|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
DECEMBER 2, 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 – 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.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
The following application was
carried with notice preserved to 2/2/10:
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 – carried w/notice from
11/4/09 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,
Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello –
ACT
BY 2/4/10
OLD BUSINESS
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 – Carried w/ notice from 10/7/09 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine,
Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello ACT
BY: 12/3/09
Present on behalf of the
applicant: James Pryor, Esq.; Daniel Penesso, RF Engineer; Robert Toms, PE;
Mark Nidle, FCC Compliance; David Karlebach, Planner.
Stenographer present for this
application.
Mr. Pryor – This is a carried
hearing from the October agenda. We have
2 more witnesses for this application.
Mark Nidle, FCC compliance -
sworn
All carriers are required to
have a FCC compliance report independently.
Reviewed exposure levels for the Board indicating they are well within
the regulations for FCC and State of NJ.
David Karlebach, Planner –
sworn
Reviewed the site, site plan,
township ordinances, etc. for the board.
The site is in excess of 17 acres.
The telecommunication facility exists on site. The surrounding area is a predominantly
wooded wetlands area. Site is located in
the I-1A zone. D variance required for
expansion of non-conforming use. There
will not be any increase in hours of operation or employees and there will be
limited land disturbance on site. Height
variance required for 110’ where 100’ is existing. The applicant needs the additional height to
remedy a coverage issue in the area. The
site is well suited for this use. There
is a coverage gap area and this site allows the applicant to remedy the
coverage gap while using an existing tower.
It is a large site surrounded by condensed woodland. This is an unmanned facility. No traffic impact. It is a passive use. There will be no noise or vibration generated
from the site. \
Exhibit marked in
A2 – photo taken from 33 Jacksonville
Rd.
A3 – photo view from Cooks Ln.
A4 – photo view from Como Ct.
Mr. Karlbach – The positive
impact outweighs any detriment. See no
detriment from this application.
Open to public – none
Mr. Denzler – Do you see any
potential negatives based on the additional 10’. Mr. Karlbach – No there is no visual impact
associated with the site. An additional
10’ will not change the visual impact of the site. Mr. Denzler – Do you see a
benefit to a tree pole for this site?
Mr. Karlbach – This pole is in the middle of a farm field so see no
reason to put tree branch camouflage on this pole.
Mr. Marinello – Is there an
opportunity for sidewalks adjacent to this site? Mr. Denzler – It could be made a condition
but most likely would not be used.
Closed to public.
Motion to approve the
application the benefits outweigh the detriments, no visual impact made by: Kanoff;
Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes- Buraszeski, Cartine,
Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore,
Marinello
Track 2
NEW
BUSINESS
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 ACT BY: 12/3/09
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Robert Garofalo, Esq.; Daniel
Penesso, RF Engineer; Gary Musciano, AIA; Mark Nidle, FCC Compliance
Stenographer present for this
application.
Mr. Penesso, RF Engineer –
sworn
Exhibit A1 – Coverage plan with overlay dated 5/5/09
Mr. Penesso reviewed Exhibit
A1 for the board. The height proposed is
the minimum height required to fulfill the coverage gap existing. The application meets all FCC
requirements. The applicant is licensed
by the FCC. The site is serviced once a
month. The applicant will comply with
Board of Health report.
Gary Musciano, AIA - sworn
Mr. Musciano - Described the
site for the board as having existing water tower to rear of lot. There are currently 5 wireless carriers on
the tank. Wish to install 3 sets of
antenna at top of tank with two cabinets proposed on the existing platform.
Unmanned site, visited once a month, and there is no lighting. Complies with National Building
Codes. The tank can withstand hurricane
force winds without falling over.
Mark Nidle, FCC Compliance – sworn
This site meets the FCC
requirements as well as NJ requirements.
David Karlebach, Planner –
sworn
Reviewed the site for the
board. Water tank has 5 other existing
wireless providers. It is a heavily
wooded area with Rt. 80 and Rt. 46 surrounding the property along with Rockaway River.
It is located in the I-2 zone.
Expansion of non-conforming use, though minimal expansion. Other providers have been on tower for many
years. Height variance required, 139.2’
proposed, 130’ existing where 30’ allowed. This site will provide coverage for a gap in
this area. FCC licensed. This is a large lot. No traffic impact, noise, vibration or
glare.
Exhibit A2 –
2 photos of existing tank and tank with proposed antenna
A3 – photo view from entrance
Mr. Karlbach – This is a
least intrusive measure. Public benefits
are numerous. No negative impact, no visual
impact. Benefits outweigh
detriments. Co-location is
preferable. This application does not
conflict with zoning ordinance.
Open to public – none
Mr. Denzler – Do you feel
that in terms of visibility how many antennas are too much. Mr. Karlbach – This would be the last
antennas on this site all carriers are now represented on this tank. You notice the tank and not so much the
antenna. Mr. Huelsebusch – What color are
antennae? Mr. Karlbach – They can be
treated to be the same color as the tank.
Mr. Huelsebusch – The light on the cabinet? Mr. Musciano - The light is on a timer for
the worker that visits the site it will not be on at all times. Mr. Marinello – If there are not sidewalks
would they be required? Mr. Denzler –
Along this part of Changebridge it would be a good idea to install sidewalks.
Mr. Garofalo indicated that it would be about 800-1,000’ and the applicant
would not be inclined to put in sidewalks along the site. Mr. Ackerman – They are asking for an
intensification of the site and the board could ask for sidewalks. Mr. Shirkey – I find the cabling to be more
offensive. Mr. Garofalo – We will match
the cabling to the tank.
Closed to public
Motion to approve the
application subject to installation of sidewalks along this site and painting
of the antenna to match the other antennas/tower and cabling to match the
tower, benefits outweigh the detriments, no visual impact made by: Kanoff; Second
by: Cartine; Roll call: Yes – Cartine, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Kanoff, Marinello; No - Hug, Moore,
TRACK 3
ZC23-09 Mastrangelo, Anthony –10
Boonton Ave. – B: 2.02, L: 3 – variance front
setback 48’ (existing and proposed) where 75’ is required and side setback of
17.66’ (existing and proposed) where 30’ is required for addition and porch - Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 1/27/10
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Anthony & Lisa Mastrangelo, applicants
Mr. Mastrangelo, applicant –
sworn
Ms. Mastrangelo, applicant -
sworn
We initially needed a new
roof and siding and decided to fix a couple of issues we have in the
house. We have existing non-conformities
and are not increasing those non-conformities.
Mr. Denzler – The variances
requested are front setback 48’ (existing and proposed) where 75’ is required
and side setback of 17.66’ (existing and proposed) where 30’ is required for
addition and porch. The applicant is
putting on a 2nd floor addition.
The proposed addition is consistent with the neighboring community. Mr. Huelsebusch – You would have to dedicate
the right of way do you understand that?
Ms. Mastrangelo – Yes. Mr.
Buraszeski – Is the addition to one side of the house? Ms. Mastrangelo – Yes.
Open to public – none –
closed
Motion to approve the
application pre-existing non-conforming conditions just going up, deminimis request,
benefits outweigh detriments, subject to right of way dedication made by:
Buraszeski; Second by: Moore; Roll call: Yes – Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Buraszeski,
Kanoff, Marinello
TRACK 4
Mr. Hug stepped down for the
following application
ZSPP/F23-08 Eli Youssef – preliminary/final site plan – B: 81, L: 2 – pre/final
site plan – Notice Acceptable ACT
BY: 12/21/09
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Michael Sullivan, Esq.; Mark Palus, PE; Tsvia Adar, PP
Mr. Sullivan – Requesting
preliminary and final site plan, variance for signage and impervious coverage,
design waivers for parking.
Mark Palus, PE –
sworn
Propose 2 story building that
will house a bagel shop. Reviewed the changes
from the use variance application. Building reduced in size by 262 s.f.; dumpster
area relocated to rear of property; gone from 12 parking spaces to a total of
15. Reviewed site circulation for the
board. Do not see the need for a
crosswalk along Route 202. It can be
installed if requested by the board. Impervious
coverage requested over by 2 ½% from required.
The board requested additional parking on site at use variance creating
impervious coverage variance. The
original plan was in compliance with impervious coverage at 12 parking spaces. The signs are the same as shown at use
variance. The measurements of the sign,
maximum height of 7’ 10 1/2”. Sign size is required for visibility of the site. Driving aisle to be 5’ from building where
10’ required. Parking aisle cannot be
made deeper since will move building toward the rear of the property and will
make it less functional. Waiver
requested from .5 foot candle for light at streetscape. Mr. Huelsebusch – You do not need a waiver
from a streetscape light, on opposite side of lot is where I was talking
about. Mr. Palus – It is blocked by
vegetation and slight overage onto adjacent parking lot.
Tsvia Adar, PP – sworn –
reviewed credentials
Requesting 2 bulk variances, impervious
coverage variance and sign variances.
Two signs on one lot and sign associated with use not permitted in the
zone. Shape of property is irregular.
The extent of the variances requested is minimal. The sign is very typical for this area,
visibility is limited and the building is set back from the road. There is no detriment to the public
good. No effect to the intent and
purpose to the zoning ordinance.
Open to public
Jerry Hug – 13 Cheryl Rd. –
sworn
Will there be tables in this
facility? Mr. Ackerman – That was dealt
with in the use aspect of the application.
Mr. Hug - How will the garbage truck back into the site if the parking
spaces are filled? Mr. Palus – Will be a
small vehicle for garbage pickup, we proposed compressed curb in certain
location to allow turnaround.
Mr. Denzler – What is the
largest commercial vehicle that would access this property for the loading
spot? Mr. Palus – The loading space has
not changed from the Use variance, will have small box truck deliveries. Mr. Denzler – Were there changes to the
external door to the attic area? Mr.
Palus - That will be removed.
Mr. Denzler –The applicant is
over by 500+ s.f., how does the shape of the property affect the coverage on
the property? Ms. Adar – Originally 12
spaces were provided and met the impervious coverage, in order to meet the 15
spaces that the board required we now require an impervious coverage
variance. Mr. Denzler – The sign is
parallel to Rt. 202 rather than perpendicular, why and is the 20 s.f. sign on
building even needed? Ms. Adar – The
sign is built into the architectural design of the building. Mr. Denzler – It is a single use building why
would 2 signs be required? Ms. Adar – Do
not see the detriment to the ordinance.
Robert Boshart, AIA - sworn
Mr. Denzler – Is the sign
parallel to Rt. 202 the best locator?
Mr. Boshart – I designed the sign but not the location. Mr. Denzler – The sign should be
perpendicular to Rt. 202. Mr. Boshart –
The access to the attic area will be interior access and exterior access will
be removed. Mr. Sullivan – The lighting
plan will be tweaked to meet agency report as requested. Mr. Huelsebusch – Is it recessed or mountable
curbing?
Mr. Palus – We can do a 12’
curb island. Mr. Huelsebusch –
Recommends 12’ curb island. Mr.
Huelsebusch – The township engineer recommends not installing pedestrian cross
walk in that area.
Mr. Shirkey concerned with
traffic circulation on site. If you make
the building 1’ smaller than it will help with the parking setback. Mr. Palus – Will still require impervious
coverage variance. Mr. DiPiazza – Should
reduce the building by 1’ to make the circulation easier on site. Mr. Palus – If we had 9’x20’ parking spaces
it would not make much of a difference at all.
Mr. DiPiazza – Can you put up a sign that says “additional parking in
rear”. Mr. Palus – That makes
sense. Mr. Driscoll – The planning board
is limiting sites to one sign. Mr.
Buraszeski – What will be in attic? Mr.
Boshart – The attic will house air conditioning equipment and light storage (ie
boxes, light packaging). Mr. Ackerman – What is the size of the signs on the
neighboring properties? Ms. Avad – I did
not measure the signs. Mr. Boshart -
Indicated that the sign would be located perpendicular to the building and that
the outside access to the attic will be eliminated.
Mr. Boshart – The building
lends itself to requiring a stepped façade due to shape of property. Mr. Marinello – Sidewalks? Mr.
Denzler – Sidewalks are on the plan. Mr.
Marinello – Is the site proposed consistent with the current discussions as it
relates to the master plan. Mr. Denzler-
Yes. Mr. Marinello – Is it possible to
shield the light that is spilling over on the one side? Mr. Huelsebusch – Do not see the need for a
light in that area. Mr. Palus – It is a
security and safety item. Mr.
Huelsebusch – It can be made smaller to meet the ordinance. Mr. Denzler – The site plan has to be amended
to show correct sign details. Dr. Kanoff
– The applicant testified to the fact that he will be keeping open both stores.
Mr. Ackerman – What is the size of applicant’s existing bagel store across the
road? Mr. Sullivan – 1,100 s.f.
Jerry Hug – There is no
guarantee that both stores will remain open.
I would not let him use the parking across the street so no need to
install pedestrian cross walk. Concerned
with the possibility of a back up of traffic on Route 202. Mr. Cartine – You are the landlord for the
applicant at his existing location? Mr.
Hug – Correct.
Closed to public
Mr. Buraszeski – The Board
was generous at the use hearing. I
believe this site can be developed without the 5’ to the property line for
parking. I think the design can be
changed to make a reasonable bagel shop with safer circulation. Mr. Shirkey – He has more physical space than
he needs to run this operation. Mr.
Cartine – The use was approved, we re-hashed that use several times tonight
even though there is a resolution that is quite clear. The board requested 3 more parking spaces
which created a 2% increase in impervious coverage which is deminimis. This is the oddest shaped lot I have ever
seen with 2 industrial buildings on either side with no residential properties
surrounding. Mr. Buraszeski – Concerned
with traffic safety on the site.
Mr. Denzler – Reviewed the
variance/design waiver requests for the Board.
Mr. Ackerman – Reviewed for the board their options as it relates to
approval/denial of a bifurcated application.
Mr. Marinello – Indicated that the perpendicular sign would be more
important to the site then the wall sign.
Motion to deny the
application the building is overbuilt for site, traffic safety issues made by:
Buraszeski; Second: Mr. DiPiazza; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Buraszeski,
DiPiazza, Marinello; No – Cartine, Moore, Kanoff
Mr. Sullivan – that leaves us
with a use variance without a site plan can we schedule with carried notice to
another hearing date. Mr. Ackerman -
this is denied a new application must be filed.
Mr. Hug returns
Mr. Marinello steps down on
the following application.
Mr. Cartine chairs the
meeting
ZC11-09 DeBlasio – 122 Waughaw Rd – B: 21.01, L: 18.04 – variance for
front setback of 54.1’ vs 75’; rear setback of 37’ vs 75’; building height of 3
stories where 2 ½ stories allowed addition to single family home and deck – Notice Acceptable ACT
BY: 3/23/10
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Stephen DeBlasio, applicant
Steven DeBlasio, applicant –
sworn
Noticed for a variance for 3
stories which I will no longer need, will re-grade my property. Request to go up on existing footprint. Variance for front setback of 54.1’
(existing) where 75’ required due to right of way dedication; rear setback of
37’ where 75’ required to the proposed deck; building exists at 42’.
Exhibits A1-A10 – photos of property and surrounding
property
Mr. Denzler – Reviewed the
variances for the board. The building
height variance can be eliminated by re-grading which the applicant has stated
that he will do.
Mr. DeBlasio – Cannot
construct out to any side of my property without a variance. Mr. Cartine – The lot is irregularly shaped
lot. Mr. DeBlasio – It is also a sloped
lot. The house is hidden; the houses to
the left and the right are not visible due to distance and wooded area. There will not be any effect on the
neighboring properties. The house to the rear is about 75’ from their property
line. Mr. Denzler – Are there any
underground storage tanks on the property? Mr. DeBlasio – No. Mr. Huelsebusch – Dedication of right of way
will be required. Request increased
sight distance. Mr. Ackerman – Is there
brush, vegetation, trees, etc? Mr.
Huelsebusch – I cannot tell you offhand.
Mr. Cartine – You have to go out on site to tell him what to remove.
Open to public
James Marinello – sworn
Familiar with the
property. When the house was built it
was compliant but the zone change to 5 acre zoning which changed the rear yard
setback.
Closed to public
Mr. Hug – We have asked Hank
to go out and ask what to remove does this incur additional fees to the
applicant? Mr. Cartine – What is to the
right side of your driveway? Mr.
DeBlasio – There is one tree and a few bushes.
Mr. Cartine – What about the left side?
Mr. DeBlasio – It has all been cleared; I can clear the shrubs to the
right side of the driveway up to the tree.
Mr. Cartine – No site visit required by the board engineer.
Motion to approve the
application benefits outweigh the detriments, only going up, deck is deminimis,
no detriment to neighboring properties, subject to re-grading of the property,
dedication of right of way to be defined by the township engineer and removal
of shrubs in sight distance made by: Kanoff; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call:
Yes –Driscoll,
Hug, Moore, Buraszeski, Kanoff, DiPiazza, Cartine
Mr. Marinello resumes the
chair
MINUTES:
Minutes of November 4, 2009 -
Eligible: Buraszeski,
Cartine, Driscoll, 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
INVOICES:
Pashman Stein – O/E for:
$156.25; Trust for: $631.25, $312.50, $312.50, $231.25, $187.50
William Denzler & Assoc.
– Trust for: $250, $156.25, $125, $31.25, $31.25, $31.25, $250, $218.75,
$62.50, $375, $343.75, $531.25, $218.75, $312.50
Motion to approve made by: Kanoff,
Second by: Hug Roll call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
ZC27-09 Stein, David –1 Spring Ln. – B: 113, L: 48 – variance rear setback
for deck 5.71’ where
50’ required- Approval Resolution – Eligible: Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza
Motion to adopt made by: Driscoll; Second by: Moore; Roll call: Yes –
Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza
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
– Approval
Resolution
– Eligible: Buraszeski,
Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore,
Shirkey
Mr. Cartine Remove clause
that relates to an existing 6” overhang.
Motion to adopt as amended made by: Buraszeski; Second
by: Hug; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Moore, Shirkey
CORRESPONDENCE
None
OTHER BUSINESS
Discussion re: Draft 2009 Annual Report
Mr. Marinello – Instructed the Board to review the
annual report to see what we could have
done differently as it relates to the Master Plan
Discussion re: 2010 meeting dates
Reviewed 2010 meeting dates along with additional
dates. To be discussed at January
meeting. The Board discussed special
meetings and decided that in the past the applicant has come to a regular
meeting initially and then if a special meeting is required thereafter it can
be discussed.
Closed
Session to discuss personnel issues
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 January 6, 2010.
_______________________________________
Linda M. White,
Sec.
Certified to 11/4/09 hearing
|
