Board of Adjustment 7-1-09 Minutes Print E-mail

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

JULY 1, 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 – Absent                                  James Marinello – Present

Deane Driscoll – Present                                    Carl DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Present

Maury Cartine– Present                                     Kenneth Shirkey (Alt #2) – Present

Gerard Hug – Absent

Also Present:        William Denzler, Planner

                                Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.

 

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

OLD BUSINESS

The following application was carried with notice to 8/5/09:

**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: 8/31/09

           

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Marinello asked if there was anyone present for the Lowe’s resolution.  No one present moved onto New Business.

ZC3-09 Rappaport, Michael  – 5 Demoray Ct. – B: 139.8, L:7 – building coverage 3,210 s.f. vs 2,735 s.f. allowed; rear setback 44’ vs 50’ allowed for deck addition – Notice Acceptable      

ACT BY: 9/12/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: Irena & Michael Rappaport, applicant.

Ms. Rappaport – sworn

Want to change the shape of our deck because we cannot exit from the kitchen just the family room.  The proposed deck will be in character with the neighborhood.  Other decks in neighborhood go from one end of house to the other. 

Mr. Rappaport - sworn.

                                Exhibits marked in:

                                                A1 – 3 Demoray deck photo

                                                A2 – 7 Demoray deck photo


Ms. Rappaport – No change to drainage or landscaping.  The proposed deck will be located higher off the ground.  Proposed deck allows easier access to watch the children in the play yard.  The zoning laws have changed since other people put in decks, used to allow 40% of deck which would not count toward coverage.  Mr. Rappaport - The current deck is 20’ deep and the proposed is 16’ so increasing the rear setback from what exists. 

Mr. Denzler – Variances requested for building coverage 3,210 s.f. vs 2,735 s.f. allowed; rear setback 44’ vs 50’ allowed for deck addition.  How will the addition affect your neighbor to the rear?  Ms. Rappaport – They will see less of us due to the trees in the rear and we are increasing the rear setback that exists.   Mr. Denzler – The pattern of development, this lot is smaller than surrounding lots, adjoining lots are deeper and there is excess vegetation on the lot.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Will there be gravel under the deck?  Ms. Rappaport – It will be grass but if we put stone it will be larger than ¾”.

Open to public – none – closed

Mr. Marinello – Were they over the coverage previously?  Mr. Denzler – Slightly.  Mr. Cartine – Moving the deck further away from rear setback?  Mr. Denzler- Yes.  Mr. Buraszeski – The kitchen area is about 15’ further than the proposed deck, can you reduce it closer to the kitchen.  Ms. Rappaport – It would look odd to stop before the kitchen window, wanted to put some play equipment on the other side of the window for the children, we could bring it back closer to the window.  Mr. DiPiazza – Can you pull it in some by the family room and by the kitchen window?  Pull it in 1’ beyond the family room door and 1’ past the kitchen window.  Ms. Rappaport – I think it would look odd; we can take off 5’ by the kitchen.  Mr. Huelsebusch – You can take off 6’ by the kitchen and 6’ from the family room side. 

The Board took a break on this application and moved to Lowe’s resolution.

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 – Approved – Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Hug, Cartine, DiPiazza

Comments to be incorporated into the resolution:

Where “big-box” retail uses are not permitted, but applicant proposes to have what is commonly described as “big-box” retail by having a Lowe’s Home Improvement Center use as sole occupant in the larger of two buildings. Where it says ‘big  box’ it should match the Planner’s report which indicated it was a use because there was no associated hotel with a retail use, and is larger than what is permitted by code.  The D variance was for retail without required hotel component.  Mr. Denzler recommended that this be clarified

On page 4, second bullet:  should read Preliminary/Final Site Plan, consisting of nineteen (19) sheets, prepared by Boswell Engineering, dated 11/19/08; should also add subject to a future revision to incorporate all site plan changes requested.

On page 14, third line from the top; 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; change “Chapin Road should be re-designated” instead of “vacated”.

On page 17, item 7 our typical approval is for a one year time period; the applicant is asking at least three years since he will be at DOT for 18 months; after board discussion it was agreed to amend the “one year” clause to 2 years.


Item #6)”lot grading plan" should be changed to add "final site plan".

Item # 9) Add "including but limited to NJDEP Wetlands, Site Redevelopment, & Stream Encroachment    Permits".

Item # 19(l) - Add "the approval of all of the required off-site and off-tract improvements and contributions"

item # 23) Add "streetscape lighting and other streetscape improvements shall also be installed along Bloomfield Ave and Chapin Rd."

Item # 30) The Applicant agreed to construct the cul-de-sac(s). Add, applicant shall construct and bond

Item # 31) Bloomfield Ave. vacation is required. – Bloomfield Ave and paper road accessing site to be vacated

Item # 32) The Township Committee will need to approve the "No Trucks in excess of 5 tons limitation".  A recommendation was added to revisit the limiting traffic movements on John St. and Margaret Dr. to one-way with the Township Engineer.

Motion to adopt as amended made by: Driscoll; Second by: Buraszeski;  Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, DiPiazza

The Board returned to the Rappaport application.

ZC3-09 Rappaport, Michael  – 5 Demoray Ct. – B: 139.8, L:7 – building coverage 3,210 s.f. vs 2,735 s.f. allowed; rear setback 44’ vs 50’ allowed for deck addition – Notice Acceptable      

ACT BY: 9/12/09

Ms. Rappaport – If we take off 5’ off length of deck and notch corner by 5’ on one side would that be amenable?  41’x16’ deck.  Discussion ensued the applicant will take off 8’ off the proposed deck.

Motion to approve the application with the reduction of deck to by 8’ made by: Moore; Second by: DiPiazza; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, No – Cartine & Marinello

ZC4-09 Albanese, Damiano  – 26 Hilldale Rd. – B: 142, L:1- front setback (Hilldale Rd.)35.2’ vs

45’; front setback (Konner Ave.) 41.6’ vs 45’; side setback 13.8’ vs 15.75’ for addition to single family home – Notice Acceptable                                                                                ACT BY: 9/29/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: Damiano & Linda Albanese, applicant; Geoff Evans, Esq.

Mr. Evans – The property is a corner lot with pre-existing non-conforming from setbacks.  The side yard will not be increased by the proposed development. 

Mr. Albanese – sworn

Current house is a 2,500 s.f., 3 bedroom house.  Propose an additional bedroom so each kid can have their own bedroom; expand on living space and kitchen.  Propose to build out the back of the house.  We looked at other locations for the addition but this was best location.  Propose to change the front entrance of the house, the existing platform is a bi-level and when people enter the house they have to back up in order to 

get in and we want to formalize the entrance to make the front of the house look more appealing.  Other houses in the area have put formal entrances on their homes so this would be consistent with the neighboring properties. 

Mr. Denzler – Variances are required for front setback (Hilldale Rd.) 35.2’ (42’ existing) vs 45’; front setback (Konner Ave.) 41.6’ (42.3’ existing) vs 45’; side setback 13.8’ (existing and proposed) vs 15.75’.  How will this impact your immediate neighbor?  Mr. Albanese – There is vegetation and evergreens between the properties.  Mr. Huelsebusch – A drywell or rain garden to be required for drainage.  Would suggest a condition of approval be that a licensed surveyor stake out the addition. 

Open to public – none - closed

Mr. Shirkey – Will the shed be 3’ from the addition?  Mr. Albanese – We can keep it or move it, it is not a permanent structure. 

                Exhibit marked in

                                A1 – arch plans dated 2-3-09 4 sheets

Motion to approve the application due to a hardship to the property because it is a corner lot, there is foliage between the neighbors, the side setback is an extension of the existing setback violation made by: Driscoll; Second by: Moore; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello, No - Buraszeski

ZSPP/FD1-07 Omnipoint Communications - B: 160.2, L: 2 – 43 Stiles Ln. – Preliminary/Final Site Plan/D Variance filing – cell tower – Notice Acceptable                           ACT BY: 10/7/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: David Solloway, Esq.; Ben Shafar, RF Engineer; Mr. Nidle, RF Engineer; Robert Foley, PE; Christopher Nevill, PP

Mr. Solloway – Application for new cell tower. 120’ monopole with 9 panel antennae on top and associated equipment cabinets.  Not a permitted use.  Require a Use variance for permitted use and height as well as 2nd principal building on one lot.  Zoned industrial.  Wooded area.  Plan to have 4 witnesses; 2 RF engineers; project engineer and planner.

Ben Shafar, RF engineer – sworn

There is a need for a wireless communication tower for Omnipoint for this site.  Omnipoint also does business as T-Mobile.  There is a gap in coverage in this area. 

                Exhibit marked in

                                A1 – Computer generated base map

                                A2 – existing coverage map

                                A3 – overlay map of the proposed coverage

Mr. Shafar – There is one proposed site shown in Montville and one in Parsippany shown on A1.  There is an existing site on the water tank on Changebridge Road.  There is an existing site by Route 80 in Parsippany and one in Parsippany south of the proposed site.  A search area was done and the ideal location would be on the municipal building but the only viable location was the Stiles Lane site.  With the proposed site there will be added coverage from the site up to the municipal building.  120’ is the minimum that would work for the applicant. 

Mr. Nidle, RF Engineer - sworn

For this site the maximum emission level is 1800 times below FCC regulations. 


Robert Foley, PE – sworn

Summarized the application for the Board.  The property is in an Industrial zone.  Surrounded by commercial and industrial properties.  To be located in the existing 100’x70’ gravel storage area.  The compound is to be fenced in by a chain link fence.  Bollards proposed.  No change to existing grade.  Will agree to condition of LOI, Flood Hazard permit and stormwater management.  3 equipment cabinets can be located in the compound; 120’ monopole; cabinets mounted on steel frame; platform of frame would be determined by DEP.  9 antenna proposed at the 120’ point of the monopole.  No lighting proposed; not a manned site; irregular visits for maintenance; remote monitoring done on site.  No water or sewer proposed.  The site plan notes the removal of several trees of sufficient size to be cleared.  The woods shield the view to the site.  No bulk variances required for this application. 

Christopher Nevill, PP – sworn

D variance required for permitted use; height; and 2 principal structures on one lot, though do not agree with the latter variance request is required.  This site is particularly suited for this use.

                A4 – aerial photo from DEP 2007 flight

Mr. Nevill – proposed to be in the rear of the building.  Reviewed surrounding area for the board.  Propose minimum height necessary to cover gaps in coverage.  Buffered from residential area.  There is no odor, noise, or glare associated with this development. 

                A5 – 8 – 4 photo boards of site

Mr. Nevill – A5 photo shows balloon test conducted in January 2007 and simulation.   A6 was taken from 36 Stiles Lane showing balloon test and simulation.  A7 is a view from 266 Changebridge Rd..  A8 is a photo taken from Barnet Road/Stiles Lane.  The wooded area helps screen the proposal.  Positives outweigh negative impacts as it relates to this application. 

Mr. Denzler – Is this site designed for additional users?  Mr. Foley – Yes, there would be sufficient room for added carriers on this pole and there is room available for additional cabinets.  Mr. Denzler – Would additional users have a problem with the height since it was testified to that 120’ is the minimum height that would work for this site.  Mr. Solloway – Do not know but can have future users come back before the board to extend the pole if needed.  Mr. Denzler - Was the site designed for emergency generators?  Mr. Foley – Omnipoint does not use emergency generators they use battery backup.  Mr. Sharaf – There are generator hook ups available.

Mr. Foley referring to sheet Z1 of site plan showed the board the tree removal locations.  Mr. Denzler – Would the applicant be agreeable to some replanting of trees.  Mr. Solloway - Will work with the board professionals on that issue.  Mr. Solloway indicated that he had made requests to the Township Administrator to use municipal property along Changebridge for this use and he said no.  Mr. Denzler – There still will be a gap along Changebridge and another site will be required correct?  Mr. Nevill – I don’t think there is a single site solution so another site will be required either way.  Mr. Huelsebusch – What is the percentage of applications that you have worked with that required branches to be installed?  Mr. Nevill – less than 5%, the branches on top are darker and add more visibility to the site.  Mr. Huelsebusch – What is reliable coverage?  Mr. Sharaf – Reliable coverage is being able to hold a call, not affected by weather, worse case scenario.  Mr. Huelsebusch – Do you show all towers in the area or just Omnipoint’s.  Mr. Sharaf – There is no structure between the water tower and the police department available. 

Open to public – none

Mr. Cartine – There is no form of barbed wire on the chain link fence?  Mr. Foley – No.  Mr. Cartine – You have a large area for compound that may or may not allow for additional carriers.  Mr. Solloway – Can reduce size of compound and have any possible futures carriers come back to the Board to expand the

 compound.  Mr. Cartine – The trees to be removed do not seem necessary to be removed.  Mr. Solloway - There are 5 trees to be removed as a part of another approval before the Planning Board.  Mr. Ackerman – You can go back before the Planning Board and request to keep the trees because the Board of Adjustment would prefer they be kept.  Mr. Marinello – There is a need to keep the trees near the base of the pole to block the pole from view.   Mr. Cartine – If the pole fell it would fall into the Rockaway River, what would the impact to the ecological environment to the general area.  Mr. Foley – An EIS was submitted; the impact would be the minor amount of construction of the pole and cabinets.  The DEP process has customary reviews as it relates to endangered species, etc.  Mr Denzler – Chain link fence is permitted for telecommunication towers.  Mr. Marinello – I saw a letter to the HPRC is there a response?  Mr. Denzler – Have not seen one. 

Mr. Buraszeski – Would you agree to tree branch camouflage if the Board required?  Mr. Sollowy - Yes.  Mr. Driscoll – There are 3 poles in the immediate area and the water tank.  Mr. Solloway – Omnipoint is already on the water tank.  Mr. Solloway – What sites are you looking at.  Mr. Marinello – 86 River Rd.?  Mr. Shafar – That one is already covered with antennas.  At 1900 the coverage is about ½ mile.  Mr. Shirkey – How high would cabinet be to roof?  Mr. Foley – 13’.  How high is principal building height? Mr. Foley – About 20’. 

Mr. Solloway – Willing to work with the Board on tree pole camouflage, can do board on board fence if required instead of chain link; will work with board professionals on landscaping.

Closed to public

Mr. Cartine – Does this proposal show an extension pole?  Mr. Foley – No but a pole could be designed to make it taller in the future.    Mr. Buraszeski – Does not solve current problem of coverage.

Motion to approve the application subject to the pole being of the type that can be extended; area around chain link fence be landscaped subject to board or township engineer review; no removal of trees inside compound unless board engineer determines that one or more trees need to be removed for construction of the monopole; subject to all agency findings; RF report to be submitted and reviewed by the board engineer made by: Cartine; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes –Driscoll, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza,, Marinello, No – Buraszeski & Shirkey

MINUTES:

Minutes of May 6, 2009 - Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Minutes of June 3, 2009 - Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Driscoll, Cartine, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Cartine, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

INVOICES:

Anderson & Denzler – Trust for: $236.25

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


RESOLUTIONS

ZC30-08 Sabbatino – 85 Jacksonville Rd. – B: 32, L: 1- variance for accessory structure addition in front yard – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Cartine, Hug, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, DiPiazza, Marinello

Buraszeski – Suggested changing guardrail to guiderail.

Motion to adopt as amended made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Cartine, Buraszeski, Driscoll, DiPiazza, Marinello

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. proposed. – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Hug, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Driscoll, DiPiazza

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: DiPiazza; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Driscoll, DiPiazza

CORRESPONDENCE

None

OTHER BUSINESS

ZC23-07-15-08 Stitzel – 61 Main Rd – B: 51.02, L: 17 – dismissal

Motion to dismiss without prejudice made by: Cartine; Second by: Moore; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Moore, Driscoll, Cartine, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Z/FSPDC23-02 -Morris Plaza - B: 57.01, L: 6 - 350 Main Rd. – request for extension of approvals to June 4, 2010

Motion to grant extension: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Moore, Driscoll, Cartine, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello No

ZC05-08 Armenti – 1 Sunrise Way – B: 130, L: 20 – request for extension of approvals to July 2, 2010

Motion to grant extension: Buraszeski; Second by:  Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Moore, Driscoll, Cartine, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Cartine; 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 August 5, 2009.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.

Absent with explanation

Absent with explanation

 
Last Updated ( Thursday, 06 August 2009 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack