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, the
Chairperson read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Gail
Robortaccio, Joyce Dargel, Mark Crowley, Peter Giardina, Candy DeVenezia,
Heather Darling.
ABSENT: Robert Kurtz, Sebastian
D’Amato, Barbara Kinback.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:
Larry Wiener, Russell Stern.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Board Secretary
Minutes of 3/13/06
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the minutes. Ms. DeVenezia seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Ms. DeVenezia, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes;
Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
RESOLUTIONS
BA-12-06 – ROBERT KING – USE
VARIANCE FOR DECK LOCATED IN AN LI/OR ZONE, BLOCK 8801, LOT 3
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: March 13, 2006
Memorialized: April 10, 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
applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
- The
home is located in the LI/OR Zone and single-family homes are not
permitted in the LI/OR Zone.
- The
applicants were proposing to enlarge the existing home by constructing an
8’ x 14’ deck. The location of the proposed deck was depicted on a plot
plan attached to the application.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 2/15/06
from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
- As
noted by the applicant, virtually any improvement to the applicant’s home
requires a use variance.
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 proposed deck to be consistent with an amenity that would
be found on a single-family home. Were this property in a residential
zone, a deck would be totally conforming (the analysis is made by taking
the square footage of the property and comparing it to a residential zone
in which such square footage is located).
- This
is a technical “d” variance and the net result is truly de minimis.
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:
- Deck
to be sized and located as depicted on the plot plan attached to the
application. Side yard to be no less than 60 feet.
- As
proposed, applicant to secure all necessary construction permits
- 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; Ms. Darling, 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
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: March 13, 2006
Memorialized: April 10, 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:
- James
Gregory, Esquire represented the applicant.
- The
applicant previously received a “d” variance and preliminary site plan
approval, which was memorialized by resolution BA-25-03 adopted on 10/16/03.
- The
applicant is presently before the Board seeking final site plan approval.
- Prior
to the public hearing, the applicant submitted the following:
Prepared by DJ
Egarian And Associates
Sheet 1, Cover Sheet, dated 2/10/06
Sheet 2, Existing Conditions, revised 4/2/03
Sheet 3, Site Layout and Grading Plan, revised
3/15/04
Sheet 3A, Utility Plan, revised 4/23/04
Sheet 3B, Underground Detention Basin Details,
revised 4/23/04
Sheet 4, Landscape Plan, revised 6/18/04
Sheet 5, Lighting Plan, revised 2/24/04
Sheet 6, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan, revised 7/14/04
Sheet 7, Soil Erosion Control and Construction
Details, revised 1/5/04
Sheet 8, Construction Details, revised 6/18/04
Sheet 9, Vehicle Circulation Pattern, revised 7/23/03
Sheet 10, Tree Removal Plan, revised 4/1/03
Sheet 11, Slopes Pan, dated 3/27/03
Sheet 12, Natural Resource Map, dated 4/28/03
Comparison of Design Drawings to As-Built
Drawings
Prepared by
Edward F. Secco
Sheet 1 of 1, Existing Conditions Map, dated 2/2/06
Prepared by
Arminio’s Landscape and Maintenance
Sheet
1 of 1, As-Built Landscaping, revised 2/6/06
- The
Board received reports from the following members of the professional
staff:
- John
E. Hansen, the Board’s professional engineer, dated 3/3/06 and a follow
up report dated 3/10/06
- Michael
A. Kobylarz, Township engineer, dated 3/10/06
- Russell
Stern, Township’s professional planner, dated 3/9/06
- The
applicant noted the following deviations from the preliminary site plan:
Changes to
Lighting Plan
Two lights not installed on left front due to the fact
that they would only light the roof of the overhang.
Added a second light on left front corner of building
(site plan called for one).
Added light to flag pole because it is mandatory.
Changes to Site
Plan
Added garage door bollards to right side of
garage.
Asphalted across garage area in upper left
rear of building instead of pavers due to heavy traffic area in and
out of the building. Did not feel the edge of the pavers
would be securely kept in place.
Retaining wall behind bulk storage building
was built out of boulders.
7.
The applicant and the applicant’s
engineer, Charles Osterkorn, testified at the 3/13/06 public hearing. The
applicant, the Board, and the Board’s engineer, John Hansen, and planner,
Russell Stern, reviewed the reports submitted to the Board and the applicant’s
agreement to comply with the recommendations of the professional staff.
8.
It was noted that there were two
problematic deviations from the original plan:
d. The applicant constructed a boulder wall in an area
where the plan called for a concrete retaining wall. Neither of the Board’s
professionals nor the Board found the boulder wall to be objectional, but there
was a concern that the boulder wall was located very close to, if not, in a
wetlands transition of area buffer. The applicant’s engineer, Mr. Osterkorn
testified that the structure itself was sound from an engineering standpoint.
e.
The applicant’s freestanding sign
was apparently constructed without the proper setback and may be located in a
sight triangle easement (the applicant agreed to remove the sign and the
supporting structure for the sign with the understanding that the applicant
could come back to the Board for a variance and/or amended site plan approval
to include a future sign).
9.
The applicant testified that, if
necessary, the boulder wall in question could be moved and/or re-constructed
notwithstanding the fact the applicant would be open for business.
10. The applicant testified that it was crucial to begin
to utilize the site with the coming of spring and the landscape season.
WHEREAS,
the Board finds the site plan to be essentially in conformance with the
preliminary site plan and use variance as well as the Roxbury Township Zoning
Ordinance and site plan standards;
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 13th day of March, 2006 that the within site plan, prepared by
DJ Egarian and Associates, dated 2/10/06 (12 sheets), is hereby approved as a
final site plan subject to the following:
- Applicant
shall provide documentation as to the location of the as-built boulder
wall along the northernmost edge of the parking lot. The first test was
to determine whether or not the as built structure is located in the
transition area.
- The
applicant shall provide a written certification from its professional
engineer as to the quality and soundness of the construction of the as
built boulder wall.
- Should
it be determined that the as built boulder wall does not meet the
appropriate construction standards, same shall be removed and replaced
with a wall in accordance with the preliminary site plan.
- Should
the applicant provide the proper engineering certification and should it
be determined that the wall is outside the wetlands transition area, the
wall may remain as built.
- In
the further event that the wall having been deemed structurally sound, but
located within the transition area, the applicant shall either remove the
encroachment and restore the pre-existing grade, or alternatively,
immediately apply to NJDEP for relief.
- In
any event, the applicant shall post a bond in an appropriate amount to
cover the cost of any necessary alteration, reconstruction, and
remediation of the wall location as noted above.
- The
applicant shall provide a plan to correct the grading of the Double A
inlet #3 as depicted on the plan. As noted at the public hearing, there
was a discrepancy in the way this inlet was installed. Applicant’s
engineer has testified that he has reviewed the problem and determined
that it can be constructed in close conformity with the plans.
- Applicant
shall install inspection ports for the stormwater detention system as
recommended by the township engineer (see Hansen report 3/10/06, item #3).
- As
noted above, the applicant shall remove the freestanding sign and all
support structure.
- Applicant
shall correct the grading issues noted at the rear door locations
- Applicant
shall provide ADA striping as per plans.
- Applicant
shall install the dumpster enclosure as per plans.
- Applicant
shall provide lighting detail and foot candle analysis for the review and
approval of the Board engineer. The lights shall be reviewed in the field
to make sure that same comply with Municipal Ordinance and do not present
a hazard or problem to on-site or off-site pedestrians and/or vehicles.
- Applicant
shall install the top course of paving.
- Applicant
shall fully install the gravel parking area in the rear.
- Upon
the completion of the top course of paving, the applicant shall install
the hairpin striping as noted on the plans.
- Applicant
shall install the swale along the railroad to the inlet designated E on
the plan.
- Applicant
shall install all concrete wheel stops as called for in the plans.
- The
bulk storage area shall be completed per the approved preliminary site
plan (stone veneer).
- Applicant
shall repair the Shippenport Road pavement in the area of the newly
installed curbing.
- Applicant
shall install landscaping in accordance with the approved plan.
- Applicant
shall reset the leaning signage.
- Applicant
shall paint the bollards.
- Applicant
shall install stone veneer along the northerly building elevation.
- Applicant
shall install planters along the front building elevation.
- Applicant
shall reset the edge of the front pavers prior to the topcourse.
- Applicant
shall continue curbing up to the bulk storage structure.
- Applicant
shall install refuse recycling pad and enclosure.
- Applicant
shall install grass swale along the rear of parking lot adjoining the
railroad right-of-way.
- Applicant
shall remove construction material, equipment, debris, containers,
dumpsters, etc.
- The
landscape plan shall be adjusted to account for additional removal of
existing trees.
- Applicant’s
proposal to stabilize the disturbed railroad right-of-way shall be
reviewed and approved by the Board engineer.
- Applicant
shall install wall light on the bulk storage structure.
- Applicant
shall finish joints in paver installation.
- Plan
shall be amended to add the deficient checklist items.
- Applicant
shall provide proof the conservation and historic easements have been
filed with the Morris County clerk’s office.
- As
noted and reiterated in Mr. Stern’s 3/9/06 report, (and in particular,
item #30 which reiterates certain conditions), the applicant shall comply
with all conditions of the prior approval. It is again called to the
applicant’s attention to remind the applicant of this continuing
obligation.
- As
the items noted immediately above, the applicant shall provide appropriate
bonding for any items not completed and all open items shall be completed
no later than 5/31/06 as agreed to by the applicant.
- Applicant
to install wall lights on the bulk storage structure.
- Finalize
completeness checklist per consulting engineer’s report of 3/13/06.
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. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-7-06 – WOODMONT
PROPERTIES – VARIANCE FOR SIGN LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9603, LOT 6 IN B-2 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: March 13, 2006
Memorialized: April 10, 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:
- Peter
Wolfson, Esquire represented the applicant.
- The
applicant is a limited liability company. It owns the subject premises.
The premises are presently used as a mixed “flex” office/warehouse
building.
- Michael
Witmondt indicated the building was an office/warehouse flex type building
of about 61,000 square feet.
- Mr.
Witmondt indicated two tenants would be leaving and those tenants would
result in 40,000 square feet being vacant.
- The
applicant was seeking to construct a “temporary” rental sign on the
northerly side of the structure facing Route 80. The Zoning Ordinance
permits temporary signs. In the B-2 Zone, the maximum permitted size is
12 square feet.
- The
applicant was proposing a 240 square foot sign. Same would be
illuminated. The proposed sign was depicted on a computer enhanced
digital photograph marked A-1 in evidence. The applicant also attached a
copy of the proposed sign to the drawings submitted with the application.
- During
the course of the first public hearing on 2/13/06, it was apparent the
applicant had no expert testimony relative to the necessity of the size of
the sign proposed or the appropriate size for the lettering facing Route
80 and/or why the sign could not be reduced in size.
- The
matter was continued to the 3/13/06 public hearing. At that time, the
applicant called Michael Hoehn of the Morris Sign Company as an expert
witness. Mr. Hoehn was qualified with someone with experience in the
commercial sign industry and had a 25 year background designing signs such
as the one proposed by the applicant. In addition, Mr. Hoehn’s firm was
tasked with fabricating and installing the subject sign. Mr. Hoehn noted
the sign would be fabricated of a vinyl material with grommets, which
would be utilized to anchor the sign onto the rear side of the building as
depicted in the drawings.
- Mr.
Hoehn reviewed several articles and publications that suggested what the
proper type of signage and size of letters would be for a sign such as the
applicant was proposing. Mr. Hoehn noted it would be directed at an
interstate highway where drivers would be doing in excess of 55 miles per
hour.
- Jeffrey
Buchman, an officer of the applicant, also testified at the hearing. Mr.
Buchman stated the sign was critical to the applicant as a substantial
portion of the facility would soon be empty.
- During
his testimony, Mr. Hoehn indicated that one of the standards he reviewed
was a New Jersey Department of Transportation standard which suggested an
appropriate size sign might be 150 square feet (in this case 5’ x 30’).
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 notes the Zoning Ordinance anticipates temporary signs. The Board
also notes the intent and purpose of the Municipal Land Use Law, the
Master Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance is to create properties and
facilities that would be fully utilized. The Board further notes that
there is only a small category of properties in Roxbury Township that have
“frontage” oriented towards Route 80. In this case, the frontage is truly
a rear yard.
- The
applicant established that a conforming sign would not be effective in
notifying the public of the availability of space in the building.
Clearly, a 12 foot square sign would not be effective. The Board finds
the testimony of the applicant’s sign expert, Michael Hoehn, to be
credible, however, the Board finds the proposed 240 foot square sign to be
excessive. As noted, a 150 square foot sign (5’ x 30’) would give the
applicant the needed exposure without being over ambitious and
inappropriate. The Board further notes (see conditions below) the
temporary nature of the size allowing this exception to the Zoning
Ordinance.
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:
- Sign
is to be non-illuminated, fabricated of vinyl, and attached securely and
safely to the building.
-
The lettering and message on the sign is within the discretion of the
applicant subject only to the stipulation that the message on the sign
will be related to 1705 Route 46 and the availability of same for lease.
There shall be no tenant sign or billboard type sign directed to any off
premise activity.
- The
variance herein shall expire in six months or within 15 days of the
execution of the lease for the subject premises - whichever shall occur
first. At the end of six months, if the premises still remain unlet, the
applicant shall have the right to apply to the Board for an extension.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Ms. Darling seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Ms. Darling, yes.
BA-10-06 – WILLIAM &
RAQUEL COLE – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR AN ABOVE GROUND POOL LOCATED
ON N. HILLSIDE AVE.
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: March 13, 2006
Memorialized: April 10, 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 15’ diameter above ground
swimming pool.
- The
proposal results in total impervious coverage of 35.35% (25% is the
maximum permitted).
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 7/14/04 from Tom Potere, the Zoning
Officer.
- The
applicants previously received a variance allowing for the construction of
a detached 400 square foot garage in the rear yard (same is depicted on a
plot plan attached to the application).
- The
swimming pool would be 15’ in diameter and noted on a sketch attached to
the application was not drawn to scale.
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 notes that the applicant’s property has a built in hardship. Given
the location of the garage (noting the applicant located it there, but it
is truly the only spot to locate a garage), the property is encumbered
with more impervious coverage than would normally be anticipated. This
partly results from the fact that the premises are a long and narrow lot
(50’ wide by 165’ deep). The garage is located on the rear of the
property, and as noted, 820 square feet of driveway is necessary to
connect the old driveway to the garage in the rear.
- The
applicant’s proposed addition and amenity is an above ground swimming
pool. While the Zoning Ordinance counts a swimming pool as impervious
coverage, it is truly a de minimis structure in terms of impact on
stormwater runoff.
- The
grant of this variance will have no adverse impact.
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:
- The
applicant is again reminded that this property is essentially “maxed out”
in terms of impervious coverage. This application is somewhat unique in
that the coverage is increased by only 1 ½ percent and the increase was
essentially the surface of a swimming pool.
- Pool
to be sized (15’ diameter) and located generally as depicted on the plot
plan attached to the application. Applicant is to comply with all
dimensional requirements of the R3 Zone in locating the swimming pool.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
AGENDA
BA-9-06 – ANATOLY &
YEJA GOLDBERG – CERTIFICATION OF NONCONFORMING USE FOR 2 FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON
N. DELL AVE., BLOCK 2606, LOT 10 IN R-4 ZONE
Yeja Goldberg was sworn in. She
stated when she bought the house, she was informed it was a 2 family, and is
here to make sure everything can be legal.
Ms. Robortaccio asked if the
house is currently for sale.
Mr. Goldberg said yes.
Ms. Dargel asked when the house
was purchased.
Ms. Goldberg said it was the
beginning of February 2005.
Ms. Dargel asked if there are two
gas bills, electric meters, and water meters.
Ms. Goldberg said yes, but the
sewer is on one bill.
Ms. Dargel asked if there are two
entrances and if the house has had them since she purchased it.
Ms. Goldberg said yes.
Ms. Dargel asked if there is a
wall dividing each living space.
Ms. Goldberg said yes. There are
two bedrooms in each unit. There are two driveways, and an area to park 7 or 8
cars.
Ms. Dargel asked about the
pictures showing the oil tanks.
Ms. Goldberg said the tanks have
been removed, and currently there is gas heat.
Ms. Dargel asked if Ms. Goldberg
knows how long the house was used as a two family house.
Ms. Goldberg said she has a
letter from a previous owner, stating he lived on one side and someone else
lived on the other side. I have put the house on the market, but I am not sure
if I want to sell or not. I am waiting for a decision from the Zoning Board.
The house is currently vacant. The addresses are one which is A and one which
is B.
Ms. Dargel read into the record a
letter from George Wear dated August 2004 which states he had rented 5B from
1963 to 1967, and that his half of the house was separate and that all his
utility bills came to him.
Ms. Darling asked when it became
vacant.
Ms. Goldberg said since she
bought it in 2005.
Ms. Darling asked if there are
any bills showing separate sewer bills.
Ms. Goldberg said the bill comes
to A & B.
Ms. Robortaccio said there is
only one sewer bill. It is shared. That will be addressed. If it is
two-family, it should be twice the bill.
PUBLIC
Russell Vanderbush, Budd Street,
was sworn in. He said he formerly lived at 9 North Dell. Prior to that his
grandparents lived there. This was converted to one family by the Williamses.
To the best of my recollection it was completely a one-family. That was in
1997 – to 2005. I know that there was one kitchen and you could walk between
the two units. I was in the house when it was like that. I don’t know if they
kept the two entranceways.
Mr. Wiener said Mr. Vanderbush is
saying that for 30 years from 1975 to 2005, the Williamses owned the property.
When they owned it, they used it as a one-family only?
Mr. Vanderbush said their
daughter lived with them for a period of 6 months from my own personal
knowledge.
Mr. Stern asked Mr. Vanderbush
when he saw the improvements go in.
Mr. Vanderbush said two gas
meters went in over the last year. There were also two air conditioning units,
new porches, new doorways, paving.
MS. Goldberg said when she bought
the house, Mr. Williams had had a hip replacement. His wife could not walk.
They lived with her parents. They located themselves on the first floor, and
they broke the wall and occupied just the one floor. That is what they told
me. They said it was a two family house. There are two doors on one side and
two doors on another side.
Ms. Robortaccio asked if Ms.
Goldberg had the two meters put in.
Ms. Goldberg said Public Service
asked us if we wanted two meters, and we said yes. There were two separate
heating units.
Mr. Wiener said the burden of
proof is on the application that this is a valid lawful nonconforming use that
has been in continuous existence for a certain period of time. There has been
testimony from a member of the public stating the property had been converted
to a single family home. The witness has said that when she bought the house,
the Williamses were living downstairs. I have not heard that there were two
separate units.
Mr. Stern said it has come to his
attention that the Board has heard this application previously on November 8,
2004 for the same block and lot. It was determined at that time this is not a
valid nonconforming use.
Mr. Wiener said the matter has
already been decided and adjudicated. The Board needs to deny this based on
the fact it has already been adjudicated.
Mr. Wiener asked if anyone told
her the Williamses had made an application previously.
Ms. Goldberg stated they told me
they applied,but did not apply completely. The realtor told me I would have to
go to the Board.
Mr. Wiener said it means that
this is a single family home.
Ms. Goldberg asked why there are
other multi families across the street if this is a single family zone.
Mr. Wiener stated that is not
what is being determined. This application was to determine whether or not
this was a pre existing nonconforming use.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to deny
the application as it was previously decided by a previous application. Ms.
DeVenezia seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Ms. DeVenezia, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Darling, yes;
Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
Application denied.
BA-17-06 – LAKES END MARINA
– USE VARIANCE FOR STORAGE OF BOATS LOCATED ON MT. ARLINGTON BLVD., BLOCK
10101, LOT 48 IN B-1 ZONE
The applicant’s attorney was
present and stated we have 3 variances we are applying for and would like to
carry until there is a full Board.
The application was carried to
5/8/06, no further notice required.
BA-11-06 – CHRISTIAN
PINSONAULT – VARIANCES TO BUILD HOME LOCATED ON SUNSET LANE, BLOCK 11904, LOT 7
IN R-3 ZONE
Attorney Abraham Akselrod
represented the applicant.
Christian Pinsonault was sworn in.
He stated he currently resides in Flanders with his mother and has a growing
family, with 4 girls aged 7, 4, 20 months, and 2 months. We have an office on
Route 206, and the business has been there for about 7 years. This property is
at 33 Sunset Lane. My goal is to construct a single family home for my family.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for
questions of Mr. Pinsonault.
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Steve Bias, architect for the
applicant was sworn in. In answer to questions from Mr. Akselrod, Mr. Bias
stated his professional background for the Board and was accepted. He referred
to a colorized sheet 1 of 2, plot and grading plan submitted by Stewert
Surveying (marked A-1). The property is bound on two sides by Lake Hopatcong
and is accessed through Sunset Lane. The existing structure has a two car
garage within 2 feet of Sunset Lane. Traffic must back out onto Sunset Lane to
exit the property. It is a 2 story structure. There is also a two story
garage. There is an abundant amount of concrete and pavement on the property.
Our proposal is to consolidate that and provide a 2 ½ story house with a
covered porch and a new driveway eliminating the need to back out onto Sunset
Lane.
Mr. Akselrod asked about the
garages.
Mr. Bias said the proposed garage
is accessed in an area that naturally steps down to the lake. We took
advantage of the topography to provide a lower level storage area. It is
incorrectly labeled on the plan as a garage. In the extra two storage areas,
you would not be able to get a car into those storage areas because of the
grade. There will be a total garage space for two vehicles.
An architectural rendering, sheet
A-5, was marked A-2.
Mr. Bias said the combined square
footage of the structures is 350 square feet more than what already exists on
the site.
Ms. Dargel said the denial letter
from the Zoning Officer, updated 4/7/06, states building coverage is currently
24.13% and what is proposed is 48.02%. That appears to be double the size.
Discussion.
Mr. Bias said he does not have
the calculations in front of him.
Mr. Stern stated we don’t have
floor plans in our possession.
Mr. Bias referred to the floor
plans, sheet A-2 (marked A-3), representing a basement plan for the
residence. He explained the dimensions on the plan (showing the storage
area).
Mr. Bias referred to exhibit A-4,
sheet 6 of the architectural plans, showing the lake elevation. He said it is
consistent with the rear of the existing home. There is also a view of the
other side of the house, showing the lower level storage are access doors.
There are 4 garage doors – 2 on the front and 2 on the lakeside. We have no
intention of making a concrete ramp to access the water from this garage.
Mr. Bias said the traditional
boat access area would require a ramp or some type of tote mechanism. We do
not intend to do that. Around Lake Hopatcong, there are many two-story
garages because of the topography. The intention was to consolidate the site.
There won’t be any exterior sheds. Everything is attached and contained.
Mr. Stern said the existing
footprint is 45’ x 45’. What is the building footprint of the proposed
structure?
Mr. Bias said it is 71’ x 83’.
Mr. Stern asked for the floor
area of the existing home.
Mr. Bias said the engineering
plans have the exact calculations.
Mr. Bias said the maximum
building coverage allowed is 15%. The existing coverage is 24.13% and we
propose 48%.
Mr. Stern asked the layout of the
house.
Mr. Bias said there is a
basement. On the first floor there would be a covered foyer, a hallway, dining
room, great room, study, powder room, breakfast and kitchen area, floor, and a
covered deck. There will be 4 bedrooms.
Mr. Stern asked that Mr. Bias to
go through each level.
Mr. Bias said the current
basement has several rooms. We are proposing an open basement at this time.
There will be a main stairway, an adjacent stairway by the garage, and a
walkout area under the deck. Our numbers show this is consistent with the
ordinance definition of a cellar. The main level will have an entry foyer,
kitchen and breakfast, study, dining room, great room, pantry, two-car garage.
It is an open floor plan.
The basement plan was marked A-5.
Mr. Bias said the second floor
(plan marked A-6) will have 3 staircases, 4 bedrooms, laundry, 2 bathrooms,
provides access also to the roof deck for the master suite. A stairway
accesses the void in the attic, which we are calling a playroom. The attic
level will be just for attic space. It may have some of the air handlers.
Ms. Dargel asked what the height
is of the existing building.
Mr. Bias said he doesn’t know.
Ms. Dargel asked how much higher
this one will be.
Mr. Bias said this building will
be 32’9”.
Ms. Robortaccio said the plan
shows 39.5’ proposed.
Mr. Bias stated in Roxbury, when
measuring height, you take the average grade plane and take that to the mean
height of the roof. The grade varies here. On average, on the lakeside, we
have a 32’9” dimension. That would be balanced against the height of the
garage.
Mr. Akselrod asked that we come
back to this issue, and address further issues at this time.
Mr. Bias said Mr. Potere
determined this is a 3 ½ story house. We respectfully submit that the lower
level is a cellar. According to the ordinance, it would be a basement if the
average line around the building is at or below the grade line to be considered
a basement. We submit we are under that number, and it should be classified as
a cellar, and would not be considered a story.
Mr. Stern said the definition
goes on to say, “or with a floor to ceiling height of less than 7 feet in
height”. You testified for a height of 7’4”.
Mr. Bias said he misspoke.
Ms. Robortaccio said we have
established this is a 3 ½ story house.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for
questions of Mr. Bias.
Mary Shaw, 29 Sunset Lane, was
sworn in. She asked how far the house will be from the lake and how far the
garage will be from Sunset Lane.
Ms. Robortaccio said that will be
discussed later on in the hearings. The house is proposed at 14’ away from the
lake. The garage is proposed at 5’ from Sunset Lane.
Mr. Stern said the ordinance does
not allow that. They are asking for a variance.
Ms. Shaw asked how far it has to
be from Mr. Pollard’s house.
Ms. Robortaccio said the
ordinance says it has to be 10 feet from the property line, but it already
exists at 1.83 feet on that side. That will be addressed further in testimony.
No one else stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Akselrod stated we will ask
to be carried at this time.
Ms. Dargel asked if this was
referred to the Lake Hopatcong Commission.
Ms. DeMasi stated they have been
notified and there has been no response, other than that they could not find
the property.
Mr. Bias said they will address
the cellar definition at the next hearing.
Ms. Robortaccio stated the Board
also wants to see the existing and proposed coverage, and to get more accurate
height information.
The application was carried to
5/8/06.
BA-16-06 – DAVID & ANN
MARIE DAVIS – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, BUILDING COVERAGE AND BUFFER TO
LAKE LOCATED ON KINGSLAND RD. BLOCK 11002, LOT 23 IN R-3 ZONE
Attorney Larry Kron represented
the applicant. He stated the applicant has a lot with an existing dwelling on
it. That dwelling was a 12’ x 22’ cabin which has been added onto 3 or 4
times. The proposal is to remove that house and replace it with another house,
which would be 1,080 square feet.
Ms. DeMasi said this application
went to the Lake Commission, and we have not heard from them.
Mr. Kron said there is an
existing 92 square foot house, with a left side yard of 3 feet and 11 feet on
the other side. We are proposing to make the setbacks 11.9 feet on each side,
which complies with the ordinance for sideyard setback. The rearyard setback
will remain the same, and although the Zoning Officer indicates the buffer to
the lake will change, that will not change. The only variance we are asking
for is impervious coverage from 38.66% to 42.30% and the building coverage from
20.59% to 25.27%. It is a pretty small house with a total of 2,160 sq. ft.
and a deck of 360 square feet.
David Davis was sworn in.
James Baker, surveyor for the
applicant, was sworn in.
Mr. Kron submitted 11 photos
(marked A-1 through A-11).
Mr. Davis said we will probably
live in the house 9 months a year. He described the photos, which were of the
existing house, and described what is there and what is proposed. He said it
would be almost impossible to make all the improvements necessary to renovate
to the existing house.
Ms. Dargel asked how many stories
there will be.
Mr. Davis said it will be two
stories and an attic.
Mr. Crowley said the testimony
was that the lake setback will be the same. The plans show 33.9’ with the
deck.
Mr. Baker said the existing is
33.9’. The proposed home will be 45.8’ for the home. We are retaining the
33.9’ with the deck. The home will be a two-story home with a walkout
basement. The height will be 25.7’.
Mr. Stern said the architecturals
very lightly show a dormer on the attic on the left side.
Mr. Baker said there are to be no
dormers on the attic.
Mr. Baker said there is a
property owners association here. It started out as a camp community where
people would rent a space to put up a structure or summer dwelling. I lived
there for 17 years. The area occupied by each structure or campsite was
sectioned off and lots were created.
Mr. Baker distributed copies of
the Kingsland Association map (marked A-13) and described it for the Board.
The tax map shows lot 23 is bisected by an easement. The association has
undergone changes over the years. All the homes are being removed because it
is not cost effective for them to remain. With respect to variances, we are
looking to maintain the lake setback variances and bring the side yard setbacks
into conformance.
Mr. Kron said we have slightly
increased the footprint of the house; we are enhancing the side yard setback on
one side to make it conform; we are maintaining the lake setback. We require a
variance for an increase in impervious coverage from 38.66% to 42.30% and
building coverage from 20.59% to 25.7%. It is justified as it is an
enhancement of the physical structure. It is also an improvement in terms of
balancing the house on the lot. It is a unique lot with the road cutting in
the front and we think it is justified under the Land Use Law.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application, subject to the condition there is no adverse report
from the Lake Commission; lake buffer will remain the same; elevation plan to
be submitted; variances approved for building and impervious coverage. This
lot is severely restrained and is very narrow. It will be an improvement over
what is there now. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeVenezia, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Darling, yes;
Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-15-06 – BENNETT CANIZARO
– VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR AN ABOVE-GROUND POOL LOCATED ON BASS
DRIVE, BLOCK 1602, LOT 10 IN R-3 ZONE
Bennett Canizaro was sworn in. He
stated he has a child who is in therapy and needs to be able to swim. We want
to get him a pool. We are going from 26.27 to 26.9 percent coverage. It will
be an above ground pool.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
Joy Vavrek, 138 Eyland Avenue,
was sworn in. She asked if this will be tripped into a drywell or trench
drain. It is an above ground pool. There is a problem now. I have a new
neighbor who has put a berm across the back of his lawn. Any backwash will run
off on my yard.
Mr. Stern said there is no
requirement for a drywell.
Mr. Canizaro said that gentleman
has upgraded his property beautifully.
Ms. Vavrek said once the pool is
in there will be backwash. How will it be drained in the winter?
Mr. Canizaro said it won’t be
drained. Mr. Canizaro said there are no flood issues on my property.
Ms. Vavrek said after we were put
on sewers I worked hard to dry that area out. I then put in topsoil. I like
the idea of the pool. My only problem is that I am worried about water coming
down.
Ms. Robortaccio said she doesn’t
believe an above ground pool will create a problem.
Ms. Vavrek said it is a concern
Mr. Canizaro should be aware of.
Mr. Canizaaro said he will use a
cartridge filter so there will be no backwash.
No one else stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Crowley made a motion to
approve the application. Ms. Darling seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley,
yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. DeVenezia, yes;
Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-15-06 – WATSON – ELDEN
& MAUREEN WATSON – VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN OVERHANG LOCATED
ON KADEL DRIVE, BLOCK 3003, LOT 5 IN R-3 ZONE
Elden Watson was sworn in. He
stated we have an overhang at our front entrance that extends over the garage.
We propose to take it down and replace it with a sloped roof over the patio
that is the entrance to our house.
Ms. Dargel asked if it will come
out a little farther than the existing overhang.
Mr. Watson said yes. It will not
be enclosed. It will have a 4’ fence on the one edge to the garage door.
There are several houses in the neighborhood that have the same type situation.
It will be 6’ x 24’.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application. There are a number of houses in the neighborhood with
similar overhangs, and will improve the look of the house. Mr. Giardina
seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Giardiana, Ms. DeVenezia, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes;
Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 9:35 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi
Secretary
lm/