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, Joyce Dargel, Mark Crowley, Kathy DeFillippo, Robert Kurtz, Barbara Kinback, Heather Darling.

 

ABSENT:  Robert Church, Scott Meyer

 

Also present:  Larry Wiener, Russell Stern.

 

Minutes of 4/25/05

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

Changes noted and made.

 

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

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the Board has received a letter from Mr. Wiener regarding Merry Heart.  They are requesting to allow the people to remain living in the yellow house during construction.

 

Mr. Stern said during the original hearing, I don’t believe that was an issue.  That is where a number of the employees live. 

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to allow the usage of the yellow house during construction of phase 2.  She said she thinks it is far enough removed from the construction and should be done using standard operating procedures so as not to be a safety issue.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

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

 

Mr. Wiener said there has also been a request by the attorney for the Spatz/Valentino application seeking for the Board to reconsider the application based upon a petition.  A petition was allegedly signed by many of the neighboring property owners stating they preferred the property be kept as single family and not used as a commercial use.  The options are that they can go to the Council to have the area rezoned or can come back to the Board with a substantially different application, or if a Board member felt he would want to revisit the application, they could do that. 

 

Mr. Stern said there was a follow-up letter from their attorney that stated they felt it would be appropriate to re-size that building.

 

Ms. DeFillippo said she would recommend they go back to either the Planning Board or the Township Council.  The approval for a commercial use here was only made by the Planning Board about a year ago. 

 

Mr. Crowley agreed.

 

Mr. Kurtz said the reason we voted the way we did is that the times have changed.  Route 10 is heavily commercial in that area, and we are trying to less-intensify the residential are there. 

 

Ms. Darling said she thinks it should go back to the Planning Board.  

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the Board’s recommendation is that the applicant go back to the Planning Board or the Council.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

BA-4-05 – MERRY HEART NURSING HOME – AMENDED SITE PLAN LOCATED ON MAIN ST./RT. 10 BLOCK 5203, LOT 9, 12, 13 IN PO/R ZONE

 

In the matter of Merry Heart Nursing Home

Case No. BA-4-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: May 9, 2005

Memorialized: June 13, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Merry Heart Nursing Home has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for approval of an amended preliminary site plan for premises

located at 209 Route 10 and known as Block 5201, Lot 9, 12, 13 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “PO/R” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.3504B 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 subject property encompasses a total of just over 4 acres located in the PO/R Professional Office/Residence District.  The property was formerly zoned Highway Business B2 and Residential R-3 prior to the April 2001 amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
  2. The site is developed with a recently constructed three-story 97-bed nursing home with 36 “slots” for adult day care on the lower level.  The old nursing home is currently under demolition.  A two-story staff residence building located at the northeast corner of the tract (designated as a historic site) will remain.
  3. On 4/12/99, the Board granted “d” variances for the 97-bed nursing home, a 36-person adult day care facility (in the old nursing home) and three-story, 84-bed assisted living building.  The site will be serviced by 86 parking spaces and utilize public sewer and water. 
  4. On 8/9/99, the applicant received preliminary site plan approval and associated variances for the health care complex.  Subsequent applications were made and granted by the Board to relocate adult day care to the new nursing home, revise architecture and modify signage.  On 11/25/02, the Zoning Board granted final site plan approval for Phase I, which encompassed the new nursing home and associated improvements.
  5. The Phase I final site plan resolution required the applicant to appear before the Board within three years (11/25/05) for an amended preliminary site plan approval for Phase II. Certain changes in Phase I would materially affect Phase II.
  6. The applicant is now seeking amended Phase II preliminary site plan approval for the assisted living facility.  Among the revisions being sought are the following:
    1. Modified building footprint
    2. Total floor area reduced from 66,634 s.f. to 63,586 s.f.
    3. Modified architectural design
    4. Reduced building coverage (51.3% to 50.6%)
    5. Increased assisting living beds  (86 vs. 84)
    6. Elimination of the service tunnel linking the nursing home to the assisted living facility
    7. A trash enclosure to be located to the east of the building in the vicinity of Route 10 and Hillside Avenue

 

  1. The applicant submitted the following exhibits:

 

Prepared by the Chester, Ploussas, Lisowsky Partnership, LLP

 

        Sheet 1, Key Map and Sheet Index, revised 10/14/04

        Sheet 2, Vicinity Map and General Notes, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 3, Existing Conditions Map, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 4, Demolition Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 5, Preliminary Site Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 6, Utility Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 7, Preliminary Grading Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 8, Phasing Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 10, Profiles, revised 10/13/04

Sheet 11, Existing Drainage Areas Map, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 12, Surface Water Runoff Control Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 13, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 14, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 15, Landscape Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 16, Landscape Details, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 17, Construction Details, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 18, Slope Analysis, revised 10/13/04

        Sheets 19, 20 & 21, Site Lighting and Details, 10/13/04

        Sheets 21 & 22, Cross Sections of Swale, revised 10/13/04

 

Prepared by Beer and Coleman Architects and Associates

 

        Sheet A-1, Basement Plan, revised 2/9/05

        Sheet A-2, First Floor Plan, revised 2/9/05

        Sheet A-3, Second Floor Plan, revised 2/9/05

        Sheet A-4, Third Floor Plan, revised 2/9/05

        Sheet A-5, Exterior Elevations, revised 2/9/05

        Sheet A-6, Exterior Elevations, revised 2/9/05

        Sheet A-7, Building Section-A, revised 2/9/05

 

  1. The Board received reports from Russell Stern, Township Planner, dated 1/5/05, revised to 2/24/05 and Thomas Bodolsky, Board’s Engineering Consultant, dated 1/6/05, revised to 2/25/05.
  2. A public hearing was conducted at a special meeting of the Zoning Board on 4/25/05.  At that time, the applicant called three witnesses to give testimony as to the site plan, dimensional variances, and waivers that are being sought by the applicant.  
  3. The applicant’s first witness was its architect, Douglas Coleman.  Mr. Coleman reviewed three exhibits (A-1 rear elevation, A-2 front elevation, and A-3 original Route 10 elevation).  Mr. Coleman used the exhibits to “walk the Board” through the entire site.  For the ease of reference, this project is being constructed in two phases.  As noted above, the project was built in two phases.  For ease of reference, the first phase can be referred to as a nursing home.  In the instant phase, as assisted living.  Mr. Coleman reviewed the entire site and indicated how the assisted living building would be integrated into the site and how it would work with the already constructed nursing home.  Mr. Coleman opined that he was the applicant’s second architect and had worked carefully to present to the Board what he described as a new and improved version of the prior architecturals.  He noted a great deal of effort had gone into making the building architecturally compatible with the nursing home as well as the other structures in the area.  He further noted that the Historic Advisory Committee of the Township had commented favorably on the submitted plans.  He even went so far as to note the unusual detail and design that had gone into creating the trash enclosure area.
  4. The applicant’s engineer, Thomas McGrath, was the next witness.  Mr. McGrath presented exhibit A-4 (colorized version of the site plan) and demonstrated to the Board some of the engineering issues affecting the property.
  5. Blanche Bonafacio, the operator of the facility was called very briefly.  She confirmed that the adult day care use was probably being phased out altogether as the demand had proved to be too low to be economically sustainable.  She further noted there would be no large truck deliveries to the assisted living site and she testified that, if the trash enclosure/dumpster/recycling area for the assisted living facility proved to be inadequate or deficient, same would be resolved by either scheduling more frequent trash pick-ups or alternatively utilizing the oversized trash enclosure area at the nursing home.
  6. The applicant’s professionals then went through the reports of Mr. Bodolsky and Mr. Stern and, as noted below, agreed to many of the comments proffered by the professionals.  It was also noted that many of the comments in the original reports had been resolved by the time of the updated reports.
  7. The Board notes the applicant’s site plan requires a variance from Section 13-7.3504B which requires a 100-foot front yard setback along Route 10.  The original plan approved a 41-foot setback at the building’s closest distance to Route 10.  The revised plan located the building just under 48 feet at the westerly corner and the proposed porte cochere would have a setback of just over 36’.  In addition, the proposed trash enclosure would be located approximately 70 feet from Route 10 and 70 feet from Hillside Avenue instead of the required 100 feet.
  8. In addition, the applicant’s proposal requires design waivers as noted: 
    1. A design waiver from Section 13-8.70B as a trash enclosure is located within the front yard.
    2. A design waiver from Section 13-8.705D as a proposed trash enclosure has a 10-foot high structure whereas only 6 feet is permitted.       

                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 testimony of the applicant’s architect and engineer to be credible and compelling.  The revised plan is in keeping with the use variance and conceptual plan presented at the time of the original public hearing.  In fact, the Board agrees that this iteration is indeed a vastly improved design over the original proposal.  The Board notes the minimal increase in the number of beds (and notes this use is now a conforming use in the zone) and finds same to be de minimis.  The Board further notes the favorable comments of the historic advisory committee as well as the applicant’s diligence in resolving comments and concerns of the professional staff during the course of this application.
  2. The Board notes the dimensional variances and design waivers as set forth in paragraphs 14 and 15 above.  As noted by the Township Planner, this relief is primarily necessitated by the property being a peninsula surrounded by three streets.  Clearly, this is a hardship and given the existing development pattern along this section of Route 10, the applicant’s proposal will have little if any negative impact on the Zone Plan and Zone Scheme.
  3. Without reciting all of the reasons for the grant of the original variances, the Board notes the continuing need for this type of facility in the overall Morris County area.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 9th day of  May, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Payment of all fees, sureties, escrows required by Ordinance.
  2. Subject to the review and/or approval of all other governmental agencies with joint and/or concurrent jurisdiction over the within application and the development of the premises in question.
  3. Applicant shall not permit tractor-trailer deliveries at the assisted care facility.
  4. As noted during the public hearing, the applicant is to re-configure a pedestrian walkway linking the terminus of the side northerly portion of the sidewalk along Hillside Avenue to the covered porch on the Main Street elevation of the assisted living facility.  The design and detail of this walkway should be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer and Planner.
  5. Applicant shall complete the Hillside Avenue sidewalk and detention basin landscaping as shown in the original plans.
  6. Applicant shall provide proof of compliance with the 8/3/04 memo from the Township fire official, Michael Pellek.
  7. As noted above, applicant shall provide proof of payment of off-tract and off-site contributions.
  8. Any proposed communication antennas for the site shall comply with the requirements of Section 13-7.812 of the Roxbury Zoning Ordinance.
  9. Applicant shall provide a mandatory development fee as required under Section 13-7.829 of the Roxbury Zoning Ordinance.
  10. Sidewalk along Route 10 shall be labeled at a 4-foot width.
  11.  Applicant shall revise the plan to include details on the handicap parking signage.
  12. Applicant shall provide design calculations for retaining walls in excess of 4 feet for review and approval by the Township Engineer prior to construction.
  13. The gate for the trash enclosure shall be noted as being on a steel frame.
  14. Applicant shall provide a separate containment and storage area within the trash enclosure for cardboard.  Dimension trash enclosure setbacks.
  15. Applicant shall provide detail for a railing for the stairs.  The area to the right of the stairs on sheet 5 of the plans should be noted as landscaped area as shown on sheet 15.  Timber guide rail shall be provided as needed.
  16. Applicant shall re-configure the existing and proposed freestanding lights “A”, “B” and “C” to provide same with decorative black bases and round poles as shown on the originally approved and proposed drawings.  Same may and will require retrofitting of the existing lights.
  17.  Applicant shall provide bollard lighting complementary to the decorative freestanding lights and/or building as recommended by the professional staff.  Lighting shall be provided for the new sidewalk for the staff residence building.  This item to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.  In addition, the applicant shall provide lighting details on the drawings for the decorative wall lights, emergency lights, soffit, canopy, and loading area.  All fixtures shall be concealed source and all lenses shall be flush with the fixture and/or canopy/soffit ceiling.  The emergency light depicted on the architectural drawings shall be concealed source.  Decorative wall light and emergency light details shall be provided on the engineering drawings.
  18. As noted during the public hearing, some trees noted for preservation were actually removed.  Applicant will adjust its tree removal permit and compensate on-site as recommended by the Township Planner.  In addition, the applicant shall revise the shade tree proposal to comply with the recommendations of the Township Planner as to type and height.
  19. As noted, the landscape plan inaccurately depicts Phase II conditions and in addition, the Phase II landscaping deviated from previously reviewed drawings.  Applicant is to revise the landscaping plan including the proposed landscaping for the intersection of Main Street and Hillside Avenue, which is to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.  This condition is reiterated to the extent that all of the landscaping on-site including Phase I is to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner including the need to ensure that the trash enclosure is heavily landscaped and the retaining wall around it are in keeping with the need for architectural consistency.  The Township Planner shall be contacted for further landscaping comments.
  20. Applicant shall re-configure the easterly curb return of the loading area as recommended by the Township Engineer.
  21. The Board, specifically for the purposes of emphasis, (while not specifically reiterating all conditions of the prior approval) notes that ingress and egress of construction vehicles is prohibited from the Main Street entrance.  Same is to be noted on the final drawings.
  22. Plan shall note that the existing staff residence “old house” will be closed during Phase II construction.  Since the applicant is renovating the structure, the applicant shall provide architectural details for the review of the Historic Advisory Committee and the Township Planner, which at a minimum provides for new siding and windows.
  23. A note shall be provided to the phasing plan that the completed Phase I area is not to be used for construction purposes (excluding parking for construction personnel) except where specifically noted on sheet 8 of the plans.
  24. Applicant will provide a new sequence of construction table on sheet 8 to address Phase II only.  Same to be reviewed by the Board’s Engineer.
  25. Applicant shall demonstrate to the Board’s Engineer that all roof drains can be internally delivered to Inlet #12 as shown on sheet 5 without the use of external piping, as proposed.
  26. This approval is conditioned upon the applicant receiving a major soil moving permit for Phase II.
  27. As noted above, the approved site plan consists of the following sheets:

Prepared by the Chester, Ploussas, Lisowsky Partnership, LLP

 

Sheet 1, Key Map and Sheet Index, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 2, Vicinity Map and General Notes, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 3, Existing Conditions Map, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 4, Demolition Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 5, Preliminary Site Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 6, Utility Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 7, Preliminary Grading Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 8, Phasing Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 10, Profiles, revised 10/13/04

Sheet 11, Existing Drainage Areas Map, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 12, Surface Water Runoff Control Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 13, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 14, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 15, Landscape Plan, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 16, Landscape Details, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 17, Construction Details, revised 10/13/04

        Sheet 18, Slope Analysis, revised 10/13/04

        Sheets 19, 20 & 21, Site Lighting and Details, 10/13/04

        Sheets 21 & 22, Cross Sections of Swale, revised 10/13/04

 

 

 

Prepared by Beer and Coleman Architects and Associates

 

        Sheet A-1, Basement Plan, revised 2/9/05

        Sheet A-2, First Floor Plan, revised 2/9/05

        Sheet A-3, Second Floor Plan, revised 2/9/05

        Sheet A-4, Third Floor Plan, revised 2/9/05

        Sheet A-5, Exterior Elevations, revised 2/9/05

        Sheet A-6, Exterior Elevations, revised 2/9/05

 

  1. All conditions of the prior resolution granting the “d” variance and Phase I approval, not specifically relieved or modified herein, remain in full force and effect.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

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

 

BA-20-05 – BRIAN CONKLIN – VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD AND BUILDING COVERAGE FOR A COVERED PORCH LOCATED ON FIRST ST. BLOCK 209, LOT 12 IN R-4 ZONE

 

In the matter of Kimberly & Brian Conklin

Case No. BA-20-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: May 9, 2005

Memorialized: June 13, 2005

 

 

                WHEREAS, Kimberly & Brian Conklin have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring “c” variance(s) for premises located at 47 First Street and known as Block 2609, Lot 12 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-4” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D4; 13-7.130D8 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 renovate the existing home.  The applicants were proposing to construct a 6’x32’ porch onto the front of the existing home.
  3. The applicants submitted two photos (A-1 & A-2) depicting other houses in the immediate vicinity with similar structures.
  4. The applicant’s proposal results in the need for a front yard setback variance – 21’8” proposed whereas, 35’/25’ (if existing neighborhood shows a 25’ setback) and building coverage 18% proposed whereas, 15 % maximum permitted.
  5.  Applicant received a letter of denial dated 5/19/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  6. The applicant’s plans were depicted on a plot plan and elevation drawings attached to the application.
  7. The applicants stated the addition would be an esthetic upgrade of the home and the applicants further stated that the stairs for the porch would be turned to the side so that they would not intrude further into the front yard setback.  The applicants testified that other homes in the immediate vicinity had similar setbacks.  

                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 upgrade of existing housing stock in the established neighborhoods of Roxbury Township is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
  2. The applicant’s proposal results in two modest variances.  The benefit to upgrading the existing house (both as to esthetics and functionality) clearly outweighs the minor negative impact of permitting these two minimal variances.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 9th day of May, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Impervious building coverage to be no more than 18% (17.99), as requested.
  2. Front yard setback to be no less than 21’8”, as requested.  Entry steps to front porch must conform to Zoning Ordinance.

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. Dargel seconded

 

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

 

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

 

In the matter of Robert Kocoski

Case No. BA-11-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: May 9, 2005

Memorialized: June 13, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Robert Kocoski has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to add an addition to an existing dwelling for premises located at 45 Ferromonte Avenue and known as Block 2604, Lot 8 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R4” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1404D4 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 and one of the occupants of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicant was proposing a major renovation of the existing home.
  3. The instant premises were one of two lots that were recently subdivided.  A copy of the approved Planning Board resolution for the subdivision is attached.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 5/18/04 revised to 7/23/04 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. Mr. Potere noted the following variances were required:
  6. Front yard setback to Ferromonte Avenue – 30’ required, 17’7” existing and proposed
  7. After the April public hearing, the applicant revised the plans for the subject premises so that entry would be via DeHart Street.  The applicant requires a planning variance (NJSA 40:55D35 Roxbury Township Ordinance 13-2.2034(2)) being that DeHart Street is an unimproved road.
  8. The applicant’s plans were depicted on a plot plan attached to the application and some building elevations presented by the applicant.
  9. The Board notes the subject premises are a corner lot.  The R4 Zone limits residential use to single family.  During the course of the public hearing, there were numerous concerns expressed that the applicant’s proposed reconfiguration of the existing dwelling and the addition would result in a multi-family home.  The design of the house, as initially presented to the Board, was not a truly integrated family unit, but more akin to separate apartments.
  10. After a colloquy with the Board, the applicant agreed to re-visit the plans and present revised plans to the Board at a later public hearing.
  11. The matter was continued at the 5/9/05 public hearing.  The applicant then presented exhibit A-1 depicting pictures of existing housing stock as well as exhibit A-2 which depicted an unsealed architectural rendering of the proposed house.
  12. After a lengthy colloquy with the Board, the applicant acknowledged that the premises were to remain a one family home.  The Board noted the configuration of the house was such that there were two distinct living quarters albeit, an open connection on both floors and only one kitchen.

        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 actual variances being sought by the applicant were minimal in nature.  The applicant was requesting a front yard setback to Ferromonte Avenue (17’7” instead of the required 30’), which in fact is an existing condition.  The addition to the house will have little or no impact on this existing established condition and no affect on any adjoining properties.
  2. The second variance is a planning variance permitting the applicant to utilize DeHart Street (an unapproved road) for driveway access to the subject premises.  The Township Planner noted during the public hearing that properties further north on DeHart Street were being improved and as part of their approval, those owners would be improving DeHart Street.  (The Planner did recommend, as noted below, that the Township Engineer review and address the appropriate improvements to be made by the applicant relative to DeHart Street.)
  3. The Board notes the access to the premises via Ferromonte Avenue.  There is limited DeHart Street frontage on the applicant’s property and clearly fire emergency vehicles have ample access to the applicant’s home and a planning variance is clearly justified.
  4. The Board is concerned with the way the applicant has constructed the subject premises.  This is primarily an issue for the Construction Code Official in conjunction with the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer.  The Board wishes to reiterate that the subject premises are to be used as a fully integrated single family home and it is not to migrate or metamorphous into a two family use or a mother/daughter with clearly segregated quarters.  

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 9th day of May, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Application is to be reviewed by the Township Engineer who shall make recommendations prior to the issuance of a building permit for the applicant’s fair share of improvements to DeHart Street.
  2. Applicant shall provide street trees as recommended by the Township Planner.
  3. All items marked “to be removed” on the applicant’s plans shall in fact be removed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the structure.
  4. Applicant shall file a copy of this resolution in the chain of title prior to the grant of a Certificate of Occupancy.  The purpose of memorializing this resolution is to put future purchasers on notice that the subject premises are to be used only as a fully integrated single-family home as set forth in this resolution.
  5. Payment of all fees, sureties, and escrows required by Ordinance.  

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA-22-05 – LILLY SPATZ & BLANCHE VALENTINO – USE VARIANCE TO BUILD A HOME IN A PO/R ZONE ON MAIN ST. BLOCK 6501, LOT 6.02

 

In the matter of Lilly Spatz & Blanche Valentino

Case No. BA-22-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION OF DENIAL

 

Denied: May 9, 2005

Memorialized: June 13, 2005

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, Lilly Spatz & Blanche Valentino have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a single family home requiring a “d” variance for premises located at 183 Main Street and known as Block 6501, Lot 6.02 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “PO/R” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.2202 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. Bernard Berkowitz, Esquire represented the applicants.
  2. The applicants are owners of the unimproved lot, which is the subject of the instant application.
  3. The applicants previously received a two lot minor subdivision from the Planning Board (M-9-04, 7/21/04).  This lot was the “new” lot created by the subdivision.  A copy of the Planning Board resolution is attached as an exhibit to this resolution.
  4. The improved lot, which contained a single-family home, was sold.  The applicant now seeks to improve the subject premises by constructing a single-family home.  This is not a permitted use in the PO/R zone and thus, a variance pursuant to NJSA 40:55D-70d(1) is required.  It should be noted that the PO/R district does not allow expansion of existing single-family home(s).  The proposed house is                             set back 35.5’ whereas 40’ is required.
  5. The applicant submitted a document entitled “Site Plan” prepared by Charles P. Brozuski, L.S.P.P., dated 5/28/03 and an architectural exhibit showing the elevation floor plan of the proposed house prepared by Joel E. Jenkins, architect.
  6. Mr. Brozuski testified at the public hearing.  He acknowledged that, while he had a planning license, his actual planning expertise was somewhat limited.
  7. The applicants (Lilly Spatz & Blanche Valentino) both testified at the public hearing.  They testified that the instant property was not suitable for development as an office building as contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance.  They acknowledged that when the minor site plan was presented to the Planning Board (less than a year ago), they indicated the subject premises would be developed with a conforming use.  They testified that none of the neighbors wanted to see a commercial operation on the subject premises.
  8. On the opposite side of Main Street are the rear of existing retail businesses, which front on Route 10 West.  The rear of the property is the Drakestown Condominium site.

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant cannot 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 ink is barely dry on the resolution granting the applicants a minor subdivision.  The same applicants made a presentation to the Planning Board in which they presented the Planning Board with a plan to develop the premises as a conforming use.  The applicants testified at the public hearing that they could not contemplate utilizing the site for commercial use.  They offered very little factual testimony supporting their conclusionary statements.  The applicants’ only proofs were essentially lay testimony presented by the applicants themselves that a residence would be more compatible with the existing residences in the proximity for the subject site.
  2. The instant variance is a classic “d” variance.  As such, the applicants have a heavy burden to prove its case.  The applicants offered little planning testimony other than a constant theme that the site was better suited to a residential use than a commercial use.
  3. The municipality in establishing the PO/R Zone clearly intended for this zone to become a zone for professional offices.  The municipality recognized in permitting the expansion of existing residences that encouraging improvement of existing housing stock would not be inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan.  In many instances one could imagine an expanded home on Main Street eventually migrating into an office use.  In this case, the applicants are seeking to introduce a use not permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and offered absolutely no testimony as to how to reconcile the proposed use at this site with the Zone Plan and Master Plan.
  4. As noted above, in every case for a variance the burden of proof rests with the applicant.  In this case, the applicants produced only conclusionary statements with little substance justifying the grant of a variance, let alone a use variance. 

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 9th day of May, 2005 that the within application be denied.

           

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

 

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

 

BA-18-05 – SUCCASUNNA SERVICE CENTER – USE VARIANCE FOR FOODMART LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 4002, LOT 23 IN B-2 ZONE

 

In the matter of Succasunna Service Center

Case No. BA-18-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: May 9, 2005

Memorialized: June 13, 2005

 

 

                WHEREAS, Succasunna Service Center has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to operate a convenience store in conjunction with a gasoline service station requiring a conditional use variance (Section 13-7.3507) for

premises located at 747 Route 46 and known as Block 4002, Lot 23 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.25 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. Paul Nusbaum, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is the operator of a service station at the subject site.
  3. Jeffrey Poissant, the tenant of the owner and person in charge at the site testified at the public hearing.  He noted that he had leased the subject premises and that same was being used as a gasoline service station, automobile repairs, and convenience store.  The convenience store is about 400 square feet.
  4. Mr. Poissant’s intent was to “legalize” the uses on-site.
  5. Mr. Poissant also indicated that in conjunction with his business, there was a “casual” sale of automobiles that were fixed up for re-sale.  He testified there would be no more than two automobiles being offered for sale at any given time on-site and that the premises would not become a used car lot. 
  6. Mr. Poissant noted there were three service bays and about seven employees on-site.
  7. Mr. Poissant asked the Board to take note of the many improvements he had made to the site since taking over the operation approximately four months ago.  He also presented exhibit A-1 which was a 1997 survey done by the owner of the property in conjunction with an approval granted by the Board, but never implemented by the owner.
  8.  The convenience store in conjunction with the gasoline service station is a permitted conditional use.  The Ordinance actually allows 750 square foot convenience stores.  Because this site does not meet all the conditions of a gasoline service station use, a conditional use variance is required.

                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 request to be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan.  Permitting a 400 square foot convenience store is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Ordinance.  The intent of the Ordinance is that the convenience store would be ancillary and subordinate to the service station use.  Clearly, a 400 square foot convenience store can be nothing more than a subordinate use to the gasoline service station.
  2. The site is clearly suited for the applicant’s proposed use and the deviations from the conditional use standards are not such that would give rise to making the use incompatible.
  3.  The “casual” sale of used cars on-site, given the limitation agreed to by the applicant, is clearly consistent with a service station type use.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 9th day of May, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. All used tires, auto accessories, parts, etc. are to be stored inside.  There shall be no outside storage of same nor shall there be outside storage of inutile or junk vehicles.
  2. The dumpster is to be re-located to the rear and enclosed.  The plans for same shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
  3. Given the permitted convenience store use, all outside vending machines shall be removed or brought inside.
  4. The sale of used vehicles shall be limited to a maximum of two cars at any time.  Same are to be stored/displayed on the easterly paved portion of the site.
  5. Payment of all fees, sureties, and escrows required by Ordinance.

 

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

 

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

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced Application BA-39-04, Viacom is carried to 7/11/05; Application BA-24-05, Neil & Marjorie Lines is carried to 7/11/05; Application BA-66-04, John Selby has been withdrawn by the applicant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

AGENDA

 

BA-19-05 – ENRIQUE SANABRIA – VARIANCE FOR LEFT SIDE YARD FOR SUNPORCH AND DECK LOCATED ON DELL AVE. BLOCK 11801, LOT 31 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Enrique Sanabria was sworn in.  Mr. Sanabria said he would like to put on a sunroom and deck on the back of the house because the house is small and we would like to have a room for company on holidays.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked the size of the addition.

 

Mr. Sanabria said it will be 32’ x 18’ each. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the property is on a slope.

 

Mr. Sanabria said no, it is flat.  There is a shed on the property.

 

Ms. Dargel said a variance is required for left side yard setback.  The required is 10 feet, and the existing and proposed is 7 feet.  You are not going closer?

 

Mr. Sanabria said no. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked when the house was built.

 

Mr. Sanabria said it is about 35 or 40 years old.

 

Ms. Dargel said without moving the house, there is no way you could conform, correct?

 

Mr. Sanabria said yes.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked if the sunroom will be one story and will match the roofline of the house.

 

Mr. Sanabria said it will be one story and will not be higher than the existing house.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked where the neighboring houses are as far as setback.

 

Mr. Sanabria said about the same.

 

Mr. Stern said this is actually a right side yard setback variance.  The property is in the R-3 district and has a lot width requirement of 100 feet.  This is an undersized lot with a 50 foot frontage.  The Board could consider that as a hardship.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUCLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application as the house is very small and this is a reasonable addition.  There is only one variance required which is a pre-existing condition that will not be exacerbated.  Ms. DeFillippo seconded.

 

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

 

BA-25-5 EDWINA GRENOT – VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON BERKSHIRE VALLEY RD., BLOCK 12602, LOT 1 IN R-1 ZONE

 

Mr. Stern said Mr. Potere re-issued his report today, and it is an R-1 district.  A 50-foot front yard setback is required.  The applicant proposed approximately 40 feet.   

 

Edwina Grenot was sworn in.

 

Raymond Grenot, Jr. was sworn in.

 

Mr. Grenot said we are looking to add a 36’ x 20’ addition for more room.  The house is pretty small.   The variance is for the existing house.  The addition is actually going away from the property line.

 

Ms. Dargel said the paperwork says the addition is 35’ x 20’ feet.

 

Mr. Grenot said it is actually 36’ x 20’.   The front part of the house was put on in the 1980s. 

 

Mr. Stern said the Board should note that between the applicant’s front yard and Berkshire Valley Road is a parcel owned by the Army.  It is actually farther set back from the road.  The setback to the new addition will be 40.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there is anything unusual about the property.

 

Ms. Grenot said the one side is Route 80 and the other side is 300 feet.  There is also the property belonging to the US Army in the front, plus the railroad.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application.  The property seems to be a fairly large lot.  The front yard variance is caused by an encumbrance.   

 

Mr. Wiener said there is really only one variance required. 

 

Ms. Dargel said she has no problem with the application.  It won’t be detrimental to the area.  The neighbors are far away and there are existing encumbrances such as Route 80 the Army property and the slope of the land.  Mr. Kurtz seconded the motion.

 

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

 

BA-26-05 – JAMES & RACHEL DEMARA – VARIANCE FOR GARAGE LOCATED ON ROGERS DRIVE, BLOCK 11805, LOT 25 IN R-3 ZONE

 

James Demara was sworn in. 

 

Attorney George Johnson represented the applicant.

 

Mr. Demara said the property fronts on Rogers Drive and we access the property from Rogers Lane. 

 

Mr. Demara said Rogers Lane accesses Rogers Drive about 3 houses down from ours and runs around the back of our house.  That is where the current one-car garage is with about an 80 to 90 foot driveway in the back.  The existing garage is underneath the house.  The ground slopes toward the rear left corner of the house, and that is where the water accumulates and water comes into the garage.  The previous owners built a foot high damn at the entrance to the garage, so the garage is useless for a vehicle.  We would like to close the current garage, fill in the driveway and plant grass, and build the proposed garage.  The proposed garage would be a two-car detached garage.  Rogers Lane is a small road.  There are about 4 or 5 houses on it.  The road is usually blocked by a resident’s car.  It is fully paved up to my house and about 4 houses past. As a result of building the garage, we need three variances.

 

Mr. Johnson asked about the setback variances.

 

Mr. Demara said there are two front yards by ordinance.  Thirty-five feet is required, and that would substantially limit the back yard.  We elected to go to 20 feet so that we can park in front of the garage and exit onto Rogers Lane.     The construction of the garage decreased impervious coverage from about 40% to a little more than 32% because the driveway won’t be as long.  The building coverage increases about 6%.   

 

Mr. Crowley asked what the side yard setback is.

 

Mr. Demara said it is 5 feet on the other side.

 

Mr. Stern said the drawings show this as a pole barn.  Will there be a foundation?

 

Mr. Demara said it has pilings that are driven into the ground.  That reduces the cost of the structure.  We would still be pouring a slab for the floor.  It will look like any typical structure.  The siding on it is metal siding with vertical corrugations.  It looks like siding, but is vertical.  I think it is compatible with the neighborhood.  There is another one in the neighborhood and it looks just like a detached garage.

 

Mr. Stern asked if Rogers Lane is a public road.

 

Mr. Demara said he does not know.  We have used that access road since we lived here, about a year ago.  It is plowed by the town.  I don’t believe it is a private road

 

Mr. Johnson said it shows on the tax map as a 10 foot easement.

 

Mr. Demara said you can get a fire truck or ambulance down the road.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the corrugated structure will face the front yards of some houses on Rogers Lane.  When you say this will help the flooding, how will that be?

 

Mr. Demara said we will backfill the current driveway and will re-grade so the surface water flows away from the house rather than toward it.  There is nowhere to put a drain because there is no place for it to go.  I would probably put in a drywell and a French drain system. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked the distance from the back of this structure and the house, and could it be put farther away?.

 

Mr. Demara said the farther away I put it the longer the driveway will have to be and that would increase imperious coverage.

 

Ms. Darling asked if there is anything showing that this won’t cause a problem to neighboring properties.

 

Mr. Demara said there is no way it will hurt one neighbor because he is above me, but the other neighbor and I are in communication and he is open to any improvements I can make.  We have discussed the French drain and drywell system to try and collect some of his water and water coming off my property as well. 

 

Ms. Dargel said on the proposed drawing, the sideyard setback on the house is 9.07’, and it is 7.41 feet.  

 

Mr. Stern said it is a pre-existing nonconforming setback.  The Board’s action is on the proposed structure, not on the existing house.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked if there are other garages on Rogers Lane that are this close to the road.

 

Mr. Demara said there is one, but it is in disrepair and I don’t believe it is being used.

 

Mr. Johnson said a number of the houses have swimming pools in the backyard.

 

Ms. Stern said the Board should look at the negative criteria regarding any substantial detriment to the public good.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said she is concerned about the impact of a two-car garage so close to the lane and also about existing houses looking at this corrugated structure.

 

Mr. Johnson asked if the other houses actually front on Rogers Lane.

 

Mr. Demara said their backyards are on Davsel, but their front doors and garages all come off Rogers Lane.

 

Mr. Johnson asked if they presently look at swimming pools and other things.

 

Mr. Demara said yes, basically, they look at the back of my house.

 

Mr. Wiener asked if the applicant would revisit the design of the proposed structure since it is close to the right-of-way.

 

Mr. Demara said it would look like any other detached garage. 

 

Mr. Stern asked if the applicant has any catalog cuts showing the proposed structure.

 

Mr. Demara showed the Board a pamphlet and indicated a structure similar to the one proposed.  It will have two windows, a man-door and garage doors.

 

Mr. Kurtz said the other houses on Rogers Lane are higher and would look down on this.

 

Mr. Demara said he plans to add shutters to the two windows on the side of the garage to make it look even more residential.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked where the window will be.

 

Mr. Demara said on the left.  We also plan on putting in some plantings and also realign the existing fence.  There will be planters around the foundation of the building and possibly a vegetable garden in the back.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the application on the condition that the planner review the final plans to make sure they are in compliance with a residential flare and have proper landscaping.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes, and she would like it to look softer and more residential.  Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

B-23-05 – MC SKI CLUB – USE VARIANCE TO HAVE A SKI CLUB LOCATED ON LAKE SILVER SPRING LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 2701, LOT 1 I OS ZONE

 

Attorney Bernd Hefele represented the applicant.  He asked that this be carried to later in the evening to wait for their planner to arrive

 

BA-27-05 – LAU/CHEN – JOSEPHINE LAU & KIM CHEN – VARIANCE TO BUILD AN ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME WITH BUSINESS LOCATED ON MT. ARLINGTON BLVD. BLOCK 12101, LOT 5 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Attorney Bernd Hefele represented the applicant.  He said this application is for the expansion of a house on a mixed-use property. The Tokyo House Restaurant is at the bottom, and there is a residential house on the back of the property.  The property is in the R-3 zone. Currently the residential use is a 576 foot house.  The applicant proposes an expansion of the home to a more normal size home to today’s standards.  The proposal is for a 2,800 square foot house.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the application states the restaurant is being expanded 64 feet and expanding the house 880 sq. ft.

 

Mr. Hefele said that portion of the application is withdrawn.  There will be no modification to the restaurant. 

 

Mr. Hefele said the drawing we are referring to has a revision date of 4/20/05.  The expansion to the restaurant is not being applied for.

 

Mr. Stern said the drawings came in after Mr. Potere’s review.  The engineer clarified impervious coverage and building coverage, which now will change.

 

Mr. Hefele said the figures were all revised.  Unfortunately, the plan did not reflect that.  The figures for coverage also need to be changed.

 

Mr. Hefele said the variance involved here is impervious coverage.  The property is in an R-3 zone which has a 25% requirement.  Currently the property has 50% impervious coverage and that will increase to 55% as part of this application.  A commercial zone allows 60% coverage.  The property is unique and presents a hardship in that the commercial structure has a lot of imperious coverage because of the parking requirements.  The only way for the applicant to expand the house and reduce impervious coverage would be to reduce parking spaces for the restaurant.  That can’t be done because the parking spaces are what are required for the restaurant.  For any increase to the house, a variance will be required.

 

Josephine Lau was sworn in.  She said she owns the property in question and stated there is a small house at the back and a restaurant in the front.  The house is very small and has two very small bedrooms, a bathroom and a kitchen.  The restaurant is a Japanese restaurant with 50 seats.  The parking we have now is all utilized.  We went to an architect and he designed a house that will work for our needs.  He showed us different options.  Another option was much bigger, but we narrowed it down to this house.  I will live at this house.

 

Ms. Kinback asked how many employees will live in the house.

 

Ms. Lau said most of them don’t stay there.  There will be three people in the house who are all family members.  The house will be for my personal residence, and will not become a dormitory for employees.  It will be for my mother, my sister and me and my family.  I am getting married.

 

Mr. Stern said the road may have been recently vacated.

 

Mr. Hefele said he does not know.

 

Ms. Lau said the upper part of the property is all woods.  I was told it was a paper road at some point. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if it is an extension of Opanaka Road?

 

Mr. Stern said no.

 

Mr. Hefele said there is an existing front yard setback condition with the home that is there now, and that setback will remain the same.

 

Mr. Stern said technically it requires a variance because the front yard setback is 30 feet from the paper street. 

 

Ms. Darling asked how many people currently live in the house.

 

Ms. Lau said she lives there with her mom and sister.

 

Ms. Darling asked why there are two bedrooms downstairs and the den and computer room and exercise room upstairs.  There are 4 full baths for only 3 people.  It looks like more people will live there.

 

Ms. Lau said soon she will be married and anticipates having children. 

 

Ms. Darling said it just doesn’t look like the layout for a family that will live together.  It looks like a layout for many families.

 

Mr. Hefele said it is a family-run business.  The mother and sister will live there, as well as she and her husband.  It is permissible to have a large family in a home.  It is not the intention to have the work force living there.  It is the nature of their culture to have the whole family living in the house.

 

Mr. Kurtz asked if the mother and sister will be downstairs and the upstairs will be for Ms. Lau and her family.

 

Ms. Lau said that is correct.

 

Ms. Dargel said the ordinance promotes garages.  Why is there no garage shown?

 

Ms. Lau said we park in front of the house.

 

Ms. Dargel asked how you access the house. 

 

Mr. Stern said the left side elevation provides direct access to the driveway.  The ordinance does state for new construction that a garage is required.  This isn’t a new home in its entirety.  It is an addition.  The Board could weigh that in deliberations.

 

Ms. Dargel asked where Ms. Lau parks now.

 

Ms. Lau said they park by the house.

 

Mr. Hefele said the house is relatively narrow.  You would have to put a garage in the front of the house and it would take up the whole front of the house.  You couldn’t come in from the side because it drops off steeply.  The reason the ordinance calls for a garage is to get the cars off the roadway.  We accomplish that with this site because the house is so far off the roadway. 

 

Mr. Stern asked if steep slopes are being encroached on.

 

Mr. Hefele said no.  The addition is on a flat area.

 

Mr. Stern said that would have to be verified.

 

Ms. Kinback asked what the applicant will do if the family expands and more cars are required.

 

Ms. Lau said when she marries she will not need a car, and her sister works in the restaurant also.

 

Ms. Darling asked what happens if another car is needed.

 

Ms. Lau said the nature of the business is that one of us has to be there and if my sister is using the car, I can use my husband’s car.

 

Mr. Stern said you could easily park four cars there, in tandem fashion. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

Gary Lindstedt, 4 Oneida Avenue, was sworn in.  He asked to see the drawings.

 

Mr. Hefele showed Mr. Lindstedt the drawings.

 

Mr. Lindstedt said that road is an extension of Openaka Road.  It is not developed.  How close will the house be to Openaka and the back of my property?

 

Mr. Hefele showed on the drawing where the house is and the proposed addition.  The addition is actually closer to the sideline.

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Stern said if this is approved, the vehicles should be parked near the residence, and it should be verified that steep slopes are not impacted.

 

Ms. DeFillippo made a motion to approve the application with the conditions suggested by Mr. Stern.  I do have a concern about the number of bathrooms.  Approval is also subject to this remaining a single-family house.  The attic space should be non-habitable with no plumbing, no heating.  Mr. Crowley seconded with the condition that there be no steps outside going to the second floor balcony.

 

Discussion

 

Ms. Dargel added that the business and residence must be kept separate and are not to encroach on each other. 

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes.  He said the concern is that it stays one family.  Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

There was a 5 minute recess at 8:50 p.m.

 

BA-21-05 – TREE KING – USE VARIANCEFOR STORAGE OF MULCH AND MULCH PRODUCTION LOCATED ON LENEL RD. (McNear’s) BLOCK 10604, LOT 4 IN LI/OR ZONE

 

Attorney Edward Dunne represented the applicant.  He showed the McNear tract on the plans submitted with the application.  In the 1980s the Township settled a lawsuit with McNear Trust and the entire truck was being developed slowly for ultimate subdivision.  There was a restated Settlement Agreement entered into the municipality and the McNear trust which re-states the history and identifies what operations are committed and the control the municipality has over it.  Mr. Gulick and Tree King own a parcel about 300 feet down Lenel Road where they currently have approval for a mulching operation.  They are finding it is more efficient to use an area under a lease with Mr. McNear.  The ordinances in Roxbury require a building with a use.  It is currently zoned LI/OR and it is not a permitted use in the zone.  We know this can’t be a permanent use because the property will ultimately be subdivided.  We intend to use it for this purpose as long as we can, and we will go back to the original site when this is developed.  If Tree King ceases, this use will cease, and if the property gets developed, the use will cease as well.  There is no conflict between the two uses. 

 

William McNear was sworn in.  He stated the business address is 206B Landing Road.  It is currently used for quarrying for future development.  We have to meet certain criteria for elevations and levels and it is checked regularly by the Township.  We are currently working on Section 2, and Section 1 is not completed.  We have crushing equipment on site.  There is drilling and blasting.  We remove the rock, sort and crush the aggregate and sell it to contractors.  We also have temporary trailers for offices on the site.  I don’t know when the property will be available for development, probably not in my lifetime.   The Tree King lease area is proposed to be used  for storage of mulch and the grinding of tree products and storage of tree products.  That area is currently close to the level required for final development of the site.  It won’t be necessary for the excavation of that particular site to reach the goals set for the in the Developer’s Agreement within 5 to 10 years. We are aware of what Mr. Gulick wants to do there, and have no objection.  I don’t see any conflict with the Developers Agreement. 

 

The amended and restated Developers Agreement, revised 11/14/97, was marked A-1.  Mr. McNear said the agreement runs through 2023.

 

A site plan map revised dated 4/2/04 was  marked A-2.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED FOR QUESTIONS FOR MR. MC NEAR

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel said in  previous application we had for expansion of the cell tower, there was a question about the access route to the cell tower through this area.  Have you had any complaints about that?

 

Mr. McNear said no, and this wouldn’t impact that area.

 

Ms. Dargel said when they maintain the cell tower area, there is a gate there, and they access through that gate.  Is there a path at the end of Lenel Road that is always clear to the cell tower?

 

Mr. McNear said yes, after the gate.  They go around that section. 

 

Mr. Dunne asked where the trucking operation goes.

 

Mr. McNear said it goes on Landing Road.

 

Michael Gulick was sworn in.  In answer to questions from Mr. Dunne he said his business address is 12 Lenel Road.  We operate a commercial use there for office, warehouse, and parking vehicles.  We obtained Planning Board approval to develop the site.

 

The Resolution of approval from that approval was marked A-3.

 

Mr. Dunne asked if the site was developed.

 

Mr. Gulick said yes.

 

Mr. Dunne introduced photos (marked A-4, 5, and 6) showing the commercial building and the property.   

 

Mr. Gulick said he has applied to the Township to relocate the storage products and a grinding machine to the site shown on A-2.  The grinding equipment is portable and gets moved by a tractor – (shown on a photo marked A-7).  The current operation is for parking of vehicles.  We have already moved the mulching and tree storage to this site, and are now seeking permission.  Prior to moving it, we were storing the equipment on the site.  We want to move the operation because it is a better location.  It is out of site, and would be conforming with a quarry.  You wouldn’t see the piles from Route 80 and Route 46.  We started to outgrow the area and needed more space for truck operations.  In the location we propose to put the operation, there is a cell tower behind it, the quarry, and woods.  On sheet 95 of the tax map, Mr. Gulick identified the property in question and showed the location where they proposed the mulching operation.  Lots 1 and 2 currently is undeveloped.  Lot 4 has a field and is wooded.   Lots 5, 6 and 7 are the same.  (Exhibit A-8 was marked – reduced version of the tax map with a representative outline of the new site).

 

Mr. Dunne said the resolution of memorialization from a previous Planning Board hearing has conditions related to the mulching, grinding and storage of wood products.  For example, condition 3a states there will be no retail or wholesale activities on the site and all vehicles utilizing the site shall be the applicant’s or a tenant’s.  Condition 3b states the tub grinder and other equipment shall comply with the noise ordinance.  Condition 3c states no tenant shall be able to use outdoor storage except for wood, woodchips, and mulch.  Condition 3e states as an exempted activity, the applicant will comply with all the rules that apply to all exempted activities under NJAC7:26.

 

Mr. Gulick said they will comply with all those conditions.

 

Mr. Stern asked if this activity requires inclusion in the Morris County Solid Waste Management Plan.

 

Mr. Gulick said no, because they changed the exemption law.  We can do the larger trees under the exemption.

 

Mr. Dunne said Condition 3f says the applicant will comply with certain requirements of the Township Fire Official regarding the storage of wood product being a maximum of 14 feet high, proper separation of piles of wood storage products, 18’ fire department access to and around storage piles with a stabilized base material.

 

Mr. Gulick said he agrees to the conditions.  The stabilized base was in the parking lot.  We blocked it off there and it is compacted earth.  When there is mud and water, most of it is scraped up and put in with the mulch.   We don’t intend to do any maintenance of the grinder machine on site.  It would take place at the building on the approved site.

 

Mr. Dunne asked if the relocation will improve the visual appearance of the approved site and the visibility from the highway and surrounding locale?

 

Mr. Gulick said yes.

 

Mr. Dunne asked if the operation proposed for the McNear tract is more consistent with activities taking place on the McNear tract.

 

Mr. Gulick said yes.

 

Mr. Stern asked why the activity cannot go on the approved site.

 

Mr. Gulick said it can, but it is just a better location because it is out of site, can’t be seen from Route 80, can’t be seen from Route 46.  We have grown and are storing more vehicles on the site.   We do have mulch in Kenvil at the old site.  That was about 22 years ago.  We are not abandoning the prior use but will be lessening that activity, so there will be less trucks going back and forth from Kenvil to this site.

 

Mr. Stern asked if Mr. Gulick will comply with Morris County Soil Conservation regulations.

 

Mr. Gulick said he would.

 

Mr. Dunne said we will check on that.

 

Mr. Stern asked the hours of operation.

 

Mr. Gulick said we only grind about two months out of the year.  The daily activity happens during regular business hours.  Will comply with the town’s ordinance with respect to the hours of operation.  There will be no storage of vehicles and no retail traffic.  Only vehicles carting away mulch will be ours. 

 

Mr. Stern asked about fuel deliveries.

 

Mr. Gulick said we would bring it down to our site to fuel it up.  When we know we won’t be grinding for a while, we would bring it back and use it on our site.  We also move it to municipal yards and grind.  Regarding fuel spills, we have a container of socks speedy-dry and the kits that go with it.   The surface is just mulch.  There are small areas of  2” rock that is packed.

 

Mr. Stern asked what delineates the boundaries.

 

Mr. Gulick said the paved road at the cul-de-sac is paved all the way to the end.  It is curbed to the boulder and is lined with 6’ concrete pipe. It is cut off by the row of trees and the cell tower at the bottom, and the rocks go to a ravine. 

 

Mr. Dunne suggested as a condition of approval that Mr. Stern go up to the site and we would comply with his recommendations for a delineation.

 

Mr. Stern asked if there is any separation between this activity and adjoining Lot 1.

 

Mr. Gulick said he would agree to maintain a 20-foot setback delineated by boulders.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if there is a time line for how long this will occur.

 

Mr. Dunne said we have no time line at this time.  It will probably be long term.

 

Mr. Wiener suggested a condition of approval that the applicant come back periodically for review as to continued compatibility. 

 

Mr. Stern said we could have them come in every one to two years. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio agreed she would not be comfortable to allow this to occur for twenty years.

 

Mr. Dunne suggested the planning department investigate this every one to two years, rather than having the applicant come back.  If the planner and zoning officer feel things have changed significantly, the applicant would be required to come back to the Board.

 

Mr. Stern suggested it should be the applicant’s obligation.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said if you had to move the operation back to the site, could you?

 

Mr. Gulick said we could do it, but would have to run a truck to Kenvil.

 

PULBIC PORTION OPENED FOR QUESTIONS OF MR. GULICK

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Stern said variances are required for a use that is not permitted in the zone; no principal building on the property; more than one use of the property.  There is a question as to any steep slope disturbance.

 

Mr. Gulick said there is none.

 

William Denzler, planner for the applicant, was sworn in and gave his educational and professional background for the Board.  He said he has prepared a report on this application.

 

Mr. Dunne passed copies of the report to the Board members (report marked A-9).

 

Mr. Denzler said the mulch grinding operation is located on the subject property.  He referred to a photo exhibit board (A-10) showing an aerial photo and on-site photos.  He described the photos for the Board.

 

Mr. Denzler stated the permitted uses in the LI/OR zone are non-invasive industrial-type uses.  The zone was created during the 2000 reexamination to permit uses that would have benign environmental impact to sensitive groundwater recharge and steep slopes area in this area of the Township.  The majority of lots along Lenel Road are vacant.  There are several industrial operations closer toward Frontage Road.  Special reasons are typically purposes of planning.  The proposed operation advances several of the purposes, including (a) to encourage municipal actions to guide appropriate use of development; (b) to provide adequate light, air and open space; (c) to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of recreation, commercial and industrial uses; (h) to encourage location and design of transportation routes to promote the free flow of traffic; (i) to promote visual environment through greater development techniques and to encourage coordination between various public and private procedures and activities.

 

Mr. Dunne asked Mr. Denzler if he feels the current location of the site is particularly suitable for this particular use.

 

Mr. Denzler said yes.  In this case the proposed mulching operation is consistent with the existing quarry operation.  There is no additional disturbance of land, no additional truck traffic, no environmental impact in terms of stormwater or impervious surfaces.

 

Mr. Dunne asked about the negative criteria.

 

Mr. Denzler said there should not be any substantial detriment to the public good.  Based on the location, it is not seen from anywhere else besides Lenel Road at the top.  There is no impact to any residential neighborhoods.  It uses the existing roadway network.  It is isolated to the end of Lenel Road.  Also, there won’t be any substantial detriment to the zone plan and zoning ordinance.  In reviewing the goals and objectives this area was created as the LI/OR zone, and the intent was to promote principal uses that would not have sever environmental impacts.  One purpose of the zone was to reflect the established pattern of roadways from Route 80 and Route 46.  We do that.  As part of the use variance, there should be an enhanced quality of proof to reconcile the proposed use.  This is a unique temporary use of the site.  It is not the type of use typically found within municipal master plans.  From a planning prospective, I feel the use can be approved and this would be an appropriate site for the use.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED FOR QUESTIONS OF MR. DENZLER

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Dunne said he spoke with Raths, and the township doesn’t feel this application is inconsistent with the Developer’s Agreement.

 

Mr. Wiener said the Board can refer this to the Township Attorney and Township Engineer and Fire Official to assure that it would not require a formal site plan.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked Mr. Stern if there are any applications before the Planning Board for development of any of the surrounding properties. 

 

M. Stern said the last one was across the street and he can’t get anyone to build it at this time.  Nothing has been submitted.  All the other properties are vacant and there have not been any formal applications.

 

Mr. Stern said if the Board were inclined to approve this, there should be a 20-foot setback, delineated with boulders; temporary use for two years and applicant will notify the Township Planner during that period; this property will be linked with the Tree King operation; no storage of vehicles, just the tub grinder and Mr. Gulick’s vehicles coming to the site to remove mulch; no wholesale or retail activities; use not transferable to another operation; subject to Township Attorney review; compliance with applicable conditions of previous approval; all other governmental agencies that have jurisdiction. 

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application with the conditions outlined by Mr. Stern, Mr. Wiener and Mr. Dunne.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

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

 

BA-23-05 – MC SKI CLUB – USE VARIANCE TO HAVE A SKI CLUB LOCATED ON LAKE SILVER SPRING LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 2702, LOT 1 IN OS ZONE

 

Attorney Bernd Hefele represented the applicant.  He said this application is for an interpretation of the zoning ordinance and a ‘d’ variance if necessary.  The zoning officer has not issued a citation at the property, and we are here voluntarily for an interpretation as to whether the water skiing use is permitted or if it requires a use variance.  MC Ski Club rents the property from the Mittelstadt’s and uses it under lease.

 

Mr. Stern said the Zoning Officer did go to the site because of a complaint.

 

Mr. Crowley asked for an explanation of the application.

 

Mr. Wiener explained that the Board is being asked to interpret the ordinance and determine whether or not this use is a permitted use on this property.  If the Board concludes that it is a prohibited use, they will require a use variance. 

 

Mr. Crowley asked what is prohibited in the OS zone.

 

Mr. Stern said the ordinance is set up as what is permitted.  The purpose of the OS standard is as follows: “The preservation and enhancement of open space, environmentally sensitive areas and recreation.”  Section 13-7.2002a states permitted uses are open space and conservation areas; public parks and playgrounds; agriculture; single family detached dwellings; essential services. The property over the years has operated as a beach club, has had variances for Christmas tree sales; storage of landscape contractor equipment; use variance for a residential dwelling on the property.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked how many uses are on the property.

 

Mr. Stern said in 1985 they were approved for Christmas tree sales; 1992 variance for storage boxes; landscape contracting business; beach/swim club; residential use.

 

Mr. Stern said the zoning was modified in 2001 – it went from an I-5 Industrial zone to an OS District.  I believe the Board’s interpretation is to determine whether or not motorized watercraft for water skiing is permitted under this scope of a principal permitted use.

 

John Leuszler was sworn in.  In answer to questions from Mr. Hefele he said he is a member of the MC Ski Club. We are a group of men who water ski.  Water skiing is an organized sport with prescribed criteria.  On this lake, we have set up a slalom course.  There are 6 buoys on the course.   He showed a photo board of the slalom course  and stated it is done behind a specialized boat.  The boat is an inboard boat designed to minimize the wake and to maintain the prescribed speeds.  The speeds are maintained at 2/10 m.p.h.  The engine in the boat sits inside the boat and is similar to a V-8 engine in an automobile.  A shaft comes out from the engine and there is a mechanical seal that seals the shaft.  No oil gets into the water.  The average age of the skiers is 46 years of age.  You have to be a member of the ski club to water ski at the lake.  It is a nonprofit operation and the cost is simply what it costs to run it.  Lake Silver Spring is an ideal location because for a slalom course you need to be able to control the wakes that the boat makes.  You look at the length of the lake and the width.  We gravitate towards private clubs to avoid the wakes.  Competition water skiing doesn’t work well on lakes like Lake Hopatcong. 

 

Mr. Hefele asked about the area surrounding the lake.

 

Mr. Leuszler said it is mostly trees.  There is one house that backs up onto the lake.  It is very isolated and protected from the community.

 

Ms. Dargel asked what hours the training is held.

 

Mr. Leuszler said during normal business hours – typically 7:30 to dusk. 

 

Mr. Hefele asked how many months out of the year this is done.

 

Mr. Leuszler said April to October, typically about ½ hour per day.  In seven months, we put 300 hours on the boat.

 

Mr. Stern asked who runs the boat.

 

Mr. Leuszler said the members are trained to be able to run the boat, and we have all been qualified.

 

Mr. Stern asked how many members there are.

 

Mr. Leuszler said currently there are 9 members.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if there have been any safety problems.

 

Mr. Leuszler said none.

 

Ms. Dargel asked about the noise decibels for the boat.

 

Mr. Leuszler said the neighbors have told us it is a quiet boat and that it hasn’t bothered them.  The boats are designed to be quiet.  They sound about like a car.

 

Mr. Stern asked if competitions are held there.

 

Mr. Leuszler said we haven’t since I started the club in 2002, but we may want to.

 

Mr. Hefele asked Mr. Mittelstadt how long a ski club has been at the lake.

 

Bert Mittelstadt, the owner of the property, was sworn in.  He said water skiing has been taking place here since 1989.

 

Ms. Dargel asked how many hours a week has water skiing been taking place.

 

Mr. Mittelstadt said it starts full activity in June.  It goes on sometimes in the morning and then they go away and someone else would come in the afternoon or evening for about an hour or an hour and a half. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked how many boats there are.

 

Mr. Mittelstadt said there is only one boat.  That is my stipulation.  There are no environmental issues.  In fact, the boat is needed to aerate the lake.

 

Mr. Kurtz said in Horseshoe Lake there are two-cycle engines that run.  Is that permitted?

 

Mr. Stern said it is a municipal facility for recreation.  That is not related to this application.

 

Mr. Wiener said the first issue here is whether or not this activity is permitted on this site. 

 

Mr. Stern asked if people are swimming in the lake when the ski boat is running.

 

Mr. Mittelstadt said yes.

 

Peter G. Steck, planner for the applicant, was sworn in.  He gave his educational and professional background and was accepted by the Board.  He stated he has visited the property and has reviewed the uses and is familiar with the water skiing use.  What is there is a 22.8 acre lot fronting on Route 46.  It was once used as a sand quarry and has since been filled with water.   It is largely isolated from residential uses.  There are railroad tracks on two sides.  To the north is a shooting range.  There are commercial uses along Route 46 and scattered residential uses to the west.  This is a private swim club.  A sub-set is the Morris County Ski Club.  They just do a slalom course.  The property was split zoned, but since 2001 it was placed entirely in an OS zone.  The Open Space zone is described in the ordinance as stated by Mr. Stern.  I would like the Board to focus on Open Space as a permitted use.  The definition reads as follows:  “Any parcel or area of land or water essentially unimproved and set aside, dedicated or reserved for public or private use or enjoyment, or for the use and enjoyment of owners and occupants of land adjoining or neighboring such open space, provided that such area may be improved with only those buildings, structures and other improvements that are designed to complement the natural openness of the land or facilitate active or passive recreation use”.  Active recreation is defined as, “recreational activities which involve more than minimal improvements to and/or disturbance of the natural state of the land”.  Recreation facility means, “a place where sports, leisure time activities and customary and usual recreation activities such as set forth in Major Group #79 of the Standard Industrial Classification Manual is carried out”.   Use Group #79 does allow orchestras and bands, professional sports clubs, racing tracks, coin operated amusement devices, amusement parks, animal shows and carnivals, archery ranges, shooting ranges, boat rental, party fishing, day camps, fireworks display service, go-cart rentals and raceway operation, picnic grounds operation, sports instructional schools and camps, ski instruction, water slides, professional sports instructors: golf, skiing, swimming, etc., and amusement and recreational services not elsewhere classified.

 

Mr. Steck said when the Board normally makes a decision, there is a presumption of validity.  When you do an ordinance interpretation, you don’t have the validity.  The question is what is the meaning of the ordinance.  My conclusion is that water skiing should be permitted as a permitted use in the zone.  The land is in an open space zone, and the governing body says open space is both active and passive, and talks about water and land areas.  This is an active recreational use.  In my initial judgment I would consider what the applicant deals in is a recognized sport with regulations, rules, has competitions and has all the characteristics I would hope you would consider to be a sport, and should be considered as a permitted use in the zone.  If you look at Group #79 in the Standard Industrial Manual, you could have all of the sports I referenced, and then some.  My judgment is that a plain reading of the ordinance says this is a recreational use that is recognized.  There are rules.  It is in competition.  It is encouraged by the ordinance.  The fact that there are few residents on the lake, a gun club to the north, railroad lines on two sides, and the fact that there is only one ski boat may increase the comfort level, but the heart of the matter is what the ordinance means as you read it.  As a planner, I would say this use fits comfortably as a permitted use in the zone.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if notice was required on this application

 

Ms. DeMasi said yes, it was done.

 

Mr. Kurtz said it is self evident this is a recreational question and doesn’t belong at this Board.  It should go to the Council.

 

Mr. Wiener said Mr. Steck clearly enunciated the unique features of this type of relief.   In this case, the Board has to look at what is being done, read the ordinance, and if you come to a conclusion that the ordinance accepts what they are doing and that they don’t need a variance, that is a finding you have to make.  You base that on the testimony and on your interpretation of the ordinance.  You should also get input from Mr. Stern.

 

Mr. Stern said if the Board considered this a permitted use there would be a requirement for site plan approval for the storage shed. 

 

Mr. Wiener said that would have to be analyzed by the professional staff. 

 

Ms. Kinback said she believes it is a recreational use and falls within the ordinance.

 

Ms. DeFillippo said she heard testimony that there has been a ski club for about 16 years, and that this became open space 4 years ago.  Why is it before us now?

 

Mr. Stern said the planning department only became aware of it in the last two years.  There was a citizen complaint about it.  In all the resolutions since 1985 there has never been testimony regarding this type of operation occurring here.  The ordinance says open space and conservation areas.  That gives you a more open passive type of character.  It talks of specific permitted uses.  Once you add the factor of a ski boat or any type of motorized craft, you talk about influences to the surrounding areas.  A few years before the 2001 rezoning the township rezoned the land to the west from an industrial zone to an  R3 residence zone.  There is an application before the planning board for developing that for single family housing.  I tend to focus more on the terminology of open space, but leaning toward conservation areas, which are leaving things in their more natural sense.  Although this water body is still left in its natural sense, you are introducing a rather loud entity to that lake. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if we determine this is a permitted use, would they have to come back for site plan approval?

 

Mr. Stern said there is a storage shed on the property that hasn’t gotten site plan approval.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked why the boat is needed to aerate the lake.

 

Mr. Mittelstadt said ever since the oat has been there the lake has been clearer and cleaner than it ever has been.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if there are any other lakes in this area that have water skiing other than Lake Hopatcong.

 

Mr. Mittelstadt said no, not as far as we know.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked if we were to approve this interpretation, would that be for only this type of water skiing on this particular property?

 

Mr. Wiener said we can limit it to that.

 

Mr. Stern said he agrees.

 

Discussion.

 

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the use for this particular parcel, for this one craft, with an inboard motor, as discussed, assuming you adhere to all other rules and regulations of the sport and water quality.  Ms. Kinback seconded.

 

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

 

New  Business

 

-Ms. DeMasi stated Ashley Furniture has requested a special meeting for a sign application. 

 

The majority of Board members said a special meeting will not be granted.

 

-Ms. DeMasi stated the Annual Zoning Report has been submitted for acceptance and forwarding to the Township Council.

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to accept the report and send it to Council.  Mr. Crowley seconded. 

 

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

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 11:15 p.m.

 

                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi

                                                            Secretary

 

lm/