Board of Adjustment 8-5-09 Minutes Print E-mail

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 



[1] With explanation

Last Updated ( Thursday, 03 September 2009 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack