Create an Account - Increase your productivity, customize your experience, and engage in information you care about.
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, Robert Kurtz, Joyce Dargel, Peter Giardina, Mark Crowley,
ABSENT: Candy DeVenezia, Barbara
Ms. DeMasi announced Ms. Darling
has resigned from the Board due to a conflict.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:
Larry Wiener, Russell Stern.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms.
BA-61-06 – GILBERT MULLER –
VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD SETBACK FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON BROOKSIDE RD. BLOCK
3504, LOT 4 IN R-2 ZONE
In the matter of Gilbert J. Muller and Vicki M. Muller
Case No. BA-61-06
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Memorialized: December 11, 2006
Gilbert J. Muller and Vicki M. Muller have applied to the Board of Adjustment,
Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring a rear
yard setback variance for premises located at 8 Brookside Road and known as
Block 3504, Lot 4 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are
in a “R-2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1101D5a of the
Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
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:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the
9th day of November, 2006 that the approval of the within application be
granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-59-06 – WILLIAM STEVENSON – VARIANCE FOR SINGLE FAMILY
HOME LOCATED ON HIGH ST. BLOCK 4001, LOT 31 IN R-3 ZONE
In the matter of William
Case No. BA-59-06
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
William Stevenson has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury
for permission to construct a single family home requiring dimensional relief
for premises located at 15 High Street and known as Block 4001, Lot 31 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, 13-7.1301D8, 13-7.902 of the
Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 9th day of November, 2006 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
Attorney Edward Dunne,
representing Sebastiano Andreana/Carla Benedeuce, requested that the
application be moved to the end of the agenda as his client’s planner can’t be
present until later.
Ms. Robortaccio agreed, but said
if the meeting is finished before the planner arrives, the matter will be
Attorney David Soloway
represented the applicant. He stated this is an application to collocate 6
wireless antennas at the office building at 66 Town Center, Block 5004, Lot 8.
Each antenna will be attached to the decorative roof frame at a height of 64
feet. There will also be 3 equipment cabinets that will be completely
invisible. It is not a permitted use in the B-3 zone and requires a use
variance. It also requires a height variance and minor site plan approval.
Ms. Robortaccio asked if the
height variance is required.
Mr. Wiener said it is.
Archie Dickson, radio frequency
engineer, was sworn in. He summarized his professional background for the
Board, and was accepted. He stated Omnipoint is licensed by the FCC to provide
wireless communications facilities. Roxbury is in need for the service in this
area. He referred to Exhibit A-1, USGS Map with 3 plastic overlays. He said
in the area in question there are a lot of big stores and indoor coverage needs
to be enhanced there. We have determined that by putting these 3 antennas
here, it will give improved service to people in the shopping area.
The first overlay shows existing
Omnipoint coverage. Near the shopping mall, we have well below the required
signal level. Since it is a major shopping mall, it is worth our while to try
and get a site in there.
The second overlay shows the
coverage we would get if we built a site in this area. The customers will
benefit by being able to maintain calls with a high degree of reliability. It
will also give customers access to the 911 system. Another benefit would be
that the customers will be able to use E911, which is an enhanced 911 system
which would pass the location information to the police or fire departments.
The third overlay shows, in
orange, two other sites that we are planning within Roxbury Township. I am
aware a use variance is needed here. We have studied the zoning map for areas
in Roxbury Township where cell towers are permitted by ordinance, and I did not
find a suitable area. I feel this site will fill a need for coverage in the
Ms. Dargel asked if this will be
analog or digital.
Mr. Dickson said it will be
digital. We don’t have any analog towers at this time.
Mr. Stern asked where the
proposed cell site on Route 46 is located.
Mr. Dickson said it is where
Route 46 meets Route 10. At that junction there is a low signal level and a
high concentration of vehicle traffic. We would have that greater coverage
because of the height.
Mr. D’Amato asked if there would
be more range with a higher signal.
Mr. Dickson said yes.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
Alice Inge, 6 Beeman place, was
sworn in. She asked what the antennas will look like.
Mr. Dickson said they will be
similar to the others on the building.
Ms. Inge asked if there will be
interference with the other site there or any of the residences in the area.
Mr. Dickson said no. T-Mobil
(Omnipoint) has its own set of frequencies that are well away from television
No one else stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Daniel Collins, wireless engineer
for the applicant, was sworn in and gave his qualifications and was accepted by
the Board. He stated he did an analysis of the radio frequency emissions with
this site and submitted a report (A-2) Antennae site FCC RF Compliance and a
report dated 5/19/06. He stated the calculations we did, according to the FCC
regulations, indicate that the emissions here are at 1.02%, which is 98 times
below the FCC standards.
No one stepped forward.
Ron Igneri, civil engineer for
the applicant, was sworn in and gave his educational and professional
background and was accepted by the Board. He referred to sheet Z01, site plan
and sheet Z02, roof plan and elevation plan. Sheet Z01 shows the site. There
is a 4 story office building with a copper colored roof. We will place a total
of 6 antennas in 3 pairs of two.
Christopher Nevol, professional
planner, was sworn in. He gave his educational and professional background and
was accepted by the Board. He submitted 3 exhibits.
A-3 – photo views from Clearview
Cinema at the subject site – existing and simulation
A-4 – photo view from 275
Commerce Blvd. (Kohl’s) – existing and simulation
A-5 - photo view from
240Commerce Blvd. (Walgreens) – existing and simulation
Mr. Nevol said our antennas are
similar to the ones previously approved by the Board. The height of the
antennas will match the existing antennas. The equipment is behind the faux
mansard roof and won’t be visible from the ground.
Ms. Dargel asked if studies have
been done to assure the weight of the equipment can be accommodated by the
Mr. Igneri said we did a study.
The building is constructed of steel framing. All of the equipment will be
mounted on dunnage that will be supported by the building columns. The
building is more than adequate to support the equipment.
Mr. Soloway asked Mr. Nevol to
address the variance.
Mr. Nevol said this is not a
permitted use in the zone and requires a use variance, and a height variance.
The height is somewhat assumed in the proofs for the D-1 use variance. We must
show it doesn’t impair the intent of the zone plan and ordinance. Omnipoint
does hold the license. This site is particularly suited to the area, as it
will meet the needs of the public, and just a few years ago, the Board found
there was a need here. There is also another communications facility in the
other office building. The second aspect is the negative aspect. There will
be no odors, noise smells, or glare from the site. From the photo simulations,
it will be similar to the existing antennas. It will be screened from
residential areas. I believe the impact will be di minimus. The positive
aspects outweigh the negative impacts. The advancement of services, use of
existing structure rather than building a new tower, collocation. Also, the
intent of the ordinance was to try to use existing structures whenever
Mr. Wiener asked if the applicant
agrees to items 8 through 14 of the report from Russell stern.
The applicant addressed the items
in the report:
Items 8, 9, 10, 11 - agreed
Item 12 - There will be GPS
units. They are very small in size and are used for signaling by the radio
frequency equipment, and will be below the mansard.
Item 13 – note will be added to
Item 14 - agreed
Mr. Crowley asked why there will
be two antennas and not three.
Mr. Dickson said we use two
antennas because we need spatial diversity. The antennas are both dual-polar
and that doubles the number of connections we have available to us.
Mr. D’Amato made a motion to
approve the application subject to the items discussed. Ms. Dargel seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. D’Amato,
yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms.
BA-62-06 - BLANCHE
VALENTINO/LILLY SPATZ – USE VARIANCE FO RHOME LOCATED ON MAIN ST., BLOCK 6501,
LOT 6.02 IN PO/R ZONE
Attorney Bernard Berkowitz
represented the applicant.
Blanche Valentino was sworn in.
Eric Snyder, professional
planner, was sworn in and gave his educational and professional background and
was accepted by the Board. He stated this is a proposal to construct a single
family home in a PO/R zone. Single family homes are not permitted in the
zone. There are other single family homes on this side of the street, and
anything else wouldn’t be acceptable in this area. The site is particularly
suited to this use, as evidenced in the letter from the Master Plan Committee.
It won’t have any negative impact on the zone plan and will be consistent with
the neighborhood. We are also requesting a front yard setback variance. The
proposed building will be set back 26 feet.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for
questions of Mr. Snyder.
Blanche Valentino stepped
forward. In answer to questions from Mr. Berkowitz, she stated she and Ms.
Spatz own the property and intend to construct a single family home. It will
be a 3 bedroom bilevel on a slab. It is consistent with other homes in the
Mr. Stern said when this was
heard a year or two ago, the home was larger.
Mr. Stern went over his report
Item 1 – addressed
Item 2 – addressed
Item 4 – no off –tract
improvements necessary as stated in Mr. Kobylarz’s report
Item 5 – agreed
Item 6 – no off- tract
Items 7 – 10 - agreed
The applicant agreed to the
right-of-way excavation, as stated in Mr. Kobylarz’s report.
Mr. D’Amato asked why no
Ms. Valentino stated if we had
put in a basement, it would have been a Colonial.
No one stepped forward.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application. The house has been downsized from the previous
application; the lot was going to be rezoned; this will be a big improvement
for the lot and is a correct use of the land. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms.
Attorney Ginger Stillman
represented the applicant. She stated they are seeking a use variance to allow
the applicant to park her school bus on her residential property which is
located in an R-4 zone. The residence abuts the B-2 zone. Exhibit A-1 in the
packet shows the business adjacent to the property. The bus is about 20 feet
long and is partially concealed by vegetation on one side. The property line
abuts to a B-2 zone. Exhibits A-1 and A-6 show that the bus is partially
concealed by parking in the driveway along the property line. Exhibit A-4 and
A-5 show that the entrance to Ferromonte Avenue is in the B-2 zone. The
ordinance permits registered commercial vehicles to park overnight subject to
them being registered and that they be garaged. The applicants run an approved
licensed business for transportation, and they provide a needed service in the
transportation of school children.
Ms. Dargel said the application
shows Ginger Stillman as the applicant.
Ms. Stillman stated there was a
replacement application, and that was changed. The name of the business is LMS
Ms. Stillman stated the applicant
is Efigeni Carrero and Luz Sanchez.
Efigeni Carrero was sworn in.
Ms. Dargel announced the Sebatiano
Andreana/Carla Benedeuce application will not be heard and is carried to
Mr. Carrero stated he keeps the
bus parked on the right hand side of my house in the driveway. It is almost
secluded and is off the street. We only have one bus.
Ms. Robortaccio said she has been
to the site several times, and the vehicle in that driveway is not the one in
Ms. Stillman stated the vehicle
shown on A-6 is the vehicle he had when the application was made. Since that
time, a new bus has been purchased.
Ms. Dargel said when she went to
the house in October, there was a full sized bus there.
Mr. Carrero said the bus we have
now is a small school bus.
Ms. Robortaccio said the reason
for the variance is that school buses are not permitted to parked in the
Ms. Stillman stated not every
driver is at a property adjacent to a business zone.
Mr. Carrero said the size of this
vehicle is no longer than 20 feet. At the time of the application, I was
parking the bus on the street because we didn’t have the driveway paved. We
have since had the driveway paved and now park in the driveway.
Ms. Dargel said it is a
Mr. Carrero said LMS just has the
one vehicle, and the business is run out of the home. We purchased the new
vehicle in August. It is a very expensive vehicle, and I want to keep it off
Ms. Stillman said the vehicle is
hidden by vegetation and is adjacent to a B-2 zone.
Ms. Robortaccio said right next
to the bus is a single family home (#6), and then there are the apartments.
When you have a diesel engine that will be running, there will be fumes, and
that will disturb the residents.
Mr. Stern asked the hours of
Mr. Carrero said it leaves at 7
in the morning and comes back at 5:00. The office is just my computer. Dover
doesn’t have public transportation. The parents hire us and we transport the
students. On the weekends we don’t move the bus. No one comes to the office
at our house. We go to their houses.
Ms. Dargel asked how many other
buses the applicant has at his home or in LMS name.
Mr. Carrero said he has a
recreational vehicle which is his own personal van.
Mr. D’Amato asked if Mr. Carrero
has looked at other avenues for places to park the bus.
Mr. Carrero stated he has spoken
to some people, and there is nowhere to park it.
Ms. Robortaccio stated there are
several places in Roxbury where you can rent space to park commercial vehicles.
Mr. Stern said a home office is
permitted as an accessory use, but only if there is no outside indication that
the business in going on there. In this instance, with the bus there, it would
not be permitted.
Russell Vanderbush, Budd Street, was sworn in. He stated
the bus that was originally there was parked in the roadway and it created a
hazard. It is a very narrow road. Last week I saw the old LMS bus operated in
Dover. The bus affects the residential area. My house is 200 feet away from
this property. It affects the value of my property. The Township of Roxbury
is attempting to improve that corridor, and storage of vehicles outside does
not improve it.
Mr. Wiener asked Mr. Vanderbush
to look at exhibit A6. How does the site if the bus affect you?
Mr. Vanderbush by the noise of
the bus and the value of my property.
Henry Acevedo, 8 Ferromonte
Avenue, was sworn in. He stated he built this house and sold it to the
applicants. I have no problem with the bus being parked there as you only see
12 feet of it. He only has one bus. I can vouch for that. It leaves in the morning
and comes back at 5:00 and that’s where it stays. I don’t see a problem with
parking the bus there.
Mr. Vanderbush asked if Mr.
Acevedo resides at 8 Ferromonte Avenue.
Mr. Acevedo stated he does not
live there currently. He lives at 28 Palmer Street in Landing, and owns 8
Ms. Stillman stated if you look
at Exhibit A-6 it is not a huge bus. It is concealed. He provides a public
service by transporting public school children. There is a hardship in terms
of trying to find a place to park the bus to avoid any vandalism to the bus.
He is seeking approval for a variance to allow the bus to be parked on the
Mr. Carrero said I park the bus
right next to my house, and Mr. Vanderbush lives on the opposite end of the
street. There is no way he can hear the bus.
Mr. Kurtz made a motion to deny
the application. there has been no proof that there were buses that pre exist
the regulations. There is no hardship. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Kurtz, yes;
Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms.
The application was denied.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 9:10 p.m.
A. DeMasi, Secretary