Board of Adjustment Minutes 11-4-09 Print E-mail



NOVEMBER 4, 2009

Montville Municipal Building, 195 Changebridge Road

8:00PM Regular Meeting


Stated for the record.


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 – Present

Also Present:        William Denzler, Planner

                                Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.


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 BY: 1/13/10

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 front entry

foyer which will create a front setback of 41’ where 50’ is required and 46.2’ exists – Notice Acceptable                                                                                                           ACT BY: 1/13/10

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 house.

                Exhibit A1-A8 – photos of existing site and surrounding properties

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 porch. 

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 Acceptable

                                                                                                                                ACT BY 11/12/09

Present on behalf of the applicant: Lisa Trovato, applicant, Steven Schepis, Esq.; Frank Matarazzo, PE, PP

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 width.  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 – sworn

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 property. 

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.

ZSPP/FCD25-06-05-09 Lake Valhalla Club – Vista Rd. – B: 11, L: 29 - preliminary/final site

plan/Use & 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 this application. 

                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 fixtures. 

                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 – sworn

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 estates 12-1-198

Mr. Garrett – Reviewed the lake as it stood in 1928.  The Montville Township first ordinance was adopted in 1954.

                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 one. 

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 – sworn

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 – sworn

Had objections will speak at a later time.

Jean Price – 16 Vista Rd – sworn

Why lights needed if informal activity.

Diane Lick – 52 Lake Shore Dr – sworn

What measures will be taken to control alcohol consumption

Kathy Mahony – 7 Country Ln – sworn

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 water?

John Trip – 4 Stonybrook Rd – sworn

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 Road?  How 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 1/7/10

NOTE: Mr. Marinello resumed the chair


Minutes of October 7, 2009 - Eligible: Hug, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Moore, Cartine, Driscoll, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

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


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


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 & 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, Marinello

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, Marinello




2010 Tentative Budget for Board of Adjustment

Mr. Hug - The budget well done costs were reduced.

2010 Tentative Board of Adjustment Meeting Date Schedule

No rescheduled meetings.  Dates found to be acceptable.

Discussion re: reappointments: Hug, Kanoff, Buraszeski & Shirkey

Board members up for reappointment were instructed to get their paperwork into the clerk.  The forms were emailed.

Discussion re: professionals

Motion 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.

Respectfully submitted,

Jane Grogaard

Recording Secretary

Certified true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of December 2, 2009.


Linda M. White, Sec.

Last Updated ( Friday, 11 December 2009 )
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack