|
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.
|
