Board of Adjustment 5-6-09 minutes Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MAY 6, 2009

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) – Present

Gerard Hug – Entrance Noted

Also Present:        William Denzler, Planner

                                Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

The following application was carried with notice preserved to 6/3/09:

ZC34-04 –32-08 - Stathis - B: 24, L: 39  - 8 Bott Ln. – impervious coverage variance maximum permitted impervious lot coverage is 13,300 sq.ft., a non-conforming 17,047 sq.ft. is existing, and where 17,480 sq.ft. is proposed.  Notice Acceptable                                     ACT BY: 7/11/09

OLD BUSINESS

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 - Carried w/ notice from 1/7/09 & 3/4/09 - Eligible: Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello                                                                                                        ACT BY: 5/7/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: Michael Sullivan, Esq.; Craig Peregoy, Traffic Engineer

Mr. Sullivan – Application is for preliminary and final site plan for construction of bagel store.  Retail/wholesale.  Not a replacement of existing bagel store.  No on-site consumption of food.  Hours of operation Mon-Sat 5 am-6pm and Sun 5am-4pm.  Reviewed the changes to the plan in a letter previously submitted to the Board.  Received agreement between Eli’s Bagel and Transport Parts and service allowing employees to park on their site.  Issue of dumpster location has come up, the traffic expert will discuss that. 

Mr. Peregoy, PE - sworn

Did traffic counts along Rt. 202 and isolated the busiest hours.  Reviewed the trip generation to the Board.  Currently left turn into Red Barn is level of service A and out is level of service C to D.  Because there is one bagel store across the street from another does not mean there will be a double amount of trips to the new site, the traffic will be split between the two stores.  There is adequate parking on site.  If customers perceive a parking problem they will bring their business elsewhere.  The Board Engineer’s traffic counts, though slightly higher, coincide with my counts.  The dumpster is currently proposed to be located on the westerly side of the building but can be moved to the rear of the property if the Board requires.  The dumpster can be emptied outside of business hours.  The County will be resurfacing the roadway and will be painting a 2 way turn lane on Rt. 202.  With the turn lane the level of service will go up.  Nothing bigger than a box truck will be required for deliveries on site and the client has control over times with which the deliveries will be made to the site.  Do not see the need for stacking of cars, believe enough parking on site.  The sight distance is adequate.

Mr. Denzler – Did you take into consideration the bank site.   Mr. Peregoy – Yes and considered the site in my traffic analysis.  Mr. Denzler- The dumpster should be located to the rear of the property.  Mr. Huelsebusch – With regards to the turning radii for garbage truck to turn in the back, can you narrow the loading space for a larger turning radii?   Mr. Peregoy – Can work out length of curb line.

Mr. Moore – Do you lose parking spaces in the back with relocation of the dumpster?  Mr. Peregoy – No.  Mr. Driscoll – Would like to know the counts on Saturday and Sunday, not Friday and Saturday.  Mr. Peregoy – The Saturday numbers are the weekend peak hours.  Mr. Buraszeski – What is the required number of parking spaces?  Mr. Denzler – 48 and 12 are proposed.  Mr. Buraszeski – Is there a rear entrance?  Mr. Peregoy – Yes.  Mr. Marinello – How will this site impact the traffic being able to get down the street on a Saturday?  Mr. Peregoy – It depends on lanes, traffic patterns, etc., but this site will be split with the use across the street so should decrease traffic.  Mr. Ackerman – He is not trying to split his business?  Mr. Peregoy – He is increasing his use with the wholesale aspect but the customer base will be split between sites.  Mr. Ackerman – He will have a cooking facility in the basement and a storage area on the 2nd floor.  This is an expanded use than what exists so you can’t relate it as apples to apples.  Mr. Peregoy – The site alone can handle the traffic, regardless of the other bagel shop.  Mr. Sullivan – This site is to compliment the other site no mirror image it.  Mr. Ackerman – Can you better define the packaged goods he will sell?  Mr. Sullivan – Bagels, coffee and pre-packaged deli sandwiches, maybe some fruit, but no dinners.

Open to public – none

Mr. Sullivan summed up testimony.  Eliminated 2nd floor residential use.  Got a parking agreement from neighboring site to reduce parking demand.    Irregularly shaped lot.  Unique site.  The building will be aesthetically pleasing.  Building will comply with all setback requirements.   Appropriate amount of parking for the proposed use.  Site is suited for the proposed use.  Agreed to relocate the dumpster.

Closed to public.

Mr. Marinello – 12 parking spaces seems ridiculous when the ordinance requires 48.  The applicant has gotten an easement for employee parking but concerned with parking on site.  Felt the residential unit was a good idea.  Don’t think this property will ever be industrial but need to be convinced that there is something special for this site to be the first retail use along this roadway.   Mr. DiPiazza – Very concerned with the parking.  Concerned that when lease is up at Red Barn that site will close down and then this site will be over burdened with lack of parking.  Mr. Driscoll – Is there someway to get more parking spaces?  Mr. Huelsebusch – They can probably get 3 or 4 more spaces but would require an impervious coverage variance. 

Mr. Sullivan – Indicated that the Board could vote on the use, bifurcate the site plan and we can come back with maximizing the parking.  Mr. Ackerman – All the testimony is in on site plan and it is concluded.  Mr. Sullivan – We are willing to defer the site plan aspect and come back.  Mr. Ackerman – The board could approve something lesser and the applicant can come back with an amended site plan.   Mr. Buraszeski – How do we approved a use if we don’t know if there is a detriment to the public good.  Concerned with the storage space on the 2nd floor that only had access from an outdoor staircase. 

Motion to approve the retail use variance and variance for parking for 15 spaces instead of 12 where 48 is required and denial of the site plan, all other waivers and exceptions are also denied made by: Kanoff; Second by: Moore; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Moore,  Marinello; No – Driscoll & DiPiazza

*NOTE: Mr. Hug enters

TRACK 2

NEW BUSINESS

ZC2-09 – Lee, Seungja - B: 14, L: 3 - 24 Rockledge Rd. – Building coverage of 2,906 s.f. where

2,761 s.f. allowed/impervious coverage of 5,779 s.f. where 5,522 s.f. for sun room addition 

Notice Acceptable                                                                    ACT BY: 7/11/09

 

Present on behalf of the applicant: Stephanie Lee, applicant

Ms. Lee – sworn

Currently over impervious coverage and building coverage.  The front section of our house is supported by columns and is not on the ground.  Currently have small kitchen/dining room.  Difficult for 3 women to cook in small area and have no room for company to eat.

Exhibits marked in

                A1-4 – Photos of existing house and property

The Sunroom is proposed to go on top of existing deck.  Mr. Denzler - Building coverage of 2,906 s.f. where 2,761 s.f. allowed; impervious coverage of 5,779 s.f. where 5,522 s.f. for sun room addition.  It is already non-conforming.  No additional disturbance to site.   Mr. Denzler – Is there any other location on site for the addition?  Ms. Lee – No.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Suggested a condition that construction traffic only go to the right out of the property.    Ms. Lee – Agreed.  Mr. Huelsebusch – In my opinion there will be no additional runoff. 

Open to public – none – closed

Dr. Kanoff – This is essentially a pre-existing, non-conforming condition.  Mr. Marinello – Requested the applicant explain the status of the adjacent neighbors.  Ms. Lee – Behind us is woods, neighbor to right 80’ away and other neighbor down the hill.  Mr. Cartine – No increase in building coverage.

Motion to approve, pre-existing non-conformity, there will be no increase in runoff, no detriment to neighbors made by: Kanoff; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore Marinello

TRACK 3

ZC24-08 Potomac Homes – 55 River Rd. – B: 52, L: 64 - variances building coverage and impervious coverage - construction of an exterior stairwell to existing structure Notice Acceptable                            ACT BY: 7/18/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: Andrew Schildener, Esq.; Benjamin Pearce, President of Potomac Homes; Jeffery McEntee, AIA

Mr. Schildener – Requesting a variance for addition to residential group home.  Wish to install a covered front porch and stairwell to existing structure for a chairlift for the residents to go upstairs. 

Mr. Pearce – Reviewed the property as a class C boarding home for 15 Alzheimer’s/dementia patients.  We have 12 homes in the state of New Jersey.  It is a 5,600 s.f. building with 8 units upstairs and 7 units downstairs.  24 hour staffing with certified home health care aids, a manager and a nurse.  A maximum number of employees on site at any one time are 4.  A chair lift is safe, cost effective and the residents are not enclosed in an elevator type situation which makes them very nervous.  The residents generally only go upstairs at night.  There are 6 parking spaces on site and that will not be changed with the proposed plan.  Currently the people on the 2nd floor are ambulatory but will not remain that way.  Concerned with people going up and down stairs safely so the chairlift will be very effective.  There will be no change to the number of residents currently on site. 

Jeffery McEntee, AIA – sworn

2 story wood framed building on a concrete slab.   There are 2 sets of stairs in the existing building.  Propose a new stairwell at the north side to install a chairlift.  No change to usage of the site or the bedrooms that exist.  Covered porch proposed for keeping residents and visitors out of the weather.  The existing set of stairs inside the building is not wide enough to install a chairlift. 

Open to public – none

Mr. Denzler – 2,700 s.f. building coverage permitted 2,942 s.f. proposed; impervious coverage of 6,000 sf. proposed where 5,401 is proposed.    Huelsebusch – There is a design waiver required for parking spaces at 0’ vs 10’ to the building, recommend the overflow shown on the plan directed back to an area that will not cause erosion.  

Mr. Marinello – There is no planning testimony, do you have enough information to make a decision on this application?  Mr. Denzler – There is no detriment to zone plan or ordinance or neighboring properties.  Mr. Cartine – Did this require variances when it was built?  Mr. Denzler – Impervious coverage was a variance; building coverage is currently conforming.  Mr. Hug – If they didn’t’ have the porch it would decrease the building coverage.  Mr. Denzler – Yes, but it is simply aesthetic.  Mr. McEntee – It is for protection from the weather and aesthetics.

Closed to public

Motion to approve the application due to being less than 10% building coverage requested; not for living space just for access; aesthetics of the building is good; institutional facility looks like a residence; no detriment to public good, benefits outweigh any possible detriments made by: Cartine; Second by: Driscoll
Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Marinello

TRACK 4

ZC8-09 Fein, Jason – 11 Margaret Dr. – B: 171. L: 5 – variance for minimum lot size of 10,500

s.f. where 15,000 s.f. required (no change); side yard setback of 7.9’ (no change); side yard setback of 9’6”  (only adding volume to 2nd floor) where 12’ required; combined sides 17.5’ where 35 Required (no change)   Notice Acceptable                           ACT BY: 7/18/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: Jason Fein, applicant

Mr. Fein – sworn

Would like to construct an addition to single family home.  Currently have only 2 bedrooms in the house, our family is increasing.  Propose 3 additional bedrooms on the 2nd floor.  Tried to locate it in a different area and would not work.  Mr. Denzler – Is the deck shown on the plan being applied for?  Mr. Fein – No.  Mr. Denzler - Variance for minimum lot size of 10,500 s.f. where 15,000 s.f. required (no change); side yard setback of 7.9’ (no change); side yard setback of 9’6” (only adding volume to 2nd floor) where 12’ required; combined sides 17.5’ where 35’ required (no change).  Is the addition consistent with the neighborhood?  Mr. Fein – Yes there are several large homes in the area.  Mr. Huelsebusch – There is a slight increase in the impervious coverage.  Mr. Fein – We have a patio in the rear where the addition willbe going over so there is no increase in runoff.  Mr. Huelsebusch – If there is an increase in impervious coverage then a certification may be required from an engineer that there will be no further runoff.

Open to public – none – closed

Mr. Buraszeski – How did you start to build before variance?  Mr. Fein – The builder went ahead and built from the 1st set of drawings not the 2nd set so everything is on hold until we go through this process.  Mr. Buraszeski – It is compatible to the other homes in the neighborhood.  Mr. Hug – There has been more work done on the home in the last month but to keep the current state of the building from being damaged.  

Motion to approve the application with certification from an engineer indicating there is no additional runoff from construction made by: Driscoll; Second by: Moore; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Marinello

MINUTES:

Minutes of April 1, 2009 - Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

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

INVOICES:

Pashman Stein – Litigation for: $5,881.21; $256; $1,151.34; $4,589.08; $911.92; O/E for: $256.25

Bricker & Assoc. – Trust for: $250, $312.50, $312.50, $875, $312.50, $250, $125, $375, $562.50

Johnson, Murphy – Trust for: $16

William Denzler & Assoc – O/E for: $31.25; Trust for: $187.50, $218.75, $31.25, $343.75, $250,

$250, $31.25, $62.50, $437.50, $218.75               

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

RESOLUTIONS

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 –Approved – Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, Moore, Marinello

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

ZC30-06 Ambrose - B: 106, L: 20 – 30 Barney Rd – request for extension of approvals to 3/5/10 – Granted - 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

ZC2-07 Bott, Marilyn – 122 Jacksonville Rd. – B: 28, L: 13 – request for extension of approvals to 6/6/10 – Granted   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


CORRESPONDENCE

ZC34-06 Voss - B: 125.2, L: 17 – 2 Craig Ct. – request for extension of approvals for 6 months to January 5, 2010

Mr. Denzler – There has been no change to the neighborhood or the zoning. 

Motion to grant a 6 month extension to January 5, 2010 made by: Driscoll; Second by: Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes – Hug, Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Marinello

OTHER BUSINESS

NONE

Motion to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation made by: Driscoll; Second by: Buraszeski; Roll call: Unanimous

Upon return from closed session and there being no further business the Board unanimously adjourned.

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of June 3, 2009.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.


Last Updated ( Thursday, 02 July 2009 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack