Board of Adjustment Minutes 12-2-09 Print E-mail

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

 
Last Updated ( Monday, 11 January 2010 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack