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, Mark Crowley, Peter Giardina, Sebastian D’Amato, Heather Darling,

 

ABSENT:  Candy DeVenezia, Barbara Kinback, Robert Kurtz.

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener, Russell Stern, John Hansen.

 

Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary

 

Minutes of 6/12/06

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

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

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced the Grace Baptist Church application and the Tower Hill Associates application have been withdrawn.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR TREATMENT TRAILER ON BAIN’S AUTOMOTIVE

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

 

                WHEREAS, Richard Bain has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for relief from a condition of a resolution (Case No. BA-18-04) adopted by the Board on 5/10/04 which condition limited a variance for a duration of two years for the premises located on Route 10 and known as Block 3707, Lot 1 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.2502D5b 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 Board takes notice of the findings of fact in the prior resolution.
2. The prior resolution was for the construction and maintenance of an environmental facility on site to clean up a hazardous environmental condition.
3. The applicant represented to the Board, that despite the applicant’s best efforts, the applicant has been unable to complete the project.  The Board notes a 6/1/06 letter written to the Board by John Gear, of Enviro-Sciences (of Delaware), Inc., setting forth the reasons for the request for a two-year extension.  The Board finds the request to be credible and reasonable under the circumstances. 

 

                WHEREFORE, the Board grants the applicant’s request that Paragraph 5 of the conditions of approval of the 2004 resolution shall be extended.  The duration of the variance shall now be 7/1/08.

 

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

 

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

 

BA-25-06 – GUILLERMO FALQUEZ – USE VARIANCE FOR A POOL LOCATED ON MAIN ST. IN B1a ZONE BLOCK 2101, LOT 16

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: June 12, 2006

Memorialized: July 10, 2006

 

                WHEREAS, Guillermo Falquez has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a swimming pool requiring a “d” variance pursuant to NJSA 40:55D-70(2) for premises located at Main Street and known as Block 2101, Lot 16 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B1A” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.7 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

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

1. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
2. The home is located in the B1A Zone and as such is a non-conforming use.
3. The applicant was proposing to construct a 21’ round above ground swimming pool.
4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 4/26/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
5. The applicant noted the above ground swimming pool would be an amenity to provide recreation for the residence of the applicant’s home.
6. The Township Planner, Russell Stern, was at the public hearing and noted that the applicant’s property adjoined the R-4 residential area and thus, would be more compatible with those homes than attempting to introduce a commercial enterprise on this property noting it had apparently been a residential use for many, many years. 

                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 introduction of a rear yard swimming pool with its associated 12’x20’ deck will have absolutely no impact on the Zoning Ordinance.  This is a non-conforming use with little prospect of being converted to a conforming use and given its peculiar location as a transition lot between a residential zone and a commercial zone it will clearly have no impact on the Zone Plan, Master Plan, or any adjoining property.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of June, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

1. Swimming pool and associated deck to be sized and located as depicted on the drawing attached to the application. 
2. Deck to be 12’x20’.  Swimming pool 21’ diameter.

 

 

 

Mr. Falquez was present to clarify his application.  He stated the house is 20 feet wide and he is planning to put the pool 10 to 11 feet from the deck.  Since the existing deck is 20 feet wide, I would like the new deck to be 20 feet wide.  The extension of the deck will be no larger than 12’ X 20’.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said there would be no additional variances required.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution with the amendment.  Mr. D’Amato seconded. 

 

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

 

BA-26-06 – EMERICO VESPUCCI – VARIANCE FOR SIDEYARD AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR GARAGE LOCATED ON BARBARA DRIVE, BLOCK 1609, LOT 27 IN R-3 ZONE

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: June 12, 2006

Memorialized: July 10, 2006

 

                WHEREAS, Francine & Emerico Vespucci have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring bulk variance(s) for premises located at Barbara Drive and known as Block 1609, Lot 27 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 & 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 applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
2. The applicants were proposing to construct an addition consisting of adding an additional garage to the easterly side of the home.
3. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 3/10/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.  Mr. Potere’s review of the application, as originally proposed, noted the applicant was seeking to reduce the side yard to 5.9’ whereas the R-3 Zone requires a side yard of 10’.  Mr. Potere noted the existing non-conforming impervious coverage of 26.99% would remain the same.  The R-3 Zone permits maximum impervious coverage of 25%.
4. The applicants testified at the public hearing that the proposal was being reduced and the resulting side yard setback would be 6’6”.  (The original setback was 5.9’).
5. The applicants submitted an exhibit, which was marked A-1.  The exhibit consisted of computer generated photos depicting the existing and proposed garage at the applicant’s house, other homes in the applicant’s neighborhood which had two-car garages, and some bills for damage done to the applicant’s car which was presently stored outside, but in the same area as the proposed garage. 
6. It must be noted that the location of the proposed garage would be in the area along the side of the applicant’s home where the applicant was presently parking a motor vehicle. 

 

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

1. The applicant’s proposal of providing a garage for the storage of an automobile would advance the purpose and intent of the local Zoning Ordinance, which encourages providing a garage for parking of motor vehicles.  The present parking situation (motor vehicle in the side yard) is undesirable.  A second garage is consistent with amenities anticipated in R-3 housing in 2006.  As shown by the applicant, the two-car garage will be in character with other homes in the neighborhood.
2. The Board notes there will be no increase in impervious coverage.  While the side yard setback is 6’6”, it is not a large side yard setback.  It does leave ample room between the applicant’s house and the adjoining property and does not create a significant impact on the Zone Plan and Zone Scheme.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of June, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

1.  Garage to be sized and located as depicted on the drawings noting the side yard setback shall be no less than 6’6” as testified at the public hearing.  The garage shall be blended into and match the existing home.

 

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

 

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

 

BA-27-06 – STEPHEN & LAUREEN NICHOLSON – VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE LOCATED ON CONDIT RD., BLOCK 11309, LOT 10 IN R-3 ZONE

 

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: June 12, 2006

Memorialized: July 10, 2006

 

                WHEREAS, Laureen & Stephen Nicholson have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to obtain approval for a garage already constructed in violation of the Zoning Ordinance for premises located at Condit Road and known as Block 11309, Lot 10 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.810A(5) of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

               

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

1. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
2. The subject structure is almost completely finished.
3. The applicant’s were given a stop work order from the Township.
4. The structure, while mimicking a garage, is 10’x13’ and cannot be utilized as a garage.
5. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 4/11/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
6. As noted by Mr. Potere, the applicant’s proposal requires a variance, as it is an accessory structure within the front yard.
7. The applicant noted the construction merely replaced an existing dilapidated structure.
8. The new structure would provide utility and be an aesthetic enhancement over the existing conditions.   

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

1. The Board finds the applicant’s proposal to be reasonable and similar to the development pattern caused by the topography in the Landing section of Roxbury Township.
2. Enclosing the prior structure and the general improvement of same will all have a positive impact on the zone plan and zone scheme.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the12th day of June, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

1. All proper permits and inspections are to be obtained by the applicant.
2. The structure to remain 10’x13’ and comply with all other regulations regarding accessory structures not requested nor granted in this application.

 

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

 

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

 

BA- 28-06 – RODNEY WALKER – FRONTYARD/SIDEYARD SETBACK VARIANCES FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON CENTER ST. BLOCK 10503, LOT 17 IN B-1 ZONE

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: June 12, 2006

Memorialized: July 10, 2006

 

                WHEREAS, Rebecca & Rodney Walker have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring bulk variance(s) for premises located at Center Street and known as Block 10503, Lot 17on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-1” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.2302D4, 1307.2302D6 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

               

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

1. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home located on site.
2. The applicants were proposing several additions to the existing home.
3. The proposed architecture was depicted on Exhibit A-1 marked in evidence.  A-1 is a slightly revised version of the original submission by the applicant.
4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 3/20/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
5. The existing home has a non-conforming front yard setback (20’ versus 35’ required) and side yard (6’ versus l1’ required).
6. The applicant noted the existing home and floor plan was somewhat awkward and by re-utilizing the existing foundation they would be re-developing the property in an efficient and aesthetic manner. 

 

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 location of the existing infrastructure on-site constitutes a hardship peculiar to the premises.
2. The proposed relief, as to the front yard and side yard, merely continue existing conditions and are similar to other homes in the Port Morris area of Roxbury Township.
3. The re-adaptation and re-development of existing property is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Township Zoning Ordinance and the Municipal Land Use Law.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of June, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

1. Additions to be sized, located, and constructed as depicted on the architectural plans submitted with the application and in particular with A-1.
2. Front yard setback to be no less than 20’ as requested.  Side yard to be no less than 6’ as requested.

 

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

 

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

 

BA-32-06 – MARK & DAWN MOSELY – FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON N. SECOND AVE. BLOCK 2614, LOT 13 IN R-4 ZONE

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: June 12, 2006

Memorialized: July 10, 2006

 

                WHEREAS, Dawn & Mark Mosely have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring a bulk variance for premises located at N. Second Avenue and known as Block 2614, Lot 13 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-4” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.0101D4 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 applicants.
2. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
3. The applicants were proposing to construct an addition onto the existing “Cape Cod” home.
4. Due to the nature of this type of construction, the upstairs area has limited utility.
5. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 4/25/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
6. The applicants were proposing to construct an addition “raising the roof” and a front porch.
7. It is the front porch that extends the existing non-conforming front yard setback from 16.3’ to 12.3’.  The existing home location was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application.
8. The applicant’s introduced three photos into evidence:

1. A-1 - the existing home
2. A-2 & A-3 – photos of similar additions in the area

9. The proposed addition was depicted on a three sheet architectural plan prepared by Russell L. Bodnar, architect, dated 3/20/06.

 

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:

1. The present mid 20^th Century Cape Cod style home is clearly somewhat outmoded.  Its second floor design features compromise the reasonable use of the second floor as residential living area.  The applicant’s proposal re-utilizes and re-adapts existing infrastructure and is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Municipal Land Use Law.
2. The applicant’s proposal results in an aesthetic upgrade of the existing home while minimally intruding into the front yard.  The applicant’s proposal clearly provides a substantial and significant aesthetic upgrade of the existing home and will have a positive impact both on the subject property and neighboring properties.

 

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of June, 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 exhibit.  Any addition to the home shall conform to the non-conforming setbacks and shall extend no further.
2. The only area being extended into the front yard by 4’ is the first floor or main floor porch as shown on the plans. 

 

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

 

Discussion.  Corrections noted and made.

 

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

 

Ms. Robortaccio stated Application BA-30-06, 1^st Baptist Church of Ledgewood will not be heard and is carried to 8/14/06.

 

AGENDA

 

BA-18-06 – DAKOR, INC. – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR ROXBURY MOTEL LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 6501, LOT 17 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Attorney Alex Rinaldi represented the applicant.  He stated we are in receipt of the letter of 7/7/06 from Ferriero Engineering.  We are here to address the issues outlined in the letter.

 

Fred Stewart, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.

 

He addressed the report from Ferriero Engineering:

 

Item 1 – done

Item 2 – will be reconstructed this week

Item 3 – new site lights will be tested by Ferriero this week

 

Sumant Desai was sworn in.

 

Item 4 – owner feels the additional lights are needed, as the lighting there is not sufficient.

 

Mr. Stern said there are two double-headed spotlights, and they are specifically prohibited by code. 

 

After discussion, the applicant agreed to comply with item 4.

 

Item 5 – parking area will be striped as soon as possible, most likely this week

 

Item 6 – utility poles will be removed in the very near future by JCP&L

 

Item 7 – copies of County approvals will be provided, if applicable

 

Item 8 – final as-built survey will be provided this week.

 

The applicant agrees to work with Mr. Stern to satisfy the landscaping items.

 

Mr. Ferriero asked for an approximate completion date for the items.

 

Mr. Stewart stated the items will be completed before the next Board meeting.

 

Mr. Stewart addressed the 7/6/06 letter from Russell Stern:

 

Item 1 – addressed – will comply

Item 2 – applicant agreed to relocate dumpster and replace it with a dumpster less than 6 feet high

 

Mr. Stern suggested the applicant contact the hauler to make certain the width of the gate will accommodate the vehicle.

 

Applicant agreed

 

Item 3 – addressed – lights will be removed, and applicant will look at another way to provide illumination there

Item 4 – addressed

Item 5 – addressed

Item 6 – agreed – will be done this week

Item 7 – done

Item 8 – applicant agreed to plant the Leatherleaf Viburnum in front along Route 46

Items 9, 10 – done

Item 11 – agreed

Item 12 – agreed

 

Mr. Stern said the list of outstanding items should be done prior to the resolution being memorialized.

 

Mr. Stewart stated regarding lighting, on the final as-built, in the circular area in front, we show a proposed light fixture.  We are requesting that additional pole, as we feel the additional lighting would be a benefit to the site.

 

Mr. Stern had no objection, provided the fixture matches the other fixtures.

 

Ms. Dargel stated on the left portion of the building, on the façade facing the road, there are a lot of hanging wires. 

 

Louis Cautero, general contractor, was sworn in.  He stated the majority of the cable wires have been taken down and disposed of.  He will check on it, and if there is anything that needs to be taken down, we will do that.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPEEND

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application pending completion of the outstanding items, and subject to all items agreed to on the record, and all items of prior approval.  Items to be completed by 7/24/06.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

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

 

BA-39-06 - ROBERT MC CONLEY – FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON TONNESON DR. BLOCK 3102, LOT 6 IN R-2 ZONE

 

Neil Prisco represented the applicant. 

 

Robert McConley was sworn in.

 

Mr. McConely stated he wants to put on an addition to his home because he has a large extended family and wants to accommodate them. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio stated the variance required is for a front yard setback. 

 

Mr. Stern stated the variance is still 31.8 feet from Tonneson.  It is an expansion of a nonconforming condition.  On the other frontage, there is a preexisting nonconforming setback – he is not expanding on that nonconformity.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there is any way to put on the addition without requiring the variance.

 

Mr. McConley stated we are not moving forward.  This makes the most sense.  Otherwise, the house would be on an angle.  It’s the only way to do it.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if there will be additional bedrooms downstairs.

 

Mr. McConley stated the existing area will remain as is.

 

Mr. Prisco said two additional bedrooms will be added, and the existing kitchen will be a breakfast nook. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application as this is a corner lot and the expansion is a logical expansion.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

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

 

BA-34-06 – JAMES PAXOS – VARIANCE FOR SETBACK FOR SIGN LOCATED ON RT. 10, BLOCK 3604, LOT 2 IN B-2 ZONE

 

James Paxos was sworn in.  He stated we would like to put a freestanding sign at 139 Route 10.  There is no sign presently.  By code, you need to have the sign 30 feet from the side, and we need it to be 5 feet.  At 30 feet, it would be in the middle of the parking area.  The reason we are doing this is to help our tenants succeed in their business.

 

Mike Grizalsky of SignARama was sworn in.

 

Richard Kretschmaier, tenant, was sworn in. 

 

Mr. Grizalsky said the objective is to put the sign 5 feet from the property line with Dering’s Garden Center.  If it were 30 feet from the line, it would be in the middle of the parking lot.  The site is tight.  The area is all blacktopped.   I have spoken with Mr. Stern about the signs, and Mr. Stern feels strongly about monument signs.  They are nice, but it doesn’t belong here. 

 

Mr. Grizalsky submitted 3 computerized renderings of what the area would look like with a monument sign.   (marked A-1, A-2, A-3)

 

Mr. Grizalsky stated the sign would be illuminated. 

 

Mr. Stern asked the setback from Route 10.

 

Mr. Grizalsky said it would be 20 feet from Route 10, and the sign would be 48 square feet (6’ x 8’).

 

Mr. Stern asked if Mr. Paxos has the originally approved site plan showing the front parking spaces. 

 

Mr. Grizalsky said he is not aware of an approved site plan for the property.

 

Mr. Paxos said he is not aware of it either.

 

Mr. Stern stated the variance is for the setback from the adjoining property line and 20 feet from the Route 10 right-of-way.  When the Board hears a variance, the Board is allowed to look at the signage across the entire parcel and make a determination, but in consideration of the other signs that are there.  The ordinance seeks to eliminate visual clutter.  Looking at the building, it could be better in terms of its treatment.  There are 3 different signs, and two different painted façades.

 

Mr. Paxos stated we are in the process of redoing the building and it will look like it does in an exhibit marked A-4.  I intend to do the improvements this year.

 

Ms. Dargel said she does not object to the sign, however, she feels the original submission is garish in color.  I also wonder if the phone numbers are necessary on the sign.

 

Discussion. 

 

Mr. Stern suggested there needs to be an analysis of the site plan when discussing the sign.

 

Mr. Wiener said if the site plan were here, we could see exactly where the sign would be located, and we would have an opportunity to discuss an upgrade of the site.

 

Mr. Kretschmaier stated when he bought the building in September of last year, he had the area of his business painted gray and put out some banners.  The Zoning Officer informed me that I couldn’t do that, so I painted the windows.  In the months that followed, I spent about $4,000 on advertising.  It is a tough business.  This store is the most problem I have ever had.  People don’t see me there.  Mr. Paxos suggested we attempt to get a sign.

 

Discussion. 

 

Mr. D’Amato asked if the parking lot is ever full and if there is parking behind the building

 

Mr. Kretschmaier said the lot is rarely full, and there is a lot to the rear.

 

Mr. D’Amato said if the Board approved the sign, it would probably take up maybe one space. 

 

There was a poll of the Board as to whether they need to see a site plan or not.

 

Ms. Darling said she would be willing to make a conditional approval, based on seeing the site plan.

 

Mr. Crowley agreed.  As long as the site plan shows that the sign is not in a parking area, he would have no problem with the application.

 

Mr. Stern stated with a review of the site plan, other things would have to be taken into consideration.

 

Ms. Dargel stated she feels the applicant is entitled to a sign, and would be willing to make a conditional approval upon seeing there is a place for it, and that it’s not in the parking space

 

Mr. D’Amato and Mr. Giardina agreed.

 

Mr. Wiener stated the Board is looking for Mr. Stern to do an impact assessment. 

 

Mr. Stern said the survey isn’t even to scale and he would feel uncomfortable doing the impact assessment.

 

Discussion. 

 

Ms. Dargel said, after hearing Mr. Stern’s comment, I would retract the suggestion.  There is no one else to review it and it would have to come back with a site plan.

 

Mr. Crowley stated since Mr. Stern won’t be at the next hearing, is there anything we can do to allow them to have a temporary sign?

 

Mr. Wiener said no.

 

The rest of the Board members agreed to change their decision since Mr. Stern is not comfortable doing the assessment.

 

The application was carried to 8/14/06.  The applicant will attempt to get a site plan map for the Board’s review.

 

BA-37-06 – ALFRED DI PASQUALE – VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD SETBACK; IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE; BUILDING COVERAGE FOR AN ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON CAROL DRIVE, BLOCK 1604, LOT 17 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Alfred DiPasquale was sworn in.  He stated variances are required for rear yard setback, building coverage, and impervious coverage.

 

Ms. Robortaccio stated she feels another variance is required.  I believe a front yard variance is also required.  The site plan proposed 22.16, existing 25 feet.  There will be an overhang.

 

Mr. Stern said the setback is to the footprint of the building.

 

Mr. DiPasquale stated the overhang would be over the porch, not past.  The drawing will be corrected.

 

Ms. Dargel said there is a fence at the rear left corner.  Is that fence on the property line?

 

Mr. DiPasquale said it is inside his property. 

 

Ms. Dargel said you are adding a 10 or 12 foot width, and are coming out 4’8”.  Why?  Are you knocking down an interior wall?

 

Mr. DiPasquale said yes.  The large section shaded in is an existing extension, however it wasn’t built to code. So it really needs to be done right.   We wanted to push the one section out a bit to give us an additional room.  We are planning on adding a bedroom.   The actual addition will be 12 feet wide and 4’ out.  

 

Photos of the room were submitted and marked A-1.  Mr. DiPasquale said the basement has no egress.  There are three windows in the basement and one is covered with dirt.  One window has been permanently sealed, and the third window has an oil tank in front of it.      We will be putting in Bilko doors.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the disabled person in the home is officially handicapped. 

 

Mr. DiPasquale said his wife is disabled and qualifies for handicap parking.  She is disabled, but not legally.  She can’t bend or kneel.

 

 PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application.  The existing structure is pretty abominable and not to code.  There is a disabled person, which goes to expanding on the same floor.  It will be an improvement to the area.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

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

 

BA-40-06 – BRIAN & CATHY FORMICA – VARIANCE FOR RETAINING WALL LOCATED ON LONG RIDGE COURT, BLOCK 9205, LOT 39 IN R2.5 ZONE

 

Attorney Sandra Jones represented the applicant

 

Cathy Formica was sworn in. 

 

Brian Formica was sworn in.

 

Ms. Jones stated the applicant built a retaining wall, and there was miscommunication between the contractor and inspector.  The wall is completed, and the Zoning Officer came out and told them they needed a variance.  There has been no objection from the neighbors. It still has to be inspected by the engineering department, pending the variance from the Board.

 

Mr. Stern stated the method of installation cannot be verified as there were no inspectors on site verifying the geo grid, backfill, drainage, etc.  Also, the location that was approved in the zoning permit is not the location that was ultimately constructed, nor was the height that was approved constructed.

 

Ms. Jones submitted a survey that was done after the wall was completed (dated 6/30/06).  The survey originally submitted with the application showed the wall sketched in.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if there is any documentation that anyone inspected this.

 

Ms. Formica stated Ian was out there during the wall construction on three occasions.

 

Mr. Stern said there is a letter from the Township Engineer that states they were not present.  Is there any documentation that the inspector was there?

 

Ms. Jones stated Mr. Raths had asked my client to write a letter confirming that the inspector did come out.

 

Mr. Stern said the letter states the inspections were in 2004.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked how high the wall was then.

 

Ms. Jones said the same as it is now.

 

Mr. Stern said there were zoning permits submitted on 6/23/04, 7/1/04 and 5/11/05.

 

Mr. Formica stated we submitted for a 4’ high wall.  When it was constructed, it was made larger than anticipated.  Dan Henry, the inspector, saw the wall being built on three different occasions.  My landscaper informed me they spoke to Dan Henry, and that we did not have to submit a new permit.  When the wall was done, Mr. Henry put a stop work order on the wall and said we needed an engineering document.  After we got that document, what we had to do changed again.  Finally, Mr. Raths stated we needed to get a variance for the wall.  We have provided a new survey.  The survey has been done by Schoor De Palma, and the engineering department will inspect and approve the wall. 

 

Mr. Stern read from a letter that stated, “this office has confirmed the exposed wall heights to be consistent with the calculations, however we could not confirm the depth below grade, length of geogrid, or the materials used to fill under and behind the wall due to the fact that the wall was constructed without any inspections by this office”.  Those calculations say a 7 foot high wall.   The permit was for a 4’ and 6’ high wall.

 

Mr. Formica stated an agreement was made with Mr. Raths that we come here and get a variance.  Once the variance is done, engineering will formally come out and inspect the wall.   

 

Mr. Wiener stated what the applicant is saying is that no matter what this Board does, the construction issues still have to finalized between the applicant and the engineering and construction departments.

 

Mr. Stern said there are two regulations that have to do with this Board.  One is that you have to have the wall setback per linear feet of height.  The other regulation is that no wall that is greater than 5 feet is permitted within 10 feet of the property line.  I believe that is a variance, as well as the first one. 

 

Ms. Formica stated we never received the information that it has to be 10 feet from the property line.

 

Discussion.

 

Ms. Robortaccio stated also, the wall has a drain in it, which means the wall drains onto the property below.

 

Ms. Jones stated that is correct, and that will be corrected.  We will work with the contractor to find a swale, or something to make sure we don’t create a puddle on the adjoining property.

 

Mr. Stern said the Township Engineer would have to be satisfied with the construction technique that is utilized.  The Board doesn’t get involved in that situation.

 

Mr. Wiener stated the Board should focus on the height of the wall.

 

Discussion.   

 

Ms. Robortaccio stated it should be clear that any approval by this Board does not mean that it will be approved by the Engineering Department.

 

Ms Dargel asked why the wall doesn’t go in a straight line.

 

Mr. Formica stated he does not know why.  It was done by the landscaper. 

 

Mr. Stern asked if there will be safety fencing.

 

Mr. Formica stated we are proposing a 6 foot vinyl fence.  It would be a standard fence.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

Sanjay Vyas, 31 Fox Chase Lane, was sworn in.  He said he has a problem with the drain in the wall.  He showed photos of the wall, and stated if that is solved, he would have no problem

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Wiener asked if the applicant would be willing to put in some landscaping opposite Mr. Vyas’s property.

 

Mr. Formica stated he would.

 

Mr. Stern asked if the applicant knows a little of the wall is on the neighbor’s property.

 

Mr. Formica said yes, he is aware of that.  That neighbor also has a wall, and I guess in order to properly fit it, they had to construct it so that it would attach.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if the Board can approve that.

 

Mr. Wiener stated you are not approving that.  There would be a note that if this is approved, the Board is making no finding as to the encroachment.

 

Mr. Formica stated there is a signed document in the file from the neighbor.

 

Mr. Wiener said it is a private property matter between the applicant and the neighbor.

 

Mr. Stern stated regarding the calculation at the 7-foot height, the setbacks dimensioned on the survey were dimensioned to the earthen portion.  It is pretty close to the property line – at the closest point it is about a foot.  In other areas it is at about 3 or 4 feet.  It doesn’t meet the setback requirements of the ordinance.  The Board needs to look at whether there are substantial detriments or impacts and if so, could they be mitigated? Maybe the Board would find it objectionable to have a 6’ high solid vinyl fence, or maybe a lower fence could be considered.  The Board should also look at whether the activity occurring on the yard would impact the adjoining property.  They should look at whether the height of the wall could feasibly, or with any benefit, be reduced, with any benefit. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked what the rationale is for requiring the 10 foot setback when the wall is over 5 feet high.

 

Mr. Stern stated the main reason is that when you construct a wall over 10 feet, if you are going to work in the area, you need the room for larger machinery.

 

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the application subject to there being landscaping at the bottom of the structure; fence not to exceed 4’, and to be set back 4 feet from the wall; any accessory structure setback to be measured from the wall; drainage to be reviewed and approved by municipal engineer; fence to be a picket fence.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Discussion.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes; Ms. Dargel, no.  She stated she feels in this case, safety should be considered over aesthetics. I think a 6 foot fence is in order, and an enclosed fence.

 

BA-35-06 – MIKE KRAMER – VARIANCE TO HAVE A FIREARMS LICENSE LOCATED ON EYLAND AVE. BLOCK 1602, LOT 20 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Mike Kramer was sworn in.  He stated he wants to do a mail order internet sales business that requires a Federal license.  It requires a letter from the town.  I would be selling firearms accessories.  Some of the items contain serial numbers, and require a license.  I am not planning on selling firearms or ammunition.  

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if people would be sending him guns for repair.

 

Mr. Kramer said he would not be repairing anything.

 

Mr. Kramer submitted a picture of a receiver.  He said it is the part that contains the serial number of the weapon.  It is not usable without an assortment of other parts.  People are building target weapons for sporting use. There is a big market for it, and some parts contain a serial number.  In order to sell the items I need the proper licensing, and I need a letter from the town stating I can do this from my property.  I am a licensed gun owner.

 

Mr. Wiener asked what the license would entitle Mr. Kramer to do.

 

Mr. Kramer said technically it would entitle me to sell firearms, and any part that has a serial number. I would have to comply with Federal and State law.  I do not want to sell guns from the home.  It is just a mail order business.

 

Mr. Stern stated the ordinance states a home business prohibits retail sales, and the zoning permit was denied because the applicant was selling parts and shipping them out.  There are a number of standards for a conditional use, and the applicant would have to meet all the conditions:

 

a-Conduct and operation of the homes business shall not adversely affect the safe comfortable enjoyment of the property rights by adjoining landowners

b-Business shall be contained entirely within the residential structure on the premises and shall not exceed 25% of the total area of the structure, or 400 sq. ft.

 

Mr. Kramer said he will be using one room.

 

c-Retail sales, manufacturing, processing and fabrication are prohibited

d-No more than one employee that is not a resident of the dwelling.

 

Mr. Kramer said he will be the only employee.

 

e-Minimum of two offstreet parking spaces and a maximum of four, excluding garage, shall be provided.  Parking spaces shall be arranged in tandem.  Formal parking lots are prohibited.

 

Mr. Kramer said no one will be coming to the home.  I am not even putting a sign.  I have a double-wide driveway.

 

f-The design of any building must conform to the residential character of the area.

 

Mr. Kramer said he is making no changes to the home.

 

g-No sounds shall be audible outside the building.

 

Mr. Kramer said he will be doing no repairs.

 

h-The hours of operation shall be limited to the hours of 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.

 

Mr. Kramer agreed.

 

i-Tractor trailer deliveries are prohibited.

 

Mr. Kramer agreed.

 

j-The conditional use approval shall terminate with any change in ownership of the property.

 

Mr. Kramer said he is the owner of the property.

 

Mr. Stern said the variance from the conditional use standard is for the sales that are occurring.  The Board needs to make an assessment of whether the operation will adversely affect the safe comfortable enjoyment of property rights by adjoining land owners.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the application shows Stan Kramer as the owner.

 

Mr. Kramer stated his father is the owner, and he pays the mortgage payments to his father.

 

Ms. Robortaccio stated if we approve the variance, and he decided in the future to sell guns, would he be able to do that?

 

Mr. Wiener stated we can put the restriction in the resolution, but it would be an enforcement issue, and that become problematic.

 

Mr. Stern asked how many shipments are done per day.

 

Mr. Kramer said he hopes to be able to carry some inventory.  He said he purchases on eBay about 3 times a day now, and nothing would change.  Nobody would know anything was going on.  I am a legal licensed firearm owner, and I could sell them any time I want to.   All transactions would be done via the internet, and anything would be shipped out via UPS, etc.  No one would come to the property.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPEEND

 

Frank Gerlach was sworn in.  He stated my notification letter says home-based mail order internet business.  It says nothing about firearms. 

 

Mr. Wiener said the notice is legal.

 

Mr. Gerlach said if my neighbors had known, they would have been here too.  I don’t like the idea of this being in the neighborhood with all the kids.

 

Mike Rodriguez was sworn in.  He stated he is not within 200 feet of the property.  He wondered if there would be fire rated doors, or bars on the windows, etc.  It is a safety issue.

 

Mr. Kramer stated he is not selling ammunition.  The Federal government will require an alarm system.  I already legally have firearms in the house.  My neighbors also own firearms.  I have had no problems since I’ve been here, and don’t intend to have any problems in the future.

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel asked if Mr. Kramer has a carry permit.

 

Mr. Kramer said no.  He has a firearms ID card which allows him to purchase rifles, shotguns, ammunition, handguns.  He will be selling no ammunition, just parts.  In order for me to get them, I need the license, and to get the license, I need a letter from the township.

 

Discussion.

 

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the application subject to condition that there will be no sale of complete firearms; no ammunition; there will be no receiving of any firearms except for personal use; no repairs to be done.  The only items to be sold are cleaning products, parts, accessories.   Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, no.  She stated it may turn out to be an enforcement issue

 

Mr. Wiener asked Mr. Kramer if he would be willing, when he sends in the information to the State, to send a copy of the resolution with a copy of the limitations.

 

Mr. Kramer said he would.

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced Colonial Village will not be heard and is carried to 9/11/06.  There will be no further notice.

 

There was a 5-minute recess at 10:05 p.m.

 

BA-29-06 – RICHARD BAIN – USE VARIANCE TO HAVE AUTO DEALERS LICENSE LOCATED ON RT. 10, BLOCK 3707, LOT 1 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Ms. DeMasi stated the applicant needs to have 5 Board members eligible to hear the applicant.  He has the right to be carried to have a full board.

 

The applicant requested to be carried.  The application was carried to 8/14/06 at 7:30 p.m.  An extension was granted to that date

 

There were several neighbors present.   

 

 

 

 

BA-36-06 - JOSE TROCHEZ – USE VARIANCE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL 2 BEDROOMS AND BATHROOM IN BASEMENT LOCATED ON CANAL STREET, BLOCK 6302, LOT 3 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant.

 

Jose Trochez was sworn in.  He stated this is listed as a use variance based on an expansion of a preexisting nonconforming use.  We would also need 5 affirmative votes.  I request that it be carried.

 

Mr. Kron stated he does not believe this requires a variance, and would like to put that on the record at this time.

 

Mr. Kron stated the issue is that the reason the Zoning Officer cited was 13-7.7C which says any structure or use of land that is nonconforming cannot be enlarged or expanded except by authority of the Board of Adjustment.  The issue is that this does not constitute either an enlargement or an expansion.  The property itself, other than the use, conforms to the zoning requirements.  We are not proposing any change to the exterior of the structure.  He has basically paneled the basement.  The issue is whether paneling the basement constitutes the enlargement of an existing nonconforming use.  I cited three cases involving gas stations.  It is our contention that by adding the bedrooms it is not an enlargement or expansion.   I submit adding bedrooms is not what was contemplated under that definition.

 

Mr. Wiener stated he received the letter today at about 4:00 and wants to review it and make a determination. 

 

The application was carried to 8/14/06.

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:30 p.m.

 

                                                                        Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/