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, Mark Crowley, Robert Kurtz, Joyce Dargel, Barbara Kinback, Candy
DeVenezia, Heather Darling, Peter Giardina, Sebastian D’Amato.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:
Larry Wiener, Russell Stern.
RESOLUTIONS
BA-9-06 – ANATOLY & YEJA GOLDBERG – CERTIFICATION OF
NONCONFORMING USE OF 2 FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON N. DELL AVE. BLOCK 2606, LOT 9 IN
R-4 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION OF DENIAL
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 appeared
before the Board and a public hearing was begun on 4/11/06. During the
course of the public hearing, the Board secretary recalled that the
subject premises were in fact the subject of the same application in 2004
(a copy of that resolution is attached to this resolution as exhibit A).
- It is clear that a prior
decision of this Board was rendered on the exact same subject matter.
That decision found that the 2 family use had been abandoned and was not a
non-conforming use.
WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant cannot 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 doctrine of res
judicata clearly applies in the within case. The matter had already
been litigated and decided and therefore, cannot be re-litigated by the
applicant. While the Board took very limited testimony prior to
discerning that the matter had already been litigated, it was obvious that
the applicants were not presenting any new evidence but merely re-hashing
the same evidence that had previously been presented to the Board.
- As noted, the prior case
only dealt with the issue of whether or not a 2 family use at the subject
premises was a valid non-conforming use. The Board having already made a
decision the within application is dismissed.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 10 day of April 2006 that the within application is denied for
the reasons set forth above.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Ms. DeVenezia seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Ms. DeVenezia, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes; Mr. Crowley,
yes.
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
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- Larry
Kron, Esquire represented the applicants.
- The
applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
- The
applicants were proposing a reconstruction of the existing home. The
applicant described it as something as a classic summer home with
amateurish and eclectic additions. He noted much of the functionality of
the house was compromised by the manner of the additions and that same
could not be readily reutilized.
- The
applicant submitted a plot plan prepared by James A Baker, Land Surveyor
and Planner, dated 2/21/06.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 2/15/06
from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
- The
following variances were noted:
- Impervious
Coverage – 25% required, 38.66% existing, 42.30% proposed
- Building
Coverage – 15% required, 20.59% existing, 25.27% proposed
- Lake Buffer – 50’ required, 43.8’/33.9’ existing, 33.9’
proposed
- The
applicant’s planner and surveyor, Mr. Baker, testified at the 4/11/06 hearing. He
produced a total of 14 exhibits (A-1 through A-12) being photographs and
A-13 being the architectural renderings of Michael Bengis, architect, and
A-14 being a map of the Kingsland Association.
- Mr.
Baker noted the property was encumbered and bisected by the right-of-way,
which separated the detached part of the garage from the main home. He
noted the informal way much of Kingsland had been developed and the
difficultly in readapting these lots with newer structures and being in
total compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
- He
noted the existing structure had a very small footprint and that what the
applicant was proposing was not over ambitious for the premises in
question. Same would be consistent with the pattern of re-development
along Lake Hopatcong and be consistent with the type of reasonable
re-development taking place in Kingsland.
- The
application had been submitted to the Lake Hopatcong Regional Commission
but at the time of the public hearing the Board had not received any
report back from the Commission. The Board subsequently received a report
dated 4/10/06.
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 subject premises are encumbered with built-in hardships.
The lot in question is bisected with a road right of way, which creates a
burden on the property. The property shape is somewhat unusual and
re-adapting the property given the current dimensional requirements is
extremely difficult.
- The
applicant’s proposal is reasonable. It is not a “mcmansion” or an over
ambitious redevelopment of the subject property. It will be an aesthetic
upgrade of what is clearly an obsolete and inefficient structure. Same
should have a positive impact on this neighborhood consistent with the
intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 10 day of April 2006 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- A
favorable report from the Lake Hopatcong Regional Commission.
- Addition
to be sized and located as depicted on the James A. Baker survey and
Michael Bengis architectural plan submitted in evidence at the public
hearing.
- Impervious
coverage not to exceed 42.3%, total building coverage not to exceed
25.27%, lake buffer not to exceed 33.9’ as requested and approved.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Discussion.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Giardina, yes; Ms. DeVenezia, yes; Ms. Darling, yes;
Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-14-06 – BENNETT CANIZARO
– VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR AN IN-GROUND POOL LOCATED ON BASS DRIVE,
BLOCK 1602, LOT 10 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
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 an above ground swimming pool
- The
location of the above ground swimming pool was depicted on a plot plan
attached to the application.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 2/24/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning
Officer.
- The
applicant’s proposal results in increasing impervious coverage from
existing 26.27% to just under 27% (26.9) whereas, 25% is the maximum
permitted.
- A
nearby property owner testified at the public hearing that she was
concerned about possible stormwater implications and the impact of any
backwashing of the swimming pool.
- The
applicant testified that the pool equipment would consist of cartridge
filters, which would not need the backwashing protocol associated with
diatomaceous earth or sand filters.
- The
applicant further noted that the swimming pool was being constructed as an
amenity for the applicant’s special needs child.
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:
- This
is a de minimis variance. The additional impervious coverage is
more than offset by the fact that the structure is an above ground
swimming pool. There will be absolutely no impact on any surrounding
property. A rear yard swimming pool is a normal amenity in this area of
Roxbury Township.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the10 day of April 2006 that the approval of the within application
be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Pool
is to be sized and located as depicted on the application. Impervious
coverage shall not exceed 26.9% as indicated by the applicant. Pool
equipment shall be a cartridge filter and there shall be no backwashing
that shall increase runoff onto any adjoining property.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. DeVenezia, yes;
Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-15-06 – ELDEN &
MAUREEN WATSON – VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR AN ADDITION LOCATED ON
KADEL DRIVE, BLOCK 3003, LOT 5 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
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 what they characterized as an
overhang onto the front of the existing home. The location of the
proposed overhang was depicted on a plot plan attached to the
application. Same would extend from the front of the home 6’ and be a
length of 24’. The applicant submitted a photo of a similar structure on
a similar home as part of their application materials.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 9/28/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning
Officer.
- The
proposed addition requires a variance for front yard setback as 35’ is
required and the applicant will be bringing same down to just under 29’.
- The
proposed addition was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application
and on a photograph of a neighboring house with what the applicant
characterized as the same type of overhang they were seeking.
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
applicant’s proposal will provide an aesthetic upgrade to the existing
home. The intrusion into the front yard will be minimal and will provide
some shelter from the elements to residents and guests of the home.
- The
proposed addition is in keeping with similar structures in the
neighborhood and will have little or no impact on the zone plan.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 10 day of April, 2006 that the approval of the within application
be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Overhang
to be 6’x24’ as proposed. Same to essentially remain open except for the
support columns and to be constructed similarly to the photograph
presented by the applicant.
- Setback
to be approximately 28.5’ as depicted on the plot plan attached to the
application.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Ms. Darling seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. DeVenezia, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes;
Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
AGENDA
Ms. Robortaccio announced that Application
BA-18-06, Dakor, Inc. will not be heard and is carried to 6/12/06. Application
BA-22-06, Owl Realty LLC will not be heard and is carried to 6/12/06.
BA-19-06 – GREG CONDIT –
VARIANCE FOR POOL LOCATED ON PAUL DRIVE, BLOCK 1601, LOT 23 IN R-3 ZONE
Gregory Condit was sworn in. He
stated he would like to put in an above ground 33’ x 18’ pool in the backyard.
Ms. Robortaccio asked how the
pool would be positioned on the lot.
Mr. Condit said it would run
horizontal to the house as shown on exhibit A-1.
Ms. Dargel said the side yard
setback is 16 feet. Is that an issue?
Mr. Stern said it complies. The
only variance is for impervious coverage. It is going from 23.65% to 28.09%,
required is 25% maximum.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. D’Amato made a motion to
approve the application. Ms. Dargel seconded
Roll as follows: Mr. D’Amato,
yes; Ms. Dargel, yes. The increase in coverage is di minimus, and there
has been discussion as to whether pools should or should not be counted in
impervious coverage. Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr.
Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-20-06 - JACK COOPER –
VARIANCE FOR POOL LOCATED ON PAUL DRIVE, BLOCK 1601, LOT 23 IN R-3 ZONE
Jack Cooper was sworn in.
Barbara Cooper was sworn in.
Mr. Cooper said we would like an
above ground pool in our back yard, 21 feet in diameter.
Ms. Robortaccio said currently
the impervious coverage is 35.99% and is going to 38.26%.
Ms. Dargel asked if either the
shed or the carport could be removed.
Mr. Cooper said they are both in
use.
Mr. D’Amato asked if there was a
pool there at one time.
Mr. Cooper said there was a small
one there years ago.
Ms. Dargel asked if the sidewalk
weren’t there, would it be 25% coverage?
Mr. Cooper said yes.
Mr. Wiener said the survey shows
the sidewalk is on the property, not in the town right-of-way. It is beyond
their control.
Mr. Cooper submitted photos of
the property, marked A-1.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application and stated she typically wouldn’t want to approve 13%
above the permitted amount of coverage, but almost all of the 13% is
encompassed in the sidewalk. They couldn’t take up the sidewalk. 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.
BA-24-06- VALERIE CAMPOAMOR
– USE VARIANCE FOR DANCE STUDIO LOCATED ON HILLCREST AVE. BLOCK 8602, LOT 14.01
IN LI/OR ZONE
Valerie Campoamor was sworn in.
Joy Cutrone was sworn in.
Ms. Campoamor stated we are
looking for a use variance for permission for a dance studio at 108 and 110
Hillcrest Drive.
Mr. Stern said a previous use
variance was granted for a gymnastics facility in an LI/OR District. The
concerns were similar.
Ms. Campoamor said there is more
than ample parking, and there are sidewalks for the children as well.
Ms. Dargel asked about the hours
of operation.
Ms. Campoamor said they will be
Monday through Saturday from 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Mr. Stern said the only
restriction on hours of operation are when they are within 200 feet of a
residential zone. This is not. The restriction there is to prohibit operation
from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Ms. Campoamor said we would have
4 dance rooms, and one for private lessons. There would be 40 children at a
maximum at any one time. Usually for children aged 3 to 8, parents stay in the
waiting area. There is enough square footage for a nice sized lobby. There is
parking in the front, back and side.
Ms. Dargel asked what Amazon
Forest is.
Ms. Campoamor said she does not
know.
Ms. DeMasi said it deals with
bird seed and equipment.
Ms. Dargel asked how many parking
spaces there are on the property.
Mr. Stern said they were
permitted to have banked parking spaces, and those have been provided.
Ms. Dargel asked if using 45
spaces would conflict with the other tenants.
Ms. Campoamor stated Orange
Carpet just has about 2 people there. The other place has hours of operation
that do not conflict. The trucks all just come in the back, and there would be
no conflict.
Ms. Dargel asked how many spaces
would be required if this were in a zone where this is permitted.
Mr. Stern stated he doesn’t have
the parking calculations. Other similar uses through the years have
established themselves with no parking conflicts.
Ms. Dargel stated if there is so
much incidence of this, we should look at the possibility of making it a
permitted use in the zone.
Mr. Stern stated when you have
parents and children in an industrial district, I don’t think you would
automatically want to permit that type use. It requires a careful analysis by
the Board to make certain you won’t have the conflicts with customer, children
and parents with the truck traffic. This site is good because all the loading
is behind the building, and the customer parking is right in front of the
units.
Ms. Dargel stated if we are going
to provide for light industrial, and they are all being half occupied by dance
studios, we won’t have any provisions for light industrial.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Kurtz made a motion to
approve the application. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Kurtz, yes;
Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kinback, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes. Ms. Dargel stated she is
not happy with the trend, but there would be no harm to the children at this
particular location. Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-21-06 – TIMOTHY BABBITT
– VARIANCE FOR OFF STREET PARKING LOCATED ON FORD RD., BLOCK 11105, LOT 30 IN
R-3 ZONE
Timothy Babbitt was sworn in. He
stated he is requesting a variance for off street parking in front of his
house. Currently we park in front of the house parallel to the curb. Over the
last 40 years, almost all my cars have been damaged by snowplows, and it is a
dangerous situation.
Mr. Babbitt submitted photos of
the existing situation which were marked A-1, A-2).
Photos of other properties in the
area with similar situations were marked A-3, A-4.
Mr. Babbitt stated the variance
is needed for impervious coverage, which we will be increasing by 3 or 4%.
Doing this should improve the drainage to the overall area as well.
Ms. Robortaccio said there is
already one parking space.
Mr. Babbitt stated Ford Road is
very narrow and the cars are parked parallel to the curb. There has been
damage from cars sliding into my cars, as well as township plows and salt
trucks. I want to be parking perpendicular to the road.
Mr. Stern said if the Board is
inclined to approve this, the plans should be reviewed for final details with
the Township Engineer as it is creating a greater curb cut on Ford Road, to
review the proposed wall, and to assure the improvements are not within the
road right-of-way.
Mr. D’Amato asked what type of
surface it would be.
Mr. Babbitt said it will be
crushed stone.
Mr. Stern stated the code
requires the driveways to be paved, except in the Rural Residential
District.
Discussion.
Mr. Babbitt agreed to pave it.
Mr. Stern stated the ordinance
states you are only allowed to have one driveway. This is almost two driveways
and there are two curb cuts. There is justification for this as the existing
driveway can’t be widened.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application. The percentage of coverage appears high, but this was
a vacation community that has evolved. The approval would be subject to the
Township Engineer reviewing for wall calculations and any other engineering
issues related to this. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes;
Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
There was a 5 minute recess at
8:20 p.m.
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
Attorney Harvey J. Michaelman
represented the applicant.
Kenneth Fox, architect and
planner, was sworn in.
Ralph Elpin, owner of Lakes End
Marina, was sworn in.
Mr. Elpin stated he seeks a ‘d’
variance for boat sales and storage.
Mr. Fox described the proposal,
stating the property is on Mt. Alrington Boulevard. Mr. Elpin owns Lakes End
Marina across the street. The current building is for retail and boat rentals
and launching. There is a peninsula adjacent to his property which belongs to
the State of New Jersey. In this area, this is the only boat retail area in
Roxbury Township. The gas station is on the corner, and there is a cleaners
and deli and realtor. We are here for the vacant lot across from Lakes End Marina.
The lot slopes toward the rear. We are bifurcating the application today and
are here today for the use variance and will return for site plan application.
We propose a new structure for sales and service of boats, which is classified
as motor vehicle sales and is not permitted in the zone. We are also
requesting a variance for outdoor display. It is difficult to have boats for
sale inside a building as it would have to be very large. We are requesting 3
spaces for boats in the front, separate from the required parking on site. We
are also requesting a variance for outdoor bulk storage. That would be for
storage of boats behind the building. It would be a seasonal determination as
to how many boats would be there.
Mr. Fox said we also show an area
for seasonal parking. We would ask that in the summertime, we be allowed to
have customer parking behind the building and behind the fenced area when there
are not as many boats there. The main reason for that area is for winter
storage of the boats. This is a vacation area, and tourism is big there.
There are very few public accesses to the lake – Shore Hills, the State Park,
and Lakes End Marina, in Roxbury Township. That makes this special and unique
in its location to promote water traffic and to support the vacation area.
Mr. Fox described the proposed
layout, with access to the site as far from the intersection with Landing Road
as possible. When we file site plan application, we will submit a formal
application to the County. We would provide paved access to parking in front
of the building. On the left side of the property is a 10 foot wide easement,
for access to Mr. Valiente’s property. We will be improving the beginning
portion of that access, and would provide access to the rear storage area.
Adjacent to car parking in front, we show a few spaces for boat display. We
would also provide a gate into the rear storage area. We feel the Board can
grant the application for special reasons – we promote the general welfare as
the property is particularly suited for this type of use. We feel this area of
the lake is conducive for this use. Also, it would not conflict with the
general welfare of neighboring municipalities. The surrounding municipalities
also promote boat storage around the lake.
Exhibit A-1 – colorized sheet
C-1, dated 12/22/05
Exhibit A-2 – tourism – 14 photos
and map of Lake Hopatcong
Mr. Fox said surrounding Lake
Hopatcong in Jefferson, Mt. Arlington, Hopatcong, State of New Jersey, they
all have boat sales and storage, and promote outdoor storage of boats.
Mr. Fox said regarding providing
sufficient space for a variety of uses, this doesn’t conflict with the
ordinance in allowing retail sales and service. We feel since this is a
recreational boating community, this type of use is beneficial to the
community. Mr. Elpin has had a lot of calls regarding the need for storage of
boats in this area. The storage would be behind a fence, and behind
landscaping. It would not be directly visible to the community.
Mr. Crowley asked how many boats
would be stored outside for sale.
Mr. Fox stated the space would
fit three or four boats.
Mr. Crowley asked if people would
be buying passes for the ramp and crossing the street to use the ramp.
Mr. Fox said nothing would preclude
that.
Mr. Elpin said typically, a
customer would pull into the marina and would eventually park across the
street. We would be using trailers for putting boats back in the water as
well.
Mr. Stern stated the seasonal
parking would require a ‘d’ variance as it is more related to the marina itself
as opposed to this facility.
Ms. Robortaccio said this is an
ongoing operation. There are constantly box trucks and other vehicles parked
there.
Mr. Elpin said they are my
personal vehicles that I use to move boats back and forth. They would be
parked in the back or across the street.
Ms. Kinback asked if the Shore
Hills County Club has variances for all the cars, boats and trailers.
Mr. Stern said probably when that
was permitted, these regulations didn’t exist. If the Board were to approve
these variances, they may want to put in a restriction that this is only
parking for these specific items. There would be no storage of contractor
vehicles or non-tenant vehicles.
Mr. Stern said the application did
mention something about leasing out space for this building.
Mr. Fox said on sheet ZB-1, we
show office space above the retail area. We are proposing that is space that
may or may not be part of the marina.
Ms. Robortaccio asked about the
number of employees.
Mr. Elpin said currently there
are 3.
Mr. Stern said the storage yard
should be restricted to this particular use.
Mr. Fox said we would agree to
have the tenant parking restricted to the front parking only.
Mr. Stern went over his report of 4/4/06:
1.1, 1.2, 1.3 – addressed.
Should the variances be granted it would be contingent on site plan approval.
At that time the Board should look at the area for storage, etc.
1.4 – addressed
1.5 – addressed
1.6 – negative criteria – The B-1
District talks about the uses being compatible with nearby residential uses.
This property abuts no residential uses.
Enhanced quality of proof – it is
difficult to zone for every piece of property. This is a unique property with
its relationship to Lakes End Marina.
1.7 – agreed. To be addressed at
time of site plan. Resolution should note that architecture, landscaping,
screening, buffering and location and quantity of boat display and storage are
critical concerns.
1.8 – outdoor bulk standards must
be met – to be addressed at site plan– outdoor storage should be restricted to
14’ in height – to be addressed at site plan – Mr. Stern recommended outdoor
storage be pushed back to at least the face of the building.
1.9 - applicant has agreed to
limit storage to the use of the building, and will have no outdoor storage
associated with the upstairs tenant
1.10 – boat repairs only
permitted within building – agreed
1.11 – will address at site plan
1.12 – boats, watercraft, boat
trailers
1.13 – addressed
Mr. Stern stated the issue of the
‘d’ variance that needs to be addressed is whether the Board wants to restrict
the storage to behind the face of the building.
Discussion. – The applicant
agreed to the limit.
2.1 – Hours of operation will be
7 a.m. to 10 or 11 p.m. Boat deliveries will be dependent on sales. They are
just selling used boats right now.
Mr. Elpin stated the extent of
boat repairs is overhauls, shrink-wrapping, bottom cleaning, etc.
Mr. Elpin said having the indoor
facility to work will be an advantage.
On-site fuel storage will be
within the building. There will be no fuel tanks, no gasoline.
Item 2.3 - Mr. Stern asked about
the access easement with the Valiente property.
Mr. Fox stated there is only 10
feet, and we have provided that, and access won’t be a problem.
Item 2.4 - At site plan, boat
storage will be shown
Item 2.5 - basin will be modified
at time of site plan
Item 2.6 - Weichert Realtor
encroachment will be addressed at site plan.
Item 2.7 - Drawings should be
titled “use variance”.
Mr. Stern asked about the
architectural drawings.
Mr. Fox showed page ZB-2. He
said it is a steel building with a sloped roof in the front and a gabled roof
in the back. There will also be a decorative awning in front. We will address
that further at time of site plan.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application stating this is an excellent location for this type of
operation, and it enhances the use of the lake, provides recreation for locals;
enhances tourism for the lake; approval conditioned upon site plan approval and
items agreed to in Mr. Stern’s report. Architecture, landscaping, etc. are
critical issues at time of site plan approval. Ms. Kinback seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes;
Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
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.
Stephen Bias, the applicant’s
architect, stated there have been several changes since the last hearing. He
distributed copies of a revised building data chart marked A-7.
Mr. Bias stated the size of the
residence has been reduced.
He referred to Exhibit A-8,
comparison drawing, showing the previously submitted first floor plan and the
proposed floor plan. He described the plans and stated the southwesterly line
stays the same. I have decreased the area on the Sunset Trail side by about 4
feet. The main door lines up with the existing foundation. The garage has
been moved back about 5 feet from the lake and about 5 feet from the Sunset
Trail side. We have reduced the size of the covered deck, breakfast area,
kitchen. We have a little growth in the dining room area and the rest remains
the same.
The fist floor plan now shown has
the two-car garage, side entrance with staircase, kitchen, dining room, covered
deck, foyer, great room, study.
The basic core of the proposed
house sits directly on the existing foundation, except on the northeasterly
side towards the lake, and the area for the walk-out basement. The storage
area is under the automobile parking above. The front wall has a frost wall
added for the front porch. The garage stays consistent with the previous
proposal.
Mr. Bias stated on the second
floor, we have reduced all the bedrooms and have eliminated the playroom. We
are just providing an enclosed attic/storage area. The second floor deck has
also been reduced. We have not provided revised building elevations. By
decreasing the width of the house, the proposed ridgeline will drop by about 2
feet (referring to exhibit A-4). The height now is 31 feet.
Mr. Stern said Mr. Potere met
with the architect, and his assessment is that right now, the basement area is
classified as a story, but the architect could adjust it so that it comes to a
conforming 2 ½ story building.
Mr. Bias stated when he met with
Mr. Potere, he was under the impression this is a cellar. The ceiling height
will not be 10 feet. That is the height from finished floor to finished floor.
Mr. Bias stated I believe we are
well within the building height requirement, as well as 2 ½ stories. We will
guarantee the ceiling height will be under 9 feet. The variance won’t be
required. We have reduced the overall floor area by 1,000 square feet. We are
only increasing the livable floor area by 500 square feet.
Alfred Stewart, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in. He gave his educational and professional background
for the Board and was accepted. In answer to questions from Mr. Akselrod, he
stated we are proposing a dwelling to be in the vicinity of the existing
dwelling (shown on sheet 1 of 2, revised 4/29/06 – marked A-9). We will be
adding a garage on the easterly portion of the dwelling. The existing site
contains a garage, shed, deck, brick pavers, a paved driveway and various
other improvements. We are consolidating some of the impervious coverages into
the one dwelling. We are requesting a side yard variance. The existing
sideyard is at 2.83 feet and we are proposing 2.67 feet. We propose a front
yard variance to the proposed garage of 8.78 feet. We are removing the existing
garage which is basically on the right-of-way line. That is an improvement.
There is no variance requested for building height. We are requirement a
variance for building coverage. Existing is 24.12% and proposed is 40.77%.
That is based on the deeded area. We do have additional area on the parcel
that goes to the shoreline of the lake. The coverage is based on the Smith
survey showing the survey going to the shoreline of the lake, which is the area
we based impervious coverage on. Our existing building coverage, based on that
additional area to the shoreline, is at 17.45%, and we propose 29.49%.
Mr. Stern said this is the first
application where we have a deeded area and a surveyed area to the water line.
Mr. Stewart said there are two
parcels to the deeds. There is the parcel that was the original map line, and
there was an area between the map line and shoreline. There is a note on the
drawing stating, “area described in reference #2”, which is a reference to a
deed. “Also, any upland, if any, between the lakefront line as shown on said
map and the lake.” That is the deeded area to our parcel.
Discussion.
Mr. Stewart stated the two
calculations are shown – for the deeded area and the area to the shoreline.
When working with the shoreline, the variance requested would be 29.49%, where
the permitted is 15% for proposed building coverage. The maximum lot coverage
is at 35.21%, where the permitted is 25%. Just within the rectangular area, the
building coverage would be at 40.77%, 15% required, and our lot coverage is at
48.68%, where required is 25%.
Mr. Stewart said the most
favorable circumstance for impervious coverage is 35.21%, where 25% maximum is
required. For building coverage the most favorable (to the shoreline area) is
29.49%, where 15% is permitted. The least favorable for building coverage would
be 40.77%, and 48.68% for lot coverage.
Ms. Dargel asked where the
setbacks are measured from.
Mr. Stewart stated the front yard
is from the deeded area at Sunset Lane, and the sideline is from the lot line
between the lots.
Mr. Steward stated the setbacks
are as follows:
Rear yard – is the northwestern
side on the lake
Right side yard – other lake
front – approximately 13 feet
Front yard – from Sunset Lane
Mr. Stern stated the percentages
in Mr. Potere’s letter are a little off, and I would defer to Mr. Stewart’s
numbers, as a licensed surveyor.
Ms. Dargel asked why the very
small buffers on three sides of the house are not a problem for the lake.
Mr. Stewart said the existing
house has the same location for the rear yard setback. There is no further
encroachment. The northerly portion (right side yard) has a concrete pad and
docks, brick pavers, deck, shed, etc. That area is near the proposed garage
area. I feel we are providing basically the same encroachment, and are
actually eliminating some concrete areas along the lake, which are actually
closer to the lake than our proposed structure is.
Ms. Robortaccio said but they are
several smaller structures, and this is a massive building structure.
Ms. Dargel asked how many stories
the garage is.
Mr. Bias stated the garage is a
gabled structure. There is a drop in grade there. There is a 9 foot ceiling,
a 10-inch joist. From the top of the 9-foot wall to the top of the ridge will
be 9 feet.
Mr. Stern asked Mr. Bias to show
the elevation closest to the side property line.
Mr. Bias showed the elevation.
Across from there is an existing home. The center line of that existing house
would look at the center line of this garage.
Ms. Robortaccio said you would be
eliminating their light, air and space. The garage is on the road side past
the house.
Ms. Dargel said right now the
neighboring house has a view of the lake. How much will the proposed garage
impair that view?
Mr. Bias said from the face of
the neighbor’s structure to the new garage would be over 50 feet. They will be
looking at the single story with a residential style roof. I am not that
familiar with the placement of the neighbor’s windows.
Ms. DeVenezia asked why there are
two garage doors facing the lake.
Mr. Bias said there is already
one there. In locating the garage there, we would be clearing a lot of the
clutter on site. The placement of the garage allows us to pull safely off
Sunset Lane and into our garage. By locating it in this area, there is a
natural drop in grade that goes down to a flat area where there are docks. To
construct anything in that location, you would still have 7 or 8 feet of
existing foundation exposed. In an effort to reduce the impact on the site, we
are taking advantage of the space underneath the garage and using it for
storage. We would store patio furniture, rowboat, wheelbarrow, etc.
Ms. Dargel questioned why there
would be four garage doors on the structure.
Mr. Bias stated we could
eliminate those two garage doors, but we would have to increase the amount of
fill on the property and radically change the topography. We could make them
windows instead of doors, or we could make it one garage door and windows.
Mr. D’Amato said the issue of the
view from the neighboring home needs to be addressed.
Mr. Bias said he is not familiar
with that person’s house and the view they have presently.
Ms. Robortaccio said the existing
garage is forward of the neighbor’s house. This house sits down, and when the
proposed house is built it would completely block any view of the lake.
Mr. Akselrod said this is a
corner lot, and no matter where they stay on the property, it would still
impact some of the neighbors inland.
Eileen Pinsonault was sworn in.
She stated she is the co-owner of the property and is married to the
applicant. In answer to questions from Mr. Akselrod, she stated she
understands there is a King Cove Property Owners Association that has an
interest in the right-of-way on Sunset Lane. Mr. Nusbaum has advised the
elliptical portion of Sunset Lane that surrounds Kings Cove was deeded to the
municipality last year, but the right-of-way going into the lake does not
belong to the municipality. My first concern is safety because I have
children. I also am concerned with how it looks. Being a lake owner, I would
make sure it looks good. I have intentions of putting in bushes and flowers,
etc. Also, the dock is not great, and I would be more than happy to fix it up
and contribute with the other neighbors as well. I understand I would have to
consult with Kings Cove Property Owners Association. I would also respect the
access and right-of-way of other members of the association to gain access to
the lake. We would limit the number of cars that park there, etc.
John McDonough, professional
planner for the applicant, was sworn in. He gave his educational and
professional background for the Board and was accepted. He stated this
property is in the R-3 zone, and requires 3 setback variances – rear yard ,
front yard, left side, and variances for building and lot coverage, and lake
buffer.
Mr. McDonough stated a Flexible C
variance has a 5 part test. I will address those.
Mr. McDonough referred to Exhibit
– A-10 – aerial photo of subject property taken from NJDEP website as it was in
2002. It is fair and accurate as it exists today as it relates to my
testimony. As to location, the property is somewhat isolated from the rest of
the neighborhood. It is part of a mixed neighborhood in terms of building size
and mass. The existing footprint is about 1,800 square feet. The proposed core
of the building is 2,200 square feet and is on a par with some of the other
buildings in the neighborhood. The location of the lot on a point is an
opportunity for something dramatic. This site has direct view of the Bertrand
Island redevelopment, and to the northwest across the lake are some more larger
homes. The key map shows this lot is somewhat larger than the other lots in
the neighborhood.
As to how the variances advance a
fundamental purpose of zoning, it creates a desirable visual environment.
Referring to exhibit A-11, photos of the site taken within the last month, the
photos were of the approach to the property from Sunset Lane, the existing
garage, the existing home, the existing shed, the view shed and the view to the
lake. Taking the several structures and consolidating them into a solid mass,
and having no impact on steep slopes, etc., I believe the end product here is
visually desirable.
As to impact of the variances on
the public good, there is no additional encroachment to the home on the left,
and on the land use on the opposite side of Sunset Lane. The core of dwelling
is 45 feet from Sunset Lane, and the proposed dwelling will be 42 feet away.
The garage is proposed at 9 feet from the Sunset Lane right-of-way, and the
existing shed is 0 feet. The lake encroachment meets the existing setback.
There is no substantial detriment.
As to environmental impact, there
will be no additional tree removal, no additional steep slope disturbance. The
proposed coverage is only slightly more than the existing coverage, based on
the deed.
Finally is the balancing test.
The site is uniquely situated. There is an opportunity to introduce something
very dramatic. I believe the burden in terms of the 5 tests are met. It is a
good application and warrants the Board’s approval.
Mr. Stern asked if the core is
being located closer to the property on the left.
Mr. McDonough said yes.
Mr. Stern asked if the existing
garage is one story.
Mr. McDonough said yes.
Mr. Stern asked if the existing
shed is less than 10 feet high and if the existing front deck is at grade level
essentially.
Mr. McDonough said yes.
Mr. Stern asked if the length of
the existing building along the left property line is 44 feet and the proposed
is 52 feet.
Mr. McDonough said yes.
Mr. Stern stated, including the
garage, the total length of the building is 78 feet.
Mr. McDonough said yes. The
applicant has sloughed out the existing two car garage for a larger two car
garage, closer to the lake but farther away from Sunset Lane and the adjacent
dwelling.
Mr. Stern said along Sunset Lane,
the view shed towards the water is now just from the corner of that garage to
the property corner.
Mr. McDonough said yes. But,
there is an opportunity to create a frame view with the new building and
landscaping at the front.
Mr. Wiener asked if there has
been an analysis of how the construction will affect the view to the lake from
the adjoining home.
Mr. McDonough referred to photos
(marked A-13 to A-16) showing the view from the one neighbor on the east side
of Sunset Lane. There is only one window on that side of that house. Photo
A-14 is a view from the back yard of the subject property looking back on the
deck of the neighbor on Sunset Lane. There is significant vegetation already
blocking the view to the lake. Photo A-15 shows the relationship of the
waterline to the shed and the vegetation. Photo A-16 shows the view of the
neighbor’s dwelling. There is a view shed that that neighbor doesn’t control.
This applicant could plant a tree or anything he wants directly in line of
those windows. The more prominent view shed would be looking back from the
adjacent neighbor towards the lake, which would be completely unencumbered by
this applicant.
Mr. D’Amato said photo A-14
shows the neighbor across the street has a deck on the back of their house.
The new deck may limit their view.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
Ralph Minervino, 3 Cottage Ave.,
was sworn in. He stated he is the neighbor two houses to the east and is on
the Board of Directors of King Cove Property Owners Association. Sunset Lane
is not a town road. It is a right-of-way that has been there since King Cove’s
inception. It was for access to the lake for fire trucks. There are 8 of
those in King Cove. This particular one has been the access to this property
for that long. This land is land locked in terms of a public road. We do not
oppose the size of the house. What we want protected is the fact that people
who do not live on lakefront have in their deeds, deeded access to the lake
through these rights-of-way. Therefore, we need some assurances that these will
be left open, unobstructed, un-parked on.
Mr. Wiener said there is nothing
this Board can do that would impinge upon any legal right, protective covenant,
etc.
Mr. Minervino stated he does
object to the height of the garage roof as it does block his view, and I don’t
think it will enhance the property.
Larry Mueller, 27 Sunset Lane,
was sworn in. He asked how the setback lines were established.
Mr. McDonough said the front,
side and rear are to the property line. The lakeside setback relates to the
top of bank to the lakes edge.
Mr. Mueller said he has lived
here all his life. I believe the house is beautiful, but is overwhelming to
the area to a point where it could almost take away from the property values.
Tony Pollard, Sunset Lane, was
sworn in. He stated where it faces my house, my window would be totally closed
off. I am the adjacent house, and I have a big picture window.
No one else stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Akselrod stated there is no
way to salvage the existing house and not impact on someone. I think the
applicant has made a good faith attempt. It would be an asset to the
neighborhood. The plan has been scaled back dramatically since the first
presentation. In light of that and all the legal arguments, I ask that the
application be approved.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to deny
the application. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Mr. Crowley seconded and stated
the front yard is out of character; the proposed house is too big and;
impervious coverage is too high; building coverage is too high.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes. She stated there has been no testimony as to whether the other large
homes on the lake have an appropriate amount of land. I don’t’ feel
exacerbating the variances promotes our master land use plan or any of the
ordinances, environmental and others on the books; there are 6 variances
required; the lake buffers are required to be 50 feet, and these are not even
close; building coverage is almost double what is there now; the garage and the
mass of the building impedes the light air and space of the surrounding
buildings. The mass of this building on this lot is way too much.
Mr. Crowley, yes.
Ms. Kinback, yes; She stated she
agrees with Ms. Dargel. The building is too large and impacts the neighborhood.
The garage is too big.
Ms. Darling, yes for reasons
stated by Ms. Dargel. The property is too small to support a house that size;
putting something like that on that frontage would encourage others to do the
same.
Mr. D’Amato, yes. Every one of the
variances is too much; the view is impaired; and also for the reasons stated by
Ms. Dargel.
Mr. Kurtz, yes. The size of the
lot is too small to support the building; the garage is too large and too
high. There is too much impact to the neighborhood.
Ms. Robortaccio, yes. The
building is too large for the lot. There is concern about the height of the
building. It would tower over the surrounding buildings.
Application denied.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 11:15 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi
Secretary