Board of Adjustment Minutes 10-7-09 Print E-mail



OCTOBER 7 2009

Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting


Stated for the record.


Richard Moore – Present                               Thomas Buraszeski – Present

Donald Kanoff – Present                                               James Marinello – Present

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

MauryCartine– Present                               Kenneth Shirkey (Alt #2) – Entrance noted

GerardHug – Present

Also Present: William Denzler, Planner

HankHuelsebusch, Engineer

BruceAckerman, Esq.


Stated for the record


**ZSPP/FD17-09 – MetroPCS – Changebridge Rd. – B: 160.2, L: 23 – site plan/use variance for installation of antennas on an existing water tank and construction of an equipment cabinet – Notice Acceptable                                                                                     ACTBY: 12/3/09

               **CARRIED WITH NOTICE TO 12/2/09

**ZSPP/F23-08 Eli Youssef – preliminary/final site plan – B: 81, L: 2 – pre/finalsite plan with variances – notice acceptable - tentative

               **CARRIED WITH NOTICE TO 12/2/09


ZDC28-08Holiday at Montville – 29 Vreeland Ave.– B: 52.03, L: 19 – variances 31 adult single family housing units – carried with notice from4/1/09 & 8/5/09 – New Notice Acceptable – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll,Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

                                                                                                                        ACTBY: 10/8/09

Present on behalf of theapplicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Martin Parker, Senior Housing Consultant;Robert Gannon, applicant, Mark Walker, PE

Mr. Schepis – We have addressed the issues raised at the previous hearing. The COAH units now reflect the same footprint as the market units. The units in the center island are eliminated and will be replaced with passive recreation. 

Martin Parker, Senior Housing Consultant – Previously sworn

There were some miscalculations in my analysis but the end result is the same.

              Exhibit A7 – revised market analysis

Mr. Parker – The density for this project would be 4.9 units per acre.  The Meadows and Changebridge at Montville are within a reasonable density to this project. 

               Exhibit A8 – Occupancy Handout

Mr. Parker – Reviewed the Occupancy Handout for the Board.  2facilities in the area have significant waiting lists, 2 have no vacancies, one has 4 vacancies and one has 15 vacancies. There is not a high vacancy rate of senior units in the area.  There is a demand for senior housing in the area. 

Robert Gannon, Applicant –previously sworn

Had discussions with the Longview Board President and he is looking for us to install a fence 5-6’ high along the easterly side of the property which we agree to and will plantevergreen trees on their side of the fence for buffering.  We will also install trees along the northside of the property.  This can all be addressed at site plan if we receive approval.

Mr. Denzler – How does existing independent living compare to type the of development proposed.  Mr. Parker – The Sienna and Lester are independent units similar to the proposed development.  Mr. Denzler – Are there age restrictions?  Mr. Parker – I believe 55 and older.  Mr. Parker – Sienna and Lester are rentals.  The rest are condos with nursing and assisted care on site.  Mr.Denzler – Confirm breakdown of units. Mr. Gannon – 25 market and 6 COAH units. 

Open to public – none

Mr. Hug – 28 Buildings with31 units, is the exhibit based on this. Mr. Gannon – Yes.

Mr. Schepis – As to viability of the project, of the 25 market rate units he would agree to have pre-construction reports available to show that he has 50% of units sold before construction begins. 

Mr. Ackerman – Were studies done on projects in Montville?  Mr.Parker – It was from a data base that included Montville and a 10 mile radius to Montville. Mr. Ackerman – Did you do a study to determine how many units would be needed in Montville?  Mr.Parker – No, I did not do a specific study on Montville.  Mr. Ackerman – Did you determine if any complexes in your exhibit required variances? Mr. Parker – I did not look into that. Mr. Ackerman – How many units in Montville of this type have 20’ rearset backs, 10’ building separations, what is percentage of impervious coverage to compare to this development.  If youhad this information it would help the board to get a better understanding of how this proposal relates to another development within Montville.  Mr. Schepis – I do not have this information.  Mr. .Ackerman – If this was in a multi-family zone how would this compare, how many variances would be required?  Mr. Schepis – This project allows for stand alone structures. 

Mr. Schepis –Reviewed current appellate decisions for the board. 

Mr. Denzler – Would compare it to the R-27D zone, the unit yield would be far less for this zone. Mr.Buraszeski – Asked about the rezoning request. Mr. Gannon – The planning board would not be able to get us a report fora year.  Mr. Ackerman – I have the planners report and he found the rezoning to be not suggested at this time.   Mr. Gannon – There is a lack ofthis type of housing in Northern New Jersey. 

Mr. Walker – The zoning is established for multi family units in the zone Mr. Denzler spoke about.  These are shorter structures, there are no children in these units, and there is no match in the Township ordinances for this type of use. 

Mr. Denzler – Reviewed variances requested as D variance for multi dwelling units, D variance for density, bulk variance for rear setback, combined side yards, buildingcoverage, impervious coverage, and design waivers for steep slopes. 

Closed to public

Mr. Cartine – Seems this is are zoning request not a use variance. All the comparables are not related to anything close to this zone.  Mr. Ackerman – It is all a question of degree.  Mr. Hug – We are working on the Master Plan and at one of the meetings it was clearly stated that one issue that was not addressed was single housing for seniors on smaller lots.  This proposal does not impact any other housing in Montville.  Mr. Marinello –The distinction between this proposal and rezoning is that this is one lot.  Mr. Driscoll - I have been to some of the Master Plan hearings and this type of proposal has come up time and time again.  This proposal is good for this area;it abuts a similar type building arrangement. Mr. Hug – If the applicant put 2 buildings in the middle area instead of passive recreation then they could put more distance between the homes.  Mr. Huelsebusch –That would be a better situation 12-14’ between houses is a better situation.  Mr. Gannon – I would be willing to work with the board professionals on this issue. Mr. Moore- I don’t like the idea of the fence and the tree buffer.  Mr. Gannon – We can deal with that at site plan, we are not asking for the fence at this time.  Mr. Driscoll – Maybe you can do a berm with plantings instead ofa fence.  Mr. Gannon – I will work with Longview.

Motion to approve the application based on the willingness to work on the setback design 12’ being a more conducive setback working with the neighbor with the buffering: Made by Mr. Driscoll; second by: Mr. Hug; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, , Driscoll, Kanoff,Hug, Moore; No - Marinello; Cartine

NOTE: Mr. Shirkey enters

ZSPP/FD35-08 – Metro PCS – 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 – New Notice Acceptable                                                                                                    ACTBY: 10/21/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: James Pryor, Esq.; Daniel Penesso, RF Engineer; Robert Toms,  PE

Mr. Pryor – This is an application for extension of existing pole structure; this is a new carrier in the region.  Reviewed which experts will be testifying this evening. 

Mr. Penesso, RF Engineer –sworn

Metro PCS is a new carrier for the region. 

               Exhibit marked in:

               A1 – base map with overlay called Radio Frequency Coverage Map

Mr. Penesso – Reviewed the base map for the Board.  We have one site on air at 204 Church St. in Boonton. We have a site in Fairfield at 482 Horseneck Rd.  Reviewed remaining monopoles in immediate area.  The applicant looked at this site since there was an existing monopole on site. We analyzed the height and we do not meet the coverage objective at the77’ height we would be allowed to co-locate at thus the reason for the extension of the pole.  At the proposed height it would allow for an additional 2 ½ miles of coverage.  This is an appropriate remedy for the existing coverage gap.  Will be in compliance with FCC regulations. 

Open to public for this witness – none

Page 4


Mr. Denzler – What changesthe coverage in between your site and 287? Mr. Penesso – There is a change in topography.  Mr. Huelsebusch asked for percentage of dropped calls with this service.  Mr. Penesso indicated that they are trying for 99.9% coverage. 

Mr. Marinello – We had discussions at great length at the prior applications that the height was appropriate.  Mr. Hug – Are you putting up dishes?  Mr. Penesso – No, panels. 

Robert Toms, PE – sworn

Reviewed the equipment cabinets on site for the Board.  Propose6 panel antennas, much like existing antennas on site.  Require electric and telephone service,existing 6’ fence to remain as exists. The tower was structurally analyzed; propose reinforcement of bottom 25’of pole.  There is no generator proposed, 2 battery back up packages will be providing back up.  Mr. Pryor – We will comply with the Board of Health conditions.  I will contact this Health Department because these are no spill batteries and will confer with the Health Officer and comply with his requirements.   The applicant will comply with all applicable agencies. 

Mr. Denzler – Does there-enforcement of the tower restrict the possible extension of any other carrier on the existing pole.  Mr. Toms – Yes it would be restrictive for a 4th carrier to be put on this pole.

Mr. Ackerman – Is there anything within the “fall zone”?  Mr.Toms – No there is not.

Mr. Huelsebusch – There are only 2 carriers now.  Mr. Toms – Yes ifa 4th carrier came in they would have to do a structural review and additional reinforcement. 

Carried with notice preserved to 12/2/09 extension of time to act to 12/3/09.


ZC8-09 Kessler, Kyle – 144 Konner Ave. – B: 142, L: 18 – building coverage3,819 sf (3,387 sf existing) where 2,745 s.f. allowed for deck – New Notice Acceptable               ACT BY: 10/20/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: Kyle Kessler, applicant

Kyle Kessler, applicant -sworn

The coverage existing is over than what is allowed.  There is a patio we wish to remove and put a deck in that location.  Mr. Denzler the current building coverage is 3,387 sf; and the applicant is asking for 3,819 s.f. for the deck, 2,745 s.f. is allowed in this zone.  Impervious coverage is in conformance with the ordinance.  How is the property owner to the north affected? Mr. Kessler – The deck would be 27’ from the property which is further away from the property line than where the patio currently exists.  Mr. Huelsebusch – The sidewalk in front of your house is not in proper condition. Mr. Kessler – That will be repaired.

Open to public – none –closed

Mr. Kessler – Our lot is a smaller lot than others in the area. Most of the houses in the area have decks.  It would not be aesthetically different from the other properties in the area.  Mr. Shirkey – Have you added anything to the property since you have owned the property?  Mr. Kessler – No,  we  removed sheds and fencing on the property but have  not added anything.  Mr. Hug – I believe the neighbor to the left would be impacted, seems like a large deck.  Mr. Cartine – Are they reducing overall impervious coverage on site?  Mr.Denzler – Yes. 

Closed to public

motion to approve, reducing impervious coverage on site, increasing setback, aesthetically in keeping withthe neighborhood, safety exists where doors exist on the house, benefitsoutweigh detriments, in line with zone plan, undersized lot made by: Cartine; Secondby: Buraszeski; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore,No - Marinello

ZC15-09 Fariello, Ralph –13 Bromley Ct. – B: 124.7, L: 7 – front setback 48’vs 50’ new entryway – Notice Acceptable                                                                      ACT BY: 11/4/09

Present on behalf of thea pplicant: Ralph Fariello, applicant

Elizabeth Fariello, applicant– sworn

We would like to enhance the front of our home with a front portico. The current overhang extends 6” into the front setback.  Mr. Denzler – The front setback variance required 48’ where 50’ is required. Other houses in the area have front setbacks about 50’.  This is a small structure proposed.  Do not see significant impact to surrounding properties.  Recommend that if approved that the portico remains open.  Mr.Huelsebusch – Applicant requires a waiver for not installing turnaround.  Mr. Marinello – Is there curbing in front ofproperty.  Ms. Fariello – No.  Ms. Fariello – There is a hill on that side of the driveway.  Mr. Marinello – So there are topographical restrictions on the property. 

               Exhibit marked in A1 – photo of existing driveway.

Ms. Fariello – There is a retaining wall to that side of the driveway.

Open to public – none –closed

Mr. Cartine – This is in keeping of what is happening in this neighborhood.

Motion to approve the application subject to portico remaining open, approved waiver from installation of turnaround made by: Driscoll; Second by: Buraszeski; Roll call:Yes – Buraszeski,Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, Marinello

ZC20-09Iulo, Marie –40 Brittany Rd. – B:139.04, L: 12 - Building Coverage 3,155 sf permitted 3,324sf proposed;Impervious Coverage, 6,310sf allowed 7,152sf proposed; Rear Yard Setback: 50’required 47’ proposed               – Notice Acceptable                                        ACT BY: 11/13/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: Marie Iulo, applicant

Ms. Iulo, applicant – sworn

I wanted to put a nice deck on the back of my house.  I know we needed more room to the fence line.  Mr. Denzler – Proposed variances are as follows: building coverage 3,155sf permitted 3,324sf proposed; impervious coverage, 6,310sf allowed 7,152sfproposed; rear setback: 50’ required 47’ proposed.  What are the potential impacts to the adjoining property owners?  Ms. Iulo – My neighbor was here but left at9pm and he is in favor of my deck.  Ms.Iiulo – If the deck was shorter it would be difficult for me to get up and down the steps.  Mr. Denzler – There is a turnaround in front of the house that is creating the impervious coverage variance.  Mr. Huelsebusch – The front sidewalk will need to be replaced.  Ms.Iulo – We will replace. 

Mr. Cartine – The deck isproposed to be 14’ wide?  Mr.Huelsebusch – The deck is built already. Mr. Cartine – When was it built? Ms. Iulo – May.  Dr. Kanoff –Concerned with precedence since already built and now coming for variance.  Mr. Marinello – Does the neighbors adjacent to you have decks?  Ms. Iulo – Yes, one does.  Mr. Buraszeski – Can you reduce the deck to 6’?  Ms. Iulo – I would not be able to make it up and down I need surgery due to torn meniscus.  Mr. Buraszeski – The variances are related to the land not personal issues.  Ms.Iulo – I thought we had a permit.  My contractor went for the permit, we fired him and

finished deck then found outthat we did not have a permit.  The turnaround was there in the 1970’s.  Mr.Hug – The second contractor should have known that there was no permit.  Discussion ensued on possible reduction of deck to eliminate rear yard setback and impervious coverage.  Mr. Denzler – In order to be slightly over the ordinance the entire driveway would have to be changed to pavers.    Mr.Cartine - Could probably shave some of the deck off 3’-4’ to reduce coverage and potential removal of rear setback variance.  Applicant to look into means of reduction of coverage and rearset back.  Recommended, at the applicants request, because she would have to pay for it, to work with the board engineer on reduction of variances.

Carried with notice preserved to 1/6/10 with extension of time to act to 1/7/10.

ZC14-09 Wei, Zibiao – 44 Taylortown Rd. – B: 15.2, L:14 – rear setback36’ vs 50’ for deck and

sunroom               – Notice Acceptable                                                                       ACTBY: 12/18/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: Zibiao Wei, applicant

Zibiao Wei, applicant – sworn

I am planning to enclose existing deck which is existing in the setback. Behind my house is woods for200-300’.  Mr. Denzler – Rear setback of36’ vs 50’ required.  Mr. Wei - The existing deck is being reduced by 2’ which increases the existing setback.  Mr. Huelsebusch – A 25’ right of way dedication is required as per the Township Engineer.   Mr. Wei – It is my opinion it is not relevant since proposed construction is in the back.   Mr.Ackerman – When you ask for a variance all conditions of the property come under review.  The Township Engineer wants the property to be in compliance with the right of way dedication.  Mr Cartine – If you don’t agree to the right of way then there is a possibility that you will not get approval for the sun room.  Mr. Huelsebusch – You own to the center of the road right now so if there is an accident then you are liable. 

Open to public – none –closed

Discussion ensued on right of way dedication. 

The applicant requested more time to review ordinances for right of way dedication

Carried with notice preserved to 1/6/10 with extension of time to act to 1/7/10


Minutes of September 2, 2009- Eligible: Buraszeski,Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by:                Moore; Second by: Hug; Roll call:Yes – Buraszeski,Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello



Bricker & Assoc – Trustfor: $2,000, $1,250

William Denzler & Assoc.– Trust for: $468.75, $312.50, $62.50, $31.25, $125, $156.25, $93.75

Burgis Assoc. – Trust for:$187.50, $93.75, $93.75

Pashman Stein – Trust for:$400

Motion to approve made by:Kanoff, Second by: Buraszeski, Roll call: Unanimous

Page 7



ZC24-06-21-09 Lodhi. Shahid (Kapitula) – Remand Hearing – compliance with RSIS requirements –Eligible: Buraszeski,Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello - Approval Resolution

Mr. Lodhi – I would like to change the condition of the resolution from weekly inspections to bi weekly inspections when work is being done on the site, I live next door and can see fencing.  Mr. Hug - Weren’t there objectors at the meeting when this was approved?  Mr. Ackerman – Yes.  Mr.Buraszeski – Do you feel it would be adequate to have weekly during work in process and bi-weekly thereafter.  Mr. Huelsebusch– yes. 

Motion to adopt as amended made by: Buraszeski; Secondby: Moore; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Kanoff,  Moore, DiPiazza, No - Shirkey, Marinello; Abstain - Hug

ZC13-09 Rycharski, Ronald – 21 Gathering Rd. – B: 145, L:16 – side setback 12.5’(12.66’ existing) vs 15.56’ allowed for one story addition and deck – Eligible:Buraszeski,Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey - Approval Resolution

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

ZC05-06 Lazo, Jose - B: 111, L: 12 - 32 Alpine Rd – request for extension of approvals toAugust 1, 2010 – Granted - Eligible: Buraszeski, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, Shirkey, Marinello

Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Shirkey;Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Kanoff, Shirkey, Marinello


ZSPP/FD21-00 Primary Care – B: 61, L: 1 – 329 Main Rd. – request for relieffrom bond requirements

Mr. Huelsebusch - They were required to put in fence and certain landscaping but what they put in wasadequate and neighbor had no issue., by letter submitted.

Motion to release made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll;Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Buraszeski, DiPiazza, Shirkey, No - Marinello

ZSPP/FDC10-89-29-06 Hook Mountain Care Center – Hook Mountain Rd. - B: 159, L: 4 - request forextension of approvals to December 3, 2010

Mr. Denzler – No changes in zoning for this site.

Motion to grant extension made by: Buraszeski; Secondby: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Unanimous

ZC24-09 Abbott –80A Stonybrook Rd.– B: 3, L:14.04 – applicant requests to dismiss theapplication without prejudice.

Motion to dismiss made by: Hug; Second by: Buraszeski; Rollcall: Yes – Unanimous; Abstain - DiPiazza

The Board welcomed Mr. Driscoll back and wished himgood health.  Dr. Kanoff thanked theBoard for the sympathy gift.

Mr. Marinello indicated that the year end approaching and the Board will, at the nexthearing, discuss possible new professionals and reappointment of board members.



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 November 4, 2009.


Linda M. White,Sec.

Mr. Driscollcertified to 8-5-09 hearing


Last Updated ( Friday, 04 December 2009 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack