Board of Adjustment Minutes 3-4-09 Print E-mail



MARCH 4, 2009

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.

                                Eric Keller, Traffic Engineer


Stated for the record

The following application was rescheduled to 4/1/09:

ZC10-08 Paradise – 71 Horseneck Rd. – B: 140, L: 1 – front setback variance 13.75’ VS 50’

for addition to single family home on corner lot                                             ACT BY: 5/19/09

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

ZDC28-08 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 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello                                                                                                                                                                ACT BY: 3/5/09

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 sworn

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

Page 2


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 trips. 

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 area.   

Page 3


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? 

Carried to 4/1/09 with extension of time to act to 4/2/09

NOTE: Mr. Hug left the meeting.


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 BY: 3/24/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: Michael Sullivan, Esq.; Eli Youssef, Applicant; Paul Anderson, PP

Mr. 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 variance. 

Paul Anderson, PP –sworn

                A3 – aerial photo of site and surrounding area

                A4 – ground photos

                A5 – ground photos

Mr. 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.

Mr. Denzler – Can you move parking spaces 6 & 7 to the front and move the dumpster to the rear of the building.  Mr. Anderson – 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. 

Open to public – none

Dr. 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

Page 4


 traffic from Red Barn site if that bagel store is busy?  Mr. Sullivan – Will have vehicular traffic testimony at the next hearing. 

Eli Youssef, applicant – sworn

Have done wholesale for Shoprite, used my own personal midsized vehicle.  Do not anticipate any truck.

Open to public - none

Carried 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: Shalin Tang, applicant

Shalin Tang, applicant – Sworn

House 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. 

Open to public – None

Mr. Ackerman – When the board considers this application it should either grant or deny based on C1 or C2.

Mr. Denzler- Do you have to go through the bedroom to access the deck?  Ms. Tang – Yes. 

                A1 – photo of house to neighboring property

Closed to public

Motion 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, DiPiazza, Marinello

Page 5




ZC12-06-27-08 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. 

Costanzo DeRocco, applicant – sworn

Propose 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.

Joseph Mianecki, PE - sworn

                A1 – colorized version of site plan

Mr. 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. 

Open to public - none

Mr. 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. 

Mr. 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.

Motion 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

Motion fails

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

Page 6



ZC11-07 Benerofe, Barry – 10 Glen Terr. – B: 9, L: 4.1 – 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 – 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 not changing.

                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 – closed

Motion 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


Minutes 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

Page 7




                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,

$218.75, $187.50

                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

allowed/rear setback 19’ where 50’ required for addition to single family home – Approved –

Eligible: Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - 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.  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 agreed.

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


ZSPP/FDC/ZMN35-06 Anton Co – B: 181, L: 1 – request for extension of approvals to October 3, 2010

Motion to extend made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

ZSPP/F27-05-31-06 DAB Associates – 43 Bellows Ln. – B: 41, L: 15 – request for extension of approvals of Use Variance/ Site Plan/C variances to March 6, 2010

Motion to grant the extension made by Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Hug, Driscoll, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Page 8




Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of April 1, 2009.


Linda M. White, Sec.

Certified to 12/3/08 hearing

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