Board of Adjustment 2-4-09 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.

                                John Whipple, Esq. (Mr. Ackerman’s partner) present for a portion of the meeting


Stated for the record

The following application was carried with notice preserved to 4/1/09:

ZC30-08 Sabbatino – 85 Jacksonville Rd. – B: 32, L: 1- variance for accessory structure addition in front yard – Notice Acceptable                                                                ACT BY: 5/8/09

The attorney for JLJ&J agreed to allow the Krase application to proceed first.


ZC26-08 Krase – 9 Cedar Rd. – B: 113, L: 52 – building coverage 3,051 s.f. where 2,696 s.f. is

allowed/rear setback 19’ where 50’ required for addition to single family home– Notice Acceptable                                                                                   ACT BY: 5/5/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: John Krase, applicant; TiinaVaska, AIA

Ms. Vaska.  AIA - sworn

                A1 – colorized site plan and floor plan

                A2- data sheet

Ms. Vaska - The house is set back to the rear of the property.  It is located outside the building envelope.  Propose a dining room and bedroom addition.  Variance requested for rear setback 19’ where 50’ required. Existing sidewalk will be removed.  This is the best location for the addition.  Total square footage of house proposed will be 3,100 s.f.  There is no basement.  The neighbor to the left is here in support of the application.  The elementary school is to the left and rear of the property.

                A3 – colored photos and elevation of existing home

Ms. Vaska - The Krase’s want to keep the integrity of the house.  The deck is to be removed. 

                A4 – photo board of site

Page 2


Ms. Vaska – The driveway has sufficient area to turn around.  Indicated on exhibit A4 the area where the planner considered patio as building coverage and asked the board to decide if they consider it building coverage since most or the wood patio is at grade.  The data sheet indicates the building coverage calculations done by my office and those by the planner.  Requested the board decide if there is a variance for building coverage of  300 s.f.

Mr. Denzler – Building coverage is 370 s.f. over based on the interpretation of the wood patio in the rear.  It is considered a structure since it is a wood structure and not slate or paver.  The existing rear setback is 25’ where the proposed is 19’ for the addition where 50’ required.  There are woods to the rear of the property on the school site.    Ms. Vaska – We have minimized the impact to the neighboring property.  Mr. Denzler – How does the proposed addition relate to the character of the neighborhood?  Ms. Vaska – It is in keeping with the size and character of the houses in the neighborhood.  Mr. Denzler – The property is in the CWR zone and underground storage tanks are not allowed.  Ms. Vaska – The owner has already applied for the removal of the underground storage tank.  Mr. Marinello – Does the driveway have sufficient turnaround area? Mr. Huelsebusch – Technically it meets the criteria.   Ms. Vaska – I have turned around in the driveway.  Mr. Huelsebusch – The applicant will need certification from an engineer that there is no runoff from the proposed addition or drywells will be required. 

Open to public

Dan Como- Oak Ln – sworn

I have no objection to the application.  It is an improvement to the area. 

Mr. Cartine asked f or clarification of building coverage as it relates to the wood structure.  Mr. Denzler explained that any structure above grade is considered building coverage. 

Closed to public

Motion to approve the application for rear setback and building coverage, addition in accordance with other homes in the area, irregular shaped lot, addition  in the rear of the property, there is no impact to the rear of the property since woods, no negative impact to the neighborhood made by:  Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr.  Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Hug, Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Marinello



Stenographer present

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.   Carried w/notice from 12/3/08                          ACT BY: 2/5/09

Present on behalf of the applicant; Josh Mann, Esq.; Mark Walker, PE; Peter Steck, PP; Craig Peregoy, Traffic Engineer; Larry Kraxberger, Director of Franchise Sales for Kids R Kids International

Josh Mann, Esq. – This is a continued hearing. The property is currently vacant.  We have a planner here this evening.  Will also have operations testimony from corporate office, and have traffic engineer and engineer.

Mr. Walker, PE – Previously sworn

 Changes made to the plans.

                Exhibit marked in:

                                A2 – revised colorized site plan 2/4/09

Page 3


Mr. Walker – Reviewed the site for the Board.  The evergreen buffer has been extended along with board on board fence, eliminates a variance for buffer.  The day care facility and pediatrician office are now one building eliminating another variance.  Increased the setback from the pediatrician office to 33.21’, reduced the degree of variance to the property line.  We met with the County on ingress and egress on site along with the Traffic Safety Officer and Mr. Huelsebusch.  We have created a dedicated left hand turn travelling north.  We lose 4 parking spaces due to changes but a safer access drive.  Currently requesting 96 parking spaces, will construct 83 and propose banking 13 spaces.  According to ITE we only need 65 spaces for this type of use.  There is no issue with sight distance. 

Mr. Walker - The site lighting will be turned off at 7pm but there will be security lighting.  Reviewed conditions in the Board Engineer’s report.  The soil on site was contaminated, there is an approved clean up plan with DEP.  The arsenic does not move within the soil.  We have done post excavation sampling showing some contamination and had to create another plan which was approved by DEP and the additional soil has been removed from site.  We are waiting for the last excavation sampling results.  The area has been filled with clean soil.  We found some hits in the wetland area and we are waiting for wetland permits to be able to remove.  We are confident that there will be no more soil removal required. 

Craig Peregoy, Traffic Engineer - sworn

Changebridge Road is a County road.  Did traffic counts during time periods that a child care center would be open.  Changebridge Road is commuter oriented.  Reviewed the trip generation results for the board for the busiest hour of daycare center along with pediatrician office.  Plan to mirror the left turn lane to Gathering Road on the north side of the road.  The applicant proposes right-turn in and right-turn out from the site. There will not be disruptions to Changebridge Road.  There will be a maximum of 100 vehicles picking up and dropping off.  It takes about 5 minutes to drive in drop off/pick up and leave.  25 parking spaces would work for pick up and drop off and we have 58 additional spaces which would include staff and pediatrician office.  Plenty of parking spaces proposed on site. 

Larry Kraxberger, Director of Franchise Sales for Kids R Kids International.  - sworn

We are located in 13 states. The children would range between 6 weeks to 12 years in age at the day care center.  There are enrichment programs proposed.  There would be summer camps which are trips off site.  The hours of operation would be 6am-6:30pm.   All employees will have background checks.  There are mandatory sanitary requirements for the center.  We do at least 2 surprise inspections on the sites per year.  There are 32 cameras throughout the building. A person cannot enter the lobby without a password.  Once in the lobby, the parent must sign in on a computer with a code, parents must be present.  I have done 78 of these facilities throughout the country.  Only 2 sites have more than 50 parking spaces.  Number of staff should be 45-47 part time staffers, not more than 25 at any one time.  We segregate ages of the children including on the playground. 

Peter Steck, PP – sworn

This is an irregular shaped lot.  The lot is burdened by wetlands.  It is located on a busy road.  The applicant proposes one building with 2 uses; daycare and medical office.  Reviewed the surrounding area for the Board.   The property is split zoned R27D in the front and R27A to the rear.  Daycare centers are a conditional use in R27D zone.  The property is located next to an industrial use.  The variances requested are related to the conditional use standards.  There are setback standards of 33.21’ where 100’ required, parking relief paving 83 where 96 required.  Parking setback 32’ where50’ required to residential zone. Daycare uses (play areas) have to be 100’ from closest residential use.  The office use and day care are conditional uses.  Daycare is an inherently beneficial use. 

                A3 – building envelope exhibit prepared by Dykstra Walker dated 2-4-09

Mr. Steck – Exhibit A3 shows the building envelope for the site and shows that it would not be able to be built upon.  The part of the property to the north has 2 rows of evergreens proposed with a fence in between to protect those properties to the north.  The zoning ordinance recognizes that this site is not suitable for residential use.  Most of the activity of the site is away from the residential use.  The negative requirements can be satisfied without detriment to the zone plan and zoning ordinance. 

Page 4


Mr. Denzler – Will there be testimony on the variances for signs?  Mr. Steck – Free standing signs are not allowed and there is a need for a free standing sign since building setback on the property. The sign is needed for safety reasons to the public.  Mr. Denzler – The wall sign variance for size of letters 18” vs 25” proposed.  Do you need a sign that is bigger than the ordinance allows?  Mr. Steck – Changebridge Road is a very busy road, this is a use that will have different flows of people over time. The letter size is needed for visibility. 

Mr. Denzler- Is there any interaction between the pediatrician office and daycare?  Mr. Kraxberger – No there are security measures so there would be no interaction.

Mr. Denzler – The 2 reserved spaces, I am concerned with the safety of them being located in the entrance aisle.  Mr. Peregoy – Yes, it is safe.  Mr. Denzler – What type of delivery vehicles proposed?  Mr. Peregoy – Box trucks, no tractor trailers.  Mr. Denzler – Suggest backlit signage since it would be softer in a residential area.  Mr. Denzler – We have heard no testimony on the pediatrician office, number of exam rooms, employees, etc?  Mr. Mann – We do not have a tenant at this time, the name may not even be called Montville Pediatrics as shown on the plan, but the applicant will agree to a condition that this will be a pediatrician office only.  Mr. Denzler – Based on size of the development, 3 ½-4 units would be required per COAH.  Mr. Steck – The COAH need is neutral as it relates to the approval of the variances, the applicant, as of now, has to pay the 2 1/2 % fee unless the bill passes to suspend the fee.   Mr. Denzler- The Township is under SCARCE Resource under COAH, the town cannot process building permits.  The Township is preparing a new housing plan.  Suggest a requirement in a Developers Agreement; recommend condition the application subject to DRC recommendation.  Mr. Huelsebusch – The ingress/egress proposed is much better than originally proposed, am satisfied with offsite improvements. 

Mr. Cartine – How many pediatricians, employees, exam rooms?  7 exam rooms means at least 2 doctors.  Mr. Mann – We do not have a user yet so do not know how many doctors or employees.  Dr. Kanoff – Is there cooking on site?  Mr. Kraxberger - There is a full kitchen and full time cook on site.  Dr. Kanoff – Have not heard any testimony on odors, dumpsters, etc?  Mr. Walker – The dumpster is attached to the building and totally enclosed in the front of the building.  Dr. Kanoff – Are dumpsters allowed in the front yard?  Mr. Denzler – It is totally enclosed and looks like the architecture of the building.  Mr. Kraxberger – There will be no problem with odors from the site.  Predict 200 kids per day but not at the same time, in and out during the day.  Meals served would be breakfast, lunch and 2 snacks, convection oven to be used.  Mr. Mann - The applicant will work with the Health Department and the Town as it relates to installation of reasonable apparatus to help reduce odors.  Mr. Hug- Believe we are underestimating the number of parking spaces as it relates to the pediatrician office, doctors, nurses, receptionists, drug reps.  Is the day care center open on Saturday?  Mr. Mann – No; not on Sunday either.  Mr. DiPiazza – I believe it is dangerous for the people coming out of Gathering Road to the left and crossing the cars crossing south to the site. 

Mr. Marinello – Is this one building?  Mr. Denzler – It is considered one building with the enclosed structure.  Mr. Denzler - Eliminating pediatrician office will eliminate setback variance and will help with circulation on site. 

Alfred Ferraro, owner – sworn

Mr. Hug – If the medical office was not approved, would you still build child care center?  Mr. Ferraro – Yes.

 Mr. Driscoll – Concerned with the traffic safety on Changebridge Road from this site.  The pediatrician office hours are off peak from the day care peak hours.  Mr. DiPiazza – Suggest a no drop off sign installed in the bypass lane.  Mr. Walker – Agreed.  Mr. Shirkey – There is no garbage facility for the pediatrician office so is medical waste carted across the parking lot?  Mr. Walker – There is no dumpster the for pediatrician office we would have to either add a dumpster or use garbage cans.  Mr. Hug – Most garbage companies in this area use front loaders so do not see the practicality of a totally enclosed dumpster.  Mr. Walker- The doors are opened and dumpster rolled out.

Open to public - none – closed

Mr. Marinello – Discussion or motion?   Mr. Hug – Not prepared to render a determination without more information on kitchen facility, ingress/egress and doctors office testimony.  Mr. Driscoll and Mr. Buraszeski

Page 5


agreed.  Mr. Cartine – Don’t know what the pediatrician office use has to do with the child care facility.  I need to know what is being cooked there.   Mr. Marinello – How many other day care centers in town have ancillary uses and how does this center compare to other centers in town.  Mr. Cartine- A pediatrician has night hours and it is closer to the residential neighborhood. 

Mr. Mann - Requested that the use of a pediatrician office be approved and than when a tenant is found, condition that the tenant must come back before the Board. Mr. Hug - Will you be amenable to withdrawing the medical office.  Mr. Mann requested a break to discuss with his client. 

5 minute break

Motion to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation made by: Mr. Buraszeski, Second by: Mr. Cartine, Roll call: Unanimous 

Upon return from closed session the Board continued with the JLJ&J hearing.

Mr. Mann – The applicant has agreed to withdraw the pediatrician office and requested a vote on the day care center only.  We will also be willing to have another meeting with the County since Changebridge Road is a county road but at the end of the day it is the County’s  jurisdiction.

Mr. Denzler – Reviewed variances without the medical office for the board.  Variances for 100’ setback where proposed at 50 +/-; wall height for signage, letter height for signage.  Do they need such a large free standing sign? Will work with the Design Review Committee to get to a reasonable sign.  Mr. Mann agreed.  Mr. Denzler – Additional variances: 2 signs per one use, parking setbacks and lack of loading spaces and design waiver for parking space size.  Mr. Denzler – What do you proposed to do with the area that the medical office was in?  Mr. Mann - Will grass in the area where the medical building was proposed. 

Motion to approve the application for day care center, subject to testimony, DRC review, medical office withdrawn, all professional and agency reports, board of health review and approval of food preparation, Mr. Huelsebusch to attend Board of Health meeting to discuss odor/scrubbers made by: Mr. Driscoll; Second by: Mr. Hug; Roll call: Yes - Hug, Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Marinello


Minutes of January 7, 2009 - Eligible: Kanoff, Cartine, Moore, Driscoll, Hug, Buraszeski, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello   

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



Bricker & Assoc. – Trust for: $375, $312.50, $625, $250, $500, $375, $937.50, $875, $1,312.50,

$1,250, $625

                William Denzler & Assoc – Trust for: $31.25, $218.75, $125, $656.25, $187.50, $718.75, $93.75,

$343.75, $281.25, $125, $250

                Pashman Stein – Trust for: $4,087.50


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

Page 6



ZC29-08 Reier – 20 Crest Terr. – B: 125.03, L: 12 – variances for slopes and fence for installation of pool, patio and retaining walls                - Approved – Eligible: Hug, Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Marinello

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




ZC11-08 Tartaglia  – 21 Bogert Rd. – B: 151, L:6 – dismissal

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

ZC34-08 - Feno - B: 93, L: 5 - 10 Hillcrest Rd. – withdrawn

The Board Secretary indicated that the Feno application was withdrawn by the applicant.

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of March 4, 2009.


Linda M. White, Sec.

Last Updated ( Thursday, 05 March 2009 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack