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, Sebastian D’Amato, Robert Kurtz, Barbara Kinback, Peter Giardina,
Mark Crowley, Joyce Dargel, Candy DeVenezia, Heather Darling.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:
Larry Wiener, Russell Stern, John Hansen
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Board Secretary
Minutes of 1/9/06
Mr. D’Amato made a motion to
approve the minutes. Ms. DeVenezia seconded.
Discussion. Changes noted and
made.
Roll as follows: Mr. D’Amato,
yes; Ms. DeVenezia, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Darling, yes;
Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
Minutes of 2/13/06
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeVenezia, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Kinback,
yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
RESOLUTIONS
BA-2-06 – LUIS CARRERO –
VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING MORE THAN 50% LARGER THAN EXISTING HOME LOCATED
ON 177 BEKSHIRE VALLEY RD., BLOCK 7001, LOT 11 IN R-2 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: February 13, 2006
Memorialized: March 13, 2006
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- The
applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
- The
applicants were proposing to construct a “pole building” in the rear yard.
- The
proposed building would be 30’x40’. It would be located in the rear yard.
- Applicants
received a letter of denial dated 10/17/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning
Officer.
- As
noted by Mr. Potere, the Zoning Ordinance limits the size of an accessory
structure to no more than 50% of the ground area of the principal building
on the same lot. A conforming structure would be 1,062 square feet and
thus, a variance is needed for this 1,200 square foot structure. There
would be one additional structure (a shed) which is 8’x12’ and thus, there
would be total accessory structures of 1,296 square feet.
- The
applicants stated the proposed building would be to store the applicants
various “off-road vehicles” – quads, trailers, and shop tools.
- An
adjoining property owner, Giovanni Miseo of Tall Timber Court, testified
against the application. He presented exhibit O-1 which depicted 16 pages
of various photos that he described as an undesirable existing situation
which would be exacerbated by the construction of what he characterized as
a humongous building.
- During
the testimony of the objector, Board members engaged in a colloquy with
the objector and the applicant, and the applicant agreed to enhance the
landscaping on-site (a condition noted below) in order to further buffer
the view from Mr. Miseo’s property to the applicant’s proposed accessory
structure.
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:
- As
noted above, the applicant could, as a matter of right, construct a
structure almost as big as the one proposed in this application without
benefit of any variance or appearance before the Zoning Board. The Zoning
Board, in granting the request by the applicant, will have an opportunity
(see conditions below) to address the manner in which the applicant has
been keeping and storing personal property throughout the applicant’s rear
yard and will also have the opportunity to enhance the aesthetics and
landscaping on the applicant’s property. In addition, the applicant’s
proposed structure will be a much more aesthetic enhancement of the
property than the continuation of the outdoor storage of quads and other
personal unlicensed off road equipment. The Board notes the applicant’s
property is well over an acre in size and, had the principal structure
been of a size commensurate with the size of the property, relief probably
would not have been required. In this instance, one would anticipate a
larger principal structure, which would then permit a larger accessory
structure as a matter of right.
- The
Board notes the existing conditions, as set forth in the applicant’s
testimony as well as the comprehensive exhibit prepared by the neighbor,
show that the site has not been maintained as well as it should be
maintained. In granting this application, the Board expects the applicant
to enhance the rear yard, remove the collection of trailers, quads, and
other personal recreational “toys” from the rear yard which unfortunately
has been all too visible from the objector’s backyard.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 13th day of February, 2006 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- The
proposed structure shall not be used for any commercial purpose and shall
only be utilized for accessory storage of personalty related to the
occupants of the principal structure.
- The
older denoted “to be removed shed” shall be removed by the applicant.
- No
unregistered or unlicensed vehicles, debris, junk, and trailers shall be
stored outside the premises. Applicant is reminded to comply with all
Municipal Ordinances and regulations dealing with motor vehicles. All
vehicles and trailers (quads, et al.) shall be stored inside the
structure.
- Applicant
to provide a plan for screening the subject premises from the Miseo
property (i.e., berm plus white pine, Norway Spruce) to be reviewed and
approved by the Municipal Planner.
- The
only utility to the proposed structure shall be electricity.
- Any
violations of the conditions of this resolution shall constitute a
violation of the Municipal Zoning Ordinance and subject to enforcement action.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Discussion. Mr. Stern stated he
has been out to the site, and originally the Board had talked about the use of
a berm. The berm serves no purpose because the property is so much higher
above grade than the Carrero’s property. The Carrero’s are putting in 10 foot
high evergreens. The screening meets my approval.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Kinback,
yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-6-06 – KELLIE & KIRK
KEYES – VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS FOR 2ND FLOOR ADDITION LOCATED ON ANNE
LANE, BLOCK 11301, LOT 12 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: February 13, 2006
Memorialized: March 13, 2006
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- The
applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
- The
applicants were proposing to add a second level to the existing home.
- The
present non-conforming front yard (Anne Lane) 32’2” would be continued as
would the non-conforming north side yard of 7’4”.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 12/20/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning
Officer.
- The
applicant submitted a plot plan as well as an architectural plan prepared
by Margaret Petersen, architect, dated 11/9/05 depicting the proposed
addition.
- It
is noted that the subject premises have several built-in hardships. The
lot contains two front yards (Mt. Arlington Boulevard and Anne Lane). In
addition, the lot is irregularly shaped and has what is often referred to
as a panhandle.
- The
applicant’s addition essentially conforms to the existing footprint. The
applicant is continuing the non-conforming northerly side yard at 7’4” and
the non-conforming front yard to Anne Lane at 32’2”. As noted, the Zoning
Ordinance requires the front yards in the R-3 Zone to be 35’ and the side
yard to be 10’ thus, two dimensional variances are required.
WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning
Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:
- The
Board finds the shape and location of the existing infrastructure on-site
to be hardships peculiar to the premises. It is further noted that the
premises are encumbered with two front yards, which adds another hardship
to anyone locating any improvements on this site.
- The
proposed addition is not an over development of the subject property. The
existing home is rather modest and in need of modernization. The
applicant’s proposal will result in a much more aesthetic structure
on-site and in keeping with the present pattern of development in this
neighborhood.
- Given
the minimal deviations from the Zoning Ordinance, there will be no
substantial impact on any other property.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 13th day of March, 2006 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Addition
to be sized and located as depicted on the architectural plans submitted
with the application. Northerly side yard to be no less than 7.4’ and the
front yard to Anne Lane to be no less than 32.2’.
Ms. Kinback made a motion to
approve the resolution. Ms. Dargel seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Kinback,
yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr.Crowley, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr.
Kurtz, yes.
BA-8-06 – JAMES BARRET –
VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS FOR POOL LOCATED ON CONKLIN RD. BLOCK 8001, LOT 9 IN R-1
ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: February 13, 2006
Memorialized: March 14, 2006
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- The
applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
- The
applicants were proposing to construct a “3 season sunroom” in the same
general location as the existing deck.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 10/12/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning
Officer.
- The
proposed “3 season sunroom” would be set back 5’ from the existing
swimming pool. Same was depicted on a plot plan attached to the
application.
- The
applicant submitted a plot plan as well as a plan for the proposed sunroom
as part of their submission packet.
- It
is noted that the sunroom essentially is located within the same footprint
as the deck it is replacing.
- In
this case, a variance is triggered because the deck was not supported with
a traditional foundation. Therefore, in computing the distance between
the deck and the swimming pool, the 10’ requirement under the Ordinance
was met. Because the “3 season sunroom” would be constructed on a
foundation, which would be located along the perimeter of the “3 season
sunroom”, this distance is thus reduced to 5’.
- As
noted, the Zoning Ordinance requires a 10’ distance between a swimming
pool and the principal structure, thus a variance is needed.
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:
- The
Board finds that the infrastructure on-site constitutes a hardship
peculiar to the premises. A “3 season sunroom” is an aesthetic upgrade of
the existing house. It is being located in almost the exactly same
footprint as a prior deck. The swimming pool was obviously constructed
and it is impractical to remove the swimming pool. The deviation from the
Zoning Ordinance is minimal and given the wide side yards and the size of
this property, it will have absolutely no impact on the Zone Plan or Zone
Scheme. The net effect of granting this variance will provide for an
aesthetic upgrade and increased functionality and utility of the
applicant’s home.
- In
granting this variance, the Board obviously is only dealing with zoning
issues. Any construction or permit issues (as noted below) must be
reviewed and approved by the Township Construction Department.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 13th day of February, 2006 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Subject
to any necessary permits or construction code issues. The variance here
is from the Land Use Regulations so as to permit an existing swimming pool
to be 5’ from a proposed addition to the principal structure.
- Addition
to be sized, located, and constructed as depicted on the drawings attached
to the application. Same to be no less than 5’ from the principal
structure, as requested.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes;
Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-55-05 – TONIE FRY –
CERTIFICATION OF NON-CONFORMING USE LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 2403, LOT 5 IN B-2
ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
Denied: February 13, 2006
Memorialized: March 13, 2006
WHEREAS,
said proposal requires relief in accordance with the Roxbury Township Land Use
Ordinance; and
WHEREAS,
the applicant has failed to perfect or move the application forward; and
NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury,
on the 13th day of February, 2006 hereby denies the application without
prejudice noting that the Board took no testimony as to the merits of the
application.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes;
Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
AGENDA
ZONING REPORT FOR 2005
Ms. Dargel made a motion to table
this to the end of the meeting. Ms. Kinback seconded.
A voice vote approved.
BA-12-06 – ROBERT KING –
USE VARIANCE FOR DECK LOCATED IN AN LI/OR ZONE, BLOCK 8801, LOT 3
Robert King was sworn in. He
thanked Ms. DeMasi for her kindness and compassion and her help in getting them
to the Board. He said this is the third time we have been here in 6 years.
We live in an LI/OR zone with about 10 other residents. Each time we make an
improvement, we require a variance. The Zoning Officer saw our deck was not
going to be within the 75-foot setback. We have been residents for 50 years,
and I believe the zoning should be changed to residential and not continue as
LI/OR. We are here for a setback for 60 feet instead of 75 feet.
Ms. Dargel asked what the setback
would be if this were a residential zone.
Mr. Stern said an R-1 zone
requires a 20 foot side yard setback. They would be clearly in compliance.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Ms. Dargel stated this is an
unusual situation in the township. Because of the nature of the slopes in the
area I doubt there would ever be any businesses there. I would agree this is
appropriate relief.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes;
Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-13-06 – ARMINIO
LANDSCAPING – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON SHIPPENPORT RD., BLOCK
10101, LOT 32 IN PO/R ZONE
Attorney James Gregory
represented the applicant. We are here for final site plan approval. Mr.
Arminio has substantially completed the site. He is a landscaper and has been
in Roxbury for about 20 years. The business is unique as it is a seasonal
business and Mr. Arminio would want to open.
Frank Arminio was sworn in.
Charles Osterkorn was sworn in.
He gave his educational and professional background and was accepted as a
professional engineer.
The applicant addressed a report
dated 3/10/06 from Russell Stern:
Item 2 – Variance for
freestanding sign – Mr. Gregory stated we would like to have the variance, but
Mr. Arminio would even be willing to remove the sign at this time, and then
apply at a later date for a sign.
Mr. Wiener said since the
variance was not noticed for tonight, the sign should be removed, and the
applicant can apply for it at a later date.
Items 3-10 - will complete with
appropriate bonding
Item 11 – will confirm adequate
lighting as condition of approval – will provide detail which would be field
inspected by applicant’s engineer
Items 12-16 – will complete with
appropriate bonding
Item 17 – entire wall is boulder
wall – Mr. Arminio feels it is better from an historic aspect. Applicant agreed
to certify as to the structural integrity of the wall
Items 18-29– agree to complete
with appropriate bonding
Item 30 – reiterates conditions
from preliminary resolution – agreed
Mr. Stern asked what the
anticipated date of completion is for everything.
Mr. Arminio said May 31st.
Ms. Dargel said regarding Item 1,
Mr. Stern states that he has no objection to the modifications. Do the Board
members have any objections to the modifications?
There was a poll of the Board.
None of the Board members objected to the changes.
Mr. D’Amato asked, regarding fuel
storage, is that indoors or outdoors? If it is indoors, will it have the
appropriate safety precautions?
Mr. Arminio said there will be
some 5-gallon gas containers that will be stored in certain parts of the
building. We will abide by all Fire Marshall rules.
The applicant addressed Mr.
Hansen’s 3/10/06 letter:
Item 1 – agreed – as-built survey
will be submitted and applicant will provide appropriate bonding.
Mr. Hansen said the first 5 points
in the letter are significant. From looking at the site, the boulder wall is a
sloped wall. Since the transition area is so close, the boulder wall may have
encroached into the transition area. We need to know if that has occurred. It
would be very difficult to move it if the site is fully operational. I would
recommend that be established and shown to the Board before the Board makes a
decision on the application.
Mr. Gregory stated it is more
difficult during occupancy, but the nature of the business requires there is a
crew there early in the morning and then they are gone from the site the entire
day. The site is large enough that any materials can be kept well away from
the wall. Also, Mr. Arminio is in the business of constructing rock walls. He
would do the work if he needed to, and he could do that while the crew is
away. We would be willing to do that as a condition of approval.
Mr. Hansen said there would be a
substantial amount of excavation. Because of the size of the wall and the fact
it has a materials storage building on top of it, you would have to cut a good
15 feet to be able to reconstruct it, if it is over the line. It may affect
access around the building as well. I feel it should be checked before the
Board acts on the application.
Mr. Arminio stated there is still
plenty of access for vehicles to get in and out to re-set boulders. If the
wall had to be moved, it would be done while the employees were working off
site.
Ms. Dargel asked why the boulder
wall was built, instead of part of the wall being cement.
Mr. Arminio said he misread the
plans, and he believes the boulder wall looks better than a cement wall facing
the historic area and the conservation easement.
Mr. Gregory said if the wall is
in the transition area, our first approach would be to go to DEP for permission
to leave it there. If we can’t occupy the property until that decision is
made, we would not take that approach. I would suggest a condition of approval
be that we verify there is no encroachment, and if there is an encroachment, we
would re-build the boulder wall. If the boulder wall is not feasible, we would
agree to the cement wall. We would agree to put a time frame on it. The issue
is that we need to occupy the property while the wall is being rebuilt, and we
believe we can do that safely.
Mr. Crowley asked if there is
enough room in the transition area averaging.
Mr. Hansen said on a 150-foot
transition area, you can average down to 75 feet. It has been done to 75
feet. I don’t think, other than with a special permit, that DEP would permit
moving the transition area any further.
Ms. Robortaccio said there can be
no storage building while this work is being done. Where will the storage be?
Mr. Arminio said he will store
the mulch where it is presently being stored off site until this site is
complete.
Mr. Crowley asked if the
applicant would agree to have a solution to the problem with DEP by May 31st
so that we will know at that time whether you are going to re-do the wall, put
in a concrete wall, or move the boulders.
Mr. Gregory said yes. We would
agree, if we haven’t heard from DEP at that time, if we are over, we will go
ahead and do the wall.
Item 2 in Mr. Hansen’s report -
Inlet structure not consistent with the driveway grade – engineer submitted a
plan that would bring the paving up to the inlet, and conform with the slopes
and requirements of the site plan ordinance.
Mr. Hansen stated there were
cones at the site around the access area for the stormwater management structure.
You can see the structure is pronounced and sticking out of the ground. They
don’t have the finished top course of pavement on there. The issue is that it
looks like there is going to be a bump there. You can’t tell without
sufficient detail how bad the bump will be. The concern is that vehicles will
have to go into the oncoming lane to avoid it, or that trucks will lose some
materials when going over the bump. There is not enough information on the
plans to determine that it will work correctly.
Mr. Osterkorn stated the casting
sticks out about 6” above the existing pavement. The plan submitted shows
there is a 13% grade matching into the basin at a finished grade and tapering
down 13% to the roadway. I looked at it today and ran a string line. I don’t
consider it will be a significant bump. There may have to be a little
reconstruction of the curb along the existing basin. I am not sure that is
necessary yet. The inlet doesn’t have to be a low spot. It is acting as a
manhole.
Ms. Dargel said at the time of
preliminary, Mr. Bodolsky had a problem with the turning radius going onto
Shippenport Road. When I was there today, I was surprised at the steep grade
going into the site. If we have large trailers going in there, with that
grade, will one of those big trailers still be able to come out and make a
right on Shippenport?
Mr. Kurtz said we also made the
driveway wider.
Mr. Oskerkorn said it is a
75-foot wide driveway. There shouldn’t be any problem at all with the trucks
exiting the site. There will be a fairly continuous grade, and there won’t be
a big hump.
Mr. Hansen said I haven’t done an
analysis. It is a concern. I am not concerned with the grate itself, but if
the bump is such that trucks will be bottoming out, you will have a continual
problem where the pavement gets broken up around the grate.
Discussion.
Mr. Hansen said we have the
engineer’s testimony on record that there won’t be a problem, but my concern
still stands. The Board needs to make a determination.
Ms. Dargel asked why they can’t
just lower the grate.
Mr. Hansen said it is a concrete
vaulted structure with a concrete top.
Mr. Gregory said we would agree
to bond for correction of the problem, and the engineer will look into getting
a narrower inlet. We would solve the matter within the May 31st
time frame.
Item 3 – Mr. Oskerkorn said the
system was designed as an enclosed system. Since we have an access grate, we
don’t think there is a need for the inspection reports. Storm Tech is who
spec’d out the system. We were willing to get a report from them saying the
inspection is not necessary for this type of system.
Mr. Gregory suggested we get a
report from Storm Tech saying we don’t need them.
Hansen said the inspection port
is in the center of the detention structure which would be many feet from the A
inlets. These inspection ports are to inspect the system away from that other
maintenance structure, I think they should be installed. I recommend
compliance.
Mr. Gregory said the applicant will
comply.
Item 4 – addressed
Item 5 – pillars will be removed
if they are within the sight triangle – will bond
Item 6 – agreed – prior to C.O.
Item 7 – temporary ADA striping
will be done until entire site is striped
Item 8 – agreed – dumpster will
be kept inside until the storage building is built
Item 9 – agreed - prior to C.O.
The remaining items are to be
bonded and completed prior to 5/31/06.
There was discussion regarding
the wall. It was determined the work will be done in a timely manner if the
wall is in the transition area. It will be a condition of approval that there
will be a decision by DEP prior to 5/31/06. It the wall is in the transition
area, it will be mitigated with either boulders or concrete. If it is not in
the transition area, the boulder wall can remain.
The Board members agreed.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. DeMasi asked if this can be
memorialized tonight so that the applicant can get a temporary Certificate of
Occupancy.
Ms. Dargel stated she understands
the request, as we are coming into the primary landscaping season. The overall
site is an attribute to the area. The building and landscaping looks nice.
Ms. Kinback made a motion to
approve the application subject to everything agreed to. Ms. Dargel seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Kinback,
yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr.
Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-10-06 - WILLIAM &
RAQUEL COLE – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR AN ABOVE GROUND POOL LOCATED
ON N. HILLSIDE AVE., BLOCK 3801, LOT 4 IN R-3 ZONE
William Cole was sworn in.
Mr. Cole stated he would like to
install a 15’ above ground pool next to his deck. The variance required is for
impervious coverage.
Ms. DeMasi said there is a
resolution before the Board from a recent application for a garage on this
property.
Ms. Dargel asked if this is the
same deck as the one that was there previously.
Mr. Stern said the drawing
submitted in 2002 is identical to the one showing the new pool.
Ms. Dargel said the drawing is
not to scale as far as the pool is concerned.
Mr. Crowley said what is before
us is a 1.366% change in the coverage?
Mr. Stern said that is correct.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Kinback made a motion to
approve the application. Ms. Dargel seconded.
Ms. Dargel stated this is a
severely restrained property and is immaculately maintained. It is fenced, and
the area is fairly flat. It is a reasonable addition to the property.
Roll as follows: Ms. Kinback,
yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr.
Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
There was a 5 minute recess.
BA-7-06 - WOODMONT
PROPERTIES – VARIANCE FOR SIGN LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9603, LOT 6 IN B-2 ZONE
Attorney Peter Wolfson
represented the applicant. He said at the last hearing, there were two
issues. One was the question regarding the specs for the sign. We also tried
to give the Board a computer simulation of what the sign would look like from
Route 80. The second point was a question as to whether the sign we requested
was necessary. I consulted with the sign maker, and he is here tonight.
Michael Hoehn was sworn in. He
stated he is affiliated with Morris Sign Company and is a principle with that
company. He said he has owned it for 10 to 12 years, and worked for another
sign company for 15 years and is also a member of the United States Sign
Council. He was accepted by the Board as an expert in signs.
In answer to questions from Mr.
Wolfson, Mr. Hoehn said he designed the proposed sign which would be visible
only to the traveling public on Route 80. I have reviewed the standards for
the size of signs, and there are a number of variables that apply. The first
one is reaction distance. That is based on a traveling speed. The one we are
working with is 55 miles per hour. There is an 825 foot reaction distance.
Optimal letter height is 33 inches. The letters we are proposing are 30” and 15”.
The next variable is the number of letters in the message – that equates to 43
for this sign. There is a calculation for copy area. The copy area here would
be 46,827 square inches. You divide that by 144 square inches, which would
yield square footage optimal copy area. Under our calculations, that yields a
copy area of 325.1875 square feet. The copy area doesn’t include borders and
margins. There is an assumption of 40% of the copy area added to the copy area
itself for borders and margins. That would be an additional square footage of
130.075 square feet. That would yield a sign size of 455.26 square feet. The
square footage of the sign proposed is 240 square feet (8’ x 30’) which is
significantly lower than the sign calculation under the literature.
Mr. Crowley asked why you need an
extra 40%. The size quoted sounds like it is based on the amount of copy. I
didn’t hear any testimony as to a hardship. If it didn’t have as many words,
how big would the sign be?
Mr. Hoehn said we haven’t calculated
that.
Mr. Robortaccio said we had asked
for that at the last hearing.
Mr. Crowley said it should be
calculated with just lettering stating it’s for lease and a phone number.
Mr. D’Amato said this is white
lettering on a blue background. What about dark lettering to the edge of the
border, and contrast against the building?
Mr. Hoehn said if you are calling
someone you would want to know who the broker is.
Mr. Crowley said the sign is
huge. I don’t know what the hardship is.
Mr. Stern said these signs are
not permitted under our codes.
Mr. Stern stated the property is
actually shown in a GU zone, and it was incorrectly modified in 2001. The
correct zoning should be B-2, and that zone specifically prohibits signage
facing Route 80.
Ms. Dargel stated this sign would
also be seen from North Frontage Road.
Stern said in terms of facade
signs you only permit them on frontage. In this case a temporary sign is a
different degree of signage than a permanent sign. The Board needs to weigh what
the impacts would be to the character of the area and the impacts on the zone
plan.
Jeffery Buchman, was sworn in.
He said the two units that are available represent close to 70 % of the
building. There is a lease under negotiation in the full 40,000 square feet.
Nothing is definitive at this time.
Ms. Dargel asked if there is
something about the building that makes it difficult to rent.
Mr. Buchman said it is somewhat
set back. Marketing is the crucial key to renting this building.
Ms. Dargel said since the State
law allows 150 square feet, I would be amenable to something that size, as a
temporary banner, until 15 days after the signing of a lease.
Ms. Dargel asked if we have ever
permitted this kind of a sign before.
Mr. Stern said not that he knows
of. Within Roxbury, in a B-2 District, you are very restricted with properties
with exposure to Route 80.
Mr. D’Amato asked if we could put
a time limit on the sign – such as month to month.
Discussion.
There was a poll of the Board as
to whether or not to allow a 150 sq. ft. sign for 6 months or 15 days after the
space is leased.
Ms. Dargel said this is an
industrial zone, is typical of large buildings with vacancies. It is in the
best interest of the town if the building is rented.
The majority of the Board members
agreed.
Mr. Crowley asked what the
hardship is.
Mr. Kurtz said the actual
hardship is on the Township of Roxbury.
Mr. Wiener suggested the Board
look at the interplay between the ordinance and this specific property. The
ordinance contemplates that you can have a temporary sign. This is a
recognition that you have a property that is lying fallow. You want to
advertise the property and give it the opportunity to be reutilized. Then you
look at the size of the permitted sign vs. the location of this property next
to an interstate highway, and where it would get the most visibility to be able
to be reutilized. Mr. Stern could comment on whether there are some elements
of a flexible C variance. You could look at the overall betterment and how the
ordinance is functioning in relation to this site. For the negative criteria,
you have shrunk the proposed size of the sign, and have put a limitation on the
sign. I think that is the argument that could be made. The Board needs to
analyze it.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the sign at 150 square feet, in vinyl; only information on the sign to
be regarding this particular building and the leasing of it; sign to come down
in 6 months or 15 days after lease is signed, whichever comes first. Ms.
Kinback seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Crowley, no; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr.
Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, no.
Ms. Robortaccio said she doesn’t
agree with signage facing Route 80. It could lead to a plethora of this type
of sign.
BA-11-06 – CHRISTIAN
PINSONAULT – VARIANCE TO BUILD HOME LOCATED ON SUNSET LANE, BLOCK 11904, LOT 7
IN R-3 ZONE
Application not heard due to lack
of notice. Carried to 4/10/06.
Approval of Zoning Report
of 2005
Mr. Stern summarized the report,
stating we have seen an increase in applications over last year by one. The
variances are coming from the R-3 District, principally Landing/Shore Hills
area. The recommendation over the years has been to analyze that. When you
look at the area, if you put it to the closest lot area zone, it would cause
further redevelopment of that area and that would be detrimental. The Board
has been open minded when hearing variances for that area. In the Master Plan
Reexamination report, there was discussion about infill development in that
area. The Master Plan said we should be cognizant of the fact that not all
homes have to be 4 and 5 bedrooms, and it would help diversify the housing
stock for the area.
Mr. Stern said there was not a
lot of new nonresidential development, but there were some final site plan
applications. I don’t see anything in dire need of revision at this point.
There has been some discussion on exempting above ground pools from impervious
coverage calculations because they are temporary in nature.
Discussion. The Board
unanimously agreed to make a recommendation to exempt above ground pools.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve
the 2005 Zoning Report with the recommendation to Council to revisit the issue
as to whether to exempt above ground pools and/or in-ground pools from
impervious coverage calculations. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes;
Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. DeVenezia, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 10:00 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi
Board
Secretary
lm/