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, Robert Kurtz, Sebastian D’Amato, Mark Crowley, Heather Darling, Barbara Kinback, Peter Giardina.

 

ABSENT:  Candy DeVenezia

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener

 

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

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

BA-1-06 – MARIJAYNE DWYER-BERRY – VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS FOR ADDITION AND RAMP LOCATED ON 514 RYERSON RD. BLOCK 11407, LOT 6 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Maryanne Dwyer-Berry

Case No. BA-1-06

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

 

Approved: January 9, 2006

Memorialized: February 13, 2006

 

 

                WHEREAS, Marijayne Dwyer-Berry has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring a dimensional variance for premises located at 514 Ryerson Road and known as Block 11407, Lot 6 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1304D6a, 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 addition to the rear. 
  3. The applicant’s proposed addition was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application as well as elevation drawings and proposed floor plans.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 11/30/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The following variances are noted:
    1. Side yard setback (north side) – required 10’, existing 10’, proposed 6’ (to handicap ramp)
    2. Total impervious coverage – maximum permitted 25%, existing 26.13%, proposed 29.8%
    3. Total building coverage – maximum permitted 15%, existing 13.73%, proposed 20.73%
  6. The applicant has a physical handicap and the addition would provide ADA compliant wheelchair access.
  7. The applicant testified, if the relief requested was granted, the premises would then be reconfigured to permit barrier free access for 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. The creation of barrier free access for persons with disability is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Municipal Land Use Law as well as various other State and Federal statutes.
  2. The location and configuration of the existing infrastructure on-site constitute hardships peculiar to the subject premises and impedes the ability to create barrier free access without violating the Zoning Ordinance.
  3. The relief requested is minimal under the circumstances and the benefit to be gained by the grant of this variance clearly outweighs minimal impact on the Zoning Ordinance.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 9th day of January, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Addition to be constructed and sized as depicted on the plot plan and elevation drawings attached to the application.
  2. Handicap ramp to be no closer than 6’ to the side yard, total impervious coverage to be no more than 29.8%, total building coverage to be no more than 20.73% as requested.

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

Discussion.  Corrections noted and made.

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

 

BA-2-06 – LOUIS CARRERO – VARIANCE FOR ACCESSORY BUILDING MORE THAN 50% LARGER THAN EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON 177 BERKSHIRE VALLEY RD., BLOCK 7001, LOT 11 IN R-2 ZONE

 

Mr. Wiener said Mr. Stern had a problem with this case as a result of his field inspection.  He is not here tonight, and the Board may want to put off voting on the resolution until the next hearing. 

 

The resolution was carried to 3/13/06.

 

BA-2-06 – NICHOLAS SCHROEDER – VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON 517 RYERSON RD., LANDING, BLOCK 11406, LOT 16 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Nicholas Schroeder

Case No. BA-3-06

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

 

Approved: January 9th, 2006

Memorialized: February 13, 2006

 

 

                WHEREAS, Nicholas Schroeder has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a second floor addition requiring dimensional variance(s) for premises located at 517 Ryerson Road and known as Block 11406, Lot 16 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D4, 13-7.1301D8a 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. Danielle Bohlen, 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 structure.
  4. The addition was depicted on a plot plan prepared by Dharam Mehta, architect, dated 7/19/05 (4 sheets) marked A-1.
  5. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 10/19/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  6. The following variances are noted:
    1. Front yard setback – required 35’, existing 29’6”, proposed 25’
    2. Side yard setback – required 10’, existing 9’, proposed 9’
  7. The applicant submitted six photos (A-2 through A-7) depicting various homes in the neighborhood.
  8. The applicant stated the proposed addition would be similar to other homes in this area of the Landing section of the municipality.

                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. By adding a level, the applicant is readapting and upgrading existing housing stock, which is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the Municipal Land Use Law. 
  2. The two variances that are triggered by the applicant’s proposed improvement are in reality a slightly intensified continuation of existing non-conformities.  The side yard is already at 9 feet and is only 1 foot off what is required and the front yard setback occurs with the enclosure of an open area on the first floor.
  3.  The proposed addition is in keeping with the current redevelopment of the housing stock in this area of the Landing section of Roxbury Township.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 9th day of January, 2006 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 architectural drawings and plot plan attached to the application. 
  2. Side yard setback to be 9 feet as requested.  Front yard setback to be no less than 25 feet as requested.

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

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-4-06 – MICHAEL COOMBS – VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD FOR DECK LOCATED ON EDITH RD. BLOCK 11803, LOT 5 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Michael Coombs

Case No. BA-4-06

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

 

Approved: January 9, 2006

Memorialized: February 13, 2006

 

 

                WHEREAS, Michael Coombs has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to obtain ex post facto approval for a rear yard deck requiring a dimensional variance for premises located at Edith Road and known as Block 11803, Lot 5 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D6a 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. The applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicant constructed a deck onto the rear existing home.  Same was about 12’x30’.
  3. The applicant never secured a permit for the construction of the deck.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 11/10/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The “as-built” deck replaced an older deck (the old deck and the “new” deck were depicted on a plot plan attached to the application).
  6. The applicant produced photos A-1 through A-12 showing the as constructed deck.
  7. The deck “as-built” requires a side yard setback variance.  Same is set back 7’ from the northerly side yard, while the R-3 Zone requires a 10’ side yard setback.  It is noted the existing northern side yard is at 7’, and the applicant testified that the deck might actually be a few inches more than 7’ and, in any event, merely continues an existing non-conforming side yard setback.

                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 never condones nor sanctions construction of any improvements without benefit of a permit.  Nevertheless, the Board views this case as all other cases in which applicants are seeking ex post facto approval without prejudice to the applicant’s ability to make out a case as to why the application should have been approved notwithstanding the fact that the improvement has already been constructed.  In this case, the applicant has merely continued an existing non-conforming side yard setback.  The improvement being an open deck is an aesthetic enhancement of the existing home and replaced a deck that was clearly unaesthetic and in need of repair.
  2. The deck, as constructed, will have absolutely no negative impact on the adjoining property.  

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 9th day of January, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Applicant is to obtain all necessary permits and inspections for the deck.  Deck may remain as constructed subject to the applicant obtaining the necessary permits and approvals noted above.
  2. Side yard setback to be no less than 7’ in the area of the new deck as requested.
  3. Deck to remain open and uncovered.

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

 

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.

 

 

 

 

AGENDA

 

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

 

Ms. Robortaccio stepped down as she was noticed on this application.

 

Ms. Darling stepped down.

 

Mr. Crowley assumed the Chair.

 

Kellie & Kirk Keyes were sworn in.

 

Mr. Keyes said we are looking to put a second story on the house as our family has grown and we need a larger house.  We want to stay in the township.  Roxbury school systems are good and we would rather our children go there. 

 

Mr. Crowley asked if the variance is needed for a pre-existing condition.

 

Mr. Keyes said yes, the side yard setback is existing.  We are going straight up. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the second story overhangs the first story.

 

Mr. Keyes said no, maybe a tiny balcony that will be put into the rafters on the lake side.  The addition just comes out to the master bedroom.  It doesn’t encroach into the rear yard setback.  The property has a very small front yard.  There is a lot of property on the side, and the back is very steep.  There is no cantilever.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardino, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes.

 

Ms. Robortaccio and Ms. Darling returned to the dais.

 

 

 

 

 

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 stated the application is made by Woodmont Properties which is a trade name.  The owner of the property is Rolling Hills, and that is what is shown in the publication and notices. 

 

Mr. Wiener said the application will be amended and clarified.

 

Mr. Wolfson said the application is for relief from the temporary sign ordinance.  In the application there was a request for a 50 square foot temporary banner sign.  The applicant amended the request for 240 square feet for the banner sign.  The property is located on Route 46 and is also visible from Route 80.  The temporary sign ordinance allows a  maximum of 12 square feet for a temporary sign.  The request is to erect a banner advertising vacancy in the building which will be visible only from Route 80.

 

Mr. Wolfson submitted a computer generated image of the proposed sign, to scale (marked A-1).

 

Mr. Wolfson said the owner is dealing with a vacancy of 70% of the building.  One tenant has left the building, and another one will be out by April. 

 

Michael Witmondt was sworn in.  He stated he is a principle in the owner of the property.  The building is 61,000 square feet.  It is an office warehouse flex building.  We have had the building rented for the past few years with a 100% occupancy.  One tenant has moved out from 10,000 square feet, and another tenant will move out in April.  We have a pending vacancy of 40,000 square feet and want to do everything we can to find a suitable tenant.  The façade where the sign will be located fronts to Route 80.  It will be a temporary banner advertising the space for lease.  The setback of the sign façade to Route 80 is about 200 feet.  The relief we are seeking is for the size of the sign to make it more visible.

 

Mr. Wolfson asked Mr. Witmondt if in his experience these banners are common practice.

 

Mr. Witmondt said they are, and they are very effective.  Keeping the building full will attract new jobs to Roxbury and will maximize the rental stream from the building and keep the tax assessment at the level where it is based on 100% occupancy.  The sign itself will be similar to the blue and white shown on the exhibit.  The size of the proposed sign sill be 8 x 30.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked when the sign will come down.  Could it remain there forever?

 

Mr. Witmondt said when we secure a tenant we will sign a 5 or 10 year lease.  We want to find a single tenant for the space, but it could feasibly be divided into 5,000 square foot  units.

 

Mr. Wolfson stated the ordinance states the sign would have to come down 15 days following the execution of a contract or lease. 

 

Mr. D’Amato asked for statistics saying signs of  this size works.

 

Mr. Witmondt said it can’t hurt.  This is not our only source of tenant solicitation.  We are doing other advertising.

 

Mr. D’Amato asked how many of the entrances and loading docks are being used now.

 

Mr. Witmondt said we have enough loading docks for each tenant.  The type of tenants in there now are office, warehouse, light assembly.  The total square footage is 61,000 square feet. 

 

Ms. Darling said if someone were to take the building for a short term, as is, would you take the offer? 

 

Mr. Witmondt said we would entertain it, but we wouldn’t want to tie up the space in lieu of trying to secure a long term tenant.  It is very unlikely we would have short term tenants.

 

Ms. Dargel said when you do the banner, the Board needs to approve exactly what the banner will be. 

 

Mr. Wiener asked if the 8’ x 30’ sign in the exhibit picture will be what is proposed.

 

Mr. Wolfson stated we will use whatever sign the Board approves.

 

Ms. Dargel said it is up to the applicant to tell us what he proposes.

 

Mr. Wiener asked why the sign can’t be smaller.

 

Mr. Wolfson stated exhibit A- 1 shows the scale of the sign from Route 80.  It is not significant in terms of its impact.  It doesn’t affect any other properties except for Route 80.  In order to have anyone have a chance to glean the basic information from the sign, the size is appropriate. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there are any statistics that a sign has to be a certain size for cars traveling 65 miles per hour.

 

Mr. Wolfson said we don’t have that information tonight.

 

Ms. Dargel asked how the sign will be attached to the building.

 

Mr. Witmondt said the sign company will secure it to the building.  I don’t know how.

 

Mr. Crowley asked why we are talking about the sign when the building isn’t even empty yet?

 

Mr. Witmondt said the tenant who has 30,000 square feet is moving.   They are building a building.  Their lease expired in January.  Their building isn’t ready, and they wanted an extension.  We are allowing them to stay for an extra month or two.

 

Mr. Wolfson asked if leases are typically signed in advance.

 

Mr. Witmondt said yes, the lease negotiation can go on for months.

 

Mr. Crowley said the sign is 20 times the size that is allowed. 

 

Mr. Witmondt said we have been marketing the space since last summer.

 

Mr. Giardina said he is concerned about the safety issue and how the sign will be secured on the building.

 

Mr. Wolfson stated we would agree to meet the municipality’s  requirements for securing the sign.

 

Mr. D’Amato said something like this will be a heavy gauge vinyl with nylon and will probably be secured every two feet.  If it is done correctly, I don’t see it coming off the building. 

 

Mr. Kurtz asked if the Board can put a time limit on the sign. 

 

Mr. Wiener said yes.

 

Mr. Kurtz said we should recommend to the town that the Economic Development Committee should be actively helping businesses like this.  

 

Mr. Wiener said we can suggest that in our annual report.  We can also mention this type of sign request in our annual report.

 

Ms. Dargel asked why all the letters can’t be 15” high instead of 30”.

 

Mr. Witmondt said the rendering submitted with the application and the rendering submitted tonight were done by the same people.  The 30 inch letters are the phone number.

 

Ms. Dargel suggested if you had smaller lettering, the size of the sign could be reduced. 

 

Mr. Witmondt stated the phone number is 20 inches, and that is the most important part of the sign.

 

Discussion.

 

Ms. Dargel said we need more testimony as to what size lettering is needed for the cars traveling on Route 80.

 

Ms. Kinback agreed we need testimony from the sign people.

 

Ms. Robortaccio agreed  and stated the Board has indicated a preference for cutting the size of the sign and the lettering.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

The application was carried to 3/13/06.

 

BA-8-06 - JAMES BARRETT – VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS FROM SUNROOM TO POOL LOCATED ON CONKLIN RD. BLOCK 8001, LOT 9 IN R-1 ZONE

 

James Barrett was sworn in

 

Judith Barrett was sworn in

 

Mr. Barrett said we have lived here for 19 years and are retired.  We spend most of our time at home and we are looking for more enjoyment of our home.  We can’t use the deck when the weather doesn’t permit.  We are proposing to remove the existing deck and replace it with a sunroom that we can use in all seasons.  The current deck is within 5 feet of the pool, and the sunroom won’t be any closer to the pool.

 

Mr. Potere said the setback from the pool to a principle structure goes by the foundation.  Now that there will be a foundation, the setback variance is required. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there is a buffer of trees to the neighbors.

 

Mr. Barrett said yes.

 

Mr. Barrett stated the structure will be built out of wood with a lot of windows.

 

Ms. Dargel asked what the variance is for.

 

Mr. Wiener said it is for the setback from the sunroom to the pool.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the application.  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-55-06 – TONI FRY – CERTIFICATION OF NONCONFORMING USE LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 2403, LOT 5 IN B-2 ZONE

 

The applicant was not present.

 

Mr. Wiener stated it is unclear whether there was proper notice.  There are also questions about whether taxes have been paid, and questions about ownership. 

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to deny the application without prejudice.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes.

 

The application was denied without prejudice.

 

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

 

lm/