ZONING BOARD OF
MARCH 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.
Eric Keller, Traffic Engineer
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
The following application was
rescheduled to 4/1/09:
– 71 Horseneck Rd. – B: 140, L: 1 – front
setback variance 13.75’ VS 50’
to single family home on corner lot ACT
following application was carried with notice to 4/1/09:
Holiday at Montville
– 29 Vreeland Ave.– B: 52.03, L: 19 – variances
31 adult single family housing units –
Notice Acceptable TENTATIVE
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, 12/3/08, & 1/7/09 –
Kanoff, Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey,
Present on behalf of the
applicant: James Kelly, Esq., Kevin
Boswell, PE, Berge Tombalakian, Traffic Engineer
Mr. Kelly – Will have
testimony on questions from the last meeting by Kevin
Boswell and the Traffic Engineer.
Mr. Boswell – Previously
Question regarding all
buildings within 800’ of a river should be open space. The area within 800’ of the Passaic River
is proposed to be open space except when you take a diagonal measurement it is
technically closer. We have a LOI from
DEP that establishes 150’ buffers and we submit that as it relates to the
setback from the river, there is nothing in the DEP regulations that would
advocate such a setback. Were requested
to provide zoning tables for the
As of Right Plan, was
submitted same to the Land Use Office and the Board Professionals. Requested to know what the view would be from
the residents on Maple Ave.
Exhibit – A9 – photos of view from Maple Ave. and sightline plan
Mr. Boswell - The closest
residential property is part of this application so we took the next nearest
property into consideration. There is an
8’ high opaque fence with trees behind the fence which will be changed to an 8’
tree barrier. The retail aspect of the
application will not be seen by this residence. The As of Right Hotel Plan shows
that 17’ of the hotel would be seen by the residence. The lighting on site would be 15’ in height,
the lights would be lower than the tree heights and no halo lighting will be
seen. The cut off from any light fixture
is 100’ away and we are more than 350’ from nearest residence.
Berge Tombalakian, Traffic
Engineer – sworn
Did traffic study for the
application. We did a trip generation
for the Lowe’s application and for the As of Right Concept Plans. There would be 252 vehicles during am peak
hour total in and out; afternoon peak hours roughly 300 in and out; 1,152
vehicles during Saturday peak hours total in and out. For the concept plans; the
hotel/restaurant/retail 432 am peak; 977 pm peak ; 1,328 Saturday peak
hours. The Lowe’s application has fewer
Mr. Tombalakian - Currently
all access to the site is Bloomfield
Ave; proposed application will use Bloomfield Ave and
Rt. 46 for access. 50% of site traffic
will enter the site from Rt. 46; 40% will come from Bloomfield Ave from Hook Mountain Road; the remaining 10% from
Chapin Road. The exiting traffic will be primarily to Rt.
46. One strategy to prevent site traffic from local residential streets would
be to cul-de-sac Maple Ave,
the applicant will give easement rights to the Township. Another strategy would be to channelize the traffic
to Bloomfield Ave
onto Chapin Road
onto Route 46. Another option would be
if the Township Committee did not like cul-de-sac idea, the applicant would
work with the Township Committee on an ordinance for no right turn to Maple Ave,
but requires additional enforcement by the Police Department. The applicant could put a cul-de-sac at
the other end of Maple Ave
by Rt. 80 but the Township Committee would have to consider it and it would
require DEP approvals.
Mr. Tombalakian – There are 10-20
trucks entering and exiting the site a day currently with no restriction on
travelled way. We propose 12-15 tractor
trailers per day but Lowe’s has contractual control over the routing of the
trucks to the site. They will direct
their trucks to use Rt. 46W to the site or Rt.46 E to Clinton Road to the site. There are smaller trucks to the site that
Lowe’s does not have control over (ie pallet pickup, waste pickup, UPS
etc). Do not see any problems with Mr.
Keller’s report and we will comply with his memo.
Mr. Keller – Trip
distribution, where in your analysis are other Lowe’s stores? Mr. Tombalakian – We looked at the nearest
stores for Lowe’s and Home Depot and looked at stores within a reasonable area
and prepared our distribution by where the people would be coming from. Mr. Keller – If more people came in Van
Winkle what would that do the operation of the intersection of Chapin with
traffic coming from the West. Mr. Tombalakian
– Part of the channelization of that intersection would force westbound traffic
onto Chapin Road
to Rt. 46. That amount of volume is not
significant enough to degrade the level of service. Mr. Keller – Was pass by trips included in
the study? Mr. Tombalakian - We took the
conservative approach that the pass by trips would not be utilized. Mr. Keller – Did you do a study of trip
generation for Maple Ave
in your study? Mr. Tombalakian –
No. Mr. Keller – Is there adequate site
distance from traffic leaving site on Rt. 46?
Mr. Tombalakian – We are working with DOT on that issue. Mr. Keller – There are technical information
required from our review memo that needs to be addressed.
Mr. Huelsebusch – We had a
meeting and suggested that Chapin
Rd. be one way and Van Winkle Rd. be the access to
Rt. 46. Mr. Tombalakian – We do not have
the authority to make Chapin Rd a one way street but we can work with the
Township on that issue but it may effect the office buildings in that
Mr. Moore – Can you limit access from Bloomfield Ave by
the retail store as one way? Mr.
Tombalakian – Have not reviewed that option.
Mr. Hug – Essex
County traffic will be
coming down Bloomfield Ave
to Chapin Rd. Dr. Kanoff – Need more testimony on exiting
on Rt. 46, will you be widening road?
to 4/1/09 with extension of time to act to 4/2/09
NOTE: Mr. Hug left the
ZSPP/FD23-08 Youssef, Eli–
437 Main Rd. – B: 81, L: 2 - Prel/Final Site Plan and Use variance to allow
development of a 2-story building consisting of a retail bagel shop and a two
bedroom residential apartment - Carried w/ notice from 1/7/09 - Eligible:
Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello ACT
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Michael Sullivan, Esq.; Eli Youssef, Applicant; Paul Anderson, PP
Sullivan – Application is retail sale of packaged and prepared foods with a
wholesale section for sales to schools.
No onsite consumption of food.
2-4 employees on site at any one time.
Changes to site plan: eliminated 2nd floor apartment area to
be used as storage only; overhang on westerly side of building now complies
with ordinance; minor drainage and landscaping changes. Use variance, parking variance, sign
Anderson, PP –sworn
A3 – aerial photo of site and
A4 – ground photos
A5 – ground photos
Anderson – Reviewed the neighboring properties using A3 and A4 for the
Board. The zone requires 80,000 s.f.
area where the lot is 23,000+ s.f. The
building conforms to the requirements of the zone. The application promotes the general welfare
to the community. It is a small
building. Taking a vacant building and
making it a nicer looking building.
Redevelopment of an existing site.
Suitable site for this use. No
detriment to public good or public safety.
Adequate sight distance. Use will
fit in with the neighborhood. No
substantial impact to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. Parking variance 48 spaces required 12 proposed;
due to shape of lot impossible to comply with required parking. Sign variance for free standing sign,
necessary for identification of the site.
No detriment, appropriately sized sign.
Design waivers requested are appropriate requests due to narrowness of
the lot. Dumpster location waiver;
located on south side of building, not against building and not in rear yard
and faces the street. Location for the
dumpster is a good location because it can be easily accessed by a garbage
truck. The applicant will pay fees to
meet affordable housing requirements.
Denzler – Can you move parking spaces 6 & 7 to the front and move the
dumpster to the rear of the building.
– Not sure a truck can make the turn in the rear of the building. Mr. Denzler – Are there other retail stores
along the south side of this property?
Mr. Anderson – No. Mr. Denzler –
Concerned with traffic movements in and out.
Parking for retail use is higher than professional office use and this
site was zoned for office use.
to public – none
Kanoff – Similar to bagel place across the street? Mr. Sullivan – Different because of wholesale
aspect. Mr. Buraszeski – Would you
consider change of amount of storage on site?
Attic area is only accessed by outdoor staircase. Mr. Sullivan – We could do flat roof but this
design approved by the Design Review Committee so this best plan. Mr. Driscoll – Are there plan for
tables? Mr. Sullivan – No. Mr. Driscoll – How do you control foot
traffic from Red Barn site if that bagel store
is busy? Mr. Sullivan – Will have
vehicular traffic testimony at the next hearing.
Youssef, applicant – sworn
done wholesale for Shoprite, used my own personal midsized vehicle. Do not anticipate any truck.
to public - none
with notice to 5/6/09 extension of time to act to 5/7/09
ZC31-08 Tang, Shalin – 18 Alpine Rd. – B: 111, L: 6 – addition to single
family home side yard setback of 13.67’ where 15’ required – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 4/11/09
Present on behalf of the applicant:
Tang, applicant – Sworn
is a one bedroom house. I am a single
mother and son needs his own room.
Enclosed existing deck for his bedroom.
Side setback 13.67’ where 15’ is required. Mr. Denzler – The bedroom expansion was done
without permits. The addition could have
been built conforming. The combined side
setbacks meet the ordinance by inches. The
lot is not narrow. What is the impact to
neighboring property? Ms. Tang – There
are no windows open to that side so minimum impact to neighbor. Mr. Marinello –When was the house built? Ms. Tang – 1940. Mr. Denzler – Has the Township been in to do
inspections on footings? Ms. Tang – Not
yet. Mr. Denzler- the Building Department
has not reviewed this so there may be a way to do the addition to meet the setback. Mr. Denzler – Is there underground fuel tanks
on the property? Ms. Tang – No. Mr. Huelsebusch – There is no turnaround
area, no place on site to put one, design exception required. Application would have to be subject to
receiving permits by the Building Department.
Grading plan will be required to be submitted with the Engineering Department.
to public – None
Ackerman – When the board considers this application it should either grant or
deny based on C1 or C2.
Denzler- Do you have to go through the bedroom to access the deck? Ms. Tang – Yes.
A1 – photo of house to
to approve the variance, inspection by building department required, proper
permits to be acquired, de minious variance, befits substantially outweigh detriments,
the addition was built over existing deck, waiver from turnaround requirement
made by: Mr. Moore; Second by: Mr. Cartine; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore,
DeRocco – 20 Horseneck Rd.–
B: 125.06, L:9 – variances for minimum lot area/side setback/front
setback/combine sides/building coverage for front porch and garage addition – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 5/19/09
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Geoff Evans, Esq.; Joseph Mianecki, PE; Costanzo DeRocco, applicant
Mr. Evans – Front porch and
garage addition. Variances for minimum lot
area; side setback; front setback; combine sides; building coverage for front
porch and garage addition. Propose a right-of-way
dedication which increases the request for minimum lot size.
DeRocco, applicant – sworn
front porch and garage addition.
Currently parking vehicles outside and would like to park inside a
garage. Tried to purchase property from
neighbor but did not sell and does not have problem with garage addition.
Mianecki, PE - sworn
A1 – colorized version of site
Mianecki – Dedication of 3,265 s.f. right-of-way to the Township of Montville. Driveway access will be unchanged. R-27A zone.
Lot size after dedication will be
21,572 s.f. Front setback currently 91’;
due to right-of-way dedication 49.4’ where 50’ required; side setback 5.4’ from
garage where 20’ required; combined sides of 22.1’ where 42.9’ required;
building coverage of 2,755 s.f. where 2,729 s.f. allowed. Rear of property has steep slopes. Mr.
Denzler – Can you put a detached garage in the rear? Mr. Mianecki – May be able to but would
require variance for 8’ from principal building where 10’ required. Mr. Denzler – This is a smaller lot for this
area; the dwelling is set back further than neighboring properties. Concerned with side setback and combined sides’
request. Mr. Huelsebusch – Are you still
requesting exception from drywell? Mr.
Mianecki – No.
to public - none
Cartine – Do you believe that if the garage was in the rear of the property
would be a better plan? Mr. Denzler –
Yes. Mr. Mianecki – If we put the garage
in the rear of the property, would have to paver the entire driveway, cannot
shift driveway access point. Mr. Denzler
– The other option would be a 2 car garage end to end and meet the side setback
attached to the house. Mr. Mianecki – The
proposed garage blocks head lights to the neighboring property.
Derocco – Neighbors property is elevated, the proposed garage faces his garage
and the only window on that side is in his garage. Mr. Marinello –There are alternatives.
to approve the application due to location of lot, position of house, best
design made by: Mr. Moore; Second by: Mr. DiPiazza; Roll call: Yes – Kanoff; Moore, DiPiazza; No - Cartine, , Buraszeski, Driscoll, Marinello
Mr. Ackerman – The Board can
consider granting something less so the applicant does not have to come back.
Mr. Mianecki – Can redesign
to meet 10’ side setback
Motion to approve the request
for everything previously applied for but the side setback to be 10’ which will
reduce the combined side yards also made by: Mr. Moore; Second by: Mr. Driscoll;
Roll call: Yes - Cartine Kanoff Buraszeski,
Driscoll Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
ZC11-07 Benerofe, Barry – 10 Glen Terr. – B: 9, L: 4.1 – side setback 24.9’
vs 40’/maximum impervious coverage 10,189 s.f. (10,540 existing) vs 8,672 s.f.
allowed for addition to single family home – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 6/11/09
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Seth Leib, AIA; Michelle Benerofe, Applicant
Ms. Benerofe – sworn
We are requesting variances
from side setback and maximum impervious coverage for an addition to a single
family home. Looking to enclose the existing
deck, this is rotting and exists in the setback, into indoor livable space.
Seth Leib, AIA - sworn
The property is in the R-120
zone. Lot size exists non-conforming; side
setback existing non-conforming; coverage existing non-conformity.
A1 – photo board of photos previously submitted
A2 – colorized floor plan
A3 – colorized version of A1 in packages
Mr. Leib – Enclosing porch
area and putting in foundation since on pillars currently. Trying to build within the existing
footprint. We were not changing the
impervious coverage previously but will reduce some driveway 351 s.f.; still
are over impervious but reduced by 351 s.f..
The addition is only 117 s.f. over the existing coverage. Requesting variances from side setback 24.9’
(existing and proposed) vs 40’; maximum impervious coverage 10,189 s.f. (10,540
existing) vs 8,672 s.f. allowed for addition to single family home. The look from the left side of the house is
A4 – before and after elevations
Mr. Leib – The only changes
to the façade is windows are added and foundation is put in. No detriment to public good, streetscape or
zoning ordinance. No detriment to
surrounding properties. There is a large
distance between this addition and the next door neighbor.
Mr. Denzler – There was
testimony that the excessive lot coverage was done by permit previously. Mr. Lieb – Yes, they have applied over the
years for additions as well as pool and patio/walkways. Mr. Denzler – How deep is the portion of the
house is non-conforming? Mr. Lieb –
Approximately 31’; 14’ of which is encroaching.
Open to public – none –
to approve the application, enclosing existing portion of home, reducing
existing impervious coverage, not adding to it, no detriment to neighboring
properties made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call:
Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
of February 4, 2009 - Eligible: Hug, Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll,
Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Mr.
Driscoll, Second by: Mr. Buraszeski. Roll call: Yes- Kanoff, Cartine, Moore,
Driscoll, Buraszeski, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
Pashman Stein – O/E for: $318.75
Bricker & Assoc – Trust for: $1,500, $375, $375,
$625, $250, $375, $625, $375, $375, $2,250, $375, $250
William Denzler & Assoc. – Trust for: $31.25,
$218.75, $375, $187.50, $187.50, $218.75, $125, $31.25,
Omland Engineering – Trust for: $405
Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $165
Motion to approve made by:
Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Driscoll, Roll call: Unanimous
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 – Approved –
Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by:
Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore,
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. Approval – Eligible:
Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Marinello
Mr. Ackerman – Counsel for the applicant requested 2
changes to the resolution: would like to increase hours of operation 6am
to7:30pm in case late pick up of children; would like to change the 2nd
part of condition 17 to either “and
shall address COAH requirements in a Developers Agreement; or “all COAH rules
and regulations at the time of building permit will be met by the applicant”.
Board consensus: ok to change “shall address COAH
requirements in a Developers Agreement”.
Mr. Marinello – There was testimony that the hours of operation were to
be until 6:30pm; change to “ordinary hours of operation until 6:30pm”, board
Motion to adopt as amended made by: Buraszeski; Second
by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore,
Anton Co – B: 181, L: 1 – request for extension of approvals to October 3, 2010
to extend made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore,
DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
Associates – 43 Bellows Ln.
– B: 41, L: 15 – request for extension of approvals of Use Variance/ Site
Plan/C variances to March 6, 2010
to grant the extension made by Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Hug,
Driscoll, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of April 1, 2009.
Linda M. White,
Certified to 12/3/08 hearing