Township of Montville

MONTVILLE TOWNSHIP

 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES OF May 5, 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 – Present

Deane Driscoll – Present                                    Carl DiPiazza (Alt #1) – Present

Maury Cartine– Absent                                   Kenneth Shirkey (Alt #2) – Present

Gerard Hug – Present

Also Present:        Joseph Burgis, Planner

                                Stan Omland, Engineer

                                Bruce Ackerman, Esq.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Stated for the record

Swearing in of Professionals

Confirmation of members available for carried applications – Three members will be stepping down and Planning Board members will be requested to sit on the Quick Chek hearing.

The following application was carried with new notice required to 7/7/10:

ZDC31-09 Quick Chek – 284-298 Rt. 202 – B: 58, L: 1 & 2 - Use Variance for gas station/retail    ACT BY: 7/8/10

OLD BUSINESS

ZSPP/FD28-09 T-Mobile - B: 167, L: 13 – 34 Maple Ave – Preliminary/Final Site Plan/D Variance/C variance filing – construction of a 100’ monopole with 9 antennas and 3 equipment cabinets within a 20’x30’ compound – Carried w/notice from 2/3/10 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff,, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello    ACT BY: 5/6/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Richard Schneider, Esq.; Ben Shippard, RF Engineer, Thomas Malavasi, PE

Mr. Hug certified to the 2/3/10 hearing.

Mr. Schneider – Will discuss other properties in the area and will review the conditions of the recent Omland report.

Mr. Malavasi, PE – previously sworn

There was a change in the plans previously submitted.  DEP made us change the fence around the compound to chain link instead of board on board.  Additional trees/landscaping that was also shown on the plan per DEP request.  Reviewed Mr. Omland’s report dated 4/30/10.  Will comply with first comment.  Mr. Omland suggested we move the tower to the northwest corner of the parking lot.

A-11 – DEP map with wetlands delineated

Mr. Malavasi – Reviewed A-11 for the Board.  Moving the tower to that corner of the parking lot would put us in the wetlands buffer.  DEP precludes towers that broadcast over the air in the wetlands buffers.  Will plant shade trees within parking lot islands per Mr. Omland’s request.  Will add land disturbance numbers to the plans. 

Mr. Burgis – Landscaping plan is satisfactory.  Mr. Omland – Do you have a flood permit yet?  Mr. Malavasi – I expect to have it in about 2 weeks.  Mr. Omland – Is there wetlands approximate to the site?  Mr. Malavasi – No.  Mr. Schneider – We will agree to a reasonable amount of landscaping to be determined by the board professionals. 

Ben Shippard, RF – previously sworn

Reviewed the two sites the Board requested be looked into at the previous hearing. 

                A-12 – Google aerial map

Mr. Shippard reviewed A-12 for the Board.  He could not access the Hook Mountain Care Center site, it was gated and locked.  Tried to contact the property owner but could not.  Took pictures of the easterly building on Bayer site.

                A-13  - photo board of Bayer site 6 photos

                A-14  - photo board 3 pictures Bayer site

Mr. Shippard reviewed the photos for the Board.  The majority of the surrounding area is blocked by tree line. 

                A-15 – Google aerial map Bayer site and surrounding area

Mr. Shippard – If we put the monopole on the roof of the easterly building on the Bayer property it would still be below the tree line.  The degree of coverage required would not be obtained from this site.  The Hook Mountain Care Site would not cover Route 80 since the Bayer site would not work.  Mr. Schneider – Would agree to allow the Township Police antennas on the monopole without charge. 

Open to public – none – closed

Mr. Buraszeski – Can the tower be moved further down the parking lot away from the residences.   Mr. Malavasi – The parking lot is in the buffer.  Mr. Omland – They may lose 4 or 5 parking spaces.  Mr. Malavasi – It may cause a parking variance.  Mr. Driscoll –There is a tower next to Rt. 80 on Passaic Avenue, why can’t you settle on that tower?  Mr. Malavasi – I think they are on that tower already and we do not have seamless coverage with that site.  Mr. Marinello – Do you suggest a bond for the landscaping?  Mr. Omland – For installation and maintenance 2 years but a condition would be perpetual maintenance of the landscaping.

Mr. Schneider – This is a suitable site for this type of use.  Propose 100’ monopole that can be extended if the Board approves.  Residents are 500’ away.  It is located in an industrial zone.  One of the few sites in the area that do not have overbearing environmental constraints. 

Mr. Buraszeski – Would prefer the monopole be moved further back on the property to be sensitive to the residents in that area.  If it is reasonable to do, why is it not an option?  Mr. Malavasi – May cause parking variances.  Mr. Omland – They would lose 4 spaces, it is up to the property owner to allow the applicant to do that, they would still get their cell coverage and it would be removed from the residential area. 

Mr. Buraszeski – Would like more information.  Would like to know if the DEP would allow that, if the owner of the property would allow the applicant to do so and see if parking variances would be required due to the loss of the 4 spaces. 

Carried with notice to 6/2/10 with extension of time to act to: 6/3/10

ZC16-09 Van Duyne Properties –17 Van Duyne Ct. – B: 82.12, L: 36 – rear setback 40’ where 75’ required (47.1’ existing); side yard setback 18.4’ where 27’ required for addition to single family home – carried w/notice from 11/4/09 & 2/3/10 – Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello                        ACT BY 5/11/10

Present on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Philip Trovato, applicant; James Cutillo, AIA; Frank Matarazzo, PE

Mr. Schepis – The plan was modified to eliminate the stories variance.  There is no height or stories variance with the new plan.  The proposed house will be a 3 bedroom house with no formal living room or dining room.  Side setback variance on south side is eliminated.  The existing side setback is to be extended along line, the rear setback variances requested is 40’ where 75’ required.  The addition to the rear is one story.  The existing lot is undersized for the zone.  The rear setback would be consistent with the other houses in the area. 

James Cutillo previously sworn

Reviewed the floor plan for the Board.  The rear elevation shows the look of a raised ranch.  Nothing is proposed for the attic space.  Most of the basement is unfinished; there is a laundry room and a garage.  The addition to the rear is a family room. 

A6 – page A1 front elevation

Mr. Cutillo – There are no other variances requested.

Frank Matarazzo, PE – previously sworn

A-7 – colorized plan revised thru 4/22/10

Mr. Matarazzo – Removed the 2nd floor addition.  Requesting 40’ rear setback where 75’ required.  Not exacerbating the rear yard setback any further than the 18.4’ that exists.  There is a proposed row of evergreens at the rear of the property. 

Mr. Burgis – What is the lower door to the rear of the house.  Mr. Cutillo – That is a door to the unfinished basement area.  The proposal will compliment the neighborhood with the improvements to the site.  Mr. Omland – As built will be required as a condition of the resolution. 

Mr. Hug – Concerned with the height of the structure.  Mr. Matarazzo – Explained the height ordinance for Mr. Hug indicating that the proposal is well under what the ordinance requires.  Mr. Hug – The attic seems to be too large for the house, concerned that bedrooms will be put in later on in the future.  Mr. Cutillo – It would be less aesthetically pleasing, we have room for HVAC systems, and we are not proposing finished space within this area.  Mr. Hug – How high is the space inside the attic?  Mr. Cutillo – 9’ to the peak.  Mr. Hug – Still concerned with the overwhelming look of the proposal as it relates to the size of the property and that maybe in the future bedrooms would be put up there.  Mr. Cutillo –It is not an enormous area up
there, it is not the intention of the applicant, if we wanted to put rooms up there it would require windows and dormers would have to be installed and we would  be back before the board.

Open to public

Mr. Frank Pisano, Esq – attorney for the Nordman’s

I received the letter from Mr. Schepis.  The email was an admission by the applicant that the proposal is overwhelming for the size of the lot.   Mr. Schepis - 21 VanDuyne Ct is smaller than the proposed lot, look at the pictures previously submitted, this house is much larger than our proposal on a smaller lot.  The proposed house is out of character with the neighborhood.  We lowered the structure for the neighbors and the pitch of the roof was constructed to make the house look less ridiculous.  The house separation to the neighbors is almost 100’.  The applicant has gone out of his way to make concessions to satisfy the neighbors concerns. 

Closed to public

Mr. Moore – Will this project overwhelm the neighborhood?  Mr. Burgis – No.  It will not be to the scale of the neighboring houses but it will compliment the neighborhood.  Mr. Shirkey – Is there a percentage of the attic that can be finished without coming back for the board?  Mr. Burgis – Yes there is a percentage allowed by ordinance to be finished without coming back before the board and I don’t believe that windows would be required.  Mr. Ackerman – A condition of the approval can be that no living space be allowed in the attic.  Dr. Kanoff – do not see the need to restrict living space in attic.

Motion to approve the application the house is out of character with the neighborhood, it is an undersized lot, the proposal will be more in line with the neighborhood, positives outweigh detriments subject to submission of an as built drawing prior to CO made by: Kanoff; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Kanoff, Buraszeski, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello; No – Hug, Shirkey

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Shirkey stepped down for the following application.

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

Present on behalf of the applicant: Frank & Kristen FIlle, applicants

Frank & Kristen Fille, applicants – sworn

The roof of the porch is in disrepair.

                A1 - photo of property

Mr. Fille – Requesting side setback of 5.4’ existing and proposed.  Would like to repair porch and square off back of house.  This plan works within the design of the house without having to build out to the other side of the house.  It does not add any more height to the house. 

Mr. Burgis – Not intruding any further in the side yard than exists.  Dr. Kanoff – Footprint of the house changes?  Mr. Fille – The small area in the corner about 9’ extension on house.  Mr. Marinello – How far is your neighbor’s house to yours.  Mr. Fille – Our house is setback about 180’ from the road.  Our neighbor’s house ends before our house begins and he has a row of hedges along his property line.

Open to public – none – closed

Motion to approve the application, existing setback being extended along same setback made by: Moore;

Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Kanoff, Buraszeski; Hug, Moore, DiPiazza, Marinello

MINUTES:

Minutes of April 7, 2010 Eligible: Buraszeski, Cartine, Driscoll, Hug, Kanoff, Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello

Mr. Buraszeski – On page 2, bottom paragraph add not approved road.

Motion to adopt as amended made by: Buraszeski, Second by: Driscoll. Roll call: Unanimous

INVOICES:

Bricker & Assoc. Trust for: $687.50, $93.75, $68.75, $187.50. $750, $250, $500, $750, $625, $375, $375, $250, $750, $625, $625, $750, $1,250, $281.25, $750, $1,500

William Denzler & Assoc. Trust for: $125, $312.50, $218.75

Pashman Stein  O/E for: $912.50; $568.75; Trust for: $2,293.75, $125, $531.25; $337.50

Omland Engineering Trust for: $135

Burgis Assoc. – Trust for: $101.75; $138.75, $1,215.00, $135

Motion to approve made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous

RESOLUTIONS

ZSPP/FD33-09 Nextel of New York - B: 1, L: 29 – 78 Boonton Ave. – Preliminary/ Final Site Plan/D Variance filing co-location on existing tower – Eligible: Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski; Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello – Approval resolution

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

ZC02-10 –Fiorenzi, Chris – B: 59.02, L: 8 – 7 Old Farm Ct. – accessory structure setback/principal setback to natural gas easement variances associated with as-built- non-conformities as required for the final CO for the in-ground pool recently constructed – Eligible: Driscoll, Kanoff, Buraszeski; Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello – Approval Resolution

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

ZC35-09 –Como III, Daniel – B: 116, L: 33 – 12 Cedar Rd. – front yard setback of 30.67’ where 60’ is required for new home – Eligible: Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski; Moore, DiPiazza, Shirkey, Marinello – Approval Resolution

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

ZSPP/FD17-09-6-10 – MetroPCS – 331 Changebridge Rd. – B: 160.2, L: 23 –amended site plan for relief from condition of resolution for installation of sidewalk – Eligible: Cartine, Driscoll, Kanoff, Buraszeski; DiPiazza, Shirkey – Denial resolution 

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

OTHER BUSINESS

Planning Board Liaison comments

Mr. Driscoll – The Planning Board had 3 meetings in April.  Master Plan Subcommittee firmed up the Route 202 Corridor Master Plan.  At the regular meeting they denied soil movement application for Stephanelli.  The Trinity Baptist Gymnasium approved.  At the 2nd meeting of the month there was a Master Plan Power Point presentation held on Route 202 Corridor Element. 

ZC24-08 – Potomac Group Homes - B: 52, L: 64 - 55 River Road – Request for extension of approvals for 6 months from June 3, 2010 to December 3, 2010

Board decided to grant a one year extension to June 3, 2011

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

ZC30-06 Ambrose - B: 106, L: 20 – 30 Barney Rd – request for extension of approvals from March 10, 2010 to March 10, 2011

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

ZC2-07 Bott, Marilyn – 122 Jacksonville Rd. – B: 28, L: 13 – request for extension of approvals from June 10, 2010 to June 10, 2011

Discussion ensued, this is 3rd extension request.  Board decided to extend by 6 months only.

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

Discussion re: Housing Element Master Plan

May 27th Planning Board hearing will review the Housing Element of the Master plan.  Mr. Burgis – The plan will be in land use offices next week.

Mr. Daughtry went to the High school and there was no answer as to why students have not attended lately but will give it a couple more meetings and will go back and ask again

CORRESPONDENCE

NONE

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 June 2, 2010.

_______________________________________

Linda M. White, Sec.