View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairperson Gail Robortaccio presiding.  After a salute to the Flag, Ms. Robortaccio read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Gail Robortaccio, Robert Kurtz, Joyce Dargel, Barbara Kinback, Heather Darling, Robert Church, Scott Meyer, Mark Crowley.

 

ABSENT:  Kathy DeFillippo.

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener, Russell Stern.

 

Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary.

 

Minutes of 2/14/05

 

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

Discussion.  Corrections noted and made.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

BA-8-05 – MICHAEL SPITZER – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO HOME AND GARAGE LOCATED ON CAROL DR. BLOCK 1609, LOT 17 IN R-3 ZONE

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: March 14, 2005

Memorialized: April 11, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Michael & Meredith Spitzer have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring dimensional variances for premises located at 46 Carol Drive and known as Block 1609, Lot 17 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D8, 13-7.905A of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicants were proposing to expand the existing home and detached garage.
  3. The applicants provided a plot plan(s) showing existing and proposed conditions.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 10/29/04 and a revised letter dated 2/28/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. As noted, the applicants proposal results in the need for the following relief:
    1. Impervious coverage – 25% required; 31.23% existing; 33.60% proposed
    2. Building coverage - 15 % required; 41.17% existing; 16.63% proposed
    3. Accessory building – 10’ setback required; 20’ existing; 4’ proposed
  6. The applicants would be removing an 8’x8’ shed located in the rear yard.
  7. During the public hearing, it was determined that an 8’x8’ shed (64 sq. ft.) and driveway extension (275 sq. ft.) were not included in coverage calculations.  These two items comprise about 3.6% impervious coverage. 
  8. The applicant stated the garage would house two vehicles and would contain a loft.  The loft area would be used for the applicant’s wood shop hobby.  The applicant stated there would only be electricity and no commercial use in the garage.  The garage would comply with the height requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. 

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The location of the existing infrastructure on site constitutes a hardship peculiar to the within premises.
  2. The applicant’s revised plans represent an intelligent and modest retrofit from the subject premises.  Balancing the needs of the applicant, the impact and benefit to the subject premises, and the detriment to the Zoning Ordinance and the public, the benefits to granting this relief clearly outweigh the minimal negative impact.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 14th day of March, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Addition to be sized and located as depicted on the revised plans.  Variance is granted so as to locate the addition 8.59’ from the left side yard.  Total impervious coverage 33.6%, building coverage 16.63% and setback to the accessory structure.
  2. The garage shall have no utilities other than electric.
  3. Shed (8’x8’) to be removed and replaced with a permeable service.

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Church seconded. 

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes.

 

BA-75-04 – DAKOR/ROXBURY MOTEL –VARIANCE FOR ADDITION FOR SECOND FLOOR LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 6501, LOT 17 IN B-2 ZONE

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: March 14, 2005

Memorialized: April 11, 2005

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, Dakor Inc. T/A Roxbury Circle Motel has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to obtain a floor area ratio “d” variance and site plan approval for premises located at 1400 Route 46 and known as Block 6501, Lot 17 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.2502D8 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. Alexander Rinaldi, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is a motel and restaurant.  The subject property is approximately 1.8 acres and is located in the B2 Highway Business District along Route 46 near the Ledgewood Circle.  The site is developed with a one and two story motel/restaurant.
  3. The applicant submitted the following plans prepared by Alfred A. Stewart, Jr.:
    1. Sheet 1, Map of Property, revised 3/2/05
    2. Sheet 2, Site Plan, revised 3/2/05
    3. Sheet 3, Landscaping, revised 3/2/05
    4. Sheet 4, Lighting, revised 3/2/05
  1. The applicant submitted the following exhibits:
    1. A-1 – photo from 1992
    2. A-2 – photo of sign
    3. A-3 – photo of side view
    4. A-4 – photo of sign
    5. A-5 – marked up sheet 2 of 4
  1. The applicant also submitted the following exhibits prepared by Kenneth Gedicke, architect:
    1. Sheet 1, Minor Site Plan/Landscape Plan, revised 8/23/04
    2. Sheet 2, Minor Site Plan/Elevation, revised 8/23/04
    3. Sheet 3, Minor Site Plan/Floor Plans, revised 8/23/04
  1. The instant proposal involves the applicant’s request for a 594 square foot addition on the second floor above the motel office.  The new space would be utilized for storage.  The applicant also seeks retroactive approval for a 278 square foot kitchen addition.  The applicant is also proposing some additional landscaping.  A “d” variance is necessary, as both additions will increase the already non-conforming floor area ratio from 0.247 to 0.254.  The maximum permitted floor area ratio is 0.20.
  2. Soman Desai, principal of the applicant, testified at the public hearing.  He stated the addition would afford an opportunity to modernize the appearance of the motel lobby and eliminate an unattractive leaking and deteriorated roof structure.
  3. Mr. Desai presented four photographs from the early 1990’s depicting conditions at the site when he purchased the premises.  Mr. Desai noted that when he purchased the premises he inherited a site that had many non-conforming conditions.
  4. The Board received reports from Russell Stern, Township Planner, dated 12/8/04, revised 3/7/05 and Thomas Bodolsky, Engineering Consultant, dated 12/7/04, revised 3/10/05.  Those reports raised numerous questions that the applicant could not address at the initial public hearing and the matter was continued to a later public hearing.
  5. The matter was continued to the 3/14/05 public hearing.  The applicant called its engineer, Alfred A. Stewart, Jr.  Mr. Stewart reviewed the updated reports of the Board’s Engineer and the Township Planner.  Mr. Bodolsky, in a colloquy with the applicant, suggested enlarging the center island (same was sketched onto Sheet 2 of the revised plans dated 3/2/05), which was marked A-5.
  6. The applicant agreed to remove an area of impervious coverage behind the building adjacent to the property to the east.
  7. The applicant and the Board’s professionals reviewed and went over reports and revisions to the reports issued by the professionals at the public hearing.  The applicant agreed (as noted below) with the great majority of the recommendations of the Board’s professional staff.
  8. As noted, the applicant’s proposal results in the need for the following relief:
    1. A “d” variance from Section 13-7.2502D8 is needed, as the applicant’s floor area ratio (permitted 20%) will be increased to 25.4%.  (It is noted the applicant is seeking retroactive approval of a constructed 278 square foot kitchen addition.)
    2. A side yard variance for the setback for the kitchen is also needed – 10’ is required, 4.09’ is proposed.
    3. There is an existing non-conforming front yard of 32.48 feet and same would be maintained.
  1. As originally posited, the applicant’s impervious coverage would be at 61.5%.  Given some modifications agreed to by the applicant, the final number will be close to a conforming 60%.

        WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

1.        The Board finds the applicant’s proposal to be an aesthetic upgrade of this very unaesthetic and informal site.  The applicant’s improvements together with proper site plan techniques implemented by the Board, as part of this approval, will greatly enhance this site located in one of the municipalities most traveled thoroughfares.

  1. The deviations from the Zoning Ordinance really result from the non-conforming nature of the site as well as the location of the existing infrastructure.  This is a site surely in need of renovation and modernization.  The requested relief is

de minimis under the unique facts of the instant case.  It is noted that the applicant has agreed to remove areas of impervious coverage and to comply with the landscaping recommendations of the Township Planner.   

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 14th day of March, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. This approval is limited to the second floor addition, related improvements, landscaping, and kitchen.
  2. The second floor is to be utilized only for storage of nonvolatile materials.
  3. The dumpster shall be re-located and re-configured in accordance with the testimony at the public hearing.  It may remain in the front yard near the property line, but the final location and design details are to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.  To the extent that a design waiver is necessary, same is granted.  It is the intent of the Board that the applicant work with the Planner so as to minimize the unaesthetic nature of having a dumpster in the front yard recognizing the practical limitations the site offers for locating a dumpster in any other area.
  4. The approved plans prepared by Alfred A. Stewart, Jr. are as follows:
    1. Sheet 1, Map of Property, revised 3/2/05
    2. Sheet 2, Site Plan, revised 3/2/05
    3. Sheet 3, Landscaping, revised 3/2/05
    4. Sheet 4, Lighting, revised 3/2/05
  1. The applicant shall modify note on Sheet 4to the plans as follows:
    1. Existing exposed source wall mounted lights on the lobby façade shall be eliminated.  Existing canopy lighting may remain.  The old site lighting is to be noted for removal complete with all poles and foundations.  To the extent a design waiver is required for 2-foot high light foundations, same is granted.  The freestanding light shall be aligned with the parking stall striping and shall have a bronze color finish and base plate cover.  The final location of the lighting plan and design shall be approved by the Township Planner.  To the extent feasible, freestanding lights will be located within the new center island.
  2. As testified to by the applicant, no rooftop mechanical equipment is proposed; therefore, there shall be no rooftop mechanical equipment.
  3. Parking lot is to be re-striped.
  4. The proposed roof shingles for the addition shall match the new shingles on the adjoining motel.
  5. Applicant shall depict the proposed column and roof overhang on sheet 1 of the architectural drawings.
  6. Applicant shall consolidate the two freestanding signs in the front island to one, two-faced sign of equivalent dimensions to be relocated on private property roughly in the center of said island.
  7. Applicant shall provide gutters and leaders as needed; old metal pipes located in the center island shall be eliminated.
  8. Applicant shall pay a mandatory development fee in accordance with Township Ordinance 13-7.829.
  9. Applicant shall create and enlarge the center planting island within the main parking area.  The final design and detail for landscaping within this parking area shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
  10. The applicant shall remove impervious coverage along the middle of the rear building located to the east.  The plan shall be amended to reflect same.  Landscaping shall be provided along the existing property line.
  11. This application is subject to the review and approval of all other governmental agencies with joint and/or concurrent jurisdiction over the within application and, in particular, the Township Health Department.
  12. Applicant shall provide final designs for the light fixtures, which shall specify metal halide or mercury vapor lighting with wattage details.  Same to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
  13. All final landscaping details for the site are to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
  14. No Certificate of Occupancy/Approval for the addition and improvements are to be issued until all of the above conditions have been reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
  15. The applicant’s Engineer shall investigate the 6 drains beneath the southerly building wing and shall identify a positive outlet thereto.  Should the applicant fail to identify an outfall, which provides positive drainage to the motel courtyard in the opinion of the Board Engineer, then this matter shall be referred back to the Board for reconsideration.
  16. The design Engineer shall attempt to re-locate freestanding lights to the expanded central island provided, however, that adequate illumination of the courtyard area is still effected.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. Kinback seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-13-05 – KENBAR INVESTMENT – SOIL APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON ORBEN DR. BLOCK 8602, LOTS 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 15 IN LI/OR ZONE

 

ROXBURY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MAJOR SOIL REMOVAL/RELOCATION PERMIT

 

 

                Pursuant to Chapter XVII of the General Ordinances of the Township of Roxbury, Article 17-1 et.seq. (the “Ordinance”), the Roxbury Township Zoning Board of Adjustmen5t (the “Board”), having conducted a public hearing with public notice pursuant to the Ordinance, does hereby grant to the Applicant identified herein a Major Soil Permit, subject to the terms and conditions enumerated herein below.

 

1.        Applicant/Permittee:  Kenbar Investments, LLC

 

2.        Application Number:  BA-13-05

 

3.        Property Identification:  Block 3602, Lots 2,3,4,5,14,15 – LI/OR Zone

 

4.        Subdivision/Site Plan Approval Date(s):  3/14/05

 

5.        Major Soil Permit Approval Date:

 

6.        Effective Date:

 

7.        Findings of Fact:

 

a.        The Board has received an Application consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-6, and the Applicant has paid the application fee pursuant to ordinance Section 17-7.1.

b.       Proof of adequate notice of this Application, pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-6.5, has been furnished to the Board.

c.        A public hearing was conducted in accordance with the Ordinance and with opportunity for comment by interested members of the public on the following dates:  3/14/05.

d.       In granting this Permit, the Board has considered the factors enumerated in Section 17-6.6 of the Ordinance.  The Board has received and considered the following documents in connection with this Application:  (1) soil moving application dated 3/14/05; (2) earthwork calculations by  (George Gloede, P.E.; and (3) reports of the Zoning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 3/10/05.

e.        The Board has made the following additional findings of fact:

                                                               i.      The Applicant intends to import/export 2,100 cubic yards (cy) of soil.

                                                              ii.      The Applicant proposes to relocate within the site an amount of soil to be determined through re-submission of calculations by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Board’s Engineer.

                                                            iii.      The Applicant intends to obtain fill from/export fill to out of Township or McNear Site.                 

                                                            iv.      The route of truck travel to Applicant’s site from the borrow site to the disposal site will be: via Route 80/Landing Road.

                                                             v.      The Applicant has agreed to comply with the recommendations contained in the report of the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s Engineer dated 3/10/05.

                                                            vi.      Pursuant to Section 17-9d of the Ordinance, the Board finds that circumstances warrant the restriction of the hours of soil moving operations to 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m.    to 12:00 noon on Saturdays (with such operations prohibited on Sundays and legal holidays).

 

8.        Conditions of Approval:  This Permit is granted subject to the following terms and conditions:

 

a.        Applicant shall post a performance guarantee, consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-8, in an amount indicated in Subparagraph H.5 below, as determined by the Board Engineer based on quantity of soil moved at the rate of $0.35 center per cubic yard of material moved.

b.       This Permit shall remain valid for a term of one year from the Effective Date specified in Paragraph 6 hereinabove, subject to extension thereafter in accordance with Ordinance Section 17-9c.

c.        The Applicant shall pay the engineering review and inspection fees as required in Ordinance Section 17-7.3.

d.       This approval shall not become effective until: (i) Applicant has paid all outstanding property taxes and assessment due or delinquent as of the date hereof; and (ii) all conditions of the site plan approval fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer.

e.        Applicant shall comply with (i) “Hours of Operation” established pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-9d; (ii) “General Terms and Conditions of Operation” stipulated in Section 17-10; (iii) “Topsoil Restrictions”, pursuant to Section 17-11; (iv) “Depth of Excavation; pursuant to Section 17-12; and (v) “Final Grades”, pursuant to Section 17-13.

f.         Applicant grants to the Township Engineer and/or his duly authorized agents, the right of entry to the property to conduct inspections to determine compliance with this Permit.

g.       This approval is subject to all outside agency review, as may have jurisdiction over this matter.

h.       This Permit is subject to the following additional terms and conditions:

                                                               i.      All fill will be imported to/exported from Applicants site from/to a site outside Roxbury Township or McNear Site.

                                                              ii.      The applicant’s Engineer shall submit revised earthwork calculations covering the entire project and addressing comment 1 of the Pequest Engineering report of 3/10/05.

                                                            iii.      The route of truck travel to/from Applicant’s site from the borrow site/to the disposal site shall be: via Route 80/Landing Road.

                                                            iv.      The Erosion Control Plan shall be modified to indicate the following note:  “Notwithstanding the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, the Applicant shall implement all measures needed to satisfactorily control erosion, dust, and sediment transport as may be reasonably determined by the Township Engineer during construction”.

                                                             v.      Applicant shall post a soil moving fee of $315.00 (2100cy @$0.15/cy).

                                                            vi.      Per Section 17-8 of the Ordinance, Applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount of $0.35/cy of earth moved within the site as determined by re-submitted calculations subject to the approval by the Board’s Engineer.

                                                          vii.      Applicant shall place hay bales on the site to supplement planned silt fencing for erosion control to the satisfaction of the Planning Board Engineer.

                                                         viii.      In accordance with Ordinance Section 17-6.1(t), the Applicant shall stake out interior improvements with appropriate cut sheets to the satisfaction of the Township Engineer.

                                                             ix.      Should re-submitted calculations demonstrate that off-tract movement of soil will exceed 2100cy, then the applicant shall seek a major permit modification from the Township Engineer.

                                                              x.      A crusher may be utilized to process larger stones into useable subgrade materials.  The location of the crusher and the use of processed materials in road construction shall be at the discretion of the Township Engineer.

 

The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate recitation of the action taken by the Zoning Board on the approval date designated hereinabove.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-10-05 – ROBERT KOZIK – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON EMMANS RD. BLOCK 4103, LOT 11 IN R-1 ZONE

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: March 14, 2005

Memorialized: April 11, 2005

 

 

                WHEREAS, Robert Kozik has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition onto an existing single family home requiring dimensional variance relief for premises located at 11 Emmans Road and known as Block 4103, Lot 11 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-1” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1001D4 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. The applicant is the owner of the subject premises.  Same are improved with a single family home.
  2. The applicant was proposing to enlarge the existing home.
  3. The proposed footprint of the addition was depicted on a 10/8/04 “site plan” prepared by Bruce A. Brattstrom, architect.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 9/27/04 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The proposed addition required the following variances:
    1. Front yard setback – 28.1’ (house), 24’ (porch), 41’ (garage) proposed whereas, 50’ is required
  1. Mr. Kozik presented 5 photos (A-1 – A-5) showing nearby houses in the neighborhood.
  2. The addition involves adding a second level, a garage, and covering the present stoop (covering the stoop makes the stoop part of the house for setback purposes).

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The Board notes that the premises are irregularly shaped.  It is a wide, shallow lot.  The premises, as configured, are undersized (30,000 sq. ft. vs. the required 40,250 sq. ft.) for the R1 Zone.  In addition, the location of the existing infrastructure constitutes another hardship peculiar to the premises.
  2. The applicant’s proposed re-utilization of the existing home and the location of the proposed addition constitute an adaptive re-use of an existing resource.
  3. The dimensional relief for the most part already exists.  There will be no adverse impact on any other property.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 14th day of  March, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. House and addition to be sized and located as depicted on the House and Garage Additions Plan dated 10/8/04 prepared by Bruce A. Brattstrom, architect.
  2. Front yard setback to be no less than 28’ and 41’ as requested and depicted. 

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. Kinback seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

AGENDA

 

BA-11-05 – ROBERT KOCOSKI – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON FERROMONTE AVE. BLOCK 2604, LOT 8 IN R-4 ZONE

 

Ms. Robortaccio said we received new plans today, and the Board has not had an opportunity to review them.  We will carry the application to the next hearing

 

The application was carried to 5/9/05.  Mr. Kocoski was present and granted an extension to that date.

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced Application BA-66-04, John Selby, will not be heard and is carried to 5/9/05. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio stated Application BA-14-05, Ralph’s Realty Corp./Lakes End Marina has been withdrawn by the applicant.

 

Mr. Wiener said this was an application for an appeal of the Zoning Officer’s decision.  There is a limited time period of 20 days for filing an appeal.  The application should be denied as the time frame has expired.

 

Discussion.

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to deny the application.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; yes; Ms. Dargel, abstain; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-15-05 – MARK AND CATHY MAGNUSSON – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON CAREY RD. BLOCK 4403, LOT 54 IN R-1 ZONE

 

Mark Magnusson was sworn in.

 

Kenneth Fox, architect and planner for the applicant, was sworn in.

 

Mr. Magnusson said since they bought the house 10 years ago, they have added to their family and have outgrown the house.  Three years ago they bought the house behind them and moved their parents in there.  They want to stay here.  They want to have 3 new larger bedrooms, a larger kitchen and a larger family room and a two-car garage. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said she visited the site and she had asked for new drawings to reflect what is on the property.  There is reference to a covered deck that is sometimes called a patio or covered porch on other documents.

 

Mr. Fox stated the idea is to expand the size of the rooms.  There will be a master bedroom suite on the left side, a two-car garage on the right side, and about 6 to 8 feet are added across the back of the house.  On the rear of the house will be a covered porch with paver blocks.  There is currently a deck there.  The new porch will be 6 feet beyond the farthest part of the current deck.  

 

Mr. Fox referred to sheet Z-1 in color (marked A-1).  He said we are before the Board for 3 variances.  This is a corner lot with two front yards.  It is a small lot compared to other lots in the zone.  The house sits in such a way that the existing house encroaches on both front and rear setbacks.  The front yard variance is required in two places – for the garage and for the master bedroom.  At the rear of the house, in order to get a covered porch, we have added to the current deck by an additional 6 feet.  We do want to amend the plan to get rid of the request for an impervious coverage variance.  The lower paver patio will be eliminated in its entirety.  The application is for 61 square feet over the allowed coverage.  Secondly, we will push the master bedroom back 2 feet.  Thirdly, we will eliminate 150+ sq. ft. on the existing driveway.   With those changes the need for an impervious coverage variance is eliminated and will be at 20% or less.

 

Ms. Kinback asked why they aren’t going up instead of out.

 

Mr. Magnusson said he prefers a ranch style home. 

 

Mr. Fox said if we went up, a variance would still be required for the garage.

 

 

 

Mr. Stern said Roxbury and other communities have established the impervious coverage requirements, and the type of home that is most affected is the ranch style home, and this type of housing is good for the elderly and handicapped population, and we are eliminating that type of housing stock here and in other communities with the ordinances. 

 

Mr. Crowley asked if it was considered to move the covered deck into the corner of the addition on the left.

 

Mr. Magnusson said they wanted the porch off the kitchen.

 

Mr. Fox said the existing setback to the existing deck is 32 ½ feet. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked how far the parent’s home in the back is from their property line.

 

Mr. Magnusson said about 25 or 30 feet.

 

Mr. Stern said if this were classified as a sideyard , would it be conforming?

 

Mr. Fox said it would.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the parent’s house is closer to Cornhollow.

 

Mr. Magnusson said it is.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there are a lot of other ranch houses in the neighborhood.

 

Mr. Magnusson said the ones on both side are and some up the street are as well.  Cornhollow and Carey are predominantly ranches.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if the steps are included in the setback.

 

Mr. Stern said there is an exclusion in the ordinance for steps.  If they were covered they would be included.

 

Mr. Fox said they are not covered. They extend 30”.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPEEND

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the application as the lot is irregularly sized and is a corner lot.  The addition will blend in with the existing neighborhood.  Ms. Kinback seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Application approved.

 

BA-17-05 – KENNETH & KATHY RIBE – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION AND DECK LOCATED ON KINGSLAND RD. BLOCK 1002, LOT 21 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Kenneth and Kathy Ribe were sworn in.

 

Mr. Ribe said they want to add a family room.  There is a screened in porch which they would like to enclose.  They would have to add onto it because the entrance to the porch is from the utility room, and they want to enter the addition from the kitchen. 

 

Mr. Stern asked if they will be coming any closer to the lake.

 

Mr. Ribe said they are not and they are going into the open deck area.  They are going 6’6” wider. 

 

Ms. Kinback said she visited the site and is satisfied there will be no problem.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPEEND

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the application.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes. 

 

Ms. Dargel said the impervious coverage is quite a bit over what is required but it is already existing.  They are increasing it by less than 2%. 

 

Roll call continued:  Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-12 –05 – WACHOVIA BANK – VARIANCE FOR SIGN LOCATED ON LAKESIDE BLVD. BLOCK 10901, LOT 8 IN B-3 ZONE

 

Attorney Michael Ligorano represented the applicant.

 

Durwood Hankison was sworn in.

 

Mr. Ligorano submitted colored copies of the plans submitted with the application (marked A-1 and A-2).

 

Mr. Ligorano said we are here to seek relief to add three additional signs to a freestanding ATM kiosk in the existing shopping center.

 

Mr. Hankison stated he is employed by Wachovia as Vice President of Corporate Real Estate.  The kiosk is a freestanding building whose purpose is to house an ATM and to provide security for the ATM.  The sign is backlit with a blue field and gray lettering.  The reason for having signage around the top of the kiosk is that we prefer that our customers see the sign in time to get to the kiosk safely.

 

Mr. Ligorano said it is standard in the industry to have a sign all the way around the kiosk for identification purposes. 

 

Mr. Stern said the municipality ordinances have a restriction for one sign and 4 are proposed.  It requires a variance.  The purpose of the municipal ordinances is to reduce signage and reduce visual clutter.  The Board should look at the issue as to whether or not it promotes visual clutter, whether there is redundancy in the sign exposure, how it sits on the site.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said before the signs went up I thought it was a utility cabinet.  Without the signs it is difficult to know what it is.

 

Ms. Dargel agreed.  With it in the middle of the parking lot, I didn’t expect it to be there.  This is a very unique situation as it is not easily identifiable as an ATM machine.  The signs are unobtrusive and are definitely needed for identification.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

Mr. Wiener asked if this is strictly a drive-up machine.

 

Mr. Ligorano said it is.

 

Janice Christensen, Branch Manager of the Landing Branch of Valley National Bank, was sworn in.  She stated her bank has come to the planning board several times to ask for additional signage for the branch on Main Street and have been rejected.  For them to have 4 signs on a 10 x 10 building I don’t think is fair.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said that was before another Board and we cannot comment on that.  This is a totally different situation.

 

Mr. Wiener asked if the signs for Valley National Bank were for signs on the building.

 

Ms. Christensen said yes, and we also asked for an additional sign on Main Street.

 

Ms. Dargel said that is a different situation.  A big building is different from a kiosk in the middle of a parking lot.

 

Ms. Dargel said she also sees it as a safety issue as it is difficult to see.

 

Ms. Christensen said she saw it at night and it was well illuminated with just the one sign.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Crowley asked if there are any other kiosks like this in town.

 

Mr. Stern said no.  This kiosk was existing in this parking lot.  When they came in for the upgrade to the shopping center in the 1990s the Fotomat kiosk was there and was not eliminated.

 

Mr. Stern asked if there will be other advertising on the kiosk.

 

Mr. Ligorano said we will stipulate to no other advertising and that the signage shown on Exhibit A-1 is the only signage, other than directional signs.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the illumination footcandles are within code.

 

Mr. Ligorano said we will comply with whatever the municipal standard is.

 

Mr. Stern said lighting as it pertains to signage is not regulated.

 

Mr. Hankison said we comply with the state regulations for ATMs.

 

Mr. Meyer said this is a unique circumstance, but Wachovia put the ATM there knowing what the sign ordinance is.  I would be more in favor of the signs if they were not illuminated.

 

Mr. Ligorano said it would defeat the purpose.  This is a very specialized, minor use.  We feel it is a safety issue.

 

Mr. Hankison said the illumination is very minor and is just there so that you can see the lettering.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if having illuminated signage would violate the state regulations for the ATMs.

 

Mr. Ligorano said no.  The State standard is for down-lighting for the ATM itself. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said there are no residentially zoned properties around this site. 

 

Ms. Kinback said she lives in that area and would prefer to have the illuminated signs.  It may deter people from congregating or robbing.

 

Mr. Crowley said the issue is that you need the signs backlit so that they will be seen farther away.  Would you be able to see them at night if they were not lit?

 

Mr. Ligorano said no.

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the application.  Ms. Dargel seconded

 

Discussion.

 

Ms. Darling said when they did have the photo booths, they were lit at night.  It was not so much for the manning of the booth, but is more for someone driving through a parking lot so that they can see the booth.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Mr. Meyer, no; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

There was a 5 minute recess at 8:40 p.m.

 

BA-25-04 – KINGTOWN DIESEL – AMENDED SITE PLAN AND USE VARIANCE FOR SERVICE STATION ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9302, LOT 3 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Attorney Ronald Heymann represented the applicant.  He said at the last hearing the Board asked for information regarding the oil tanks. We submitted the information.  We sent a certificate showing everything was fine with the tanks.  There were also questions regarding the DEP.  Last week Dennis Prince of the DEP came to the site.  They are contracting with an environmental firm out of Morganville, New Jersey.  He has not returned my calls.  Apparently the state is aware of the cleanup and are contracting to do the cleanup. I will have a more detailed response.  Whatever the DEP requires will be made part and parcel of any approval from the Board.  We have received a report from the Health Department, and we will agree to submit a septic design before opening a food establishment.  Regarding the well, we will drill a new well or provide a water mediation program.  That will be a condition of approval.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if there is any prior documentation from the DEP regarding the contamination of the well on the site.

 

Mr. Heymann said they don’t have any.

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked why they are cleaning it up.

 

Mr. Heymann said the only thing we know is that the well is contaminated.  They have been involved in it for some time with the surrounding areas.

 

Mr. Hashemi said there are monitoring wells on the site.  DEP has been out there for some time.  No mediation has started yet, but the DEP has hired a contractor to mediate it.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked why there is no documentation on the monitoring wells.

 

Mr. Wiener wondered if that was independently communicated to the Township Board of Health.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said this afternoon he called DEP Site Remediation, and got quite a bit of information from them.  I am surprised I could get the information and the applicant couldn’t.  There was monitoring done on the site.  There are 4 monitoring wells, and during 2003-2004, two of the four were found to be contaminated along with 4 other wells in the immediate vicinity, including the animal hospital, motel, church, and Motion Auto, as well as this particular site.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said there is an ongoing State funded cleanup which is only resorted to when the owner refuses to undertake a DEP directive.  There is also another violation on the site related to a Bureau of Underground Storage Tank matter.  However, apparently around 2000, there was an application to alter and remove certain piping on the site, and in a notice of November 27, 2002, the DEP adamantly asked for the filing of a closure report from the applicant, and that was not followed up.  Also, apparently, there are 6 tanks on the site, the latest being a diesel fueling tank of 22,500 gallons, which they have going in in 2001.  The other tanks are two 6,000 gallon unleaded tanks, one 8,000 gallon  unleaded, one 10,000 gallon unleaded and one 10,000 gallon #1 diesel.  Apparently there is an extensive record.  Also, apparently there was a grant given to this site out of a site remediation fund of $125,000 to begin site remediation. 

 

Mr. Heymann said the applicant was not the owner at the time the violations may have been found.

 

Mr. Wiener said he knows there was a tank installation in 2001 when the site was altered with a new diesel island.  When were the rest of the tanks put in?

 

Mr. Heymann said 5 tanks were installed in 1982 and the diesel tanks were installed in 2000. 

 

Mr. Sarfaraz, purchaser under contract, stated the tanks are inspected yearly, and were last inspected in 2004.  They were all inspected and passed. 

 

Mr. Sarfaraz submitted a Certificate of Underground Storage Tank Testing System dated April 2, 2004 (marked A-21).   It has the result of 8 tanks, and they all were passed.  A second party, certified from DEP, does the testing.  Besides that, we have a monitoring system 24 hours a day.  The tank linings are double walled fiberglass.  They were all inspected at the time of the upgrade in 2000.  I was an employee at that time. 

 

Mr. Sarfaraz also submitted certificate of registration from DEP for the underground storage tank system dated January 1, 2003, which was good until September 2005 (marked A-22).  They looked at 6 tanks.  That test is done by a second party approved by DEP. 

 

Mr. Heymann asked Mr. Sarfaraz about what is going on at the site.

 

Mr. Sarfaraz said they were there last week and were looking for places to put up two booths to take the water up from the ground, clean, and discharge it.  They were there on Tuesday.

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked Mr. Sarfaraz if he is aware that there is a probability if DEP will back-assess the properties for the cleanup.

 

Mr. Sarfaraz said he is aware.  They will do the cleanup and put a lien on the property.

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked why there hasn’t been a closure report filed at the request of DEP for the lines that were removed or replaced on the site.

 

Mr. Sarfaraz said everything was done on our end.  We had an environmental professional who went out of business who took the grant money. He was supposed to close everything, but didn’t.  He went out of business.    He is on record with DEP.

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked if it will stay open.

 

Mr. Heymann said we will do everything we are supposed to do.  We have some obligations and the seller has some financial obligations.  We will state on the record that anything that has to be done will be done.  The site has to be cleaned up.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the concern is that it has to be cleaned up.  The site has a history for many years.

 

Mr. Heymann said the convenience store has been closed for 2 ½ years.  It is a big economical issue.  We won’t be able to open until we comply with many of these items.  We are buying the property from Mr. Lippmann.  Our application is to improve the existing situation.  It behooves Mr. Sarfaraz to comply in a timely manner. We want to resolve this once and for all. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked that the representative from the Health Department step forward.

 

Abigail Montgomery of the township Health Department, was sworn in.  She said over the years we have had various complaints on the site.  The applicant opened the mini mart without our approval.  We have also worked with DEP with their investigation.  We have taken water samples off site.  The septic system is not in compliance and it hasn’t come up to code.  They need to come in to total compliance to open the mini mart.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if the septic was in compliance without the mini mart.

 

Ms. Montgomery said she has never seen it malfunction.  When there is an expansion or change of use you have to meet code.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the water tank has been there as a temporary measure.  How long is temporary?  Why has nothing been done all these years?

 

Ms. Montgomery said the State sent them a letter that they had to hook up or put a POET unit on.  It is partially DEP’s jurisdiction and partially ours.  It is a gray area.  If there are 25 of the same people or more on the site every day, it is public non-community, non-transient (same people every day).  Usually any gas station opens the bathroom to someone and then it become a transient non-community.  DEP has been on the site numerous times, but they are not in the public non-community system.  If they were, DEP would be responsible to make them comply with drinking water standards.   I believe there are more than 25 people using it.  Using a water tank for a temporary measure is standard, but it has been there for many years. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if there is a guideline to define temporary.

 

Ms. Montgomery said no.

 

Ms. Dargel said in the Health Department report of November 4, 2004, it says with regard to retail food establishments, they must have a water supply that is in conformance with the NJ Safe Drinking Water Act and that it requires connection to a public water system or individual well that is in compliance.  The tank on site is not in compliance, correct?

 

Ms. Montgomery said that is correct, when the food store was open it was not in compliance.

 

Mr. Stern said they have stated they will either drill a new well or put in the appropriate facilities to clean up the water.

 

Ms. Dargel asked what, short of connecting to a potable water system or drilling a new well, can they do?

 

Ms. Montgomery said they could use a point-of-entry treatment system.  They can bring the water quality into compliance with the standards that would make it potable. That is a unit that would go from the point of entry to the building so that all the water going into the building would be treated.  It would be monitored periodically by a contractor.

 

Ms. Dargel said the report also says the DEP has notified the Health Department that the building must be connected to public water or provided with a point-of-entry treatment unit for volatile contamination.  Of what significance is that statement?

 

Ms. Montgomery said they found volatile organics in their well.

 

Ms. Dargel asked, how long can water be in a tank before you would expect to find contaminants?

 

Mr. Heymann said we have stipulated we will put in a new well or a treatment system.  We know we cannot open the retail food establishment without doing that.  The temporary water tank will be removed.

 

Mr. Meyer said they have agreed they have to meet the water standard and DEP standards. 

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked, if this use were requesting a C.O. under the present use, would that be granted by the Health Department?

 

Ms. Montgomery said no.  Because it’s not meeting potable water standards.  If it was a new building, it would not pass.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if the current use today with the present tank meets the requirements of the Health Department?

 

Ms. Montgomery said right now the DEP has told them they need to put a POET unit on.  I intend to send them a notice on that.  I would need to determine if it is our responsibility.  Assuming it was, I would make them do something more permanent than what is there now, such as a point of entry treatment system. 

 

Mr. Kurtz said if we approve this, what measures will the Health Department and engineers take to be sure the septic system isn’t hit again?

 

Mr. Sarfaraz said there is a lifetime warranty. 

 

Mr. Kurtz said there will be trucks standing overnight.  What measures are there if there is a leak onto the gravel area?

 

Mr. Hashemi said where we have the overnight parking, that area will be paved with asphalt and curbed.  There is a long distance of about 60 feet.  If there is a leak, mitigation measures will be taken.

 

Mr. Kurtz asked where the storm drains are in relation to this.

 

Mr. Hashemi said there are no storm drains on site.

 

Mr. Sarfaraz said there have been no leaks since he has been there, but they are prepared for it. 

 

Ms. Dargel said she has heard that there was a situation existing on the site that was generally considered to be in non-compliance for rules for retail food establishment.  How could this be prevented again, if another water tank is put on the site two years down the road?  Does the Health Department have the right to conduct periodic review of the site?  How would you know if there has been a violation?

 

Mr. Heymann said we would not be able to put any temporary tank on unless we came to the Board for approval and got all other approvals necessary.

 

Ms. Montgomery said if is a public non-community well, the State requires that if you fail quarterly tests, you can use the water but you have to post signs that the water is contaminated.  The well owner performs the tests and submits the results to the State.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if this site complies with those parameters. 

 

Ms. Montgomery said they are not a public non-community source.

 

Ms. Dargel said there are public bathrooms there, and trucks stay there overnight.

 

Ms. Montgomery said the State has not put them into the public community water system.  Tomorrow I will call the Bureau of Safe Drinking Water and see if someone will come up and do an evaluation.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said at this point it seems it is a Catch 22 situation.

 

Ms. Montgomery stated a water tank is a common temporary situation.  Sometimes it does take years.

 

Mr. Kurtz asked what the Board of Health is doing to take proactive measures to prevent the pollution.

 

Ms. Montgomery said we don’t have the staff to keep up with that.  There is no ordinance that allows us to go around to make sure people are not doing what they aren’t supposed to do.  We respond to complaints. Numerous times over the years we have tested water for residents at their own expense.

 

Mr. Church asked what is keeping the site from hooking into public water.

 

Mr. Stern said there is no water line there, and we are also under a water moratorium. 

 

Mr. Crowley asked why the applicant is not trying to resolve the current problems, and when do you plan that it will be done?

 

Mr. Heymann stated what we are doing there is permitted.  This is a very expensive venture – to drill a well or put in a mitigation system.  The applicant wants to use the mini mart and has to know what has to be done.

 

Mr. Crowley asked why that issue isn’t being resolved now.

 

Mr. Heymann said we may not have to put in a new system if we don’t get approval for the mini mart.  We have stipulated what we will do if we get the approval.  The tank will be removed.

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked Ms. Montgomery when it was discovered that Motion Auto and the motel have contaminated wells, was there any action taken by the Health Department?

 

Ms. Montgomery said we notified people in the area and asked them if they wanted their water tested.  The Harley Davidson is on a POET system.  Only if it is a new site and if they need a C.O. do they come under our jurisdiction. The motel water has to be treated as a requirement of the State of New Jersey.  They have a unit on it, and that water is treated and is monitored quarterly.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked that the applicant address Mr. Bodolsky’s report dated 11/1/04:

 

Item 1 – statement of fact

Item 2 - Mr. Bodolsky said the applicant had said that they would submit sight profiles and they have not.  He said he disagrees with the testimony regarding the adequacy of sight distance on the site.

Item 3 – Discussion.  Applicant agreed to remove Sheet 3.   What is being applied for is a convenience store, truck stop, fuel distribution area, and use of masonry building for office and management.  Mr. Heymann said Mr. Humbert has already testified as to what prior approvals were granted. 

Item 4 – waiver requested

Item 5 – waiver requested – overnight truck parking area will be curbed.

Item 6- agreed

Item 7 – discussed

Item 8 – agreed – no inutile vehicles.  Area for storage of inutile vehicles has been changed to a contractors yard.

Item 9 – discussed – agreed to remove shower -  truck rest stop not to exceed 8 hours

Items 10, 11 – acceptable

Item 12 – applicant objects – poll of Board determined restoration will be required (topsoiled and seeded) – applicant will contact Township Manager for access

Item 13 – waiver granted

Item 14 – Discussion.  Signs and striping will be installed.  Mr. Hashemi said if you narrow the ingress and egress it would require a major site plan review by DOT.  Instead of that we propose striping to narrow it down.  Board agreed.

Item 15 – agreed

Item 16 – addressed

Item 17 – Addressed.  Mr. Hashemi said the landscape plan shows landscaping around the propane tank location and a striping area at the ramp.  The delivery truck will come around the building. 

Item 18 – Details will be provided.

Item 19 – agreed

Item 20 – Agreed.  No water will be trapped against the curbline.  Curbline profile will be submitted.

Item 21 – handicap stall was removed and placed next to the building

Item 22 – fueling truck will back up and cones will be provided during fueling.  Two isles will be closed at the time the delivery truck is on site.

Item 23 – completed

Item 24 – will replace to have light lenses flush- will not exceed illumination engineer standards

Item 25 – deleted from plans

Item 26 – acceptable

Item 27 – agreed

Item 28 –discussion – one oversized vehicle or equipment per stall

Item 29 – acceptable

Item 30 – done

Item 31 – agreed

Item 32 – one vehicle per stall – licensed vehicles – will comply with applicable statutes

Item 33 – acceptable

Item 34 – will comply

Item 35 – will come back for site plan approval when specific user is determined

Items 36, 37 –  will come back for site plan approval when specific user is determined

Item 38 – agreed

Item 39 – addressed – agree to “No Parking” “Loading Zone” signs

Item 40 – these are designated spaces for delivery to the site. “Short Term Delivery Parking” signs will be posted.

Item 41 – acceptable

Item 42 – shed will be eliminated

 

Mr. Stern asked that the applicant address Item 4.14 in his report regarding signage.

 

Mr. Hashemi said we show two canopy signs, a sign on the front of the building, one on the chain link fence, several small freestanding signs.  All the signs are existing.  We are proposing two face signs saying “diesel”, one on the road side. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the Board will need a list of all the sign variances and other variances needed prior to the next hearing.  The applicant should meet with staff to discuss the open items. 

 

The application was carried to 5/9/05.  The applicant granted an extension of time to that date.

 

Mr. Meyer suggested the applicant will also respond to Mr. Bodolsky’s comments on sight distance at the next hearing. 

 

Mr. Bodolsky said he will also prepare a set of conditions relative to the water situation.

 

Ms. Dargel suggested the amount of signage should be reduced.

 

BA-16-05 – KARLA LESSIG – VARIANCE FOR SECOND FLOOR ADDITION LOCATED ON MITCHELL AVE., BLOCK 10019, LOTS 2, 3, 5 IN R-1 ZONE

 

 

Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant.  He stated this application is for a 900 square foot second floor addition.  Currently, Lots 2, 3, and 5 house the existing building.  The survey shows the property is on Riggs Ave. and 1st Avenue with the front of the property on Riggs Avenue.  The second floor addition zoning permit was denied because the existing building is 11 feet in the rear yard when 50 is required; and 15 feet in the front yard when 50 feet is required.  We are proposing to consolidate Lots 1 and 4 with Lots 2, 3 and 5.  That would make the lot more conforming in size and would eliminate the rear yard setback variance.  We are asking to construct the second floor, are proposing to add 10,000 square feet to the lot, and will eliminate the existing rear yard setback variance, leaving the only variance being required for front yard setback, which is existing.  It would be an aesthetic improvement and we would file a deed consolidating all the lots.

 

Mr. Meyer said he sees this as all positive.  There are no negatives.

 

Ms. Kinback said the lots look like they flow down into the house.  Is that the lots that are being condensed?

 

Karla Lessig was sworn in.  She stated it is.  The house won’t be on the slope.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the day she was there the lot was under water and there was a hose running the water out to the street.  Will anything be done about that?

 

Ms. Lessig said the tenant was doing that.  It is not normal to have the water sitting there.  This will remain a one-family house and will most likely be rented out.

 

Ms. Dargel asked whose inutile car is there.

 

Ms. Lessig said it belongs to the tenants.

 

Ms. Dargel said we would require that the inutile vehicle be removed.

 

Ms. Lessig said she would agree.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there was ever flooding before.

 

Ms. Lessig said no.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the house will be re-sided.

 

Ms. Lessig said yes.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application.  She said this will be an improvement to the area and will eliminate an existing variance.  By combining the lots there will be a  more concise and conforming lot.  Mr. Meyer seconded. 

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

OLD BUSINESS

 

Kenbar 

 

Mr. Stern said recently the Board approved the Kenbar application.  The building was approved with a pitched/gabled roof.  Since then, the applicant is requesting that he does a sloped roof which goes from the front to the rear.  The height of the roof would be shortened.  It will be a maximum height of 24’8. 

 

Mr. Stern said he has no objection.

 

The Board members had no objection.

 

Mr. Stern said the applicant had testified that it would be a green roof and has now asked if it could be a galvanized roof.  The roof in front will be green but the sloped area will be galvanized.  It won’t be very visible.

 

The Board members determined the entire roof will be green.

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:45 p.m.

 

                                                Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/