|
MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP
ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF MARCH 18, 2010
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 – Absent
Deane Driscoll – Present Carl DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Present
Maury
Cartine– Present Kenneth Shirkey
(Alt #2) – Present
Gerard
Hug – Present
Also Present: Joseph Burgis, Planner
Hank Huelsebusch, Engineer
Bruce Ackerman, Esq.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Stated for the record
Mr. Buraszeski welcomed Mr.
Burgis to the Board.
Appointment of Planner and
adoption of Professional Services Agreement for Burgis Associates.
Motion made by: Hug; Second
by: Driscoll; Roll call: unanimous
Swearing in of Professionals
The following application was
carried with newspaper notice preserved to 5/5/10:
ZC33-08 - Fille - B: 106, L: 8
- 19 Redding Pl. – side setback of 5.4’ (existing
and proposed) where 15.4’ allowed for addition/deck to single family home ACT BY: 5/26/10
OLD BUSINESS
ZC20-09 Iulo, Marie –40
Brittany Rd. – B: 139.04, L: 12 - building coverage
3,155 sf permitted 3,324sf proposed; impervious coverage of 7,152 s.f. where
6,310 s.f. is allowed; rear Yard Setback: 50’ required 47’ proposed – Carried with notice from 10/7/09 ACT
BY: 3/19/10
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Marie Iulo, applicant
Ms. Iulo – previously sworn
I had someone come in to price
how much it would be to put pavers in the driveway and it was too costly. What I am willing to do is put pavers in the
long section of the driveway which is approximately 1,000 s.f.. I plan to leave the circular driveway as is
and change the straight part of the driveway from the road to the front of the
house to be pavers. Mr. Huelsebusch – Currently
the site is over impervious coverage, they are at 6,620 s.f. or 736 s.f. over
allowable, with the reduction of 20% of the 1,000 s.f. it will still be 642
s.f. over without the deck. Mr. Ackerman – The building coverage is still
169 s.f. over allowable and rear yard setback variance of 3’. Mr. Cartine – A 14’x38’ deck built without
permits causes 3 variances. Mr.
Huelsebusch – The deck has grass underneath and the water will go through
it. Mr. Burgis – Some towns consider
decks with open slats as pervious. Mr.
Ackerman – This Township considers it building coverage. Mr. Ackerman- Will you agree to leave the
ground under the deck as grass. Ms. Iulo
– Yes.
Open to public – none –
closed
Mr. Cartine – The applicant
built without permits, I have not heard a good case to approve a variance. Mr. DiPiazza suggested that the deck be cut
back to meet the rear setback and that would be less expensive than pulling up
the driveway and putting in pavers. Mr.
Burgis suggested that she go back find out the costs of the reduction of the
deck to meet the rear setback and come back at a future meeting.
Discussion ensued on the
removal of part of the deck to meet the rear setback.
Motion to approve the
application for building and impervious coverage to the extent that the deck be
reduced to meet the rear yard setback of 50’, building coverage variance is minimal,
the deck has open slats to make it less impervious made by: Cartine; Second by:
Kanoff; Roll call: Yes - Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Buraszeski
NEW BUSINESS
ZC25-09 Failla, Vincent – 4
Berlin Ln. – B: 100.1, L: 8 – variance rear
setback for deck 23.8’ vs 50’– Notice
Acceptable ACT
BY: 4/8/10
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Vincent Failla, applicant
Mr. Failla – sworn
I am requesting a rear
setback variance. The builder that I
bought the house from was allowed to build 27’ where 50’ required. The deck was actually built at 23.8’. The property fits in front of a flag lot and
it is tilted so that may have been the reason for the miscalculation by the
builder. All the other houses in the
neighborhood are straight on with the road.
The deck is 10’x20’. It is wide
enough for a grill. It’s a 2nd
story deck. The deck has stairs down the
grass level, and there is a paver patio under the deck.
Exhibit
marked in A1-5– photos of existing site and houses in neighborhood
Mr. Failla – The deck does
not go further than any of the neighboring houses which also have decks. Neighboring decks are double and triple the
size of this deck. I put up a row of
trees and a fence to mitigate any effect that this variance would have on
neighboring properties.
Mr. Failla – The house and
deck was supposed to be built as per the approved plan. Mr. Shirkey – This deck was built larger than
the plan that was approved.
Board Exhibit 1 – construction plan shown to board by
Mr. Huelsebusch Dykstra Walker plan dated
1/13/06
Mr. Burgis – How far away is
the deck to the house behind? From the
aerial it looks very close. Mr. Hug –
was the deck built when the house was built?
Mr. Failla – Yes.
Open to public – none -
closed
Mr. Huelsebusch- The
previously approve deck was at grade, not 2nd story.
The board secretary indicated
that the Board requested the previous variance application on this site to
reduce their original request for rear setback to the 27.98’. Mr. Cartine – If we previously made a
decision as to what the setback should be, we concluded that was the right
area.
Mr. Failla – It is a small
lot, not situated the same as the surrounding houses. Mr. Cartine – If the deck was reduced will it
be usable? Mr. Burgis – The house is
close to the property line so the more distance you can get the better
off. Mr. Huelsebusch – The first architectural
plan shows deck at grade and 2nd architectural plan does not show a
deck but shows sliding doors on 2nd floor.
Mr. Cartine – It is a small
lot and there are neighbors close by.
Mr. Moore – If the deck was reduced will the stairs be a problem where
they stand out. Mr. Buraszeski – The
stairs are setback further than the deck.
Mr. Shirkey – Stairs are exempt.
Mr. Ackerman – If you reduce the deck, how far can you reduce it without
hitting the headers on the deck. Mr.
Shirkey – About 1 ½’ before it would have to be rebuilt. Mr. Cartine – There is more of an issue with
the height and the proximately. Mr.
Shirkey – We have a permit dated last week for the fence and that fence has
been up for awhile. Mr. Failla – I told
the contractor to get the permit in the morning and start the fence. He said the permit was left on the counter at
town hall. As soon as I found out that
there was no permit, I came down and got a permit.
Mr. Cartine – Our planner
indicates that there is a detriment to public good to the neighboring
properties and should be reduced to meet the setback previously approved.
Motion to deny the applicants
request for the rear setback meaning that the property can have a deck there as
long as it meets the ordinance made by: Cartine; Second by: Hug; Roll call: yes
- Cartine,
Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, , DiPiazza, Shirkey, Buraszeski; No - Moore
ZC01-10 Dawer, Rosanne – 6 Peach
Tree Dr - B: 125.15 L: 19 – variance for
impervious coverage of 7,778 s.f. where 5,900 s.f. allowed and 6,404 s.f.
exists for construction of wheelchair accessible ramp and extension of driveway –
Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 5/26/10
Present on behalf of the
applicant: Roseanne Dawer, applicant; Mr. Dawer, applicant
Ms. Dawer – sworn
Mr. Dawer – sworn
Ms. Dawer – We want to build
a circular driveway for accessible access to my house.
Exhibits A1-3 – photos of house, existing ramp and
hallway from that ramp.
Ms. Dawer – The doorway is
just about large enough for the wheelchair.
If it was a public building the hallway would have to be larger. Mr. Buraszeski – The variance has to relate
to the property itself. Would it be
possible to modify an interior door? Ms.
Dawer – I cannot turn in that hallway in a wheelchair, if I put a ramp in the garage I cannot turn to get
into the house. Mr. Dawer – The ramp
that exists on the side of the house is not to code, it is too steep and she
cannot get in and out of the house by herself.
The only means of access to the house that would be suitable is the
front of the house where there is a large double door. If there was an emergency she cannot get in
or out of the house by herself.
Exhibits A4 – photos of driveway
Ms. Dawer – We tried to come
up with different things to make the house accessible without coming before
this Board and it was not possible. I
cannot walk 47’ to the front door, I can’t even walk 20’. Mr. Ackerman – What have you done to limit
the need for a variance. Mr. Burgis – I
think there is an alternative to a circular driveway, can do a K-turn
driveway. The benefit reduces impervious
coverage but also saves 5 larger trees on the property.
Board exhibit 1 – alternate plan done by Mr. Burgis
Mr. Huelsebusch – Other than
blocking her garage, I don’t see why she cannot use her existing driveway and
make a ramp along the walkway. The
driveway can be narrowed. Mr. Burgis – At
minimum the driveway has to be at least 13’ in width per ADA requirements. Mr.
Burgis – With my design a K-turn can be accomplished with the driver’s door
near the front of the house right by the proposed ramp and reduces the variance
by 450 s.f. and saves trees on the property.
Mr. Burgis – The applicant can knock off 200 s.f. in the back of the lot
and still fit 2 cars for parking. Mr.
Dawer – Her car is equipped with hand controls and K-turns are very difficult
to accomplish. Ms. Dawer – Whatever trees
I cut down I will replant. Mr. Shirkey –
Those trees are of significant character, will not replant to that size. Dr. Kanoff – It is tough to do a K-turn with
hand controls.
Mr. DiPiazza – We have to
look at the property, are there aspects of the property that can support the
variance. Mr. Burgis – The current ramp
does not work it is too steep.
Internally the door jam is too narrow.
Mr. DiPiazza – With Mr. Burgis’ plan you need either someone with you or
a walker/wheelchair right next to your car.
Mr. Dawer – We will, in the near future, have to purchase a van with a
ramp so she can get in and out with the wheelchair. Mr. Hug – If you have one of those vans you
can wheel right up the walkway up the ramp to the front door. Ms. Dawer – At this time I do not have a van,
I have a new wheelchair on order.
Mr. Cartine – I see many
circular driveways in this neighborhood so it would be in keeping with the
neighborhood. Mr. Burgis – The circular
driveway would be keeping with the neighborhood, I am still concerned with the
impervious coverage. Mr. Cartine – They
could cut back some driveway to the rear, make the circular narrower and widen
it toward the front door to reduce the impervious coverage. Mr. Buraszeski – To modify the access to the
house inside the garage would not cause a variance. Ms. Dawer – I do not know how that could be
done; I cannot make a turn once up the ramp.
Mr. Burgis – The applicant can
install 12’ wide driveway that can be wider near the ramp and remove
approximately 200 s.f. from the rear parking area in the driveway. Mr. Driscoll – Suggested that the interior
wall be looked at and come back to another meeting if you still need the
variance.
Open to public – none –
closed
Mr. Shirkey indicated that
the bearing wall can be moved to help out with maneuverability within the home
and circular driveway would not be needed.
Mr. Cartine – Suggested the applicant come back with a designed circular
driveway that reduces the width and reduce rear section of driveway with
calculations.
Carried with notice preserved
to 6/2/10 extension of time to act 6/3/10
MINUTES:
Minutes of February 3, 2010
Eligible: Buraszeski,
Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello
Motion to adopt made by: Moore,
Second by: Driscoll. Roll call: Yes- Unanimous
INVOICES:
Bricker & Assoc. – Trust
for: $375, $250, $625, $500, $375, $875, $1,000, $375, $625, $375, 343.75, $250,
$250, $625, $375, $62.50, $812.50, $500
Anderson & Denzler –
Trust for: $138
Pashman, Stein – Trust for:
$1,000
William Denzler & Assoc.
– O/E for: $62.50, $187.50Trust for: $343.75, $218.75, $187.50, $312.50,
$31.25, $343.75, $156.25, $187.50, $218.75
Omland Engineering – Trust
for: $1,215.00
Motion to approve made by:
Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
RESOLUTIONS
ZC32-09 Allen/Widup – 18 Hewlett Rd
– B: 113 L: 16.2 – variance for rear setback of 59.73’ where 75’ required for
construction of tri-level deck – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello – Denial
Motion to adopt made by: DiPiazza;
Second by: Moore;
Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski,
Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,, Moore,
DiPiazza
ZC22-09 Ravella, Rosemary – 195
Boonton Ave. – B: 3, L: 2.1 – slopes and
impervious coverage variance for addition to single family residence –
Eligible: Buraszeski,
Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,, Moore,
DiPiazza – Approval Resolution
Motion to adopt made by: DiPiazza;
Second by: Driscoll ; Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,, Moore, DiPiazza
ZCD28-06 Lignac, Alex – 18 Glen Terr – B: 9, L: 13 – requests extension of
approvals to 12/31/10 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello - Granted
Motion to adopt made by: Moore; Second by: Driscoll;
Roll call: Yes – Buraszeski,
Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,, Moore,
DiPiazza
OTHER BUSINESS
Planning Board Liaison
comments
Mr. Driscoll – I attended the
3/11/10 Planning Board meeting. Ms.
White gave initial comments on Waste Water Management Plan. Tiffany’s had a minor site plan to fix
improvements that they had installed.
The application was approved.
Discussion of possible
conflicts of interest on Quick Chek application, whether planning board
members are needed, Local Finance Board inquiry.
Mr. Ackerman indicated that
due to the prior recusal of Mr. DiPiazza, the Board now has 8 members on this
filing so it is necessary to address with remaining board members the question
of whether or not there are any others on the Board that may have any
relationship with the applicant and/or owner. The purpose of raising this
is to make sure, should there be a need that should the Board need members from
Planning Board to sit on this case, that there is adequate time to do so.
Discussion ensued on
different types of conflicts, noting that on some occasions a board member may
not realize there is a conflict until the night of a meeting. But since
this is a D variance, and the question wasasked, this subject needs to
be explored. Messrs Hug and Driscoll have indicated that do not feel they
have a conflict. After a lengthy discussion on the issue, the Board
determined to have Mr. Ackerman write questions to be answered by Mr. Hug
and Mr. Driscoll. Mr. Hug and Mr. Driscoll will write their answers
to the questions and then it can be submitted to the Local Finance Board.
Motion to adopt this
procedure and direct counsel to request opinion from Local Finance Board
made by: Moore; Second by: Cartine; Roll call:
Yes - Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, DiPiazza, Moore, Buraszeski; No - Shirkey
Mr. O’Dowd requested to be
heard. Although there is no public portion on the Board’s agenda, Mr.
Ackerman noted the Board could move to allow it, which was done in a Motion
made by: made by Cartine; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Unanimous
Mr. Ackerman stressed the
board will not entertain any discussions on the pending Quick Chek
application. Mr. O’Dowd acknowledged voicing his concerns that he had no
conflicts with board members explaining why. Mr. Ackerman reviewed the
law for Mr. O’Dowd noting that the Board moved to have this issue reviewed by
the Local Finance Board.
CORRESPONDENCE
Resolution Opposing
Legislation Amending the Time of Decisions Rule
Board decided not to adopt
since already passed.
ZEXT27-05 DAB Associates – 43
Bellows Ln – B: 41, L: 15 – request for extension
of approvals to March 6, 2011
Motion to grant made by: Hug; Second by: Moore; Roll call – Yes
Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Buraszeski
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 April 7, 2010.
_______________________________________
Linda M. White,
Sec.
|
