|
MONTVILLE
TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
AUGUST 5, 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 – Absennt 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.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
OLD BUSINESS
The
following application was carried with newspaper notice preserved to 9/2/09:
ZC8-09 Kessler, Kyle –
144
Konner Ave. – B: 142, L: 18 – building coverage
for deck - carried to 9/2/09 with
newspaper notice preserved; 200’ notice required
ACT
BY: 10/20/09
The
following application was carried with new notice required to 10/7/09:
ZSPP/FD35-08 – MetroPCS –
Cooks
Ln. – B: 41, L: 1 – pre/final site plan use extension
of existing pole by 10' and co-location on the pole and new equipment shelter -
Notice Acceptable
ACT BY: 10/21/09
OLD BUSINESS
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 – New notice
ACT
BY: 8/31/09
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Peter Steck, PP; Martin Parker, Senior Housing
Consultant; Robert Gannon, applicant Mr. Schepis indicated which
professionals would be testifying this evening.
Martin Parker, Senior Housing
Consultant – sworn
Reviewed for the Board the
types of housing projects that he works with. Reviewed his credentials for the Board. Reviewed how he investigated if the need for senior housing was
appropriate for this area through demographics. One story houses are appropriate for people 55 and older. Reviewed the median housing value for the
area and the projected median housing values through the year 2014.
Robert Gannon, applicant –
previously sworn
A5 – revised colorized site plan
Reduced number of buildings
and will now meet COAH requirements. Propose to integrate the COAH units. Split the
units down the middle. They will look
similar to the other units. Made the
COAH units duplex units to meet COAH requirements. There is no active recreation proposed. Propose a loft in the affordable units that
can be changed into a 2nd bedroom. Propose 28 structures 3 of which will be duplexes and low/moderate
income housing units. Passive recreation proposed in the center island of the
roadway.
Peter Steck, PP – sworn
Exhibit A6 – planning exhibit prepared by Peter Steck
8/5/09
Mr. Steck reviewed A6 for the
Board. The property currently is 3 lots;
2 of the lots have single family residences with no frontage on approved
street. Other lot is farm lot. There is 200’ road frontage. Irregular shaped lot. Applicant proposes to demolish existing
buildings on site and construct 31 adult community housing units. We would adhere to the township’s definition
of adult community housing. Single story
units proposed, 3 buildings proposed to be duplexes. Houses are relatively close together. Private road proposed. This is a product that is not really
represented to date in this town. Reviewed the surrounding area for the board. There are relatively few housing units for
seniors in town so they move and there is a dramatic drop off in
population.
Mr. Steck - Current zone is
R-27A which is structured for 1 dwelling unit per lot. Propose one lot with easement areas instead
of separate lots for each house. It will
be commonly owned property with no actual lot lines. D variance required. There is no zone that accommodates single
family one story homes. The definition
of senior citizen in the Township ordinance is 62 and older and we propose 55
and older. The proposal is an efficient
use of land. It fits in with the area. The density is the driving factor linking it
to the
Mount
Laurel component. This is an environmentally free site which is
rare. The property abuts a multi family
development with density. The
demographic profile shows the need for this product. It is likely that current residents of
Montville will take
advantage of purchasing these units. The
proposed will be a low generator of traffic. It is designed as an integrated unit. This is a bifurcated application. Indicated that a large portion of the township was under the R-27A zone
and this type of proposal is not unique to the zone pattern in
Montville. This is not a rezoning request; the proposal does not desecrate the
intent of the R27A zone. This is a relatively
small project. There will be a low
visual exposure from
Vreeland
Avenue. There
is no substantial detriment to zone plan or zoning ordinance.
Mr. Denzler – Why 31 units,
why not an age restricted community based on the R-27A zoning. Mr. Steck – The buyers are anticipating being
part of a community. There is a pedestrian
component. Mr. Denzler – Can you discuss
the Age Restricted Conversion Act? Mr.
Steck – If there is a senior project approved and no units sell the applicant
can seek relief from the age restricted units as long as 20% are affordable
housing units. Mr. Schepis – We would be
agreeable to a deed restriction limiting the property to adult community
housing. Mr. Denzler – Numbers in your
report are substantially incorrect. Mr.
Martin – I have re-done the numbers and the density is irrelevant to the size
of the proposal. Mr. Huelsebusch – Where
do you propose to locate the
duplexes? Mr. Gannon – They will be
integrated within the community but this will be discussed at site plan. Mr. Huelsebusch – Did you get an updated
report from the fire prevention bureau? Mr. Gannon – No. We agree to
comply with the traffic control officer report.
Mr. Marinello – As a courtesy
to the applicant and the public we will allow questions that will be answered
at a later date.
Open to public
Michael Karlan – 37 Lenox ct.
– sworn
In favor of this
project. Reluctant to sell house have
little choice as to where to go. Would
like to stay in town, we have roots in this town. We have a larger unit and no children left at
home.
Mary Sharpels – sworn
My property directly abuts
one of the lots. Would like privacy fencing
or trees in between the properties. Mr.
Gannon – We agreed to put buffering up.
Gary Forshner, Esq. –
attorney for association of
Longview at
Montville
Mr. Forshner – Are you aware
of the decrease in housing values from 2008 to 2009. Mr. Martin – There was a raise in median
income and an increase of seniors moving to another state due to lack of
housing. Mr. Forshner – Most seniors own
houses before they move into a project like this and if they have difficulty
selling their current houses it would be difficult to move to these units. Mr. Forshner – There was a report submitted
in 2008 for the previous rezoning request and a report was prepared by Burgis Associates? Mr. Martin – I am not aware of the Burgis
report. Mr. Forshner – The report did
not support an age restricted use for this property and said it would not be
viable and was recommended that the planning board not grant. Mr. Gannon – That report was not accepted by
the Planning Board. Mr. Forshner – Could
this property be built with residential single family housing for this
zone? Mr. Steck – It could be
possible. Mr. Forshner – Were you aware
of the applicant’s previous attempt to rezone this property? Mr. Steck – No. Mr. Forshner – Have you looked at any other
senior housing area in the township that has been rezoned? Mr. Steck – I believe Campagna was part of a
rezoning. Mr. Forshner – What are the visual
changes to the public with this project? Mr. Steck – You will see the development but due to long road frontage
it would not be dramatically different. Mr.
Forger – Has there been a traffic report submitted? Mr. Steck – I am not aware
of one. Mr. Forshner – Are you aware of
sewer back ups on the adjacent property? Mr. Steck – That would be reviewed as part of site plan if the use
variances are approved.
Mr. Shirkey – The duplex
shown on the submitted information is 15% larger than the other units. Mr. Gannon – Will supply correct plans, all
units will be the same size. Mr. DiPiazza
– The number of families has not changed just the number of buildings? Mr. Gannon – Yes. Mr. Buraszeski – Do you see negative market
conditions that would affect this project? Mr. Martin – Until the economic downturn, in every community that I have
worked with there has not been a problem filling these type units. Mr. Ackerman –Do you have an authoritative
source that there is less housing for this age here in this community or is it
your opinion? Mr. Steck – I do not have hard data. Mr. Ackerman – What is the proposed density
per acre vs
Longview? Mr. Steck - 5.03 per acre where
Longview is 5.9 per
acre. Mr. Marinello – Why 31 or 28 units
why not 20? Dr. Kanoff – Would like more
information on affordable housing units. Mr. Cartine – How many bedrooms will be in these units? Mr. Gannon – 2. Mr. Cartine – Do people at the age of 55 have
children in school? Mr. Martin – It is
possible, but children are not allowed to live in the units. Mr. Cartine – I find that difficult to
control.
Carried with notice to
10/7/09; extension of time to act to 10/8/09
NEW
BUSINESS
ZC10-09 Onello, Daina –
98 Changebridge Rd.
– B: 124, L:17.1 – impervious coverage garage addition - Notice Acceptable ACT
BY: 10/20/09
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Daina Onello, applicant; Gene Rotunda, PE
Mr. Rotunda and Mr. Onello –
sworn
Mr. Rotunda – Reviewed the
plan for the Board. There is an impervious
coverage variance due to proposed garage addition. 971 s.f. over allowable maximum. We prepared a drainage report showing roof
drain and drywell to mitigate runoff from the addition. There will be no increase in runoff actually
due to the stormwater management proposed there will be a decrease in runoff
after the project built out. The effect
of doing pavers is off set by the roof drains to seepage pits. Mr. Onello – Pavers would cost between
$87,000 to $90,000 to do the driveway.
Open to public – none –
closed
Mr. Denzler – The application
requires a bulk variance for impervious coverage. There is currently non-conforming
overage. The entire driveway would have
to be done in pavers to meet the ordinance. Mr. Onello – The proposed garage is for personal use. Mr. Huelsebusch –
I did not receive a copy of the stormwater report but did you do soil
sampling? Mr. Rotunda – No but it is a shallow
area. Mr. Huelsebusch - Would have to be
approved by the Engineering Department. Mr. Onello - Already took down branches in sight distance area as
requested. Dr. Kanoff – What is the
hardship to the property? Mr. Rotunda –
Changebridge is a busy road, you cannot see the house from the road, need the driveway
loop to keep area for child to play, the overage is an existing condition, the
applicant has reduced the runoff. We are
mitigating the runoff problem. Mr.
Marinello – Is there anything particular about this property that prohibits you
from building a garage without a variance? Mr. Onello – If I removed part of the driveway I would have to back out
on Changebridge road which would be dangerous. Mr. Buraszeski – Can you remove part of the garage. Mr. Onello – Would be willing to take off 220
s.f. of deck in rear to help alleviate the impervious coverage issue. Mr. Shirkey – There seems to be enough room
for 3 cars and still be able to turn around and drive out front on
Changebridge Road.
Mr. Cartine – Do not see the storm
water plan stopping the water from going from the driveway into the
street. Do not see a hardship to the
property.
Motion to approve the
application for the addition provided that the impervious coverage is
maintained as existing overage amount, impervious coverage not to be increased more
than what exists today made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Mr. Moore; Roll call:
Yes - Buraszeski,
Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Cartine, Marinello
MINUTES:
Minutes of July 1, 2009 -
Eligible: Buraszeski,
Driscoll, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Cartine, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by:
Buraszeski; Second by:
Moore;
Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski,
Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Cartine, Marinello
INVOICES:
Bricker & Associates –
Trust for: $1,375, $500, $250, $187.50, $312.50, $500, $2,000, $125, $2,000.00,
$375
William Denzler & Assoc.
– Trust for: $125, $62.50, $62.50, $250, $62.50, $156.25, $218.75, $156.25,
$312.50, $125, $62.50, $93.75, $281.25
Pashman Stein – Litigation
for: $5,048.10; $119.61; O/E for: $400, $268.75, $325, $212.50, Trust for: $425,
$375, $125, $312.50, $300, $381.25, $287.50, $312.50, $287.50, $287.50,
$456.25, $1,262.50, $293.75, $562.50
Anderson & Denzler -
$412.50
Motion to approve made by: Kanoff,
Second by: Buraszek, Roll call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
ZC3-09 Rappaport, Michael –
5
Demoray Ct. – B: 139.8, L:7 – building coverage;
rear setback for deck addition – Approval
resolution- Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Moore,
DiPiazza, Shirkey
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by:
DiPiazza; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey
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 – Approval
Resolution – Eligible: Driscoll, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
Minor correction date of original
survey was 8/15 and property is in the R-20A zone.
Motion to adopt as amended made by:
Moore; Second by: Shirkey; Roll call: Yes –Moore,
DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
ZSPP/FD1-07 Omnipoint Communications - B: 160.2, L:
2 – 43 Stiles Ln. – Preliminary/Final
Site Plan/D Variance filing – cell tower – Approval
Resolution – Eligible: Driscoll, Cartine, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello
2 minor
corrections with reference to 6 panels should be 9 panels and compound area to
be 30’x60’ area.
Motion to adopt as amended made by:
Moore; Second by: DiPiazza; Roll call: Yes –Moore,
DiPiazza, Marinello
Z/FSPDC23-02 -
Morris
Plaza
- B: 57.01, L:
6 - 350 Main Rd. –
request for extension of approvals to June 4, 2010 - Granted
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by:
DiPiazza; Roll call: Yes –Buraszeski, Moore, Cartine, DiPiazza, Shirkey
ZC05-08 Armenti – 1
Sunrise
Way – B: 130, L: 20 – request for extension of approvals to
July
2, 2010 - Granted
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by:
Moore; Roll call: Yes –Buraszeski,
Moore, Cartine, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
CORRESPONDENCE
Ptaszak -
21 Rockledge Rd. – B: 13, L: 22 – request
for extension of approvals to August 6, 2010
Motion to grant extension of approvals to 8/6/10 made
by: Hug; Second by: Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes- Buraszeski,
Moore, Hug, Kanoff, Cartine, DiPiazza,
Shirkey, Marinello
OTHER BUSINESS
NONE
Motion to go into closed session to discuss litigation
made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Hug; 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 September 2, 2009.
_______________________________________
Linda M. White,
Sec.
|
