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, Kathy DeFillippo, Scott Meyer, Robert Kurtz, Barbara Kinback, Robert Church.  Heather Darling arrived at 7:35 p.m.

 

ABSENT:  Mark Crowley,

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener. 

 

Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary; Tom Potere, Zoning Officer.

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced Application BA-44-05, B. L. Osborne Transport, will not be heard and is carried to 10/17/05.

 

Minutes of 7/11

 

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

 

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

 

Minutes of 8/8/05

 

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

 

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

 

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

BA-39-05 – KENBAR INVESTMENT – AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY TO REMOVE SOME OF THE BANKED PARKING LOCATED ON HILLCREST DR. BLOCK 8602, LOT 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 16 I LI/OR ZONE

 

In the matter of Kenbar Investments, LLC

Case No. BA-21-04

 

 

RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION OF

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

 

 

 

Approved:  August 8, 2005

Memorialized:  September 12, 2005

 

 

                WHEREAS, Kenbar Investments, LLC obtained minor subdivision, “d” variance, preliminary site plan approval, “c” variances and design waivers for premises located at Orben Drive and Hillcrest Avenue and known as Block 8602, Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 and 15 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury on January 10, 2005 and memorialized on March 15, 2005; and

                WHEREAS, the application proposed that the property would be serviced by sanitary sewer and that the applicant would connect to the existing sewer line which was conditioned upon the New Jersey - Department of Environmental Protection (hereinafter “DEP”) issuance of a GP-2 Permit; and

                WHEREAS, George Gloede the applicant’s engineer, has testified that the DEP will not issue the GP-2 Permit without a Stream Encroachment Permit which would require a substantial redesign of the project and prevent the applicant from constructing the project as approved by the Board; and

                WHEREAS, the applicant has proposed construction of a septic system in a part of the area that was to have been utilized for “future parking”, and whereas the applicant has provided sixty-seven (67) parking spaces, whereas sixty-four (64) are required and is proposing to reduce the ”future parking spaces” from twenty (20) to ten (10); and

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

1.                    A septic system can be designed and constructed in the area that was proposed for twenty (20) “future parking spaces”. 

2.                    The applicant has provided more parking spaces than are required by the Ordinance and will still have the ability to provide additional parking spaces should the need arise. 

3.                    The proposed amendment of the plan to allow a septic system rather than sanitary sewer will permit the applicant to complete the planned construction as originally proposed and satisfy all of the other requirements of the memorializing resolution of March 15, 2005.

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury that the approvals granted to applicant by resolution memorialized March 15, 2005 be and the same are amended to permit the applicant to service the proposed building by the utilization of a septic system in the area currently proposed for “future parking” and as depicted on the plans prepared by G. Gloede and Associates dated July 22, 2005 and consisting of 4 sheets; and

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the following conditions of the original memorializing resolution are no longer applicable: 

a.                    Condition No. 8 requiring the applicant to obtain a sewer extension

b.                   Condition No. 38 requiring the applicant to obtain a GP-2

c.                    Condition No. 40 requiring the applicant to obtain capacity allocation from the Township Engineer/Director of Public Works and authorization of the governing body.  In lieu therefore, the applicant is required to obtain all necessary municipal and governmental approvals for the installation of a septic system; and

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all unfulfilled conditions of the approval are conditions of the subdivision and not of the site plan; and

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the applicant shall be granted an additional period of one hundred and ninety (190) days from the date of memorialization of this resolution to perfect the subdivision.

 

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

 

Ms. Darling arrived at 7:35 p.m.

 

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

 

BA-24-05 – NEIL & MARJORIE LINES – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON EYLAND AVE., BLOCK 2802, LOT 2 IN R-1 ZONE   

 

In the matter of Margorie & Neil Lines

Case No. BA-24-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: August 8, 2005

Memorialized: September 12, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Margorie & Neil Lines have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring an impervious coverage variance for premises located at 275 Eyland Avenue and known as Block 2802, Lot 2 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-1” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1001D8a 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 improved dwelling on-site.
  2. The applicants were proposing to construct an addition onto the existing home.  The proposed addition was depicted on several exhibits attached to the application which included a plot plan, floor plan for the 1st and 2nd floors, tax map depicting the applicant’s property.
  3. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 4/4/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.  As noted by Mr. Potere, the applicant’s proposal results in the need for an impervious coverage variance inasmuch as the maximum permitted coverage is 20% - the applicant’s proposal would be 21.2% noting the applicant was removing some existing coverage and bring the existing non-conforming 22.27% down to 21.2%.
  4. During the public hearing, the applicant testified that the house was being utilized as a mother/daughter home.  The Board was unclear as to whether Mr. Potere had a chance to determine and analyze the plans to ensure that what was being proposed was a single family home and not a two family home.  After discussion with the Board, the applicant agreed to carry the matter to a future public hearing so that the Board could obtain a clarification.
  5. The matter was carried to the 8/8/05 meeting.  The Board received an 8/3/05 memorandum from the Zoning Officer, Tom Potere.  Mr. Potere noted that an examination of the premises revealed the premises to be a single family home.  The resulting impervious coverage would be 22.27% or slightly less – the same as the existing condition.
  6. The applicant presented three exhibits - A-1 and A-2 being photographs of the subject premises and A-3 being a copy of the tax map.
  7. The applicant noted that the impervious coverage relief partially resulted from the fact that the applicant’s property contained a gravel driveway that was an easement to a land lock parcel to the rear. 

                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 comments of the Zoning Officer as set forth in his letter of 8/3/05 and agrees the addition would enhance the functionality of the within home and provide a more integrated single family use.
  2. The proposed relief (22.27% impervious coverage) is minimal under the circumstances.  The Board finds the utilization of the applicant’s property by the property to the rear results in burdening the subject premises with additional unanticipated impervious coverage.  The amount of relief requested is minimal under the circumstances and thus, should have no adverse impact.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of August, 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 drawings attached to the application.  Total impervious coverage to be no more than 22.27% as requested.
  2. Premises are to be maintained as a single-family use with integrated living space.  Same to be reviewed upon completion by the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer.

 

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

 

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

 

BA-33-05 – GARDEN STATE SUNROOMS – KENNETH BRANCH – VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK, IMPERVIOUS AND BUILDING COVERAGES FOR ADDITION, GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY LOCATED ON APPLETREE LANE, LANDING, BLOCK 11913, LOT 1 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Ken Branch and Maryanne Panei (Garden State Sunrooms)

Case No. BA-33-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: August 8, 2005

September 12, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Ken Branch and Maryanne Panei (Garden State Sunrooms) have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition including an indoor swimming pool for premises located at 2 Appletree Lane and known as Block 11913, Lot 1 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, 13-7.1301D8 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 one of the owners and occupants of the single-family home on-site.  Garden State Sunrooms is the applicant’s contractor.
  2. The applicant was proposing to construct a large addition onto the rear of the existing home.  The addition would be approximately 40’x34’ with a 12’x14’ “bump out” onto the rear of the addition.  An existing garage and macadam associated with the garage would be removed and a new garage constructed on the easterly side of the house with an entry off of King Road.
  3. The location of the proposed additions was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 5/11/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. As noted by Mr. Potere, the application, as presented to the Board, requires the following variances:
    1. Front yard setback (to Appletree Lane) - 23’ proposed for the new addition whereas, 35’ is required noting the existing house is 13.56’ from Appletree Lane
    2. Impervious coverage variance – maximum permitted being 25%, existing 21%, proposed 27.62%
    3. Building coverage – maximum permitted 15%, existing 14.22%, proposed would be just under 23%.
  1. The applicant stated that the focus of the addition would be to create a glassed in enclosure for an in-ground (38’x30’) indoor swimming pool.  The applicant stated that this was a particular need for his family inasmuch as one of his children was a special needs child and swimming was an activity that was a very positive force in that child’s life.
  2. During the hearing, the Board members raised concerns about the size of the pool, the scope of the variances, and questioned whether or not the applicant could achieve the same goals while reducing the size and scope of the project.  At the conclusion of the 7/11/05 hearing, the applicant agreed to carry the matter to a further public hearing, go back to the drawing board, and present a revised plan.
  3. The matter was carried to the 8/8/05 public hearing.  At that time, Maryanne Panei testified as to the changes that had been made to the application:
    1. Board received revised addition plans dated 7/18/05
    2. Revised letter of denial from Tom Potere, dated 8/4/05
  1. As noted by the applicant, the proposed project was considerably scaled down noting:
    1. The driveway was shortened to 35 ft. in depth
    2. The room was reduced to 26’x44’ with a 12’x14’ bump out
    3. The pool 17’x38’
  1. As noted by Mr. Potere, the applicant’s revised plan required the following relief:
    1. Front yard setback – 35’ maximum required, 13.56’ existing, 23’ proposed (to Apple Tree Lane)
    2. Total impervious coverage – variance no longer required (25% maximum permitted, 21% existing, 24.05% proposed)
    3. Total building coverage – 15% maximum permitted, 14.22% existing, 21.09% proposed  

                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. As testified to by the applicant, one of the primary motivations for this addition was to provide an indoor swimming pool.  Same was necessary for the therapy and enjoyment of a special needs child of the applicants.  The creation of this type of housing opportunity is consistent with the intent and purpose of the American’s Disability Act (ADA) as well as the intent and purpose of the Municipal Land Use Law.
  2. The premises are a corner lot and thus have two front yard setbacks. 
  3. The benefits to be gained by granting this variance clearly substantially outweigh any negative impact.   The Board is satisfied that the architecturals provided and the quality of the proposed addition will be esthetically pleasing and have no impact on adjoining properties.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of August, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Addition to be sized and located as depicted on the revised drawings (Cordasco & Socci Architects, dated 7/18/05) submitted prior to the 8/8/05 public hearing.
  2. Front yard setback to be no less than 23’ to Apple Tree Lane.  Impervious coverage to comply with Ordinance and building coverage not to exceed 21.09% as requested.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA-34-05 – JOHN MACKAY – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING NON-CONFORMING HOME IN A LI/OR ZONE.  BLOCK 8602, LOT 24

 

In the matter of John Mackay

Case No. BA-34-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

 

Approved: August 8, 2005

Memorialized: September 12, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, John Mackay has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to obtain a use variance to expand a non-conforming use for premises located at 29 Arlington Avenue and known as Block 8602, Lot 24 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “LI/OR” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.7C of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

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

  1. The applicant is the owner of the single-family home on site.
  2. The property is located in the LI/OR and as such, the residential use is non-conforming.
  3. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 5/3/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  4. The applicant was proposing to construct a 14’x19’ addition and adding a second level.
  5. As noted above, the existing premises are apparently a non-conforming use.  As such, any expansion requires relief in the form of a “D2” variance pursuant to NJSA40:55D-70d(2).
  6. The subject premises are one of several residential properties located in the LI/OR Zone.
  7. The applicant presented a plot plan showing the existing location as well as floor plans for the subject improvements.  Same were attached to the application. 

                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. As noted above, the subject premises are non-conforming use.  The premises cannot reasonably be used as zoned and the modest addition requested by the applicant will have little or no impact on the Zone Plan and Master Plan.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of August, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. As noted on the applicant’s plan, the applicant shall remove any existing encroachments and shall comply with all bulk zone requirements.
  2. Addition to be sized (14’x19’) and located as depicted on the plot plan attached to the application.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA-32-05 – JASON & GINA MORGAN – VARIANCE FOR FRONT AND SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON FIRST ST./MARTIN PLACE, BLOCK 2609, LOT 13 IN R-4 ZONE

 

In the matter of Gina & Jason Morgan

Case No. BA-32-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: August 8, 2005

Memorialized: September 12, 2005

 

 

                WHEREAS, Gina & Jason Morgan have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring bulk variance(s)

for premises located at 49 First Street and known as Block 2609, Lot 13 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, 13-7.1401D6a 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 an extensive renovation of the existing home.
  3. The applicants submitted the following architectural exhibits prepared by Barrett Allen Ginsberg, architect, dated 2/9/05:
    1. A-1 – General Notes
    2. A-2 – Foundation and First Floor Plans
    3. A-3 – Second Floor Plan & Cross Section
    4. A-4 - Elevations
  1. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 11/29/04 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  2. The proposal results in the need for the following variance(s):
    1. Front yard setback – 30’ required, 27.6’ existing, 20’ proposed
    2. Side yard setback (right side) – 10’ required, 9.7’ existing, 9.7’ proposed
  1. The applicant stated that other properties in the neighborhood had similar non-conforming setbacks and similar design for porches, etc., as depicted on the architectural renderings.

                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 premises.  The applicants carefully planned and thought out architectural renovation of the existing premises will be an esthetic enhancement and will greatly improve the functionality of the existing premises.  This type of carefully thought out and well-designed plan will be a benefit both to the subject premises and to adjoining properties.  The re-adaptive use of existing infrastructure is to be encouraged and the applicants clearly have done just that.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of August, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Premises to be constructed, sized, and located as depicted on the architectural plans submitted with the application.  Front yard setback to be no less than 20’ as requested and shown - side yard to be 9.7’.

 

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

 

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

 

BA-35-05 – FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF LEDGEWOOD – USE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A TEEN CENTER LOCATED ON MAIN ST. BLOCK 6406, LOT 4/5 IN R-3/B-2 ZONE

 

In the matter of Ledgewood Baptist Church

Case No. BA-52-04

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: August 9, 2004

Memorialized: September 13, 2004

 

                WHEREAS, Ledgewood Baptist Church has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to expand a non-conforming use requiring a “d” variance for premises located at 233 Main Street and known as Block 6406, Lot 4 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.7C 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. Clinton Drymon, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is a local house of worship that has been in the community for some time.
  3. Samuel Pruitt, an elder with the church, explained the churches intentions for modifying the property.  He noted the church was proposing to convert the existing garage to a youth center that would have a space for a maximum of 24 youths.  The center would be used for socials and other church activities.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 5/28/03 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. As noted, an expansion of this non-conforming use requires a variance.  The church’s proposed renovations were depicted on a set of architectural drawings provided with the application, a picture of a new 10’x14’ vinyl Quaker shed, and a plot plan prepared by Nicholas Wunner, engineer and surveyor, dated 4/24/02.  The applicant drew in the area of the garage that was being converted into the youth center and the approximate location of the 10’x14’ shed.  They would be located on the northerly side of the premises and oriented towards the existing commercial property to the north.
  6. Mr. Pruitt indicated the church would comply with all appropriate building codes in constructing the proposed addition and in locating the accessory shed.

                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 proposed relief to be minimal.  The church and the youth group activities constitute inherently beneficial uses.  The slight intensification generated by the proposed improvements is minimal and will serve the purpose of enabling the facility to function in a more efficient manner.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 9th day of August, 2004 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

 

1.Additions to be sized and located as depicted on the plans.  Accessory shed to be no larger than 10’x14’ and the conversion of the garage to the youth center to be within the existing garage footprint.

 

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

 

Discussion.  Changes noted and made.

 

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

 

BA-36-05 – LLOYD SVENDSEN – VARIANCE TO KEEP AN EXISTING GARAGE LOCATED ON KINGSLAND RD. BLOCK 11002, LOT 19 IN R-2 ZONE

 

In the matter of Lloyd R. Svendsen

Case No. BA-36-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: August 8, 2005

Memorialized: September 12, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Lloyd R. Svendsen has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to maintain a garage/structure requiring bulk variance(s) for premises located at 104 Kingsland Road and known as Block 11002, Lot 19 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-1301D4 & D8, 13-7.905C, 13-7.810AB 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. Richard Stein, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
  3. The subject premises have had a long, involved history before the Board of Adjustment.  The applicant received a building permit to construct what was characterized as a replacement garage.  The garage was to have been 19’x19’ and wound up being 26’x26’9”.  Upon completion of the building, municipal inspection revealed the discrepancy and the applicant then compelled to seek relief. 
  4. The applicant’s original application was an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer.  The decision of the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer was upheld in the December 2003 resolution of the Board of Adjustment.  The applicant then filed a new application in 2004 seeking ex post facto approval of the applicant’s “garage”.  It should be noted the building constructed by the applicant was actually a one-car garage with an apartment in the area where a second car garage would have been located.  The applicant had numerous amenities in the “living side” of the structure which included toilet, carpet, and painted sheet rocked walls and to all appearances a true living area.
  5. The applicant’s application to legalize the existing situation with the living quarters was denied and that decision was memorialized in a resolution adopted 8/9/04.  The applicant subsequently filed suit in Superior Court and the Board’s decision was affirmed 3/18/05 by Judge Bozonelis.
  6. The instant application is thus the third attempt by the applicant to obtain approval for an already constructed structure.
  7. The applicant testified that he had removed the plumbing line from the non-vehicle side of the structure and intended to use the structure as a garage and storage area.  The applicant noted the front of the structure would be changed so that there would be two overhead garage doors and the structure would have the appearance of a detached two-car garage.
  8. The applicant produced several exhibits, which were marked A-1 through A-5 showing existing conditions and prior conditions as well as the location survey.
  9. The applicant, after a colloquy with the Board, stipulated that, if this was approved, the applicant would agree to the conditions noted below.
  10. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 8/20/03 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  11. As presently requested, the applicant was seeking the following variances:
    1. Front yard setback – 35’ required, 39’.9” (house) existing, 3’4” (garage) proposed
    2. Impervious coverage – 25% maximum permitted, 21.12% existing, 29.83% proposed
    3. Building coverage – 15% maximum permitted, 17.3% existing, 25.94% proposed
    4. Accessory building size – 50% required less than principal structure, 691.6 square feet garage proposed vs. 984 square foot house (Ordinance and as contemplated, an accessory structure no larger than 429 square feet)
    5. Accessory building in front yard – the Ordinance does not permit same 
  1. The Board notes and makes the following observations about the requested relief:
    1. The easiest variance to deal with is the accessory building in the front yard.  The applicant’s home is a lakefront home and virtually all of the lakefront homes in Roxbury Township are orientated so that accessory structures are in the legal front yard adjoining the street.  Lakefront homeowners consider the lakeside of the house to be the front yard.  This is a consistent feature in the area of Roxbury.
    2. Impervious coverage – the applicant requested a variance permitting the total impervious coverage to be approximately 4.83% over what is permitted in the Zone.  As noted below, the applicant, with the prodding of the Board, will be removing all impervious coverage between the garage and Kingsland Road.  While there is no computation for the amount of coverage being removed, same should bring the total impervious coverage closer to the permitted total impervious coverage of 25%.  This area can be calculated by taking a perpendicular line from the garage to the Kingsland Road front yard following the front boundary to the property line and then down the common boundary with the property to the north to a distance equal to the front of the garage.
    3. The front yard setback for the garage is actually similar to the front yard that pre-existed this new structure.  The Board is convinced from the documents provided by the applicant that this was probably the one area that the applicant did not exacerbate a non-conforming location.
    4. Total building coverage – this is probably the most significant form of relief in this application.  The benefits to granting this deviation (especially in the context of removing impervious coverage as noted above) clearly outweigh the detriment in this particular case.  The applicant’s existing older home cannot be easily modified and clearly, this 1,000 square foot existing home needs a place to collect and store all of the accessories that go with home ownership.   This application will also afford an opportunity to meet the goal of the Zoning Ordinance in providing an on-site garage and better parking.
  1. The Board notes the testimony of nearby property owners including a representative of the Community Association.  The Board notes the narrow streets and narrow cartways in this area and believes the grant of this variance, as noted below, makes the best of a situation that would really have to be addressed in its totality to be fair to the association and the applicant.

                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. As enumerated above, when the variances are individually dissected, the one that is of most significance is the enlargement of the building area.  Given the fact that the existing home is extremely modest and that the area in question is a de facto rear yard, the benefits to be gained by deviating from the Zoning Ordinance clearly outweigh the negative impact of granting this relief.
  2. The alternative to granting the relief would require the demolition of an existing structure.  Clearly, the applicant created this situation, but the Board in looking at the totality of circumstances, the existing pattern of development in this neighborhood and the conditions attached to this variance believes nothing would be gained by requiring the destruction of the structure.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of August, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. The structure is to be reconfigured so that there are two operable overhead garage doors on the southerly side of the structure. 
  2. There shall be no further partition of space on the easterly side of the structure.  This is the area that was previously used as a quasi apartment.  The applicant is to remove all carpeting, all sheet rock on the walls(except for the wall closest to the existing house for BOCA code regulations), all plumbing, and is to maintain same as a non-residential storage garage/storage area.  The westerly side of the garage is to be utilized as a vehicle storage area, and it is expected the applicant will be parking a motor vehicle in this area.
  3. There shall be absolutely no residential use of this structure. 
  4. Applicant shall remove the impervious area between the westerly side of the garage and the front property line.  For ease of convenience, a “crossed-hatch” copy of the location survey provided by the applicant illustrating the area in question is attached to this resolution.  The impermeable impervious surface in this area is to be replaced with a permeable surface and the applicant is to provide reasonable level of residential type landscaping in this area.  No motor vehicles are to be parked in this area. 
  5. The applicant shall ensure that all drainage from this structure does not flow onto any adjoining property.
  6. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Approval or Occupancy for this structure, the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer shall review and sign off that all conditions of approval have been met.
  7. Applicant has six months from the date of approval to implement and complete all of the items set forth above.  Failure to do so shall constitute a violation of the Zoning Ordinance. 

 

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

 

Discussion.  Changes noted and made.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-37-05 – MICHAEL & AIMEE GREENE – FRONT YARD, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, BUILDING COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON CENTER ST. BLOCK 10503, LOT 35 IN R-2 ZONE

 

In the matter of Aimee & Michael Greene

Case No. BA-37-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: August 8, 2005

Memorialized: September 12, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Aimee & Michael Greene have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring dimensional and impervious coverage variances for premises located at 221 Center Street and known as Block 10503, Lot 36 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1101D6a, 13-7.1101D8 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 significant renovation of this older home.  Same were depicted on drawings attached to the application entitled “Left Side Elevation”, “Rear Elevation”, and “First Floor Level Plan”.
  3. The applicants also submitted a copy of the existing plot plan.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 6/29/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. As noted by Mr. Potere, the following variances are required:
    1. Right side yard setback – 15’ required, 12’ existing, and 12’ proposed
    2. Total impervious coverage – 25% maximum permitted, 31.7% existing, and 35.15% proposed
    3. Total building coverage – 15% maximum permitted, 14.2% existing, and 17.6% proposed
  1. The applicants introduced photos A-1, A-2, and A-3 showing existing conditions on-site. 
  2. The applicants noted the premises were located on a busy street with many nearby high intensity commercial type uses.  To the rear of the applicant’s property is a right-of-way from New Jersey Transit.  There is approximately a 30’ buffer from the applicant’s rear yard to the site of New Jersey Transit’s improvements.
  3. The applicants stated the existing driveway was necessary to afford access to the detached garage and to provide an adequate area within which to execute a “K-turn” so that one would not have to back out onto Center Street.
  4. The applicants further noted that this older home was located very close to the street, and as such, required careful consideration in ensuring an adequate driveway.  

                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 side yard variance merely continues an existing non-conforming condition.  Same will have little or no impact on any adjoining property.  It is directly related to the location of the existing infrastructure on-site.
  2. The lot itself is considerable undersized for the R2 zone.  The amount of impervious coverage requested (building and total) is consistent with gross amounts that would be anticipated on an R2 lot.  In this case, it is driven by the need for an adequate parking area to permit vehicles to turn around so as not to backing into Center Street.
  3. The impervious coverage is partially offset by the fact that to the rear of the applicant’s property is a swath of unimproved land on the adjoining New Jersey Transit property.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of August, 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 drawings attached to the application.  Side yard setback to be no more than 12’, total impervious coverage to be no more than 35.15%, and building coverage to be no more than 17.6%.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA-38-05 – FRANCINE & DAN TORSIELLO – IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A POOL LOCATED ON HORIZON DRIVE, BLOCK 5202, LOT 24 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Francine & Dan Torsiello

Case No. BA-38-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: August 8, 2005

Memorialized: September 12, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, Francine & Dan Torsiello have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an above ground swimming pool requiring a variance for impervious coverage for premises located at 25 Horizon Drive and known as Block 5202, 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 13-7.13-1D8 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 27’ diameter above ground swimming pool to the rear of their house. 
  3. The location of the proposed swimming pool was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 7/8/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The proposed swimming pool adds approximately 572 square foot “impervious” coverage of the premises.  This increases the existing non-conforming 29.56% to 33.37% whereas, 25% is the maximum permitted.
  6. The applicant noted the degree of impervious coverage on the lot resulted from a topographical situation which required a long driveway as depicted on the plot plan attached to the application.  The applicant further noted the proposed improvement was a swimming pool, and while the Ordinance certainly treats swimming pools as impervious coverage, same would not have the same impact as adding solid building mass.  

                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 applicant’s request for an above ground swimming pool is a reasonable one.  Many of the other homes in this neighborhood have above ground swimming pools and swimming pools by their very nature do not have the same impact as other types of improvements.
  2. The topography of the applicant’s property resulted in having to create a much longer driveway than one would normally expect or anticipate.  As such, the applicant’s property has much more impervious coverage simply to provide normal and reasonable access to the house.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of August, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Comply with all required setbacks and building codes regarding swimming pools and the installation of same.

 

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

Discussion.  Changes noted and made.

Roll as follows:  Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

AGENDA

 

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

 

Rocco Simmerano was sworn in.  He stated we had proposed a ground level deck in the back of our house.  We have a good relationship with the neighbors in the backyard, and want to enclose an area for the children to play.

 

Mr. Simmerano referred to a display board of 9 exhibits (marked A-1).  There was a survey of the house with the proposed deck, and some photos of what the deck would look like from different vantage points.

 

Ms. Dargel asked about the shape of the lot.

 

Mr. Simmerano said it is not square and is slanted.  One corner of the deck would be at a 25 foot setback, and only one corner would exceed the setback by 4 feet.

 

Ms. Dargel said the part of the house facing Horizon Drive is already in the setback. 

 

Mr. Simmerano said that is correct.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the application as this is a corner lot, and the shape of the lot is irregular.  Mr. Meyer seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Church, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes – appears no matter where the deck would be put it would still encroach.  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

 

Attorney Ronald Heymann represented the applicant.

 

Janice Perkins was sworn in.  In answer to questions from Mr. Heymann, she stated she has resided here for several years.  It is a one-story home with bathroom, kitchen, living room and sunroom downstairs.  She intends to construct a second story for a master bedroom, and two additional bedrooms and a bathroom.

 

The architectural renderings were marked A-1.

 

Ms. Perkins said most of the homes in the area are two story homes.

 

The applicant submitted photos of some of the surrounding homes (marked A-2, 3, and 4).  She said a friend of hers took the photos about a month ago. 

 

Ms. Perkins said the downstairs footprint won’t change.  A variance is required for front yard setback.  The setback will remain at 14.9 feet.  The sideyard setback will remain at 13.9 feet. The structure is already nonconforming. With the addition, the home will blend in more with the neighborhood. 

 

Mr. Meyer asked if the house will be sided.

 

Ms. Perkins said completely, as well as the detached garage.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Meyer made a motion to approve the application and stated it will fit in nicely with the neighborhood.  Mr. Church seconded.

 

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

 

Kevin Lewthwaite was sworn in.  He stated I have an existing residential single family house located in a B-2 zone.  I purchased the house in October, and wish to continue the nonconforming residential use in the B-2 zone. 

 

Ms. DeFillippo said she visited the site this week and there is a backhoe there.

 

Mr. Lewthwaite said he had taken out a minor soil permit to do some re-grading on the property.  I have gone through the proper channels with the zoning department and engineering department.    

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there are any problems with flooding.

 

Mr. Lewthwaite said in November there was some flooding.  I am trying to build up around the property.  There was a single car garage under the house which has been eliminated.  The house is structurally sound. 

 

Mr. Wiener asked what the use was at the time he bought the house.

 

Mr. Lewthwaite said it was a single family house, and he believes it was always a single family house.

 

Mr. Potere, Zoning Officer, said he visited the house and it does look like a single family house, and is not a new dwelling.

 

Mr. Lewthwaite said he has the same tenant there who lived there when I purchased it.

 

Mr. Potere said the tax records show it was a single family home at least since 1980.

 

Ms. Dargel asked when the house was built.

 

Mr. Lewthwaite said in the 1930s.  There are all residential homes across the street.  He submitted a letter from his attorney stating the character of the property has always been single family, and there is a copy of the real estate listing it as a single family home.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

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

 

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

 

Attorney Ronald Heymann represented the applicant.

 

James & Carla Suitt were sworn in. 

 

In answer to questions from Mr. Heymann, Mr. Suitt said he has lived here for 22 years.  It is a two-story single family residence.  We propose to expand the lower floor and go up.  We need more space as we have two children and will have foster children stay with us.  The foster children stay from a week to a year and a half. 

 

The architectural plans were marked A-1.  A survey was submitted as part of the record.

 

Mr. Suitt said we will square the house off and go up. 

 

The applicant submitted photos of homes in the area (marked A-3, 4, and 5). 

 

Mr. Suitt said we have 31 feet in the front yard and that will not change. On the side, we have 10 feet.   The footprint of the home will not change.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the application.  She stated she feels this will be a good addition to the neighborhood. Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

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

 

Scott Bailey was sworn in.  He said he would like to put an 18’ x 36’ inground pool in the back yard.  The coverage will be exceed by a little less than 6%.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked if a 3 foot concrete deck is proposed completely around the pool.

 

Mr. Bailey said it will extend a little further out in the area of the patio.  That is included in the worksheet for the impervious coverage. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there is any way the pool could be put in without exceeding the coverage.

 

Mr. Bailey said reducing the size of the pool would not reduce it by much, and the same is true if the shed is removed.  Prior to considering this project, I already exceed the coverage.   Almost all the neighbors have pools.  The majority of the property will be fenced.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked if there is a way to reduce the coverage by using pavers or something similar.

 

Mr. Potere said there would be a partial credit, but it would be minute. 

 

Mr. Meyer asked if the other pools are of the same scope as this one.

 

Mr. Bailey said the pools may be a bit smaller, but I have a longer driveway than most.  Some of the pools are above ground pools.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. DeFillippo made a motion to approve the application.  She stated the deck and pavers have been done to eliminate impervious coverage, and it is a meticulously maintained property.  The pool is acceptable.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

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

 

BA-44-05 – GERLAD BERNER – VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD SETBACK FOR DECK LOCATED ON CAYUGA AVE. BLOCK 12106, LOT 11 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Beverly Berner was sworn in.  She said she owns the property with her husband.

 

Dennis Allen, a friend of the family, was sworn in.

 

Ms. Dargel said the deck will be at the second floor level above the sliding glass doors.  There is a house behind you that has a deck that will be below the level of this deck. Is there any  buffering between the two houses?

 

Ms. Berner said the only window is the kitchen window.  The bedroom windows are high and small and you can’t see into the house.  The deck will be on the second floor so that it is more convenient to the kitchen.  The deck will be 12’ x 21’. 

 

Mr. Kurtz asked if there will be a landing on the stairs.

 

Ms. Berner said no, but they could do it.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

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

 

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

 

BA-47-05 – DANIEL & MEREDITH DI CARLO – VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND EXISTING FRONT YARD SETBACK TO ADD A LEVEL, LOCATED ON MT. ARLINGTON BLVD. BLOCK 11101, LOT 24 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Meredith DiCarlo was sworn in.  Daniel DiCarlo was sworn in.

 

Mr. DiCarlo said we are looking to expand our kitchen and dining room into an existing breezeway and add a level for bedrooms. 

 

Mr. DiCarlo distributed copies of a printout of the basement level (marked A-1).

 

Ms. DeMasi stated this was submitted to the Lake Hopatcong Board, and they told me they had no comment as long as they were not enlarging the footprint of the homes.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked about the bathroom at the basement level.

 

Mr. DiCarlo said it is a full bath.  The kitchen in the basement was there when we purchased the home.  It is my understanding that two owners ago, they did use it for a family, with the mother living upstairs.

 

Mr. Potere asked what the ceiling height is of the basement.

 

Mr. DiCarlo said about 8 feet.

 

Mr. Potere asked what the office is?

 

Mr. DiCarlo said we use it as a guest bedroom.

 

Ms. Dargel said this house seems to be one of the few houses that is correctly set back from the lake.  Because of that it is elevated from the lake.  Some of the houses pictured with the application are very close to the lake.  This house is already higher than most of the houses on the lake.    Would this block the view of the lake from other houses across the street?

 

Mr. DiCarlo said across the street, the neighbor can’t see the lake anyway.  There are also very large oak trees.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked if this house appears to be one story or two from the street.

 

Mr. DiCarlo said 1 ½ stories.

 

Mr. Potere asked if there is a garage on the first floor.

 

Mr. DiCarlo said yes, and there is a small hallway, a breezeway, then storage.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the application and said she knows the area well and this would fit in very nicely.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

 

Discussion.

 

Ms. Robortaccio it should be a condition that the stairway to the bottom level is to remain open and is not to be partitioned off.  The applicant agreed.

 

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

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 8:30 p.m.

 

                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/