View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairperson Gail Robortaccio presiding. After a salute to the Flag, Ms. Robortaccio read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Gail Robortaccio, Joyce Dargel, Candy DeVenezia, Heather Darling, Robert Kurtz, Peter Giardina, Sebastian D’Amato.

ABSENT: Barbara Kinback, Mark Crowley.

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

Also present: Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary

Minutes of 4/10/06

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the minutes. Ms. Dargel seconded.

Discussion. Changes noted and made.

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

Minutes of 5/8/06

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Giardina seconded.

Discussion. Changes noted and made.

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

RESOLUTIONS

BA-11-06 – CHRISTIAN PINSONAULT – VARIANCES TO BUILD HOME LOCATED ON SUNSET LANE, BLOCK 11904, LOT 7 IN R-3 ZONE

In the matter of Christian Pinsonault

Case No. BA-11-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION OF DENIAL

Denied: May 8, 2006

Memorialized: June 12, 2006

WHEREAS, Christian Pinsonault has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to re-construct an existing home requiring bulk variance(s) for premises located at 33 Sunset Lane and known as Block 11904, Lot 7on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D4, 13-7.1301D6a, 13-7.1301D8, 13-7.1301D7a, 13-7.819 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:

Abraham Akselrad, Esquire represented the applicant.
The applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
The applicant testified that the existing lakefront home is clearly outmoded and in need of re-construction. He opined the re-construction would be in keeping with the needs of his family as well as the current trend of building upscale and larger homes on the lake.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated11/22/05, revised 5/8/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The applicant’s architect, Stephen N. Bias, testified at the public hearing. Mr. Bias gave an overview of the property, the existing improvements, and the proposed improvements. He also introduced several exhibits into evidence:

A-1 – sheet 1 of the Stuart plans
A-2 – elevation front/left
A-3 – drawing basement plan
A-4 – lake elevation/rear
A-5 – basement elevation
A-6 – second level

Mr. Bias noted that the lot was somewhat unusual and that two of its sides were on lakefront. When questioned as to several details such as existing building size, Mr. Bias noted he needed to get more information.
Mr. Potere’s report noted the following:

Front yard – 35’ required, 45’2” existing, 5.03 proposed
Left side yard – 10’ required, 2’83” existing, 2’61” proposed
Impervious coverage – 25% required, 46.75% existing, 57.28% proposed
Building coverage – 15% required, 24.13% existing, 48.02% proposed
Garages – Maximum amount of garages permitted is not to exceed 3 spaces for motor vehicles, existing - 2 car detached garage to be removed, proposed - 4 car garage attached to principle structure
Building height – 35’2 ½ stories maximum required, 2 stories existing, 3 ½ stores (including basement) proposed
Lake Buffer – 50’ from lake required, 42’ existing, 14’ proposed

The 4/11/06 public hearing was adjourned and the matter was re-listed for further public hearing on 5/8/06 so that the applicant could provide more cogent information to the Board.
Mr. Potere revised his denial letter to 5/8/06 in reaction to further information provided by the applicant.
At the 5/8/06 public hearing, Stephen Bias was recalled. He noted his submissions were now revised to 4/29/06. He presented exhibit A-7 showing a “before and after” analysis of the size (existing and proposed) and an additional exhibit marked A-8 which was a comparison of the original plans and the revised plans.
The applicant called its professional engineer, Alfred Stewart, to the stand. Mr. Stewart reviewed the plans and exhibits and sheet 1 of his submission was marked A-9 in evidence.
The applicant’s last witness was its professional planner, John McDonough. Mr. McDonough reviewed the 6 dimensional variances being requested by the applicant. He also presented exhibits A-10 through A-16 which consisted of an aerial photo, 8 photos of the site, 16 photos of the site on A-11 and A-12, and A-13 to A-16 being photos of the subject property from various vantage points in the immediate neighborhood of the subject premises.
Mr. McDonough suggested this case should be approved as meeting the criteria for a flexible “c” variance. He characterized the property as being truly unique and constituting a “point” jutting into the lake. He characterized the house as adding a desirable, visual impact to the neighborhood and being consistent with the larger homes that were now being built along the shores of Lake Hopatcong. He characterized the dimensional variances as being minimal and/or existing conditions that were not being overly intensified.
During the public portion of the hearing, several neighbors objected to the proposed dwelling noting same was providing a great deal of mass, blocking lot and air, and just out of character with the size of the lot in the existing homes in this area.

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:

As noted by one of the neighbors, the proposed home in both the original proposal and the revised proposal was beautiful but overwhelming. The applicant’s proposal would require 6 dimensional variances. The lot coverage and impact would be substantial and would totally fly in the face of trying to keep an environmentally sensitive area in being overdeveloped. It is clear that this lot can and should be used for a single-family home. It is further clear that the existing home may be ripe for re-development or significant alteration, but those two premises do not give rise to the extent of the relief being sought by the applicant.
The proposed mass, the length of the building, the visual appearance of the building, and the impact clearly constitute negative aspects of this application that cannot be overcome by the applicant. There is no real opportunity for buffering or other techniques that could attenuate the impact.
While some of Mr. McDonough’s testimony and analysis is accurate, it cannot be said that allowing the significant deviations from the Zoning Ordinance are a benefit to the property or a benefit to the neighborhood. Having a very large structure on a prominent point on the lake is hardly a benefit. Certainly, it may be desirable from the applicant’s viewpoint but that does not make the proposal viable from a zoning standpoint. As noted, the lot coverage, the character of the structure, the building coverage, the proximity to the lake, the length of the structure, the number of variances are all indicative of why the applicant’s proposal must be denied.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8^th day of May, 2006 that the e within application is denied.

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

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

BA-19-06 – GREG CONDIT – VARIANCE FOR POOL LOCATED ON PAUL DRIVE, BLOCK 1601, LOT 23 IN R-3 ZONE

In the matter of Greg Condit & Pam Bryson

Case No. BA-19-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: May 8, 2006

Memorialized: June 12, 2006

WHEREAS, Greg Condit & Pam Bryson have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a swimming pool requiring an impervious coverage variance for premises located at 41 Paul Drive and known as Block 1601, Lot 23 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D8 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:

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 in the rear yard.
The proposed pool was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 2/23/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The applicant’s proposal results in the need for an impervious coverage variance as the pool will result in a total impervious coverage of 28.09%, which exceeds the maximum permitted 25%.
The applicant stated the above ground pool would be a desirable rear yard amenity, would not really add to impervious coverage, and was similar to other pools in the neighborhood.

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 proposed rear yard above ground pool is a normal amenity. The increase in impervious coverage is clearly offset by the fact that the swimming pool will act as a containment area and will not exacerbate stormwater runoff.
The benefits to granting this variance and providing rear yard recreational activity for the subject premises are consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. The slight deviation from the Ordinance is clearly minimal.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of May, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

Pool to be sized and located as depicted on the plot plan. Total impervious coverage not to exceed 28.09%.
Applicant to comply with all construction codes, building requirements, and obtain all necessary permits for the pool.

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the resolution. Ms. Darling seconded.

Discussion. Changes noted and made.

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

BA-20-06 – JACK COOPER – VARIANCE FOR POOL LOCATED ON MAIN ST. SUCCASUNNA, BLOCK 5103, LOT 3 IN R-3 ZONE

In the matter of Jack A. Cooper

Case No. BA-20-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: May 8, 2006

Memorialized: June 12, 2006

WHEREAS, Jack A. Cooper have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an above ground swimming pool requiring an impervious coverage variance and a front yard setback variance for premises located at 131 Main Street and known as Block 5103, Lot 3 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D4 and 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:

The applicant is owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
The applicant was proposing to construct a 21’ diameter round swimming pool on the subject premises.
The proposed swimming pool was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 3/20/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The Board notes the subject premises are a corner lot with frontage on Main Street and Horizon Drive. Horizon Drive is the de facto side yard.
The applicant presented exhibit A-1 which was a photo board of six photos depicting on-site conditions and neighborhood depictions.
The existing impervious coverage is just under 36%, and the applicant’s proposal will raise same to 38.26% (about a 2-¼ % increase) versus the maximum permitted 25%.

The Board notes that this property has several built-in hardships relating to impervious coverage:

The municipal sidewalk is located entirely on the applicant’s property. Because it is a corner lot, approximately 13% of the existing impervious coverage is attributable to the sidewalk. In addition, the applicant’s garage is located to the rear of the house and as such, the applicant has a much longer driveway than would normally be anticipated.

The above constitute hardships peculiar to the subject premises.
The proposed amenity, being a swimming pool, will have little or no impact on impervious coverage.
The existing impervious coverage is just under 36%, and the applicant’s proposal will raise same to 38.26% (about a 2-¼ % increase) versus the maximum permitted 25%. The Board finds under peculiar circumstances of this case an additional 2-¼ % impervious coverage to be de minimis and certainly mitigated by the fact that the added “impervious coverage” is an above ground swimming pool.

Swimming pool to be sized and located as depicted on the plot plan. Impervious coverage not to exceed 38.26% as requested. Applicant to comply with all rules and regulations concerning the installation of swimming pools and swimming pool equipment.

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

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

In the matter of Valerie Campoamor

Case No. BA-24-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: May 8, 2006

Memorialized: June 12, 2006

WHEREAS, Valerie Campoamor has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to obtain a use variance to permit a dance studio to operate in the LI/OR Zone which is not a permitted use for premises located at 110 Hillcrest Avenue and known as Block 8602, Lot 14.01 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “LI/OR” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.3402 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:

The applicant is the operator of a proposed dance studio to be located in the Kenbar Investments LLC building at 110 Hillcrest Avenue.
The applicant’s proposed use, a dance studio, is not permitted in the LI/OR Zone.
The proposed use was depicted on a copy of the existing plot plan for Kenbar Properties, LLC that was submitted with the application.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 4/13/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
During the public hearing, the municipal planner provided the Board with a copy of a resolution the Board had granted for a similar structure in the LI/OR Zone. Mr. Stern noted that these types of use (dance studios/gymnastics) seem to be particularly suited to the types of structures built in the LI/OR Zone. He further noted the hours of operation and parking demands usually complemented existing uses.
The applicant stated the hours of operation were Monday to Saturday and would run between 10:00 AM and 8:00 PM. There would be a maximum of 40 students on-site at any given time. The applicant reviewed the existing on-site parking and stated there would be more than adequate room for parking for students attending their studio. She further stated there was a need for this type of facility in the Roxbury area and that most of her students would be coming from a reasonably close proximity to her proposed studio.

The Board notes that this type of use is a rather unique use. It agrees with the observations made by the municipal planner and finds that the applicant’s testimony satisfied the questions noted by the planner. In sum, this site is truly uniquely situated for this niche use. It will complement the existing uses and provide a needed service to residents of Roxbury and other nearby municipalities.

Applicant is to obtain all appropriate permits including a Zoning Permit that will depict the locations of any proposed signs, which shall conform to the Ordinance.

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

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

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

In the matter of Lakes End Marina

Case No. BA-17-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: May 8, 2006

Memorialized: June 12, 2006

WHEREAS, Lakes End Mariana have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring a use variance(s) for premises located at Mt. Arlington Boulevard and known as Block 10101, Lot 48 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-1” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.2302 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:

Harvey Michelman, Esquire represented the applicant.
The applicant is the owner of the subject premises.
The applicant is the operator of a business known as Lakes End Marina.
The applicant is proposing to redevelop the property to utilize a two-story building for boat sales repair and rental office. The first floor would be approximately 2,400 square feet and the second floor 1,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing that the parking lot be used to accommodate 4 display boats for sale and to utilize the rear of the site for boat storage and seasonal parking. Since boat sales/repairs and outdoor storage and outdoor displays are prohibited uses within the B-1 District, the applicant needs to obtain a “d” variance(s) and thus, comes within the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. (This is a bifurcated application and the applicant is presently seeking only approval of the “d” variance(s) and any approval would be subject to preliminary and final site plan approval as well as all necessary “c” variances and any design waivers.)
The subject property encompasses 1.27 acres and is located in the B-1 Limited Business District. The subject premises are presently unimproved but have been utilized over the years for car and boat parking. There is a 10’ wide easement along the easterly property line, which provides access to lot 47, which is the site of Valiante Construction. It is noted there are wooded steep slopes in excess of 25% along the westerly property line abutting Canal Street.
The adjoining properties are zoned B-1. Located to the north is Weichert Realtors (lot 49); to the northeast across Mt. Arlington Boulevard is Lake Hopatcong and Lakes End Marina. To the southeast is Lakeland Deli, and to the south is the aforementioned Valiante Construction. On the west is Canal Street, which is utilized for train station parking.
The applicant’s plans note there is an approximate 4-foot width of pavement related to Weichert Realtors, which apparently encroaches onto the applicant’s property. A shed and dumpster associated with Weichert Realtors also appears to encroach onto the applicant’s property.
As noted, the purpose of the B-1 Limited Business District is to provide for “retail and service type business compatible with nearby residential uses”. In this instance it is noted that no residential uses are located on the adjoining lots and as well as the lots on the far side of Mt. Arlington Boulevard.
The principal permitted uses in the B-1 District include the following:

Retail and service businesses, excluding theaters, cinemas, garden centers and plant nurseries
Business and professional offices
Bank and financial institutions
Restaurants, excluding drive-thru facilities
Taverns and bars
Child car centers
Essential services

Permitted conditional uses in the B-1 District including the following:

Institutional uses
Residential apartments located above a retail or service business as long as 50% of the residential units are designated Mount Laurel Housing

A “d” (1) use variance is necessary from Section 13-7.23 as use of the building for boat sales and boat repairs is prohibited in the B-1 District.
A “d” (1) use variance is necessary from Section 13-7.23 as the outdoor storage of boats and outdoor sales of boats is prohibited in the B-1 District.
A “d” (1) use variance is necessary from Section 13-7.23 as the outdoor display of boats is prohibited in the B-1 District. Four display boats are located between the building and Mount Arlington Boulevard.
The applicant submitted the following plans:

Sheet T-1, Title Sheet, dated 12/22/05
Sheet C-1, Site Plan, dated 12/22/05
Sheet C-2, Lighting and Landscape Plan, dated 12/22/05
Sheet C-3, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, dated 12/22/05
Sheet ZB-1, Floor Plans, dat4ed 12/22/05
Sheet ZB-2, Elevations, dated 12/22/05

The within matter was continued to the 5/8/06 public hearing. The applicant’s planner and architect, Kenneth J. Fox, testified at the hearing.
Mr. Fox reiterated the variance(s) required by the applicant:

Boat sales
Outdoor display of boats for sale
Outdoor storage of boats (inventory and customer storage)
Parking lot for customers utilizing the adjacent marina

Mr. Fox referred to exhibits marked A-1 and A-2 at the 5/8/06 hearing which depicted drawing C1 of the 12/22/05 set of plans, and A2, a photoboard depicting the location of various marinas in the area.
Mr. Fox’s testimony of knowledge that the applicant will ultimately need site plan approval and opined that, if the use variance was granted, a site plan conforming to the design features of the Site Plan Ordinance and intent of the use variance could be designed for the site in question.
He further noted the architectural details of design would be done in a way so as to be compatible and provide an aesthetic upgrade of the entire area.

The Board finds the testimony of the applicant’s architect and planner, Mr. Fox, to be credible. The Board finds this site to be uniquely suited for the proposed use. The Board notes there are no abutting residential uses, the proximity of the marina in the lake, the present informal and unaesthetic use of the site, and the Board takes notice of the demand and need for boat storage.
The Board recognizes that Lake Hopatcong (New Jersey’s largest lake) is a unique recreational resource. The encouragement of appropriate recreational uses is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Municipal Land Use Law and the Zoning Ordinance.
While the fact situation in this particular case does not equate to the Burbridge case, it is clear that through the site plan approval process, the applicant’s proposal will result in a much enhanced aesthetic upgrade of this site. It is anticipated and hoped that the improvement and redevelopment of this site by the applicant will act as a catalyst for further improvements along this section of Mt. Arlington Boulevard.
Noting that the within approval is only for the use variance(s), the negative criteria will be primarily dealt with during the site plan review.

Subject to preliminary and final site plan approval.
For the benefit of any subsequent Board reviewing a future site plan application, the Board wants to emphasize the architectural detail and landscaping will be key elements to focus on in future site plan review.
Outdoor storage shall be prohibited between the front of the building and the street. Storage shall be limited to boats/boat trailers and shall be related only to the use on-site.
The premises shall not become a “contractor’s yard” emphasizing again that storage shall consist of boats and boat related items such as, boat trailers. Any such item shall not exceed 14’ in height.
It is noted the areas used for outdoor storage and any site plan application shall be considered impervious surface and shall not exceed the maximum impervious surface coverage requirements for the B1 Zone.
All outdoor storage shall be screened from adjoining properties and streets by means of fencing and landscaping as noted and reiterated here.
Boat repairs or equipment repairs shall be permitted only within the confines of the proposed building.
At the time of the site plan hearing, the applicant shall provide details as to the access agreement granted to and adjoining property owner as well as the exiting encroachment of the Weichert Realtors building.
At the time of the site plan hearing, the applicant will advise the Board of the type and nature of the proposed tenant for the 1,000 square foot office depicted. The applicant is advised that the tenancy shall be one that is complementary to the applicant’s proposed use and shall not involve outdoor storage or intensification of any of the outdoor activities contemplated by the grant of this use variance.

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the resolution. Ms. Darling seconded.

Discussion. Changes noted and made.

Roll as follows: Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Dargel, 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

In the matter of Timothy Babbitt, Sr. & Gabriella M. Babbitt

Case No. BA-21-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: May 8, 2006

Memorialized: June 12, 2006

WHEREAS, Timothy Babbitt, Sr. & Gabriella M. Babbitt have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a parking area requiring an impervious coverage variance for premises located at 27 Ford Road and known as Block 11105, Lot 30 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D8 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:

The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
The applicants were proposing to construct a paved parking area on-site. Same was to be 26.9” x 20’ as depicted on a plot plan attached to the application.
The resulting impervious coverage would be 26.91% whereas, 25% is permitted.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 11/22/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The applicant stated that the purpose of the construction of the parking area was to provide on-site parking for the applicant’s vehicles. The applicant stated that parking in the street in front of the house was difficult along this section of Ford Road. He noted cars parallel parked in the street presented a hazard during winter snowstorm season and constricted vehicular traffic along Ford Road. He stated the benefit to providing head in type parking clearly outweighed any detriment to granting the proposed relief.

The Board finds the testimony of the applicant to be credible. Parallel parking along Ford Road in this area is clearly not as desirable as the parking proposed by the applicant. The topography of the applicant’s lot, the narrowness of the street, and the slope of the existing driveway all constitute hardships peculiar to the premises.
While the Board is not inclined to grant significant deviations from coverage requirements, the safety issues raised by the applicant clearly outweigh the negative criteria. In addition, the applicant stated they would comply with any requirements of the municipal engineer regarding any increased stormwater or sheet flow off the newly paved area.

Paved parking area to be located and sized as depicted on the plot plan. Impervious coverage not to exceed 36.91%.
Prior to construction, the applicant shall provide plans to the municipal engineer. The municipal engineer shall review the proposed plans to ensure that the applicant’s proposal does not interfere with nor create any problems with the present right-of-way and improved portions of Ford Road. In addition, the applicant shall review the proposed elevations and design of the parking area so that the municipal engineer can assess whether or not the applicant’s proposal will create any stormwater problems. The parking area shall be paved in accordance with the municipal standards for residential driveways. Same to be reviewed and approved by the municipal engineer prior to the issuance of a permit.

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

Discussion. Changes noted and made.

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

AGENDA

Ms. Robortaccio announced Application BA-18-06, Dakor will not be heard and is carried to 7/10/06; BA-23-06, Grace Baptist Church will not be heard and is carried to 7/10/06; BA-29-06, Richard Bain will not be heard and is carried to 7/10/06; BA-22-06, Owl Realty has been withdrawn by the applicant.

LETTER FOR AN EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR TREATMENT TRAILER AT BAINS AUTOMOTIVE FOR 2 YEARS

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve an extension for two years. It is in the best interest of the town to have the remediation completed. Mr. D’Amato seconded.

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

BA-25-06 – GUILLERMO FALQUEZ – USE VARIANCE FOR A POOL LOCATED ON MAIN ST. IN B1-A ZONE, BLOCK 2101, LOT 16

Guillermo Falquez was sworn in. He stated he would like to install a round pool in the backyard for his children. The property is in a B1A zone.

Ms. Dargel asked when the house was built.

Mr. Falquez said about 1954.

Mr. Stern said the B1A District went into effect in 1996. The property is adjacent to the R-4 zone to the right and to the rear. It is a transition property. The property contains a single family dwelling as well as the property to the right.

Ms. Robortaccio asked the size of the deck that is being added?

Mr. Falquez said about 10’ X 12’ feet.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application, stating this is a technical issue because the zoning has changed. The house has been in existence for about 52 years, and was there about the time the zoning ordinances were instituted. Mr. Giardina seconded.

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

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

Emerico Vespucci was sworn in. He distributed a pamphlet with photos and a narrative of the proposal – marked A-1. He said he would like to impede on the side yard setback to add a second car garage onto the existing single car garage. There is an asphalt driveway, and I won’t expand on the coverage with the driveway. It would be 6’6” from the property line. Out of that, there is 9’3” of asphalt. I will be building right over the existing driveway.

Mr. Stern said the survey says one thing and the applicant says something else.

Mr. Wiener asked if the applicant is amending the application so that the new proposed setback is 6’6”.

Mr. Vespucci said yes. He said the average distance between houses is about 24 feet. I will have 28 from the neighbor’s house.

Ms. Robortaccio said the houses in the neighborhood with the double garages seem to have the 10 feet from the property line.

Mr. D’Amato asked if there will be two separate doors vs. one larger door?

Mr. Vespucci said yes.

Ms. Dargel asked why the applicant needs the extra garage space.

Mr. Vespucci stated there are a lot of children in my neighborhood, and there have been damages to my vehicle while parked in the driveway, and it would be more practical to have a two-car garage.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the application as there will be no added impervious coverage. Most of the garages in the neighborhood are two car garages. It would be an improvement. Mr. D’Amato seconded.

Roll as follows: Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Giardiana, yes; Ms. DeVenezia, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes – 6 feet is a very narrow side yard, but is still large enough to do maintenance on the side of the yard, and based on the character of the neighborhood. There is a proliferation of two car garages; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

BA-27-06 – STEPHEN & LAUREEN NICHOLSON – VARIANCE FOR GARAGE LOCATED ON CONDIT RD., BLOCK 11309, LOT 17 IN B-1 ZONE

Stephen & Laureen Nicholson were sworn in.

Mr. Nicholson stated at 40 Condit Road there is an existing structure. When we foreclosed on the property, we wanted to make it look better and enclosed the structure.

Mr. Nicholson said he was not familiar with the paperwork, but was issued a building permit to put the roof and door back on, and were told we had to seek a variance.

Ms. Robortaccio stated it looks like it is finished. What else has to be done?

Mr. Nicholson said it needs to be painted, water proofed, etc. It is basically done, but we are not using it. We haven’t increased the size at all.

Mr. Wiener said the question was whether the prior structure had a roof

Ms. Nicholson said we didn’t’ take ownership until 2 ½ years ago. The structure is not big enough for a garage. Also, we had submitted pictures of surrounding properties that have the same thing.

Mr. Nicholson said we were told to stop work and that we need a variance.

Mr. D’Amato asked if there were pictures of the old structure.

Mr. Nicholson said no.

Ms. Dargel asked the height of the shed.

Mr. Nicholson said it is 8 feet. We will paint it the same color as the house.

Ms. Dargel asked if there will be a pad in front.

Mr. Nicholson said, no. It will be dirt or gravel.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the application. Ms. DeVenezia seconded.

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

BA-28-06 – RODNEY WALKER – FRONT YARD/SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON CENTER ST. BLOCK 10503, LOT 17 IN B-1 ZONE

Rodney Walker was sworn in. He handed out a revision to his plans (marked A-1).

Rebecca Walker was sworn in.

Mr. Walker stated he needs a variance for sideyard and front yard setback. The existing home is in Port Morris and is very close to the street. I am not looking to exceed the current boundaries set by the house. The setbacks are pre-existing and won’t be exceeded.

Ms. Dargel said the original plan showed two additions and two doors, and the revised plan shows a crawl space toward the front.

Mr. Walker said that will be a pad and a crawl space to access electric wires and heating ducts. In the back of the house the 8 x 12 addition will be to have an oil tank inside the house. To the left of that is a slab. There is an existing covered porch sitting on concrete piers. I would want to replace that with a slab. Also on the original submission, there is a secondary front door at the right. There used to be a side porch that was removed in the mid-1980s. For the addition, we just want access to the screened in porch from the dining room area. The bedrooms are all on the second level.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application as the variances are pre-existing, and this will add modernization and aesthetic value to the neighborhood. Ms. Darling seconded.

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

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

Attorney Danielle Bohlen represented the applicant.

Mark Mosley was sworn in. He said he would like to renovate his existing second floor. The photos show there is a severe roofline that makes two of the bedrooms very cramped and very small. Also, there is a crawl space attic, and we would raise the roofline a little bit to have walk-up room and storage space.

Exhibit A-1 was submitted and marked, photo of existing home

Mr. Mosley said the home is not going beyond the footprint of the existing building except for the front porch addition. The front door stoop will span the entire front, and will not go past the existing footprint. There are several homes in the neighborhood with front porches.

Photos of other homes with front porches were marked A-2, A-3.

Ms. Dargel stated it appears the vestibule will remain as part of the porch.

Mr. Mosley said that is correct. If we took out the vestibule, we would lose a front closet and a small area. We wanted to keep it and incorporate it into the porch.

Ms. Dargel said the vestibule isn’t as high as the second story right now. On the right hand side it looks like the second story will come out the same distance as the vestibule.

Mr. Mosley said that was to make the second floor more aesthetically similar to the first floor, so that it wouldn’t appear to be an addition.

Ms. Dargel said on the left, the vestibule is 3 or 4 feet wide, and above it where the two windows are, it is shown to be wider.

Mr. Mosley stated the flat section that appears to come out and hang over on the second floor won’t be there. We will correct that on the drawings. The buildout to the second floor will not come past the existing first floor walls. The vestibule stays, and the porch roof comes out over that. The steps won’t be changed, except that they will be redone.

Ms. Robortaccio asked what the actual front yard setback will be.

Mr. Mosley said it is 12.3 feet.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application as it will aesthetically enhance the curb appeal and will be an improvement to the neighborhood; approval subject to corrections to be shown on the plans showing the second floor overhang and cantilever won’t be there; front yard setback to be 12’3”. No part of the building other than the proposed porch will extend further than the existing nonconforming front landing. Ms. DeVenezia seconded.

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

BA-30-06 - 1^ST BAPTIST CHURCH OF LEDGEWOOD – SITE PLAN FOR ALL PURPOSE ROOM LOCATED ON MAIN ST. BLOCK 6406, LOTS 4 & 5 IN B-2/R-3 ZONE

Attorney Richard Wade represented the applicant.

David Holwick, pastor of the church, was sworn in. In answers to questions from Mr. Wade, he stated the church is very traditional and about 85 years old. It lacks a space for youth groups, etc. We are proposing a separate building for games, classroom space, etc. This location is the least used corner of the property and is protected by a big berm from Route 46. We don’t anticipate a growth in the membership of the church, but it will increase the activities. We are not going to add any parking spaces. The building will be used for Sunday school classes and youth groups on Sundays. During the week, the open area would be used for basketball and volleyball, etc. There are other groups, such as the marching band, who would like to use the building. We also have a big Thanksgiving dinner, and we would use it for that as well. At the present time, one or two Sunday school class meets in the parsonage. A class is also right in the church. We believe we can get some of the excess classes out of the house and out of the church.

Mr. Holwick stated members of the church presented plans to the historic society, and met with them. They thought many of the ideas were acceptable, and they even suggested some changes. We first proposed a faux rock facade, and they suggested we go to stucco with a special decorative feature halfway up. We also showed them we want to put in some gothic windows, and they liked that. Presently the lighting on the property is adequate, as is the parking. The area where we will be putting the building has a shed, and there are trees and piles of dirt and debris. We will take down the shed and are cutting down several of the larger trees. We want to keep the portion by Bank of New York a grassy area as it is used for large group games. Previously, we were using Franklin school. I understand there may not be a water line available, and we would have to put a well in. The building will give us a lot more flexibility. It is a very functional building. There will be no cooking facilities. We may have a refrigerator for cold drinks and a microwave. We don’t anticipate this will impact the rubbage collection. We have considered air conditioning, and will probably put a unit behind the building between the building and the highway. We have not had any security issues. We don’t see that there will be any traffic issues or parking issues. I believe the classrooms will be filled on Sunday mornings and Sunday nights. During the week, it will be used for basketball, etc. The classrooms will allow us to reduce the size of some of the classes, and each class will have its own room. We anticipate about 12 kids per class. The building exterior will be a neutral color. Because of the way the property is situated, it will be nestled into the corner and won’t conflict with the existing church.

Mr. D’Amato asked where the building will be seen from.

Mr. Holwick said coming down Route 46 toward the circle, you may see a roofline. Mostly you would see just trees. Coming up, you would see the building. From the street, you would maybe catch a glimpse of it.

Mr. Stern asked if there will be deliveries to the building, and how trash will be handled.

Mr. Holwick said maybe chairs, but nothing else. There is a small trash enclosure area by the church.

Ms. Robortaccio asked if there was correspondence from the historic advisory committee.

Mr. Stern said no.

Mr. Holwick stated when we met, Mr. Cramond had wanted it to look more like the church, but the rest of the committee didn’t think that was necessary.

Mr. Wade asked if the historic committee indicated by picture what they would like to see.

Mr. Holwick said they did have a photo from a church in Caroline. We modified our plans to have it look like that.

Mr. Stern asked if the gothic windows will only face Main Street

Mr. Holwick said that is correct.

Mr. Hansen asked if the maintenance equipment being stored in the shed will be stored in another location?

Mr. Holwick said some things would be in the new building, we may put up a mini-shed.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Holwick.

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Mark Bak, architect for the applicant, was sworn in. He stated the building is a gymnasium and classroom facility. The finish will be somewhat representative of the church, with banding, and gothic windows. We are trying to show that in front of the building. On the back of the building, the side behind the auto body shop won’t be visible. Only one side will be seen from the highway, and that will have metal panels, block on bottom, and square windows. We didn’t want to take attention away from the church, but wanted a relationship. We incorporated the gothic windows. The main entrance is similar to the entrance to the church.

Mr. Kurtz asked how much experience Mr. Bak has with churches.

Mr. Bak said he has done them before.

Ms. Dargel asked what a typical height is for a gymnasium.

Mr. Bak said about 24 to 30 feet.

Ms. Dargel asked what is the minimum height for basketball and volleyball?

Mr. Bak said there are design standards we follow.

Ms. Dargel asked what the color metal siding would be.

Mr. Bak said it will be light beige.

Ms. Dargel asked what acoustics there would be, since there may be a marching band practicing?

Mr. Bak stated it would be the same as any other gym. There would be some sound attenuation from the ceiling itself. There will be solid insulated walls.

Mr. D’Amato asked how much sound would be going out into the neighborhood.

Mr. Bak stated you will hear something, but this is not designed for the particular use of a marching band. It is more a community center.

Ms. Robortaccio asked what the reason was for the metal roof.

Mr. Bak stated it is based on the economy, and we would maximize the building according to the weight it has to hold up.

Ms. Dargel asked that a color rendering be provided.

Mr. Bak stated he will do that

Mr. Stern asked the color of the roof treatment.

Mr. Bank said it will be a color coated roof on the front entrance. We can do the entire roof if it becomes an issue. You will not really see the roof finish from the road, as the roof is about 12 or 13 feet above the highway.

Mr. Stern asked what features of the church are you trying to draw out at the rear and bank elevation?

Mr. Bak said we are not. Most of the buildings along the highway are mostly block and metal panels. We did try to match the facades along Main Street.

Mr. Stern said the right side elevation has a direct relationship to the church. You did not incorporate any of the historical aspects of the church.

Mr. Bak stated that is correct, for economical reasons.

Mr. Stern asked if you can get more of the maintenance equipment in the building.

Mr. Bak stated they would look into that.

Mr. Hansen asked about fire suppression.

Mr. Bak said there is none required. We are below the square footage where it is required.

Mr. Stern asked if there will be bleachers.

Mr. Bak said no. The building is not meant for spectator activities.

Mr. D’Amato asked if the classroom area is two stories.

Mr. Bak said yes, it is the same height at the gym. There will be nothing above the gym.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions for Mr. Bak.

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Ms. Robortaccio said at the time we approved the use variance, architecture was a big issue. I am disappointed that we are looking at metal on one face of the building that will be obvious.

Nicholas Wunner, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in. He gave an overview of the plan, stating the property consists of 2.371 acres and has 336 feet of frontage. There is a 44.7 foot front setback. The property is split between the R-3 zone on Main Street and B-2 zone on Route 46. The property slopes from the north to the south towards Main Street.

A colorized version of sheet 2 was marked A-1.

Mr. Wunner stated the zone calls for 60% impervious coverage, and with the building we are at 41.6%. We propose making the macadam sidewalk concrete and adding trees and landscaping. The parking lot has adequate lighting, except for one corner where a pole is leaning over, and that will be repaired. We will be putting in drywells for drainage, and will address the new stormwater management regulations.

Ms. Dargel asked where the well will go.

Mr. Wunner said the proposed well is in the front of the building. By code the well has to be 50 feet from the drywell.

Mr. Wunner addressed Mr. Stern’s report:

Item 1.8 – lighting is adequate – one fixture will be fixed. – We proposed bollard lighting along the sidewalk, but will look at an alternate fixture. The floodlight will be replaced with freestanding shoebox lighting.

Item 1.9 – agreed

Item 1.10 – addressed

Item 1.11 – that parking will be removed. New fence will be installed.

Item 1.12 – Discussion. Mr. Wunner will look into moving the building slightly, and will discuss that with Mr. Hansen before the next hearing.

Item 1.13 – Mr. Wunner will bring photos for the next hearing showing these are not natural slopes. If a variance is required, Mr. Stern would support the variance

Item 1.14 – agreed

Item 1.15 – will be removed

Item 1.16 – waiver requested

Ms. Robortaccio said that will end the testimony for tonight.

Ms. Dargel said she would like information for the next hearing on the normal minimum height for a basketball court.

The application was carried to 7/10/06.

There was a 10 minutes recess at 9:30.

BA-31-06 – TOWER HILL ASSOCIATES – USE VARIANCE FOR MULTIFAMILY AGE RESTRICTED HOMES LOCATED ON HILLSIDE AVE. BLOCK 3602, LOT 9 IN B-3 ZONE

Attorney John Inglesino represented the applicant. He stated we are here for a use variance. If the use variance is granted, the applicant will return with a site plan application. The project would be for a multi family, deed restricted development of 28 units, 4 of which would be affordable housing units. The applicant would work with the town if they wanted payment in lieu of affordable units. The R-3 zone does not permit multi family housing.

Carl Lizza, principle in Tower Hill Associates, was sworn in. He stated we have a joint proposal. We have a map of what we can, by right, build on the property. The property is at a density of 21 units, but because of the slopes, etc. we would only be able to build 13 single family homes. For the condominium application, we are proposing upscale units of 2,400 square feet each, with 3 bedroom, 2 ½ baths, with 2-car garages. The units would probably sell for $720,00 to $750,000. As a matter of right, we are engaging in a dialog about the Board’s preference and the public’s preference. We have owned the property for two years, and we will move on it with either single family homes or condominiums. The preference is for age-restricted housing. 20% would be for people 48 to 55 years old and 80% would be for 55 years and older.

Ms. Dargel asked why they wouldn’t develop it as single family homes.

Mr. Lizza stated we are willing to, but we would raise the issue of whether or not it would be better for condominiums. There would be less school children. With homes, the traffic would be greater, and the cul-de-sacs would be tied in to the properties in the back. With the condo map, that doesn’t happen. Whichever you prefer is what we would propose.

Mr. Stern said the application before the Board is for a 28 unit age-restricted complex.

Mr. Wiener said the Board will act on the application before them. If you want to do single family homes, an application would go before the Planning Board.

Mr. Inglesino asked Mr. Lizza if it is fair to say that when considering a number of factors, including fiscal impact to the township, access issues, planning issues in terms of the location of the property close to shopping and other areas, that you came to the conclusion that a multi-family age restricted project would be better for the site.

Mr. Lizza said it is his opinion upscale condominiums would be a better option for the property and for the residents as well.

Ms. Dargel asked why they chose 4 units for affordable units.

Mr. Inglesino stated under the growth share regulations, the ratio is 1 to 8.

Mr. Stern stated the new Third Round Growth Share obligations say for every 8 units there is a need to provide one affordable housing unit. The rules limit the amount of senior age restricted Mt. Laurel unites that a community can get credit for. We have capped out on that. Frankly, I think the township would be penalized for those units. We wouldn’t get credit for it, or those 4 units would become non-age restricted Mt. Laurel units.

Mr. Inglesino asked if Mr. Lizza would be willing to work with the town in terms of how they would satisfy its growth share obligation resulting from this project.

Mr. Lizza said we are flexible on that.

Mr. Wiener asked if the community would have a clubhouse or swimming pool, or other amenities.

Mr. Lizza said we don’t have any now, but would be willing to add them.

Mr. Inglesino said is it true that for amenities to be offered, there would have to be a certain density threshold. With this low amount of units, it isn’t sizable enough.

Mr. Lizza stated that is true. The zoning for multi family is 5 units per acre, and here we are at about 4.1.

Mr. Wiener stated I assume this would be condominium type ownership with an association. The association would own the common area?

Mr. Inglesino stated there would be a homeowners association. Whether or not it would be a condominium form of ownership where they owned the interior but not the outside, or alternatively, a fee simple town-home community where the owner would own the lot itself, with the exterior being governed by a covenant of deeds and restrictions, all of that would be controlled by a central homeowners association.

Mr. Wiener asked if it is contemplated that the road servicing the community would be maintained by the homeowners association.

Mr. Lizza said probably, yes.

Mr. Inglesino said snow removal, landscaping, etc. would be up to the town. We would work with the town.

Mr. Wiener asked what the provision is for maintenance of the detention basin.

Mr. Inglesino said it would be maintained by the homeowners association.

Mr. Wiener said those questions will need to be addressed as part of the use variance. The applicant would want to make the argument that it is a benefit to the community in terms of what services the community would have to provide.

Mr. Inglesino said we will address all those issues.

Mr. Stern stated you don’t show any private outdoor area such as decks or yards.

Mr. Inglesino stated we will defer to the engineer on that question.

Mr. Stern said he visited the site today. The applicant should secure the safety of the building. The basement and house are easily accessible. There is a pool there that is a safety hazard.

Mr. Lizza said he will take that under advisement.

Mr. D’Amato asked where the homeowners association would meet. There should be a clubhouse or something. You could cut down the number of units if you did that. Any preliminary ideas of where it would go?

Mr. Lizza said it would go where the Mt. Laurel units are.

Mr. Inglesino stated if the town were to decide they would want a payment in lieu of Mt. Laurel units, there would be additional area in the project for a meeting place. Many such associations meet in libraries or other facilities.

Mr. Kurtz said a previous application for that area was nixed by the County. This should be addressed.

Mr. Stern said the County didn’t deny that application. They failed to approve the access. In my memo I recommend the applicant provide a traffic impact study, as that area is significantly congested at times. I have urged them to start communications with the County Planning Board.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions on Mr. Lizza’s testimony.

Joe McConnon, 11 Shearman Rd., was sworn in. He asked if the town commitment is satisfied on the third round obligation.

Mr. Stern said it is a work in progress. The Planning Board adopted the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan and it is before COAH for review. Our projections are that with the growth share projected, without this project, it appears we have satisfied the obligation for round 3 past 2014.

Mr. McConnon said he is concerned about the tax on the system we presently have.

Mr. McConnon asked to have a better answer about securing the property. That house is wide open. More of an issue is the pool. I would like to know a date when that would be taken care of.

Mr. Inglesino said Mr. Lizza has applied to the township for a demolition permit.

Mr. Lizza stated the pool and house safety issue will be taken care of within the next 48 hours.

Cherilyn Kromka, 25 S. Hillside Ave., stepped forward. She asked how this would be better for the people in the long run?

Mr. Lizza said the condominium option would have less children than the housing option. This being an upper scale project would be better for the existing community. There would be less traffic with age restricted condos. There would be less children in the schools.

Ms. Kromka stated by adding units, you would be adding to the existing traffic.

Mr. Lizza said there would be less with condominiums than with houses.

Mr. Inglesino stated there will be other experts to testify, including a planner who will discuss fiscal impact. We will also provide testimony which would show there would be less traffic impact from the age restricted units than with single family homes. There will also be engineering testimony about access to the property for the single family homes vs. the age restricted project. For single family homes, Beeman and Shearman would be access. The age restricted project would be accessed from Hillside at an existing curb cut. The planner will provide testimony that for the 55 and older people, there is not enough housing for that population.

Mr. Lizza said there is no doubt that if the Board were to decide to have upper scale age restricted house that the quality of life in the community would be better than if we built the 13 houses we would have the right to build.

Robert Puzio, 9 Beeman Place, stepped forward. Regarding access to the cul –de-sacs, they have always been a sacred characteristic of the community and made the neighborhood special.

Mr. Wiener said that application is not in front of us. That will be addressed at the time of the engineer’s testimony.

Mr. Stern said the planning department has not received any drawings on a 13 lot subdivision plan for single family housing.

Berkley Adams, 16 Shearman Place, stepped forward. He asked that the applicant elaborate regarding town services.

Mr. Inglesino stated there will be a planner’s report that will contain a fiscal impact analysis.

Mr. Adams asked if that would also discuss the ground cover, foliage, trees, etc.

Mr. Inglesino said that will be addressed at the time of site plan

Ursula Rowe, 19 South Hillside Avenue, was present. She asked what the difference would be from her living room window. How close would the condominiums come to the top of the hill, as opposed to the houses?

Mr. Lizza stated the roofline of the condos would be lower than the roofline of the houses.

Mr. Inglesino stated that will be addressed by the engineer.

Mr. Rowe asked what would be on the back of the condominiums?

Mr. Inglesino said that will be addressed by the engineer.

Mr. Stern stated at this point the architectural drawings don’t show any rear building elevations.

Ed Ponte , 5 Beeman Place, stepped forward. He stated not a lot of questions have been answered. Financial impact is very interesting to me. I want the R-3 designation to stay.

Mr. Wiener said you can only ask questions of what Mr. Lizza testified to. There will be more specific testimony later in the hearing process.

Donna Francis, 22 Beeman Place. She asked at what point in time the decision is made to go from single family to multi family.

Ms. Robortaccio said at the end of the all the testimony, the Board will take a vote on the use variance.

Angela Cote, 9 Highland Avenue, stepped forward. What would the cost of single family homes be?

Mr. Lizza stated, projecting for the future, probably as much as $1,000,000

Adrian McConnon, 22 Shearman Place, stepped forward. She asked if the Roxbury residents get a traffic expert also?

Mr. Stern said we will listen to the testimony of their expert, and it will be up to the Board to determine if the testimony is accurate.

No one else stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

The application was carried to 9/11/06. The applicant agreed to an extension to that date.

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:40 p.m.

Dolores A. DeMasi, Board Secretary

lm/

Minutes of 4/10/06

Denied: May 8, 2006

Approved: May 8, 2006

Approved: May 8, 2006

Approved: May 8, 2006

Approved: May 8, 2006

Approved: May 8, 2006

Live Edit