|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
JUNE 3, 2009
Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated for the record.
ROLL CALL:
Richard
Moore – Absent Thomas
Buraszeski – Present
Donald Kanoff – Present James
Marinello – Present
Deane Driscoll – Present Carl DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Present
Maury
Cartine– entrance noted 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
NOTE: Mr. Cartine enters
The
following application was carried with notice preserved to 7/1/09:
ZDC28-08
Holiday at Montville
– 29 Vreeland Ave.– B: 52.03, L: 19 – variances
31 adult single family housing units –
carried with notice from 4-1-09 ACT BY: 7/14/09
OLD BUSINESS
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, 3/4/09, &
4/1/09 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey,
Marinello ACT
BY: 6/4/09
Present on behalf of the
applicant: James Kelly, Esq., Kevin
Boswell, PE; Paul Phillips, PP
Mr. Kelly – We have the
project planner this evening then a brief summary.
Paul Phillips, PP – sworn
Have reviewed the plans,
inspected the property, reviewed the ordinance and master plan and have
reviewed the board professional reports.
The property is located in the B-6 zone, which was a recently created
zone in 2007. The zone specifically
mandates a hotel in this zone which is the reason for the D variance. A portion of the tract is within 800’ of the
floodplain area and is not being preserved to the 800’ so variance
required. Other bulk variances are being
sought on this application.
Mr. Phillips - This is a
prime redevelopment tract but not ideal for an office redevelopment site. Hotels are not typically part of retail
development projects. Corporate type
hotels are generated by a growing economy.
There is synergy between hotels and corporate office sites but there is
not synergy between retail development and hotel use.
Mr. Phillips - The other
major use permitted by the B-6 zoning is age restricted housing. This segment
of the housing market is saturated.
Developers with approvals are seeking to have these type of restrictions
lifted. There is a variance required for
single retail user with a footprint of more than 40,000 s.f. You typically find that smaller retail users
are the ones closing down not the larger retail users. This is a large site, the users are still
active in the market, and they can anchor a large project as envisioned in a
large zone. It has highway access, can
provide suitable buffers to the Passaic
River and residential
neighbors bordering the property. This
user can take on the environmental cleanup of the site. The benefits outweigh the detriments. It would promote the public welfare. It would provide a more desirable visual
environment than what exists. This
project would have more restrictive hours of operation; would have less of a
visual impact and less sewer and water demands than a hotel. The lighting stanchions would be kept at 15’
to have less of an impact on surrounding properties. The standard that 800’ from the Passaic River must be preserved is onerous. The applicant will preserve 600+ from the Passaic River.
There will be no impact floodplain or wetlands. Variance required from this standard. There was a building height variance
requested but do not believe we need that any longer. It was for the parapet and there is an
exception to that standard for decorative features. Setback relief required; trying to locate the
building farthest from the residential properties. Setback a street line required. The internal roadway setback is short by a
few feet, and is a de minimus variance.
Parking rows, don’t have an island for every 20 spaces. Parking area will have a lot more green
space. Building design standards, 100’
building offsets. Building will have
cuts, ornamental features, built for downtown type area; will break up mass of
façade. The applicant is providing
substantial additional green space. Wall
height variance requested of 20’ proposed vs. 6’ allowed based on the Route 46
widening and the new access to the site.
Signage variances required. There
were no specific sign regulations in place when they adopted this zone. Freestanding sign proposed at site
entrance. 3 signs on Lowe’s building
proposed, not obtrusive, setback from the public view; 2 tenant signs proposed
for smaller retail building.
Mr. Denzler – There is not a
need for the building height variance.
Use variance required because hotel not associated with retail element
on this site. Doesn’t this development
present a 3rd defacto for the zoning on this site? The bulk variances are resulting from the
proposed use of the property. Mr.
Phillips – No, believe it is based on the open space requirement etc. Believe that there would be variances
required even if a hotel was proposed.
The applicant does not have a FAR variance. They are going to put in a cul-de-sac on Maple Avenue and
develop further away from the residential area.
Mr. Denzler – Affordable housing obligation? Mr. Phillips – The applicant would be subject
to the 2 ½% non-residential fees.
Open to public
Henry Bernstein - sworn
I am curious about the tax
revenues to the township. I am curious about the employment opportunities. Mr. Ackerman – The board cannot decide an
application based on tax revenue and the applicant has alluded to employment
opportunities for the area.
David Rosania – 78 Old Bloomfield Ave.
– sworn
As a business owner in the
area I am in favor of the application.
Keith Olsen – previously
sworn
I understand that Lowes will
put a cul-de-sac on Maple. The issue is
the cut through people use through John
Street. I would
like something done to mitigate the cut through traffic to Route 80. Mr. Marinello – It is outside the applicant’s
jurisdiction since he does not own the land.
Mr. Ackerman – Even the cul-de-sac proposal is subject to approval by the
Township Committee. Mr. Olsen – What
will happen to the property that has the house proposed to be demolished. Mr. Kelly – The existing parking area outside
the site would be part of the cul-de-sac, trees will be planted where the house
is proposed to be removed. Mr. Olsen – Will
the signs on the smaller retail building face the residences? Mr. Phillips – No they will face the
highway.
Sylvia Wallach – previously
sworn
I am concerned with the cut
through traffic down John Street.
Art Weber – previously sworn
O-1 – Letter of 6/20/05 addressed to NJDOT by Mayor
Marie Cetrulo
Mr. Weber – The county
doesn’t care about what is put in there, the cul-de-sac can be put in there but
it is up to the Township Committee. If
this goes through we would like to see the cul-de-sac or just make John Street and Mary Drive one-way.
Michael McCully – previously
sworn
It is important to put in the
cul-de-sac to make the neighborhood safer.
Michael Romanelli – sworn
I am in support of the Lowe’s
application; it would be a great addition to the area.
Sharon Van Duyne, Old Bloomfield Ave.
– sworn
I am in favor of the Lowe’s
application.
Mr Cartine – We make
decisions that affect the township forever, if this user was to fold what would
you see happening in the future. Mr.
Phillips – It would be put on the market, there would be some non-residential
users that could use the site, and it would be converted to other retail
use. The property owner would re-tenant
the building.
Mr. Hug – Who is the ultimate
owner of the property? Mr. Kelly – The
proposal is for the 2 buildings to be leased by the current property
owner. Mr. Hug – We talk about truck
delivery, garbage pick up, how many tenants; I would like to see an agreement
between Lowes and the property owner for me to be comfortable in voting on this
application. I would like to see in
writing that Lowes is the anchor and their lease agreements. Mr. Marinello – Lowes does not have control
over deliveries, etc for the 2nd building. Mr. Buraszeski – Any tenant that moves into
that building must come back before one of the boards for tenancy
approvals. Mr. Ackerman – Can you
provide a contractual agreement for Lowes.
Mr. Hug – Would the applicant proceed on the project without the 2nd
building. Mr. Kelly – No, this is a
difficult site to redevelop and the cost of same warrants this type of
development. Mr. Hug – If the 2nd
building was smaller, 30,000 as opposed to 40,000, would that relieve some of
the variances requested? Mr. Phillips –
No, I don’t think the 2nd building is too intense for this
site. The setbacks are providing for
keeping the buildings away from the residential properties and the applicant is
keeping a large amount of open space on the site. Mr. Hug – Will the applicant agree that there
would not be more than 2 tenants in the 2nd building. Mr. Kelly – I believe the applicant would
like to keep 3, since that number is real to the market.
Mr. Buraszeski – The hours of
operation are to be Mon-Sat 6am to 10pm and sun 7am-6pm? Mr. Kelly – Yes. Mr. Shirkey – The 18’ structural wall, can it
be staged with plantings? Mr. Boswell – There
is a terracing within it, we are trying to open up the area for the stormwater
management basin, the areas are to be planted with large trees to help cover
that wall. Mr. Kelly – Mr. Bolger
indicates that he may have misspoken at the previous hearing; the regular hours
of operation for Sunday are 7am to 8pm and would like to change that for the
record.
Mr. Kelly – Summed up
testimony for the Board. The
redevelopment of the site is to remove an undesirable use of the property. 22 acres to be designated open space. Buffering proposed between site and
residential neighborhood. The proposal
is smaller in mass than if a hotel would be proposed. Impervious area would be more if hotel
proposed, parking less than if hotel proposed, and building height lower than
hotel, and total building coverage would be less than if hotel proposed. This proposal is reasonable and works for
this site. There would be less water
usage. There would be less of a visual impact. There would be less hours of operation than a
hotel. Less light impact than a hotel
use. There would be less traffic vs. the
as of right plan. Applicant is scheduled
to meet with the Design Review Committee.
NJDOT will assess the impact of other intersections. If approved we will work with the board
attorney to make sure all conditions are within the resolution.
Mr. Hug – Is the previous
proposal for upgrading the park still viable?
Mr. Kelly – We felt that the money proposed for that would be better
used for the cul-de-sac so the applicant would agree to use that money how the Township
feels best fit, either the cul-de-sac or renovation of the park.
Closed to public
Mr. Buraszeski – I think the
way the building is configured it does allow for other users to use the
building if this user should go under.
Mr. Hug – I think that this site does lend itself to big box. Mr. Marinello – The variances are impacted by
the 2nd building, no 2nd building no multiple signage for
that use. We need to satisfy ourselves
that we are dealing as a variance and we are not rezoning the property.
Mr. Ackerman – There are ways
that we can control traffic but it has to be in a resolution. It is up to the board to deem what those
conditions are to be as part of the resolution.
Mr. Cartine – I believe the cul-de-sac issue should be resolved by the Township
Committee before this application is voted upon. There is no guarantee that the township will
approve the cul-de-sac. They are
entitled to have protection from massive amounts of traffic on their
streets. I don’t know why the Township
Committee made this a hotel zone, but the 2nd building is overkill,
will make traffic a little bit worse than Lowes itself. Mr Marinello – If we do nothing then there
will be no cul-de-sac, the same as if there was a hotel or if it left as salvage
yard there would still not be a cul-de-sac.
I find the 2nd building to be a distraction; some variances
would go out the window if the board agreed that the 2nd building
not be approved. Mr. Cartine – The Township
Committee meets twice a month and it shouldn’t take long for a resolution is
adopted on the cul-de-sac issue. I would
be a lot closer to a vote if the cul-de-sac issue was dealt with and the
applicant be carried until that issue rectified. Mr. Hug – I believe that the 2nd
building not a distraction and believe that it would be easier to rent out with
a major user like Lowes on site. Mr. Buraszeski
– The area has already been approved for multiple use buildings correct? Mr. Denzler – Yes.
Mr. Kelly – If acceptable to
the board, the applicant would bond for the cul-de-sac. We will bond the cul-de-sac and the dead end
at the other end of Maple subject to Township Committee approval. If the Township Committee wants to use that
money for a park instead, then that is fine.
The Board discussed the
following proposed conditions if an approval of the application is
considered. The Board would prefer a conservation easement
on the environmentally constrained/wetland areas instead of a preservation area
as well as the areas that are being reinvigorated ie parking area and
demolished building; the cul-de-sac and dead end bonding be a condition of the
resolution; Chapin Road to be vacated subject to the Township Committee action
and a one-way action to be imposed; no trucks on Bloomfield Avenue up to Chapin
Road; hours of operation request to change Sunday to 7am to 8pm as opposed to
6pm as previously testified to; the second building to be of the same design as
the Lowes building; hours of operation to apply to entire site; subject to Design
Review Committee review and report; restriction of no pallets outdoors and no storage
or sales outdoors; the applicant is to control truck traffic and garbage pickup;
try to maximize green building methods to the extent possible and economically
feasible; restriction that lighting go off at night with exception of necessary
security lighting; no truck idling, garbage pickup, loading dock doors opening
and closing and back up beepers outside of the hours of 8am to 8pm; no garbage
pickup on Sunday; subject to a Developers Agreement being entered into with the
Township; no approval of soil removal applicant must come back for that; all
other standard site plan conditions.
Motion to approve the
application based upon the above mentioned conditions, all standard site plan
conditions, made by: Driscoll; Second by: Kanoff; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Kanoff,
Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, DiPiazza, No - Marinello
Track 2
NEW
BUSINESS
ZC30-08 Sabbatino – 85
Jacksonville Rd. – B: 32, L: 1- variance for
accessory structure addition in front yard – Notice Acceptable ACT
BY: 6/4/09
Present on behalf of the applicant:
Mr. Schepis, Esq.; Mr. Sabbatino, applicant
Mr. Schepis – The property is
located on corner of Jacksonville and old Jacksonville which is a
substandard right of way. There is an
existing barn that is designated as historic, which is 12’ from the right of
way. The application meets all zoning
standards with the exception of accessory structure in front yard.
A1 – photo of barn and 2 car garage taken in 1976
Mr. Sabbatino – sworn
The garage addition is
partially constructed. I asked my maintenance
crew to investigate structural defects of the garage; upon return from being
away I found the addition half done and Mr. Laird on site shutting the project
down.
A2 – photos of barn and garage addition from old Jacksonville and into old Jacksonville
Mr. Sabbatino – Reviewed the
photos for the Board. I have met with
the HPRC in conjunction with this application.
A memo dated 3/23/09 has been issued, I have agreed to their
conditions.
Mr. Denzler – The variance requested
is for accessory structure in the front yard. See no substantial detriment to
neighboring properties or zoning ordinance.
Mr. Huelsebusch – Does the
applicant agree to comply with my memo of 1/16/09. Drywells will be required or engineer
certification that there would be no further runoff, subject to the approval of
the Engineering Department. Mr. Schepis -
We will meet the ordinance by one mean or another. Mr. Huelsebusch – Was there any disturbance
of steep slopes? Mr. Sabbatineo – No,
there was no grading of the property.
Mr. Huelsebusch – Will you install a guiderail? Mr. Sabbatino – Agreed to guiderail. Mr. Schepis – The condition that the oil tank
be removed, can we wait until he uses the oil that he recently filled, it is a
1,000 gallon tank. Mr. Schepis – How about
it be a condition that no CO issued until the tank is removed? Mr. Marinello – That may be a condition if the
application is approved. Mr. Ackerman –Any
commercial business conducted on site? Mr. Sabbatino – No. Mr. Ackerman – Will there be any commercial
vehicles stored on site? Mr. Sabbatino –
No.
Open to public – none - closed
Motion to approve the
application subject to removal of tank prior to issuance of a CO; applicant agreed
to make garage addition look like existing barn made by: Kanoff; Second by: Hug;
Roll call: Yes – Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, DiPiazza,
Marinello
Track 3
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
Present
on behalf of the applicant: Michael Rubin Esq.; James Stathis, applicant;
Anthony Garrett, AIA, PP
Mr. Rubin – The applicant
requests to construct a 2 story addition to rear of the existing dwelling. The variance requested is for impervious
coverage. The applicant was previously
before the Board for an outdoor recreational area.
Mr. Stathis – sworn
Here to correct some
architectural mistakes that I made when I designed the house in 1998. No neighbor will be able to see the
improvements on the property with the exception of one neighbor that may see it
during the winter when there is no foliage.
The lot is 4 acres. The closest
neighbor is about 200’ away.
Anthony Garrett, AIA, PP –
sworn
Reviewed the existing site conditions
for the Board. The applicant proposes a 459
s.f. addition to rear of property. No
steep slope intrusion. The house is 3,200
s.f. existing.
A1 – series of photos A-500 dated 5/5/09
Mr. Garrett – Reviewed the
photos for the Board. The length of the
driveway, lower half is about 4,700 s.f.; the driveway creates a lot of
impervious coverage for this site.
A2 – colorized version of key map submitted to board
on 5/20/09
Mr. Garrett – A2 is actually
a portion of the site plan that has been blown up and colorized and shows how
much of the site is in a natural green state and how long the driveway is. The variance is for impervious coverage of
17, 480 s.f. where 13,300 s.f. is allowed.
The approval in 2005 allowed for 15,310 impervious coverage and at the
as-built survey review it indicated more area of impervious coverage had been
developed. What was constructed on the
site prior to the as-built was 17,021 s,.f.
A walkway and driveway extension was installed. He was having a traffic
issue due to narrowness of the driveway.
The gravel area was replaced with brick pavers and the pool equipment
area was enclosed due to safety and it prolongs the life of the pool
equipment. The area of impervious
coverage will be 17,480 s.f. if this proposal is built, if the Board allows
this application to move forward.
A3 – Google map dated 6/3/09
Mr. Garrett – There is a significant
amount of foliaged area between the neighboring properties. The granting of the variance would not create
a detriment to the neighboring properties, no intrusion of light air and open
space, it is a large property, there will be no impact on the adjoining
properties as it relates to runoff.
Mr. Denzler – Does the paver
cross section detail meet the Township standards? Mr. Garrett – Yes. Mr. Denzler- The 2005 approval granted relief
for 15,310 s.f. where the applicant is now seeking 17,480 s.f.
Between the 2005 approval and
this proposal the applicant installed impervious coverage of 17,658, that
number is without the paver reduction.
Exhibit 4 – site plan
Mr. Garrett – Due to terrain
of the site, the driveway had to be built in a serpentine manner to get access
to the buildable area of the site.
Basically, we are here due to the length of the driveway. The driveway represents 28% of our total
coverage. Mr. Denzler – Is there any
underground storage tanks on the property?
Mr. Garrett – No. Mr. Denzler – Highlands? Mr.
Garrett –Received an exemption. Mr.
Garrett – Would have to put some type of structure under pavers if additional
pavers were to be installed, which then would not meet the Township criteria
for pavers. Mr. Huelsebusch – Subject to
drywells or engineer certification no additional runoff. Mr. Garrett – Will agree to the conditions of
your report.
Open to public
Dave Ungave – 12 Bott Ln – sworn
In favor of the application.
Louis Tenhov – 10 bott ln –
sworn
No objection to the
application, our driveway is twice as long as his.
Betsy Keck – 16 Bott Ln - sworn
No objection to the
application.
Mr. Rubin – Summarized
testimony
Mr. Cartine – We gave the
applicant an impervious coverage variance previously. Some walkway/pavers/driveway could come up to
reduce the impact that was built beyond what was approved. Mr. Hug – The hardship that relates to the
property is the driveway. Mr. Cartine – If
he built the house addition before the pavilion then there would have been less
of an issue.
Motion to approve the
application, hardship to the property as a result of the distance from Bott
Lane to the home and the driveway represents more than the amount over
coverage, no detriment to public good, zone plan or ordinance made by: Hug; Second
by: Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes – Hug, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, DiPiazza, No
– Marinello, Cartine
MINUTES:
Minutes of May 6, 2009 -
Eligible: Buraszeski,
Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
Minutes were carried to June hearing.
INVOICES:
Bricker & Assoc: Trust
for: $500, $2,250
Wm Denzler & Assoc –
Trust for: $218.75, $718.75, $187.50, $62.50, $187.50. $375, $250, $93.75
Pashman Stein – Trust for:
$1,631.25, $125, $125, $312.50
Anderson & Denzler –
Trust for: $472.50, $67.50
Motion to approve made by:
Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Driscoll, Roll call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
ZSPP/FD23-08 Youssef, Eli–
437 Main Rd. – B: 81, L: 2 - Use variance to allow development of a 2-story
building consisting of a retail bagel shop - Approved Use Variance Only - Eligible: Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski,
Moore, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Kanoff;
Roll call: Yes –Cartine, Kanoff,
Buraszeski; Abstain - Marinello
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 -
Approval Resolution – Eligible: Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll,
Moore Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll;
Roll call: Yes – Hug, Cartine, Kanoff,
Buraszeski, Driscoll, Abstain - Marinello
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 - Approval Resolution – Eligible: Cartine, Hug, Kanoff,
Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore,
Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll;
Roll call: Yes – Hug, Cartine, Kanoff,
Buraszeski, Driscoll, Marinello
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’ (no change);
side yard setback of 9’6” (only adding
volume to 2nd floor) where 12’ required; combined sides 17.4’ where
35
Required (no change) – Approval Resolution –
Eligible: Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll;
Roll call: Yes – Hug, Cartine, Kanoff,
Buraszeski, Driscoll, Marinello
ZC34-06 Voss - B: 125.2, L: 17 – 2 Craig Ct. – request for extension
of approvals for 6 months to January 5, 2010 – Granted – Eligible: Hug,
Cartine, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore,
Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Driscoll; Second by: Buraszeski;
Roll call: Yes – Hug, Cartine, Kanoff,
Buraszeski, Driscoll, Marinello
CORRESPONDENCE
None
OTHER BUSINESS
NONE
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 July 1, 2009.
_______________________________________
Linda M. White,
Sec.
Certified to 12/3/08 hearing
|
