ZONING BOARD OF
NOVEMBER 4, 2009
Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE
Stated for the record.
Moore – Present Thomas Buraszeski – Present
Donald Kanoff – Absent
James Marinello – Present
Driscoll – Present Carl
DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Present
Cartine– Present Kenneth Shirkey (Alt #2) – Present
Hug – Present
Also Present: William Denzler, Planner
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
ZC27-09 Stein, David –1 Spring Ln. – B: 113, L:48 – variance rear setback
for deck 5.71’ where
50’ required ACT
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Jane Stein, Applicant; Paul Tiajolomn, AIA
Ms. Stein, Applicant – sworn
Paul Tiajolomn, AIA – sworn
The applicant requests to
build a deck. They have a small lot
which is also a corner lot. Requesting
rear yard setback of 5.71’ where 50’ is required. Property is shaped like a chicken wing. Adjoining lot 47 has a 6’ high fence so the
deck would not be seen by that property.
Exhibit A1 – copy of site plan previously submitted
with added photos of surrounding properties
Mr. Tiajolomn – The property
to the east is heavily wooded and about 150’ away from this proposed deck. Underneath the deck will remain pervious.
Open to public – none
Mr. Denzler – The property is
uniquely shaped. Based on corner lot
provisions it is a corner lot. Minimum
50’ setback required, existing house setback is 11’ and proposed deck is to be
at 5.71’ from the property line. How
high would deck be above grade? Mr.
Tiajolomn – About 12” on one side and near steps up to 40” above grade. Mr. Denzler – If you are 4’ above grade how
will the adjacent 6’ fence block the view of the deck from the adjoining
property? Mr. Tiajolomn – The fence is
there already it won’t have much impact.
Mr. Huelsebusch – Is there any underground fuel storage tanks on property? Ms. Stein – No. Mr. Huelsebusch – Any trees to be
removed? Ms. Stein – No. Mr. Huelsebusch – If they leave underneath
the deck pervious there should be no runoff issues.
Mr. Cartine – The widest part
of the lot is 65’ and it quickly narrows is that correct? Mr. Denzler – Yes. It is a 12,000 s.f. lot in a 20,000 s.f.
zone. Mr. Marinello – When was the house
built? Ms. Stein – 1920.
Closed to public
Motion to approved the
application, unique shaped lot, no detriment to public good, no detriment to
zone plan, subject to underneath deck remaining pervious made by: Cartine; Second
by: Hug; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, No - Buraszeski, Marinello
ZC19-09 Chando, Edward –30
Vreeland Ave. – B: 54, L: 1 – construction of a
which will create a front setback of 41’ where 50’ is required and 46.2’ exists
– Notice Acceptable ACT
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Edward Chando, Applicant
Mr. Chando, Applicant – sworn
Mr. Chando – We use the
property as a rental property. The
tenants have a handicapped daughter and there is no cover to the front of the
Exhibit A1-A8 – photos of existing site and
Mr. Chando – In order to get
into the door you have to step back when you open the door, it is very
tight. If tried to do something
internally it would interfere with bathroom and living room. The door is narrow; we would like to make it
wider so there is better access to the house for their handicapped
daughter. Currently they drive up to
the front of the house with their van to bring their daughter closer to the
entrance. The house across the street
looks like it would be about the same distance as ours would look built
out. The house across the street to the
right has a similar bump out over their garage as we would like to do for our
Open to public – none
Mr. Denzler – The applicant
is requesting front setback of 41’ where 46.1’ exists and 50’ is required. How will the proposed setback be in
compliance with houses in the area? I know houses down the street have larger
setbacks. Mr. Chando – Our house sits
down lower than the road with a long driveway, I don’t think visually it would
look much different from the houses in the area. Mr. Denzler – I would recommend that if this
application is approved than the addition be limited to a one story porch, so
if ever there is a 2nd story addition done on the house, the porch
cannot be built over. Mr. Huelsebusch –
You have to prove to the engineering department that there would be zero
runoff, a letter from an engineer certifying same would be acceptable.
Mr. Shirkey – This is a
rental property so if the tenant moves out the township would be stuck with the
variance. Mr. DiPiazza – How long have
they lived in the house? Mr. Chando - 5
years. Mr. Moore – It is commendable that you would make
the changes for the tenant but human hardship is not a reason to approve a
variance. In one of the pictures someone
was opening the door and having to step backwards in order to access the house
is that a safety hazard? Mr. Chando –
Yes. Mr. Buraszeski – Can you just put a
ramp straight up to the front door? Mr.
Chando – The porch would make the house more aesthetically pleasing, right now from
the road you look down at a roof. Mr.
Marinello – How deep would the foyer be if you left out the nook and
closet? Mr. Chando – It is a long
entryway, we wanted the little extra room so she could turn around too. Mr. Hug – If I was to approve something like
this I would like to see a driveway to the porch. Mr. Ackerman – Reviewed the C2 provisions for
the Board. Mr. Marinello –There has been testimony on aesthetics. Mr. Cartine – How close is this to the recent
application that was approved down the street.
Mr. Denzler – In close proximity.
Closed to public
Mr. Hug – The application
will make the neighborhood more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Cartine – I don’t see a hardship but I do
see the possibility of a C2 but if they park the van in front of the entryway
it would be even closer to the street. The existence of a sidewalk from the
driveway to the front porch would make it more aesthetically pleasing
Mr. Buraszeski – There is the
opportunity to do a 3’ addition as opposed to a 5’ addition. Mr. Huelsebusch – There may be a design
waiver required for slopes for the sidewalk.
Motion to approve with
condition that a sidewalk be installed, such sidewalk is to be sufficiently
wide enough to permit handicapped access, the addition would make the property more
aesthetically pleasing than what exists, the addition shall be limited to one
story made by: Hug; Second by: Driscoll; Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, No
- DiPiazza, Marinello
ZC16-09 Van Duyne Properties –17 Van Duyne Ct. – B: 82.12, L: 36 – rear setback
38’ where 75’ required (47.1’
existing); side yard setback 18.4’ left side 21.2’ right side where 25.25’ required; building stories
addition to single family home – Notice
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Lisa Trovato, applicant, Steven Schepis, Esq.; Frank Matarazzo, PE,
Mr. Matarazzo, PE;
PP – sworn
Mr. Schepis – Previously
submitted photos of surrounding area attached to the application.
Exhibit A1 – dated 6/5/09 revised 9/28/09 colorized
plan previously submitted
Mr. Matarazzo – Reviewed the
surrounding neighborhood for the board.
The property is nonconforming as to lot size, lot area and lot
is 14,000+ s.f. in a 43,000+ s.f. zone.
The topography of the site is that the house is at the highpoint and the
land slopes down in all directions. It
is a ranch type structure with a basement at ground level. There is an existing one car garage, small
retaining walls along property. The lots
in the area are larger. The area was
previously approved under the R-27A zoning but has changed to the R-43 zone
which requires larger lot area. This lot
was not part of the original subdivision.
Mr. Matarazzo reviewed photos of other houses in the area indicating
that they are larger estate homes. This
house is not in line with other houses in the neighborhood. The applicant wants to put a 2nd
level on the house, a front porch, and another garage and family room addition
to the rear.
Mr. Matarazzo – There is an
18.4’ side setback to northerly side of house, no change is proposed. There is a 25.5’ setback to the south side of
house which will be decreased to 24.2’. The
front setback exists at 63.5’ where 50’ required and 53.5’ is proposed and is conforming. The current rear setback is 47.1’ to the house;
75’ is required and 38’ is proposed to the one story addition. The proposal complies with building and
impervious coverage requirements. The
applicant is requesting a variance for stories; propose 3 stories where 2 ½
stories are allowed. Being that the
house is a raised ranch, and the basement is a ground level, the exposure of
the basement is more than 50% so technically making the house a 2 story
structure so by adding the 2nd level we are creating a 3 story
structure. The maximum height allowed is
35’ where 27.95’ proposed. To make it
less than 3 stories a tremendous amount of fill would be required and retaining
walls would be required which would make the house out of character with existing
neighboring properties. The narrowness
of the lot makes it difficult to grade around the house. The design of the house is to look morelike a dormer than a 2nd
level. The lot immediately to the north
has non-complying rear setbacks. Mr.
Matarazzo reviewed other lots in the area that have non-conforming
setbacks. Mr. Matarazzo – Granting the
proposed variances would bring the house into character with the surrounding
area, there will be no detriment to zone plan or zoning ordinance.
Lisa Trovato, applicant –
Ms. Trovato – We wish to fix
up the house to have my husband’s family live there. We were trying to keep the addition looking
like a “cape style” house. The current
house does not fit into the existing neighborhood.
Mr. Denzler – Mr. Matarazzo
indicated that the south setback is 24’, I have 21.2’. Mr. Matarazzo – The current landing will be
removed at the 21.2’ setback. Mr.
Denzler - Reviewed the variances for the Board.
Are your proposed setbacks dramatically smaller than the other
non-conforming setbacks in the area? Mr.
Matarazzo – Yes. Mr. Denzler – Concerned
with the building height in terms of stories, 3 stories would stand out even
more than the 2 story houses in the area.
Mr. Huelsebusch – Are there any underground storage tanks on site? Ms. Trovato – No.
Open to public
Frank Pisano, Esq. represents
the Nordman’s whose property is to the east of the subject property.
Exhibit marked in O1 – photo from the Nordman’s
Mr. Pisano – The Nordmans’
property backs up to this property, they are located on Pine Brook Rd. This property is significantly
undersized. The applicant acknowledged
that in a letter in 2002
02 – unsigned and undated letter by Mr. Trovato
Mr. Pisano reviewed the letter
for the board. The sun would set over
the applicant’s house, and with the 2nd story, it would affect the
light air and open space to the Nordman’s property. They would not be able to enjoy their
property. The addition would be much
closer to the Nordman’s property and the sun sets over the proposed site, so we
object to the height and rear setback of the construction.
Ms. Trovato – We purchased
this property from the Nordman’s 2 ½ years ago, my husband did write the letter
but life has changed since then. The
house next door to them is considerably higher.
I understand their concerns but things do change year to year and the
proposed addition is smaller than the homes in the area. Would agree to grade around the property to
make the basement more into compliance and would agree to tree buffer along
rear of property. Mr. Matarazza – The
one story addition will be at the 38’ setback.
Mr. Cartine – Is there any
other lot close to the size of the applicant’s lot in the area? Mr. Denzler – Just the adjacent lot 21 Van
Duyne. Mr. Hug – Will the house block
the sun to the Nordman’s property? Mr.
Matarazzo – There shouldn’t even be a shadow.
Mr. Hug asked several questions about the architectural plans but the
architect was not present for the hearing.
Mr. Hug – I have questions for the architect. Mr. Schepis - Than why don’t we have a
meeting in the not to distant future to get answers to your questions. Mr. Hug
– Were there other house designs considered?
What is the purpose of beneath the garage area? Affect of sun setting as it relates to
neighboring property. Mr. Shirkey – How
would this house relate to the R-27 zone and to the R-43 zone that exists
now. Mr. Marinello – We can give you 20
minutes at the end of the hearing in December.
Carried with notice to
12/2/09 with extension of time to act to 12/3/09
NOTE: Mr. Marinello stepped
down for the following application and Mr. Cartine chaired the hearing.
Lake Valhalla Club – Vista Rd. – B: 11, L: 29 -
& Bulk relief and design waivers for lighting for volleyball area – Notice Acceptable
ACT BY: 11/12/09
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Tony Garrett, AIA, PP; David Egarian, PE
Mr. Schepis – The Lake
Valhalla Club would like to light the existing volleyball court and there is a
residential structure on the property proposed to change to a bathroom
facility/locker room. Propose netting
along the volley ball court frontage to keep the balls from rolling out into
the street. The property is located in a
residential zone, the club use predates the zoning of Montville Township.
David Egarian, PE – sworn
Prepared the site plan for
Exhibit A1 – previous approval drawing 4 of 13
approved in Oct 2006
On the prior approval in 2006
for the expansion of the club there was a yacht storage building proposed but was
never built. Proposing to eliminate that
yacht building and proposing that storage to be in the cottage. Mr. Ackerman – Do you have a plan that shows
a volley ball court being approved? Mr.
Egarian – It is shown as a sand area on the prior plan but existed at that
time. Current application shows volley
ball court with lights. Mr. Schepis – Is
it accurate to say that the sand area was a volley ball court in 2006 to present
and is not any larger than shown in
2006? Mr. Egarian – Yes. The addition to the plan shown is outdoor
lighting. Propose 8 additional
Exhibit A2 – plan indicating volley ball court.
Mr. Ackerman – You do not
have an approval for the volley ball court and at one point it was not shown on
the aerial photos. Mr. Schepis – Mr.
Egarian can clarify. Mr. Egarian – Reviewed
existing lighting on site, parking lot lights about 15’ and tennis court lights
approximately 25’-30’ in height.
Proposed lights at volley ball court to be 18’. The lights are designed to throw lights onto
the court and not behind it.
Mr. Denzler – How is access
to vacant cottage? Mr. Schepis – Mr.
Garrett will have that answer. Mr.
Huelsebusch – On sheet 3 you have a grid showing light intensity, did you
prepare that or did it come from a manufacturer? Mr. Egarian – Manufacturer. Mr. Huelsebusch – Has the sand area changed
grade? Mr. Egarian – Not to my knowledge. Mr. Egarian – Reviewed the fence proposed for
the court area. Mr. Hug - Is a 10’ mesh
fence aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood? Mr. Egarian – Mr. Garrett can answer that.
Anthony Garrett, AIA, PP –
I am a member of the Lake and former board member.
Exhibits marked in:
A3 – map SK100 dated 2/12/04used to
look at activities of the lake
A4 – photo array of property
Mr. Garrett – The volley ball
court is a pile of sand with a net that was put there in the early 2000’s.
Mr. Hug – Are you asking for
approval for the volley ball court? You
don’t have approval for a volleyball court.
Mr. Driscoll before 2004 it was grass.
Mr. Hug – Why go into this much testimony for lights at a volley ball
court when there is no volley ball court approved? Mr. Ackerman - They could not do that
tonight. Mr. Schepis – I did put it in
the notice. Mr. Cartine – So you noticed
for it, now you have to perfect your application and
come back at another hearing. Finish
your current testimony, apply for the variance for the volley ball court, pay
the fees and come back at another hearing.
Mr. Garrett reviewed A4 photo
array for the Board. The existing split
rail fence with screening will be relocated out of the right of way; it was never
surveyed when it was installed. The
access to the bathroom will be over a natural path, this is an informal
activity. There will be no exterior
modifications to the cottage. There will
be no light spillage onto Vista
Road from the volley ball court. The volley ball area is 170’ from the nearest
residential property. The Club was
originated in 1928.
A5 – subdivision plan Lake Valhalla
Mr. Garrett – Reviewed the
lake as it stood in 1928. The Montville Township first ordinance was adopted in
A6 – original ordinance or Montville Twp.
Mr. Garrett – There was an
old log cabin that was in disrepair and we converted it to yacht club storage
as an open air pavilion. We never
constructed the yacht club building that was approved in 2006. The building was proposed 60’ away from the residential
properties. The cabin was a residence
and about 9 months ago we had the cabin vacated. Wish to convert the plumbing over to toilet
rooms. It would be convenient to have
toilet facilities in this area. Mr.
Ackerman – So you are changing it from one non-conforming use to another
Mr. Garrett – For 30-40 years
there has been volley ball activity at the lake somewhere in the lawn
area. Over the past 10-12 years the
activity has exploded. There are 160-170 members of Lake Valhalla
that play volleyball. In 2004 we omitted the sand near the yacht
area and sand was put on the lawn where the court is now. It was not a good location by the playground
area due to safety and people sitting and enjoying the lake. A major portion of the court is screened by
vegetation and cottage. This area was
accessible and flat that is why it occurs in that area. There is no other location to put the court
due to proximately of water and clubhouse.
Open to public for questions
for the witness only at this time.
Rob Hughs – 36 Valhalla Rd –
How many nights a week will
the lights be used and until what time?
Who will be able to turn lights on?
Will there be additional security hired?
Will there be other clubs coming to play volley ball? Will there be additional parking
installed? Will the green screen be
raised at road area? Will the courts
overlap with other events going on at the club?
Karen Quinn – 8 Hathaway Ln –
Had objections will speak at
a later time.
Jean Price – 16 Vista Rd – sworn
Why lights needed if informal
Diane Lick – 52 Lake Shore Dr –
What measures will be taken
to control alcohol consumption
Kathy Mahony – 7 Country Ln –
Does the house that was
previously rented out now being proposed as storage would that affect the
township affordable housing numbers? Why
are additional bathrooms needed? How
will this facility be used for yacht club storage when it is so far from the
John Trip – 4 Stonybrook Rd –
What is the Club’s plan to
make sure that there will be no unsupervised teenagers at night and how will
control of underage drinking be handled.
Mr. Hug – How are lights
going to affect the quality of life for the residents at 4 & 6 Stonybrook Rd? Will there be refrigeration in the bathroom
building or kitchen since one probably exists there now. Is this considered a front yard? Mr. Denzler – Yes it is in the front yard.
Mr. Hug is it good planning to put up sand with 18’ lights in a front
yard? Mr. Garrett – This property is
more than 10 acres. Mr. Hug – Will there
be arena style competition? Mr. Denzler
– The Board may want to ask for additional details on the cottage use. DiPiazza – Are there any complaints of balls
flying over the protective netting? What
will the hours of operation for the court be?
Mr. Cartine – Would like specifications in writing from an expert in
lighting or the manufacturer to learn specifically what effects the lighting
will create. How will you control games
to be ended and lights off by 10PM? How
will you control parking along Hathaway
will you control noise at night from volley ball games? Huelsebusch – What is the maximum height a
volley ball is hit? Need foot candles of
lighting. Mr. Denzler – Compare the noise
to the township noise ordinance. Mr.
Cartine – What do you intend to do for seating for spectators.
Due to time constraints the
application was carried with notice 1/6/10 with extension of time to act to
NOTE: Mr. Marinello resumed
Minutes of October 7, 2009 -
Eligible: Hug, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Moore, Cartine, Driscoll, DiPiazza, Shirkey,
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes
– Hug, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Moore, Cartine, Driscoll, DiPiazza, Shirkey,
Bricker & Assoc. – Trust
for: $312.50, $500, $218.75; $562.50, $750, $312.50, $312.50, $312.50, $875,
$875, $875, $437.50, $1,500, $1,875
William Denzler & Assoc.
– Trust for: $468.75, $250, $218.75,
$125, $281.25, $31.25, $250, $156.25, $187.50
Pashman, Stein – Litigation
for: $544.74; O/E for: $643.75, $137.50; Trust for: $187.50
Motion to approve made by: Hug,
Second by: Driscoll Roll call: Unanimous
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 & 8/5/09 – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Buraszeski, Driscoll, Kanoff,
Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey
Mr. Ackerman reviewed comments by Mr. Schepis. On page 9 second line the plan shows
northerly side; on page 10 paragraph 17 discusses variance adult senior citizen
housing wants it to read adult community housing I disagree with this comment. Page 9
can be changed to indicate Vreeland
Ave side of the property.
Motion to adopt as amended made by: Buraszeski; Second
by: Hug; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey
ZC8-09 Kessler, Kyle – 144
Konner Ave. – B: 142, L: 18 – building coverage
3,819 sf (3,387 sf existing) where 2,745 s.f. allowed for deck – Approval
Resolution – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll;
Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore
ZC15-09 Fariello, Ralph –13
Bromley Ct. – B: 124.7, L: 7 – front setback 48’
vs 50’ new entryway –Approval Resolution – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine,
Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore,
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Cartine;
Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Marinello
ZSPP/FDC10-89-29-06 Hook Mountain
Care Center – Hook
Mountain Rd. - B: 159, L: 4 - request for
extension of approvals to December 3, 2010 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine,
Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore,
DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Buraszeski; Second by: Driscoll;
Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey,
Tentative Budget for Board of Adjustment
Mr. Hug - The budget well
done costs were reduced.
2010 Tentative Board of Adjustment Meeting Date
No rescheduled meetings. Dates found to be acceptable.
Discussion re: reappointments: Hug, Kanoff,
Buraszeski & Shirkey
members up for reappointment were instructed to get their paperwork into the
clerk. The forms were emailed.
Discussion re: professionals
to closed session to discuss board professionals made by: Buraszeski; Second
by: Driscoll; Roll call: Unanimous
Upon return from closed session and there being no
further business the Board unanimously adjourned.
Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board
meeting of December 2, 2009.
Linda M. White,