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

A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment 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, Scott Meyer, Mark Crowley, Kathy DeFillippo, Joyce Dargel, Heather Darling, Robert Church.

 

ABSENT:  Robert Kurtz, Barbara Kinback.

 

Minutes of 9/12/05

 

Ms. DeFillippo made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. Church seconded.

 

Discussion.  Changes noted and made. 

 

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

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

BA-40-05 – ROCCO & SUSANNE SIMMERANO – VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD SETBACK FOR DECK LOCATED ON KENTWOOD RD. BLOCK 5103, LOT 4 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Susanne & Rocco Simmerano

Case No. BA-40-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: September 12, 2005

Memorialized: October 17, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Susanne & Rocco Simmerano have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a rear yard deck with less than the required rear yard setback for premises located at 1 Kentwood Road and known as Block 5103, Lot 4 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D5A 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 construct a 30’x12’ rear yard deck.  The proposed deck was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application.
  3. At the time of the public hearing, the applicant put together an impressive exhibit (A-1), which included 9 separate displays.  There were photos of neighboring properties as well as a rendering of the plot plan.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 7/7/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The proposed deck would result in a 25’ rear yard setback at its closest point (35’ required).
  6. The applicant testified that he tried several alternative locations for a deck and all would require variance relief.  The present iteration required minimal relief.

                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 the premises in question are irregularly shaped.  The property fronts on two streets and has a curved radius and is not rectangular.  The existing house is almost at the setback line, and in fact, in one portion apparently violates the setback line.  The applicant’s 12’x30’ deck is a modest request and results primarily from the location of the house.  This is a non-elevated deck and will have little impact on any adjoining property.

                        NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of September, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Deck to be sized (30’x12’) and located as depicted on the plot plan attached to the application.  Same to be setback no closer than 25’ from the rear property line as requested.
  2. Deck shall remain open and uncovered.

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-41-05 – JANICE PERKINS – VARIANCE FOR FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO ADD A LEVEL LOCATED ON FERROMONTE AVE., BLOCK 2603, LOT 5 IN R-4 ZONE

 

In the matter of Janice Perkins

Case No. BA-41-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: September 12, 2005

Memorialized: October 17, 2005

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, Janice Perkins has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to “add a level” requiring bulk variance(s) for premises located at 29 Ferromonte Avenue and known as Block 2603, Lot 5 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-4” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1401D4 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. Ronald Heyman, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
  3. The applicant was proposing to add a level to the existing one-story home.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 6/2/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The existing home has non-conforming setbacks (front yard  - Wheeler Street 14’9” existing, 14’9” proposed, 30’ required and front yard – Ferromonte Avenue 13’7” existing, 13’7” proposed, 30’ required).
  6. As noted, the subject premises are a corner lot and encumbered with two front yards.
  7. The applicant submitted a plot plan and construction plans prepared by Petersen Associates, architects, dated 5/11/05 consisting of three sheets.  The plan was marked A-1 in evidence.  In addition, the applicant produced three photos (A-2, A-3, A-4), which showed existing homes in the neighborhood all of which were two story homes.
  8. The applicant’s testimony was that the existing home was substantially undersized and outmoded and in need of retrofitting and renovation.

                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 two variances in question are existing conditions.  Granting the applicant’s request would result in improving housing stock and making the applicant’s home closer in conformity to the new homes and re-developed homes in this area of Roxbury Township.
  2. In addition to the location of the infrastructure, the Board notes this is a corner lot and the applicant’s property is encumbered with two front yard setbacks.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of September, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Addition to be constructed as depicted on the plot plan and drawings submitted with the application. 
  2. Front yard setbacks to be maintained at 14’9” (Wheeler Street) and 13’7” (Ferromonte Avenue).
  3. Home to remain an open integrated single family home.

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-42-05 – KEVIN LEWTHWAITE – CERTIFICATION OF A NON-CONFORMING USE LOCATED ON HILLSIDE AVE. BLOCK 5301, LOT 17 IN B-2 ZONE

 

In the matter of Kevin Lewthwaite

Case No. BA-42-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: September 12, 2005

Memorialized: October 17, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Kevin Lewthwaite has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to confirm a non-conforming use (residence in a business zone) for premises located at Hillside Avenue and known as Block 5301, Lot 17 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B2” Zone; said request requires relief pursuant to NJSA 40:55D-68 of the Municipal Land Use Law; 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 premises–in-question.
  2. The applicant is seeking to confirm the validity of a pre-existing non-conforming use pursuant to NJSA 40:55D-68.
  3. The applicant had previously made application to the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer and was directed to make this application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
  4. The applicant stated that prior to purchasing the property, he had investigated the use of the premises and the use was always residential.
  5. The applicant produced a copy of the purchase contract and a letter from his attorney (A-1), which indicated that at the time of the negotiations of the purchase in October of 2004 that the buyer and seller contemplated that the premises being sold were indeed a residence.
  6. The applicant, who has some construction experience, indicated that there was nothing about the premises that suggested it was constructed for anything other than a residential use.  The applicant further testified that the residence appeared to be constructed sometime in the 1940’s, which would have pre-dated the Township Zoning Ordinance.

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the subject premises constitute a valid non-conforming use for the following reasons:

  1. The applicant did not produce overwhelming first hand testimony of the non-conforming use.  However, it is apparent that the existing structure dates to a time prior to the Zoning Ordinance.  It is also apparent that the structure is clearly a single-family residence and could not have been constructed for a commercial or non-residential use.
  2. The Board finds that the applicant has established that the premises constitute a valid non-conforming use as a single-family home.  Thus, said house may be lawfully utilized as a single-family home unless converted to a conforming use.

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-43-05 – JAMES & CARLA SUITT – VARIANCE FOR FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS TO ADD A LEVEL LOCATED ON RYERSON RD. BLOCK 11406, LOT 12 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Carla & James Suitt

Case No. BA-43-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: September 12, 2005

Memorialized: October 17, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Carla & James Suitt have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to add-a-level to an existing home requiring bulk variance relief for premises located at 509 Ryerson Road and known as Block 11406, Lot 12 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D4 & 13-7.1301D6a 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. Ronald Heyman, Esquire represented the applicants.
  2. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  3. The applicants were proposing a significant addition to the existing home.  A second floor addition plan prepared by N.J. Cifaretto, architect, dated 1/18/05 was submitted with the application.   
  4. The applicant stated the net result of adding a level would be to square off the existing home.  The applicant stated the existing home was a modest and outmoded structure that could not accommodate the applicant’s family and the foster children that the applicants were taking in.
  5. Applicant submitted exhibits A-1 through A-5, which depicted existing housing stock in the neighborhood.
  6. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 6/8/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  7. The following variances are noted:
    1. Front yard setback – existing 31.3’, proposed 31.3’, required 35’
    2. Side yard  - required 10’, existing 4.2’, proposed 4.2’

                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 location of the existing infrastructure to be a hardship peculiar to the subject premises.  The applicant was merely going up and continuing the two non-conforming conditions.  The benefit to granting this variance and permitting the applicant’s proposed construction and renovation clearly outweigh any negative impact.  The addition will result in a house that is more compatible with the neighboring homes and will have a positive impact on the continued renovation of existing housing stock.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of September, 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 plan submitted with the application.   Existing non-conforming setbacks and front 31.3’, side yard 4.2’ to be maintained.
  2. House to remain a single family fully integrated home. 

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-45-05 – SCOTT BAILEY – VARIANCE FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR POOL LOCATED ON HENRY ST. BLOCK 3004, LOT 22 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Scott Bailey

Case No. BA-45-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: September 12, 2005

Memorialized: October 17, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Scott Bailey has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a swimming pool requiring an impervious coverage variance for premises located at 17 Henry Street and known as Block 3004, Lot 22 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D8 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 occupant of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicant was proposing to construct an in-ground swimming pool with associated decking in the rear yard.
  3. The location of the pool was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 8/19/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The pool and associated decking result in the impervious coverage being increased to 31.1% (25% maximum permitted – 25.5% existing).
  6. The applicant testified that he formerly had an above ground pool in the rear yard and that many of his neighbors had swimming pools.  He also testified that he looked into various ways to reduce impervious coverage, but none of the alternatives had a significant impact on reducing coverage.

                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 coverage relief is triggered by the existing infrastructure.  The property has a detached rear yard garage and thus has a rather long driveway.  Much of the excess impervious coverage results from the driveway. 
  2. The Board notes that it is dealing with a swimming pool.  While the surface of the swimming pool is considered to be impervious, it certainly does not have the impact of a true impervious structure such as concrete or asphalt.  In many instances, a swimming pool will act to temporarily detain surface water on-site.
  3. The proposed amenity is a normal rear yard amenity in the Township of Roxbury and will provide an outdoor recreational use for the occupancy of the home while having a minimal impact on the Zoning Ordinance.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of September,  2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Compliance with all construction codes, rules, and regulations regarding swimming pools.
  2. Pool to be sized and located as depicted on the plot plan and exhibits attached to the application.  Impervious coverage not to exceed 31.1% as requested.

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-46-05 – GERALD BERNER – VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD SETBACK FOR DECK LOCATED ON CAYUGA AVE. BLOCK 12106, LOT 11 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Beverly & Gerald Berner

Case No. BA-46-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: September 12, 2005

Memorialized: October 17, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Beverly & Gerald Berner have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an elevated rear yard deck requiring a bulk setback variance for premises located at 59 Cayuga Avenue and known as Block 12106, Lot 11 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D5A 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. There was some confusion on the original application, which stated the name of a neighbor.  That confusion was resolved at the public hearing by the testimony of Beverly Berner, one of the owners of the property.
  3. The applicants were proposing to construct a second floor elevated deck.  Same would be 12’x21’ off the rear of the existing home.
  4. The proposed deck was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application.  Same would be located off the southwesterly corner of the home.  The stairs would be on the northerly side of the deck towards the center of the house.
  5. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 4/17/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  6. The resulting rear yard setback would be 25’ whereas 35’ is the maximum permitted.  The existing setback is 37’.
  7. The applicant stated that since the kitchen was on the second floor of the house, this was a logical spot to locate an outdoor entertainment amenity.

                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 configuration of the existing home to almost compel locating a deck on the second floor. 
  2. Many of the existing housing stock in the area all have rear yard decks.  The applicant’s request is a modest one.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of September, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Stairs to access deck shall be located to the northern side of the deck and to include a “landing”.
  2. Deck shall remain open and uncovered.

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-47-05 – DANIEL & MEREDITH DI CARLO – VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND EXISTING FRONT YARD SETACK TO ADD A LEVEL, LOCATED ON MT. ARLINGTON BLVD.

 

In the matter of Meredith & Daniel DiCarlo

Case No. BA-47-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: September 12, 2005

Memorialized: October 17, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Meredith & Daniel DiCarlo have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring dimensional variance(s) for premises located at 155 Mt. Arlington Boulevard and known as Block 11101, Lot 24 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D4 & 13-7.1301D7a 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 a major renovation of an existing modest lakefront home.
  3. The applicants submitted a set of construction plans prepared by Dharam Mehta, architect, which plans were undated.  Said plans were attached to the application.  Those plans did not include a layout of the lowest floor and the applicant submitted an exhibit, which was marked A-1 and entitled “Basement Level”.  That exhibit showed the layout of the lowest level of the proposed structure.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 8/22/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. As noted by Mr. Potere, the following variances are required:
    1. Front yard setback – 35’ required, 23’ existing, 23’ proposed
    2. Building height – maximum permitted 35’-2 ½ stories, existing 2 ½ stories, proposed 37’-3 ½ stories
  1. The application was submitted to the Lake Hopatcong Commission, and the Board’s secretary reported the commission had no comment on the application.
  2. The applicant stated the existing house was in need of renovation and was incompatible with other lakefront houses.  The Board notes that over the past 10 years many of the existing lakefront homes have all been substantially renovated and upgraded. 

                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 and configuration of the existing infrastructure constitute a hardship peculiar to the premises.  The existing infrastructure is at a non-conforming setback.  The Board notes that, like many lakefront homes, the “real world” front yard is actually the lakefront.  The applicant’s home is one of the few lakefront properties that have appeared in front of the Board that complies with the rear or lake setback.  Thus, the front yard variance is really de minimis relief within an existing footprint.
  2. As presently configured, the house on the street side gives the appearance of a ranch home.  While presently the existing home is designated 2 ½ stories, in reality, the house, even with the re-configuration, will have the appearance of a 2 ½ story home and the slight increase in height is de minimis under the circumstances.               
  3. While not dispositive in determining whether or not to grant a variance, the Board notes there were no objectors to this application.  Typically in a lakefront application, if there is any impact on neighbors, they will appear and have comment on the application.  In this case, the absence of comment corroborates the applicant’s contention that the addition will have minimal impact on adjacent properties.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of September, 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 plans and exhibits attached to the application.  Same not to exceed 37’ in height.  Front yard setback to be held at 23’.
  2. Home is to be maintained as an open fully integrated single-family home.

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

AGENDA

 

BA-48-05 – VIOLA DANCIAK – VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR COVERED PORCH LOCATED ON HENRY ST., BLOCK 3001, LOT 2 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Viola Danciak was sworn in. 

 

Scott Danciak was sworn in.  He said they want to build a front porch as there is no access to the garage without having to go outside.  Once the porch is installed, they will exceed the front setback. 

 

Mr. Danciak handed out a copy of the survey showing the dimensions. (marked A-1)

 

Ms. Robortaccio said they would be coming in 6 feet into the front yard setback.

 

Mr. Wiener said the applicant submitted two photos with the application.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there are other houses in the surrounding area with porches.

 

Ms. Danciak said there are 11 houses on the same or neighboring streets that have an overhang or porch-like structure.  She submitted photos of those houses (marked A-2).  Those houses would have similar setbacks.  We are also planning on putting a railing. 

 

Mr. Danciak said we want to model our porch after the one at 11 William Street. 

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked what the dimensions of some of the porches in the photos are.

 

Ms. Danciak said she did not measure, but most of them go just beyond the cement walkway in the front.  Our best guess would be that they go out about 6 feet.

 

Mr. Danciak said the existing setback is 34.8, plus the existing 20” for the overhang, and then we want to go 6 feet off of that.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application.  It will enhance the curb appeal of the house.  It is a normal amenity, and there are other similar homes.  There is no detriment.  Mr. Meyer seconded.

 

There was discussion on the setback.  Mr. Danciak said we are asking for 6 feet from the existing overhang.  The dimensions shown on the survey do not include the overhang.  The porch is actually 7’ 8” x  24’.

 

Ms. Dargel amended her motion to include the dimensions.  Mr. Meyer seconded. 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA- 50-05 - OLIVER PUIG/JOHN LOMBARDI – VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR DECK LOCATED AT 504 DINAH RD., BLOCK 11804, LOT 4 IN R-3 ZONE

 

John Lombardi, Jr. was sworn in.

 

Cindy Lombardi was sworn in.

 

Mr. Lombardi said Mr. Puig is our contractor and is in Pennsylvania.

 

The application will be amended to show Deanna and John Lombardi are the owners.

 

John Lombardi, Sr. was present and was sworn in.  He said he is one of the owners of 504 Dinah Road.  The deed is actually in his wife’s name. 

 

Mr. Wiener said the survey shows John Lombardi on the application.  Ms. Deanna Lombardi sent a letter to allow John Lombardi, Jr. to testify.

 

John Lombardi Sr. and Deanna Lombardi will be on the application.

 

John Lombardi Jr. and Cindy Lombardi said they all live together at 504 Dinah Road.

 

Ms. Cindy Lombardi said the yard is in bad shape.  There was a rock garden, and we want to put in a deck.  Eventually we want to put in retaining walls.  We want to put the deck in for our enjoyment and to try to increase the property value. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked when the house was purchased.

 

Mr. Lombardi said 1979.

 

Ms. Dargel asked why they want to put the deck on the side.

 

Mr. Lombardi Jr. said it is basically for his mother to have easier access to the house.  There is no door in the back.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the property is level.

 

Ms. Lombardi said it is slanted with a lot of rocks.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said there are steps coming out the side door.

 

Mr. Lombardi said it is actually for cosmetic reasons.  We could walk out the side door and walk to the back.  The yard is sloped, and it would be easier for our mother to walk to the back

 

Mr. Stern said there is an adjoining retaining wall.  Would the deck be below the top level of the retaining wall?

 

Mr. Lombardi said yes.  Those blocks will probably be taken out.

 

Ms. Dargel asked, when the patio is put in, will it go all the way to the retaining wall?

 

Mr. Lombardi said the deck won’t touch the retaining wall at all.  We would probably have grass there, or gravel.

 

Ms. Dargel said we need to know exactly where the deck will end.

 

Mr. Lombardi said whatever the variance allows, that is what it will be.

 

Mr. Meyer said the photo submitted shows the existing patio.  What will be done with that?

 

Mr. Lombardi said the existing patio will be dug up and we will put gravel down.

 

Mr. Meyer said I would have a concern with putting a deck on that extends beyond the house at that level.  It would be 3 feet from the neighbor’s property line, and would be looking into their yard. I think an alternative would be to extend the patio and have the deck meet the existing line of the house.

 

Mr. Lombardi said the patio is not level.

 

Ms. Lombardi said we have spoken to our neighbor and he did not have a problem.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked, wouldn’t putting stone where the patio is defeat the purpose of having a level ground to walk on?

 

Mr. Wiener said the patio would no longer be used.  The deck would be above the patio.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said I would have a concern with it being 3 feet from the property line as well.

 

Ms. Dargel said the property is very hilly.  I don’t feel a wooden deck going from the door on the side to the deck is unreasonable.  I don’t know that it has to be 5 feet wide.  It is logical on this property.  To access the backyard is very difficult.

 

Ms. DeFillippo said she is not convinced a wood deck is the answer because of the height.  I am more concerned that the proposed deck would be 3 feet off the property line.  I can see the merit of having a safer walkway.

 

Mr. Stern said if you narrow the walkway down, it would be difficult to open the door.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked how high off the ground the walkway would be.

 

Ms. Lombardi said about 1 ½ feet.

 

Mr. Crowley said he prefers to see a better drawing showing the height of the walkway and deck, how it is in relation to the retaining wall, who owns the retaining wall, etc.  I prefer a 4 foot walkway rather than 5 feet. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio suggested the applicant obtain a drawing from the contractor.

 

Mr. Meyer suggested the applicant express the concerns to the contractor.  

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Robortaccio polled the Board:

 

Ms. Robortaccio – agreed the walkway should be narrower, better drawings should be submitted.

Mr. Crowley – need better drawing showing a cross section; prefers walkway narrower; eliminate some of the back deck

Ms. DeFillippo – another option would be to regrade the property on the side 

 

Ms. Lombardi said we had attempted to do that but could not obtain permission from the neighbors to bring in equipment.

 

Mr. Church – additional information should be shown on drawings

Ms. Darling – suggested the applicant should obtain pictures showing the proximity to the neighboring house

Ms. Dargel – would like to see patio section narrowed to more of a walkway

 

Mr. Lombardi Sr. asked the feeling of the Board on the back patio.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said if you reduce the width on the side, that would reduce the extension to the back.

 

Mr. Lombardi, Sr. asked what if we want to put just a patio in the back?

 

Ms. Robortaccio said that should be discussed with the Construction Official.

 

The application was carried to November 7, 2005.

 

BA-48-05 – BRIAN DIEL – VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE LOCATED ON HELEN ST. BLOCK 1605, LOT 14 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Brian Diel was sworn in.

 

Danielle Bohlen, attorney for the applicant, was present.

 

In answer to questions from Ms. Bohlen, Mr. Diel said he lives at 26 Helen Street with his family.  They are expecting another child, and that is the purpose for the addition.  On the plans submitted, it shows a den.  That should be marked as bedroom #3.  We propose to make the dining room a bedroom and add on a 12’ x 18’ addition to the rear of the home and make that a larger kitchen and a new dining area, with an attachment to the existing one-car garage.  A patio would come off the dining room.  

 

Ms. Bohlen asked Mr. Diel to describe photos submitted (marked A-2, A-5 and A-6).

 

Mr. Stern said the patio shows on the architectural drawings and not on the survey.  Was the patio included in the impervious coverage calculations?

 

Mr. Diel said it was not included.

 

Mr. Stern said it is already over at 26.24% and what is permitted is 25%.  The proposed patio is 16’ x 16’.    It would take it up about 1.5%.

 

Ms. Bohlen distributed photos of the neighbor’s property which have similar additions (A-3 and A-4).

 

Mr. Meyer said the setback variances are technical variances as the garage has always been there. 

 

Mr. Stern said once you attach the garage to the principal building, you apply the principal building setbacks.  The Board has to look at what the impact is to the character of the area.  From the Board’s comments, it seems they feel there is not much of an impact.

 

Mr. Stern said Mr. Potere’s variance notice mentions left side yard.  That should be rear yard.

 

Mr. Meyer said both the right and rear yard setbacks are technical and there is not much changed impact.  The larger question is impervious coverage, and in my opinion it is not significant.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the shed will remain.

 

Mr. Diel said yes.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Meyer made a motion to approve the application.  Both setback variances are rather technical in nature.  The 2% increase in impervious and building coverage are not extremely significant.  This will be a nice addition with no impact on neighbors.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

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

 

BA-51-05 - DAVID YUN – SMALL EMPIRE – USE VARIANCE FOR SKATEBOARD FACILITY LOCATED ON RT. 206, BLOCK 7601, LOT 21 IN OR-5 ZONE

 

David Yun was sworn in.

 

Mr. Wiener asked if Small Empire is a corporation .

 

Mr. Yun said it is a business in Roxbury, and I am 100% owner.   My construction company will be a tenant of the building.

 

Mr. Wiener said you are a corporation, and if so, you have to be represented by counsel.

 

Grace Bertone, attorney, stepped forward.  She said she represents Mark Wehrenberg, the owner of the property.  She said her understanding is that David will be signing the lease in his personal name. 

 

Mr. Wiener said he does not feel the Board should hear this without representation by an attorney.

 

The application was carried to 11/7/05.

 

BA-52-05 – CELLULAR TELEPHONE COMPANY – USE AND SITE PLAN FOR WIRELESS ANTENNA LOCATED IN ROXBURY MALL ON THE MEDICAL BUILDING, BLOCK 5004, LOT 8 IN B-3 ZONE

 

Attorney Michael Levine represented the applicant.  He said the property is a 4 story office building on Sunset Strip in the B-3 zone.  The proposal is to co-locate wireless antennas on the building and equipment cabinet on the roof of the building. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the application says 275 Route 10.  Some paperwork says differently.

 

Mr. Levine said the street address is 23 Sunset Strip, Block 5004, Lot 8.

 

Ms. DeMasi said we received a report from Mr. Bodolsky today.  She gave Mr. Levine a copy.

 

Mr. Levine said the Board is familiar with a co-location on a similar building.  Realizing there are other installations on the other side of the mall, we investigated whether or not we can locate the antennas similarly to the ones on the other building in the mall showing antennas above the roofline, but screened, and a second alternative more consistent with Mr. Stern’s recommendation showing lower antennas that don’t protrude above the roofline, painted to match the mansard roof.  All of our equipment is behind the mansard roof and wouldn’t be visible.  We have photo simulations.

 

Bishal Kataria, Radio Frequency Engineer, was sworn in and was accepted by the Board.  He said Cingular has a need for a site in this area.

 

He referred to Exhibit A-1, Neighboring Site RF Propagation, and Exhibit A-2, Composite Site RF Propagation.  He described the gaps in coverage that need to be addressed with the proposed antennas.  

 

Mr. Levine said we will be showing two different mounting types for the antennas.  Will both types provide the coverage needed?

 

Mr. Kataria said yes.

 

Mr. Levine asked if there will be permanent employee staffing.

 

Mr. Kataria said maintenance will be done once a month and is monitored from a remote location.

 

Mr. Levine asked if there would be any nuisance factor.

 

Mr. Kataria said the only sound would be the sound of fans in the back which is used to cool the cabinet.

 

Mr. Levine asked about the statutory limits regarding frequency emissions.

 

Mr. Kataria said we have done a report and calculated the worse case scenario, and we have come out with a value less than 1%, and we will be meeting FCC guidelines regarding emissions.  At present, we are not currently proposing any other sites in Roxbury.  With this, the coverage should be substantial to cover the area.

 

Mr. Meyer asked if there are any other antenna rays on 66 Town Center presently.

 

Mr. Kataria said there are not.

 

Mr. Kataria said you need at least 10 feet of separation from Nextel antennas which operate in the same band.  You wouldn’t get that amount of separation, and there may be some interference issues from other carriers.   It will be a horizontal separation.  We cannot go on that building.

 

Mr. Levine said there are no other carriers with leases for this facility at this time.  That will be removed from our plans.

 

Mr. Stern asked if they looked at any other sites.

 

Mr. Kataria said we did, and this was the most suitable site.  We need a certain height and there were no other structures of that height to cover the gap, and close to the mall.

 

Ms. Darling said there are statistics that don’t make sense to her regarding health issues.  What is the effect on people in the building and the surrounding areas?

 

Mr. Kataria said the antennas we use are in the front.  What we get will be much lower than the maximum allowed.  The maximum amount comes out to be less than 1% of the FCC prescribed limit.  Cell phones operate at a much lower power than any other system.  They usually operate at a power of 1 Pico watt.  It is less than you would be getting from any equipment in your house.

 

Ms. Dargel asked what the allowable number of Pico watts is?

 

Mr. Kataria said the FCC gives a limit at 1 microwatt per centimeter square.  Our antenna operates at 1%. That is all the antennas combined at maximum power operating. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked what about at ground level?

 

Mr. Kataria said the maximum will be at ground level only, and this report calculates the value at ground level.  

 

PUBLIC  PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Kataria.

 

Fred Clark, 54A Hercules Road, Kenvil, was sworn in.  He asked if they can share services with any other carriers.

 

Mr. Kataria said there has been roaming between carriers, but right now everyone is using the A & & T network.  Technically, the GSM carriers can share the network.

 

Mr. Clark asked if they could share the ones on the other building?

 

Mr. Kataria said the antennas usually connect to equipment, and no one wants to run cable from one building to another.  It would be about 500 feet of cable, but technically you could do it on the same building.

 

Alice Inge, 6 Beaman Place, was sworn in.  She asked, regarding Pico watts, is that part of the radiation emissions study?

 

Mr. Kataria said  that is correct.

 

Ms. Inge asked if it is below the FCC standards?

 

Mr. Kataria said yes.  It is below the 1% limit.

 

Ms. Inge asked if it is correct there are no plans at this time for that to be leased or borrowed from any other carrier or company?

 

Mr. Kataria said we will be using our own system.

 

Joseph Zanko, 23 Walker Avenue, was sworn in.  He asked what the antennas are for.

 

Mr. Kataria said they are for cell phone coverage, and also 911 service.

 

Mr. Zanko said he has concerns about the health issue.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said he cannot testify regarding health issues.

 

Mr. Levine said we will have another witness to testify as to the health and safety issues.

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED.

 

Mr. Stern asked if there will be a GPS antenna.

 

Mr. Kataria said yes.

 

Pete McTygue, professional engineer, was sworn in and was accepted by the Board.  He referred to drawing CO2A showing the overall property and CO1, showing the roof of the building, and the elevation views CO2 and CO2A.

 

Mr. McTygue described the location of the proposed building and the surrounding uses which include a larger building than the subject building and retail area.  Drawing CO1 shows the building.  Behind the mansard roof is a number of HVAC units and we propose to locate our cabinets on a steel frame that would stand between the beam lines.  The top of the cabinets would be below the parapet wall and would not be seen from the ground.   We were proposing to locate antennas behind stealth panels that would project above the parapet.  We also show antennas previously proposed by other carriers.  Since that time, we have learned that those carriers never went forward with their proposal. 

 

Mr. Stern said there is a likelihood there will be other carriers.  That building could accommodate additional antennas.

 

Mr. McTygue said there are three sectors.  Those antennas are attached to the cabinets by coaxial cables.  We don’t propose any changes to the footprint, and don’t propose any site improvements.  It is all limited to the roof space.  The cabinets would be in the center below the top of the roof.  The GPS antenna would be located in sector B.  It needs to have southern exposure.  That would also be hidden.  All four elevations show the proposed antennas, which will be removed.  They also show our antennas behind a screen wall.  You will not see them once they are installed. 

 

Mr. Levine asked that Mr. McTygue show the alternative mounting design.

 

Mr. McTygue referred to the Roof Plan CO1, revised 10/10/05 (marked A-3); and Building Elevation CO2A, revised 10/10/05 (marked A-4).

 

Mr. McTygue said what we propose is to located antennas similar to the ones on the similar building in the mall, which is a 3-story building.  We proposed to mount the antennas on pipes painted to match the roof color.  We would locate 4 antennas per sector, for a total of 12 antennas.  The top of the antennas would be at the same height as the parapet wall.  To prevent leaking through the roof, it could be sealed.  It is not that critical because rain gets in anyway.  They would call for it to be sealed.  Exhibit A-3 shows the three sectors where we propose to place the antennas.  We would be prepared to submit a revised structural analysis.  We will not require any additional water or sewer service.  There will be no signs proposed and no exterior lighting. 

 

Mr. Levine asked Mr. McTygue to address Mr. Stern’s report:

 

Item 1 – addressed

Item 2 – addressed

Item 3 – addressed

Item 4 – agreed

Item 5 – addressed

Item 6 – will be addressed

Item 7 – addressed

 

Mr. Stern said there was another camouflaging technique to wrap the mansard roof with another level of panels.

 

Mr. McTygue said he did not look into it.  I believe it could work structurally, but it would be much larger and much more of an expense.

 

Item 8 – height variance was requested

Item 9 – addressed

Item 10 – addressed – not applicable

Item 11 – antennas will be painted to match, as well as the piping

Item 12 – agreed

Item 13 – GPS antenna is now proposed at a frame (pointed out on exhibit )

Item 14 – not applicable

Item 15 – agreed

Item 16 – agreed

 

Mr. Crowley said if the antennas were moved behind the parapet wall, would that affect the coverage?

 

Mr. Kataria said the RF screens are made of RF friendly transparent material, usually fiberglass, which doesn’t block any RF signals.  If we put the antennas behind the roofing material, it would block the signal.

 

Mr. Stern asked, why not replace the metal panels with stealth panels?

 

Mr. Kataria said that could work.

 

Mr. McTygue said there are steel members underneath and behind the mansard roof.  If you were to place the sheet metal, the concern would be the braces.  The braces could be replaced as well. 

 

Mr. Stern asked if it would fade differently.

 

Mr. McTygue said it would.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the antennas move.

 

Mr. McTygue said the carrier tells us the angle they want.  Once they set them, they don’t move them.

 

Ms. Dargel said on the other similar building, you could see some silver showing on an antenna that was not parallel to the mansard roof.

 

Mr. Stern said in this case, all faces of the antennas and piping will be painted.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there would be any damage to the structural integrity to change the metal panels and ribs replaced with the stealth material.

 

Mr. McTygue said that should not be a problem.  It would be designed to hold up as well as the existing steel. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio suggested when the applicant returns at another hearing they submit more information on the stealth materials.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for Mr. McTygue.

 

Diana Zanko, 23 Walker Avenue stepped forward.  She said she lives in a house facing Roxbury Mall.  When I look toward this building, What will I see?

 

Mr. Levine said that will be addressed by another witness.

 

No one else stepped forward. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the Board would want to see pictures of the alternate proposal.

 

Mr. Levine said copies of the exhibit drawings will be submitted for distribution to Board members.

 

Mr. Stern asked the applicant to address whether the entire mansard roof could be replaced.

 

The application was carried to 11/7/05.  

 

There was a 5 minute recess at 9:40 p.m.

 

BA-44-05 – B.L. OSBORNE TRANSPORT – CERTIFICATION OF NON-CONFORMING USE LOCATED ON BERKSHIRE VALLEY RD. BLOCK 4001, LOT 12 IN OR-5 ZONE

 

Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant.

 

Ms. Darling recused herself from the application and left the meeting at 9:45 p.m.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said this application is for certification of a  non-conforming use.

 

Johnny Williams of Superior Carriers was sworn in.

 

Brian Osborne was sworn in.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said the property has traditionally been used as a truck terminal for about 50 years.  It was in the I-10zone.  That was changed in 2001 to the OR 5 zone.  In order to continue the use with a new owner, it is necessary to obtain the certification.

 

In answer to questions from Mr. Nusbaum, Mr. Williams said he is employed as regional manager by Superior Carriers.  It takes in Auburn, Maine to Nashville, Tennessee.  I have been with the company since 1991 and am familiar with this particular site.  The map submitted with the application represents the condition of the property at this time.  The property has operated as a trucking terminal that operates trucks and trailers.  The operation consists of dispatching, maintenance and tank wash.  The property has been used this way for about 50 years and is still used in that fashion.  The maximum number of vehicles, cabs and trailers is about 35 trucks and about 48 to 50 trailers.  That was about 6 years ago and was the heaviest use.  On occasion there could be additional tractor trailers on site.  There were about 35 office help then and about 10 office staff, including mechanics.  Dispatching of pickups and deliveries, maintenance, and truck wash, and fueling has been conducted on the site.  The hours of operation for office staff is 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., but the in and out operation could be 24 hours.  The equipment is dispatched to pick up loads during the 8 to 6 hours, but the pickups could be after those hours.  We intend to continue the use until the time the property is sold.  The nature of the cargo we carry is non-hazardous material.

 

Mr. Wiener asked if Superior owns the property.

 

Mr. Williams said that is correct. 

 

Mr. Nusbaum said the property was previously owned by Ms. Darling’s father, and I represented him.

 

Mr. Crowley asked what type of tank washing there is.

 

Mr. Williams said both exterior and interior washing.  That is controlled by a catch system where the actual cleaning fluids go into a contained area that is taken and disposed of. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there is any transfer of materials on site.

 

Mr. Williams said no.

 

Ms. Dargel asked what activities go on at the building that is next to the trailer.

 

Mr. Williams said it is the maintenance facility and is where the repairs are made.

 

Ms. Dargel asked what activities are conducted in the cinderblock building.

 

Mr. Williams said it is used as an office facility for dispatching and record storage, and there is a  tank washing area as well. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there are any inutile vehicles stored on the premises.

 

Mr. Williams said every tank trailer we have is currently being utilized.  At times, we may have a trailer that may need repairs, but it would typically go out for repairs.

 

Ms. Dargel asked what is the longest a vehicle would be there in need of repairs.

 

Mr. Williams said about a two-week period.

 

Ms. Dargel said there was a “flammable” sign on one of the vehicles there.

 

Mr. Williams said there may be a hazardous material on a truck, but there is no end use of it here.  There is no cleaning of that type of material on the site.

 

Mr. Stern asked if t is correct the driver leaves with an empty tanker, and then it is filled and comes back to the site and parks for a 24 hour period and goes out the next day?

 

Mr. Williams said it normally continues on after it is loaded.  If one comes back with some hazardous material residue, it is not cleaned on this site.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said Mr. Osborne is the purchaser, and he deals with non-hazardous solid freight.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if this was approved at one time for a 24 hour facility.

 

Mr. Stern said there is nothing specific, but in older resolutions, there is reference to a 24 hours operation.

 

Mr. Stern asked where the vehicles were being stored at the peak operation.

 

Mr. Williams said it is a 7.5 acre facility, and there is ample parking even at peak operations.  He pointed out where the tractors and trailers are parked on site, mostly to the rear of the building.

 

Mr. Meyer said the whole area seems to have trailers.  There are no directional signs.  For individuals working there, the place seems to be in disrepair.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said the purpose of this is to establish what the utilization of the property has been.  Mr. Osborne is buying the property, and hopefully the housekeeping will be much better.  The purpose for us being here is to establish the pre-existing use.

 

Mr. Stern said under the I-10 zone, I believe this would be a permitted use.  It would be helpful to see a general plan showing where vehicles would be parked with this proposal.

 

Ms. Dargel said if there is a change of ownership, does the new owner have to come back for site plan approval if they receive the certification of nonconforming use?

 

Mr. Stern said no.  In my review, I saw some changes to the site plan that I did not see approvals for.  Right now, there are plug-ins in the front of the building that I don’t believe there was approval for.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said Mr. Stern had commented that he wanted the light poles to be replaced to be made conforming.  In addition, there was mention of the trash enclosure. Also, the parking can be toward the Route 46 side.  We don’t have any problem with any of those.  That is not really what the Board is to determine, but we are willing to be cooperative.  This is simply a determination that the pre-existing use existed, and there is no intent to abandon that.

 

Mr. Wiener said the applicant can volunteer to designate areas on a drawing, change light stanchions, and the trash enclosures.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said Mr. Osborne has been in town for some time.  I have a letter from Chief Noll that no complaints have ever been generated from his company.  I also have a letter with 20 signatures from neighbors of the present location. 

 

The letter from Chief Noll was submitted and marked A-1.

 

Mr. Stern asked where the current location is.

 

Mr. Osborne said he is located on Kings Highway in Landing in the Rochelle building.

 

In answer to questions from Mr. Nusbaum, Mr. Osborne said he has been in businesses since December of 1991.  It is over-the-road cross-country trucking.  Presently we have about 16 tractors and about 40 trailers.  On occasion we have more, depending on seasonal business, growth, demand, etc.  We have an average of around 27 employees, 20 of whom would be drivers.  The office hours would be 8 to 6 weekdays and half day on Saturdays.  The drivers will be coming in at all hours, and we would have a 24 hour operation.  The materials we move would be furniture, bathroom fixtures, some foodstuff, general freight, no hazardous materials.  There would be no transfers on site.  I would be willing to show where the tractors and trailers would be parked that would be agreeable to the town.   I agree the condition of the property is not good, and I would give it a facelift.  I would consider putting the tractors and trailers toward the side on Route 46.  I would relocate the light stanchions as per Roxbury standards, as well as relocate trash enclosures, subject to Mr. Stern’s approval.  The tractors would be parked in front in the wintertime where they could be plugged in.  Eventually I would want to move them to the back.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the foodstuffs would be new.

 

Mr. Osborne said yes.  There would be no transfers of materials.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked if the trucks would be refrigerated.

 

Mr. Osborne said there is one.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked if space will be rented to another company.

 

Mr. Osborne said no.

 

Mr. Meyer asked if signage is contemplated.

 

Mr. Osborne said not at the moment, but maybe at some point.

 

Mr. Stern stated  there are some existing Superior Carrier signs on the garage that will come down.  The applicant would be entitled to have a wall sign on the building, if it conforms to code.

 

Ms. Robortaccio suggested the applicant should look into the high voltage cabinet when it is his property.

 

Mr. Stern asked if the applicant agrees the vehicles are to be parked along the Route 46 side.  The only time vehicles or equipment would be in front would be in winter. 

 

Mr. Osborne said yes.

 

Mr. Wiener asked if the applicant will you be utilizing the wash system.

 

Mr. Osborne said not at this time.

 

Mr. Wiener said even if the Board approves the certification, the applicant will still have to comply with all other ordinances of the township

 

Mr. Osborne said he understands that.

 

Mr. Stern said you would still be restricted to the repairs and washings to take place within the building.  No outside activity except for storage of vehicles.

 

Mr. Osborne agreed.

 

Mr. Stern asked if there will be any changes to the larger building.

 

Mr. Osborne said eventually he will have it sided and cleaned up. 

 

Mr. Osborne asked if excess equipment can be stored temporarily along the wooded line adjacent to the residential area.

 

Mr. Stern said the preference would be to go more toward the left, but it is an existing condition.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked if the applicant would have to come back to the Board when improvements are made to the site.

 

Mr. Stern said it depends on what the improvements are.  The goal is to upgrade the property and encourage it.  All improvements would go through the township.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

Fred Clark, 54A Hercules Road, Kenvil, was sworn in.  Can they clear cut all the trees on the lots?

 

Mr. Stern said they would have to come in for a tree removal permit and that would trigger site plan.

 

Mr. Clark asked about idling vehicles bordering an existing neighborhood.

 

Mr. Stern said that is an existing condition.  There is an ordinance adopted in 2004 that prohibited 24 hour operations, but the testimony is that they predate that ordinance.

 

Mr. Clark asked how hazardous material was disposed of?

 

Mr. Williams said it was pumped into a storage tank trailer that was taken to a qualified facility for disposal.

 

Mr. Clark said there was an issue with the neighbors about a discharge from the wash or boiler system.  Did you do a power washing of their home?

 

Mr. Williams said he is not aware of that.

 

Mr. Stern said he would hope that with the trucks parked in the location indicated, it should be a better situation.

 

Mr. Clark asked if Mr. Osborne is you moving his location.

 

Mr. Osborne said he will be shutting down the Kings Highway facility.

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Meyer made a motion to approve the certification.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

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

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:40 p.m.

 

                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary