ZONING BOARD OF
MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 4, 2009
Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated for the record.
Moore – Present Thomas
Buraszeski – Present
Donald Kanoff – Present James
Marinello – Present
Deane Driscoll – Present Carl DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Present
Cartine– Present Kenneth Shirkey
(Alt #2) – Present
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
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
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
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
setback 19’ where 50’ required for addition to single family home– Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 5/5/09
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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 –
Changes made to the plans.
Exhibit marked in:
– revised colorized site plan 2/4/09
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
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
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.
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
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
Open to public - none –
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
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
of January 7, 2009 - Eligible: Kanoff, Cartine, Moore, Driscoll, Hug, Buraszeski, DiPiazza,
Motion to adopt made by: Mr.
Driscoll, Second by: Mr. Hug. Roll call: Yes- Kanoff, Cartine, Moore, Driscoll,
DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello; Abstain – Hug & Buraszeski
& Assoc. – Trust for: $375, $312.50, $625, $250, $500, $375, $937.50, $875,
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
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,
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by:
Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Hug, Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore,
ZC11-08 Tartaglia – 21
Bogert Rd. – B: 151, L:6 – dismissal
to dismiss without prejudice made by: Driscoll; Second by: Buraszeski; Roll
call: - Yes - Hug, Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore,
ZC34-08 - Feno - B: 93, L: 5 - 10 Hillcrest Rd.
The Board Secretary indicated
that the Feno application was withdrawn by the applicant.
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of March 4, 2009.
Linda M. White,