BoA Minutes 3-18-10 Print E-mail

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.

Absent with explanation


Last Updated ( Friday, 09 April 2010 )
 
< Prev   Next >
Joomla School Template by Joomlashack