.  The hotel project would be a 24/7 operation, the windows would be 60’ above grade and would not be shielded from Maple Avenue residents.  The proposed use shuts down at 11PM.  The Lowe’s project is less of an impact to the residents than a hotel.  A hotel site would access Bloomfield Avenue in 2 directions as opposed to the Lowe’s project. 

                A8 – proposed development concept A

Mr. Denzler – With the conceptual hotel plan would you still need various variances for underground parking, etc on site.  Mr. Boswell – We did not go into details but we did do another plan showing a parking deck. The site is in the floodplain so underground parking is not viable so the only other option is to go up.  A 4 story parking deck can be constructed along the Maple Avenue section of the property. 


Page 3

12/3/08

Mr. Huelsebusch – How many spaces about would be constructed for hotel?  Mr. Boswell – 232 spaces required and the plan shows an excess of that. 

Mr. Boswell – We have spoken with the County and we will upgrade the bridge on Bloomfield Avenue and they have agreed to take care of it after that. 

Mr. Driscoll – Have you received DOT approval for the entrance on Rt. 46 yet?  Mr. Boswell – No.  We have met with the DOT on 3 separate occasions.  The section of Rt. 46 in this area will be widened.  It is currently 2 lanes wide and we will propose 3 lanes and a shoulder.  It is the only practical place to put the access.  DOT has the plan at this time.  Mr. Kelly - Any approval of this application can be conditioned upon DOT and DEP and if they determine it doesn’t work than we would have to come back before the Board.  Mr. Driscoll – How many trucks do you have control over as it relates to access.  Mr. Bolger – We control the 12-15 tractor trailers that visit the site a day.  We do not control UPS trucks and small delivery trucks. 

Mr. Marinello – What happens if the Big Box goes bankrupt and remains vacant for a while.  A multi tenant building could keep the lights on even if one user went bankrupt.  Mr. Hug – The only access to the site from Rt. 46 would be those coming from Rt. 46W all other traffic would have to go Bloomfield Avenue.  Mr. Boswell – Unless they go to Clinton Avenue and turn around.  Mr. Hug – I would like the traffic expert to have good testimony on how the Bloomfield Avenue access isn’t dangerous.  Mr. Huelsebusch – I tried to turn right on Rt. 46 from Chapin Road and it was a long wait, there is better sight distance if you go down to the next road, Van Winkle, and exit from that road.  Mr. Cartine – Will the Lowe’s be viable without the 2nd building?  Mr. Boswell - Will answer at a later meeting.

Open to public

John Swauger – sworn

Are the lights turned off by associates in the store or by a remote system?  Will the contractor to maintain the site be a local contractor or a large company?  Concerned with the additional traffic on Old Bloomfield Avenue.  Traffic is going to come from Rt. 80 and go through the residential neighborhoods instead of Rt. 46 due to the amount of lights on Rt. 46. 

Arthur Weber – previously sworn

We believe that the soil and water should be tested independently by someone who is hired by the town. 

Carried with notice preserved to the January 7, 2009 hearing. 

NOTE: Mr. Shirkey enters

NEW BUSINESS

ZSPP/FCD01-08 JLJ&J Marketing (Kids R Kids) – 217 Changebridge Rd. – B: 138, L: 8 – prel/final site plan/use variance and associated c variances for construction of a child care center and medical office (separate buildings) on the same lot.   Notice Acceptable

                                                                                                                                ACT BY: 12/25/08

Present on behalf of the applicant: Josh Mann, Esq.; Mark Walker, PE

Mr. Mann- The property is currently vacant.  The lot is split zoned R27D and R27A zones.  Both uses are permitted but 2 principal uses on one lot are not permitted.  This proposal is a smart and efficient use of this property.  Child care uses are considered inherently beneficial uses.  Kids R Kids is a chain. 


Page 4

12/3/08

Mark Walker, PE – sworn

                Exhibit marked in

                                A1 – sheet 1 of 1 expanded area of site dated 11/5/08 colorized

Mark Walker – The property is 8.78 acres.  It is currently vacant.  The house was removed but the well and septic remain on the property.  Mr. Walker reviewed the neighboring properties for the board.  The property is 2,100’ deep and 240’ wide.  The property abuts the Rockaway River to the rear.  It is in a split zone.  There are environmental constraints on the property.  There is a flood hazard area.  The proposal is over 250’ from the flood hazard area.  We have received an LOI from the DEP.  There is a sewer easement, gas easement and JCP&L easement to the rear of the property.

Mr. Walker - We provided soil testing to make sure there is no contamination on the site.  There were levels of arsenic in the tests and we have created a remediation plan that has been approved by the DEP.  The excavation of the material has taken place and is stockpiled on site.  If tests come back acceptable, the stockpiled soil will be taken to an incineration site.  There was a request for another environmental firm to review the environmental concerns on the site and since DEP has jurisdiction do not see why an outside firm would be required.  Arsenic is a substance that is used for farming and it does not move from the soil.  It was shown 18” deep and that would be removed from the site.  It does not migrate. 

Mr. Walker - There are no steep slopes on the property in the area of the proposal.  17,000 +/- s.f. child care building and 2,310 s.f. separate building for doctor’s office proposed on site.  Propose to construct 86 of 100 proposed parking spaces on site.  Additional spaces can be constructed if needed in the future.  16 spaces are required for the doctor’s office and the remainder are required for the day care center.  There is a variance required for no loading spaces, the peak traffic time would be in the morning for the day care center and their deliveries would be using small delivery vehicles as well as the doctor’s office.  No specific parking spaces would be required for deliveries to the site. 

Mr. Walker - The lighting meets all of the lighting requirements.  The neighbor on lot 7 is about 50’ from the lighting fixtures.  We propose 1 free standing sign.  There is a stormwater detention basin proposed.  DEP has revised plans in their possession.  The detention basin will be fenced in and the playground area will also be fenced in.  Proposed a board on board fence from the rear of the proposed child care facility to the last parking space along the northern section of the property.  The location of the doctor’s office was to provide for a buffer from the neighboring properties from the drop off/pick up site of the child care center.  We separated the facilities due to safety issues.  We cannot have people from the doctor’s office having access to the day care facility.  We cannot build residential lots to the rear of the property due to environmental constraints; only one residential lot would be able to be built near the detention basin. 

Mr. Walker – Reviewed permits requested from DEP.  We will not have dusk to dawn lighting but we will have security lighting.  The berm by lot 7 is 2’ high with 6-8’ spruces proposed.  We will have very dense buffering.  There is limited screening to the south, it is an industrial parking area.  Propose to extend the sidewalk to the north.  Propose 2 streetscape light fixtures to be placed near the entrances on the applicant’s property and the applicant will be responsible for electricity for those fixtures.    The project will be served by public water and sewer.  The building coverage is 5.7% where 20% is allowed.  The impervious coverage of 17% where 50% allowed is proposed. 

Mr. Denzler – Concerned with landscaping adjacent to child care building, can a double row be placed in that area?  Mr. Walker – We can but it would squeeze the trees together due to the wetlands buffer.  The residential houses are over 300’ away.  It doesn’t make sense to add additional trees.  Mr. Denzler – Affordable housing contribution?  Scarce Resource Order indicates that the township cannot construct any site that does not provide for affordable housing.  The township has filed for extension for 3rd Round.  Would that have an impact on the project proposed?    Mr. Marinello – Can you meet with the applicant to


Page 5

12/3/008

iron that issue out?  Mr. Denzler – Yes.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Will there be blending of the contaminated soil on site?  Mr. Walker – All contaminated soil will be removed.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Should require a no left hand turn lane.  Mr. Marinello – Are you comfortable with the review of the contamination on site by the health department and the DEP.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Yes.  Mr. Mann – The DEP requires a certification that contamination is removed before any child care facility be constructed.

Open to public –

Gretchen Strauch - 9 Green Meadows Rd. - sworn

In 2002 during the rezoning we were told that it would only be a single building on the site.  Now the applicant is proposing 2 buildings.  Mr. Denzler – They are allowed one building on the site, they are here requesting a variance to allow 2 buildings on the site. 

Mr. Marinello – Need testimony of the safety of a doctor’s office so close to the playground area of a day care center.  Mr. Buraszeski – Have seen day care centers in office buildings in the past so don’t see the safety issue as to having 2 separate buildings on one lot.  Will there be light spillage off the property? The previous applicant indicated 100’ area and the neighbor is 50’ away.  Mr. Walker – No, we have the evergreen trees, the board on board fence and a .3 foot candle.  Mr. Mann – We will look into the design of the building to see if it can be integrated. 

Carried with notice to 2/4/09with an extension of time to act to 2/5/09

MINUTES:

Minutes of November 5, 2008 - Eligible: Hug, Moore, Kanoff, Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Moore, Shirkey, Marinello

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

INVOICES:

               

William Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $343.75, $218.75, $93.75, $312.50, $156.25, $62.50,

$218.75, $31.25, $156.25, $218.75, $156.25, $156.25

                Pashman, Stein – Litigation for: $142.93; Trust for: $125, $1,031.25, $375

                Bricker & Assoc. – Trust for: $187.50, $875, $3,750, $2,250, $437.50, $500, $1,062.50, $1,250

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

RESOLUTIONS

ZC16-08 Calle, Juan – 36 Crescent Rd. – B: 148, L: 7 – front setback of 34.95’ existing and proposed where 45’ required for addition to single family home – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello  

Mr. Buraszeski – On Page 2 November 3rd should be November 5th, page 6 November 3rd should be changed to November 5th

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


Page 6

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 an assisted living facility containing 120 nursing beds and 60- residential health care beds - Approval Resolution Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Shirkey, Mr. Marinello  

Mr. Ackerman – I have numerous comments on the resolution.  I will list them all and you can accept some or all of the changes.

Applicant’s comments: page 2 instead of 2 signs there were 4 signs this is confirmed to be true but 2 of signs are in the sight easement that has to be dealt with by the Township Committee.  118,091 to 119,059 on page 8.  Applicant reconstructing retaining wall not building retaining wall. Page 13 prefers to fire resistant building instead of fire proof.  On paragraph 17 line 5 applicant wants to change obtain to seek sight triangle easement and Mr. Denzler wants it to remain obtain.  Same paragraph 18”x30” should be 18” high x 36” wide.  30’ should be changed to 30”.

Mr. Denzler’s comments – securing signage in right of way must be obtained by Township Committee.  Mr. Huelsebusch comments - requiring weekly reports on soil erosion measures.

Ms. White comments – applicant to meet all blasting requirements.  Mr. Marinello – If we put in blasting what about noise, what if we leave something else out that is not specific, must comply with all ordinances, not to be amended. Maybe covering too much that is not under our jurisdiction.  Specify that emergency generator be tested only during daytime hours, ok to be amended.  Require a copy of the contract with the noise expert after in full operation to be reviewed by board engineer, ok to be amended.  Removal of medical waste on site be reviewed by board of health, not required by board this condition.  The resolution to be recorded as deed restriction, ok to be amended.  COAH requirements, ok to be amended.  Security lighting only lighting to be on after 11PM, not to be amended.  Mr. Hugs comments – 911 first response instead of 911 emergency, to be amended.  Submission of contract for snow removal with a plan to be reviewed annually.

Motion to adopt as amended made by: Driscoll; Second by: Moore; Roll call:  Yes – Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

ZSPP/FCD18-98-10-07 St. Pius Church - B: 82, L: 10.01 - 24 Changebridge Rd. – request for extension of approvals to July 5, 2009 – Granted – Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

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

ZAC38-06 Lynch - B: 100.1, L: 9 – 36 Two Bridges Rd. – request for extension of approvals to

January 3, 2010 – Granted – Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Mr. Buraszeski - 1st page 3rd paragraph should be 2010.

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


Page 7

12/3/08

CORRESPONDENCE

OTHER BUSINESS

Discussion re: Draft 2008 Annual Report

Any comments get to Land Use office before January meeting.

Motion to retain Pashman Stein, Bruce Ackerman, Esq. to defend the Board in the Ptaszek matter made by: Mr. Hug, Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll Call: Unanimous.

Mr. Marinello – Suggest a night out the 2nd Wednesday of the month of January for members, professionals and spouses.  The professionals, Linda and Jane and significant others would be guests of the Board.  Check your calendars and respond back.

Motion to go into closed session to discuss personnel issues made by: Hug; Second by: Driscoll; 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 January 7, 2008.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.

 

Last Updated ( Thursday, 08 January 2009 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack