A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township
of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairperson Gail
Robortaccio presiding. After a salute to the Flag, Ms. Robortaccio read the
“Open Public Meetings Act”.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Gail
Robortaccio, Mark Crowley, Joyce Dargel, Sebastian D’Amato, Robert Kurtz,
Barbara Kinback, Peter Giardina, Heather Darling.
ABSENT: Candy DeVenezia.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:
Larry Wiener, John Hansen.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Board Secretary; Tom Potere, Zoning Officer.
Minutes of 7/10/06
Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr.
D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms.
Darling, abstain; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms.
Robortaccio, yes.
RESOLUTIONS
BA-18-06 – DAKOR, INC –
FINAL SITE PLAN FOR ROXBURY MOTEL LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 6501, LOT
17 IN B-2 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: July 10, 2006
Memorialized: August 14, 2006
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- Alexander
Rinaldi, Esquire represented the applicant.
- The
applicant is the owner of the subject premises and the tenant of the
Roxbury Circle Motel.
- The
applicant previously received a use variance and related relief and
preliminary site plan approval. Same was memorialized in a 4/11/05 resolution.
- The
applicant was presently seeking final “as built” site plan approval.
- The
applicant submitted the following exhibits:
- Final
Site Plan Drawings prepared by Stewart Surveying and Engineering,
with a revision date of 1/31/06 consisting of 4 sheets
- A
final “as built” survey prepared by Stewart Surveying and Engineering,
dated 6/30/06
- The
Board received a report dated 7/6/06
from its Professional Planner, Russell Stern, as well as a report dated 7/7/06 from the
Board’s Engineering Consultant, John Hansen.
- During
the course of the public hearing, the applicant went through the reports
of the Board professionals, and as noted below, has substantially
addressed their concerns.
WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that the applicant has complied with the terms and
conditions of the prior approvals including the variance and preliminary site
plan, the Board finds the final site plan to be consistent with said approvals
and hereby approves same subject to the following:
- Trash
enclosure fence sections to be replaced with opposing boards having a
minimum 1 ½” consistent with the detail on sheet 2 of the approved
preliminary site plan.
- All
dumpsters and recycling containers shall be located within the
trash/recycling enclosure and such dumpster/container shall not exceed the
height of the enclosure.
- The
two double wall lights mounted on the second floor above the office shall
be removed.
- All
parking spaces and the “No Parking” area in front of the office shall be
striped as per the approved site plan.
- The
wood utility pole located in the center island shall be removed.
- Applicant
shall install either metal halide or mercury vapor lighting.
- All
construction debris, old light poles, discarded mattresses, old signs,
masonry block, etc. shall be removed from the site. Debris related to the
site located by the billboard adjoining lot 16 and the former Texaco
property shall be removed.
- Two
Leatherleaf Viburnum shall be installed.
- All
disturbed lawn areas shall be re-seeded and all planting beds mulched.
- Applicant
shall provide proof of payment of a mandatory development fee.
- This
approval is subject to the conditions of the prior resolutions not
specifically modified by this condition and taking note in particular that
the second floor is to be utilized for storage of non-volatile materials.
- Applicant
shall backfill the lighting conduit trench.
- The
installed “shoebox” lighting shall be field inspected to ensure compliance
with municipal standards.
- Applicant
shall supply copies of any applicable County approvals.
- Applicant
shall provide a final “as built” survey in digital form.
- The
final landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
To the extent the Township Planner deems a landscaping warranty necessary,
the applicant shall provide same.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Giardina, 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
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: July 10, 2006
Memorialized: August 14, 2006
WHEREAS, the
Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and
having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- The applicants are the owners
and occupants of the single-family home on site.
- The applicants were proposing to
construct an addition onto the existing home. Same was depicted on
architectural drawings as well as a plot plan noted with the application.
The proposed addition would substantially enlarge the existing rather
small structure and make same into a home that, in the opinion of the
applicants, would be much more compatible with the R-2 Zone.
- Applicant received a letter of
denial dated 6/8/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning
Officer.
- As noted, the subject premises
are a corner lot and thus have two nominal front yards. The front yard to
Hilltop Lane is non-conforming and that it
is 31.4’. That front yard is not going to be disturbed. The applicant’s
addition would square off and continue the existing 31.8’ non-conforming
setback to Tonneson
Drive.
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 location of the existing
infrastructure constitutes a hardship peculiar to the subject premises.
The applicant is merely “squaring off” an existing structure and continuing
an existing condition. Strict adherence to the zoning standard makes
absolutely no sense within the context of this application.
- The re-development of this
existing home will have a positive impact on this site and be consistent
with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Municipal Land Use
Law.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the10th day of July, 2006 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Addition to be sized and located
as depicted on the plan submitted with the application. Existing front
yard setback to Tonneson
Drive to continue
at 31.8’, as requested by the applicant. The Board notes the existing
non-conforming condition of the setback to Hilltop Lane of 31.4’.
Ms. Dargel made
a motion to approve the resolution. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes;
Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-37-06 - ALFRED DI
PASQUALE – VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD SETBACK; IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE; BULDING
COVERAGE FOR AN ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON CAROL DRIVE, BLOCK 1604,
LOT 17 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: July 10, 2006
Memorialized: August 14, 2006
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- The
applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
- The
applicants were proposing a significant renovation of the existing home.
They presented exhibits A-1 & A-2 which depicted the existing
structure which the applicants stated were outmoded. In addition, the
Board received architectural plans prepared by Jeffry R. McEntee,
architect, dated 3/28/06 consisting of four sheets including a section on
sheet A-1 of the plan characterized as Site Plan. The Board also received
a plot plan of the existing site.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 4/12/06
from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
- The
applicant was essentially staying within the existing footprint (some of
which was non-conforming except in the area of a proposed roof overhang
and for a portion of the rear yard). The areas in conflict were depicted
on a portion of exhibit A-1 designated “Site Plan”. The applicant’s
resulting rear yard setback would be reduced to 18.25’ (existing 22.67’
and required 35’). In addition, the applicant would be in violation of
total impervious coverage – 33.27% proposed versus the existing 30.81% and
25% maximum permitted as well as building coverage 25.11% proposed versus
the existing 22.07% and 15% required.
WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning
Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:
- The
Board finds the location of the existing infrastructure as well as the
shape of the lot to be hardships peculiar to the subject premises. The
Board notes the lot is very irregularly shaped and thus has a very skewed
conforming building footprint. The house itself is seriously outmoded and
the proposed addition will result in a much more functional and
aesthetically pleasing structure.
- The
variance requested is minimal under the circumstances and will have no
adverse impact.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 10th day of August, 2006 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Addition
to be sized and located as depicted on the architectural exhibits
submitted with the application.
- Rear
yard setback to be no less than 18.25’, maximum building coverage to be no
more than 24.11%, total impervious coverage to be no more than 33.27%.
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. Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes;
Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-40-06 – BRIAN &
CATHY FORMICA – VARIANCE FOR RETAINING WALL LOCATED ON LONG RIDGE CT. BLOCK
9205, LOT 39 IN R 2.5 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: July 10, 2006
Memorialized: August 14, 2006
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- Sandra
Woolcock-Jones, Esquire represented the applicants.
- The
applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
- The
applicants constructed a retaining wall and upon inspection it was
determined the retaining wall violated the design standards of the Zoning
Ordinance.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 6/22/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning
Officer.
- The
wall, as built, requires approval of the Township Engineering
Department as same is 7’ tall at its maximum point.
- The
applicant stated the wall was necessary to provide a level and reasonable
flat area in the applicant’s rear yard.
- The
neighbor to the rear presented four photos O-1 through O-4 and voiced
concern that the construction of the wall might have a negative impact on
drainage.
- After
a colloquy with the Board, the applicant agreed to the conditions noted
below.
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
request by the applicant are design waivers and not a variance. The
primary concern of the Board in addressing the design waivers is to make
sure that same is consistent with and does not impair the overall design
standards both for the instant application and the surrounding area.
- The
Board notes the subject premises are part of the Hunter’s Ridge
subdivision and that the drainage in grading of the applicant’s lot were
part of planned grading and drainage for the entire development and as
such, the Board wants to ensure that what the applicant has done will not
impair that plan.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 10th day of July, 2006 that the approval of the
within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Applicant
is to obtain all necessary engineering and inspection approvals from the
municipality.
- The
applicant shall submit a plan for landscaping at the foot of the retaining
wall and at the top of the retaining wall, which plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the Township Planner.
- The
applicant shall be permitted to construct an open fence not to exceed 4’
in height and set back at least 4’ from the retaining wall in the
applicant’s rear yard. The design and location of the fence shall be reviewed
and approved by the Township Planner. Accessory structure setbacks shall
be measured from the retaining wall.
- The
Board notes the applicant’s location survey indicated that a portion of
the retaining wall might be encroaching onto an adjoining property. The
applicant testified that there was an agreement with the adjoining
neighbors. The Board makes no findings relative to same nor does this
approval in any way give the applicant any rights to maintain any
encroachment on the adjoining property.
- The
applicant shall submit a plan for stormwater drainage off the site (at
present the applicant apparently has piped the roof leaders through the
retaining wall). The applicant’s plan shall be submitted to the Township
Engineer for the review and approval of the Township Engineer. It is the
Board’s intent that the applicant’s re-grading of the subject premises,
along with the construction of this retaining wall, shall not adversely
impact the existing design for stormwater management for this development.
- The
Board’s approval of this application shall not relieve the applicant from
compliance with all construction, design codes, or any other municipal
actions taken as a result of the applicant’s failure to secure proper
permits prior to construction.
Mr. Crowley made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Giardina seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley,
yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Robortaccio,
yes.
BA-35-06 – MIKE KRAMER –
VARIANCE TO HAVE A FIRE ARMS LICENSE LOCATED ON EYLAND AVENUE, BLOCK 1602, LOT
20 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: July 10, 2006
Memorialized: August 14, 2006
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- The
applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
- The
applicant was requesting for permission from the Board to conduct a home
occupation not permitted under the Zoning Ordinance.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 5/25/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning
Officer.
- The
applicant’s proposed business would be essentially an internet business
where the applicant would be selling firearms parts and accessories
pursuant to a federal license. These sales would be conducted via
advertising over the internet and presumably by way of mouth from existing
customers.
- The
applicant requires municipal approval for a business location in the home
in order to secure the appropriate State and Federal licensing to be a
re-seller of firearms and firearm’s accessories.
- The
applicant testified there would be no door-to-door sales nor would
customers be coming to the applicant’s home. There would be no signage
and the business operation would be limited to an 8’x12’ room within the
house. The applicant testified that the applicant would be the only
employee of the business. In addition, while the license would permit the
applicant to re-sell firearms including hand guns, the applicant stated
his business plan was to sell firearms accessories such as the target
weapon accessory the applicant displayed in Exhibit A-1 presented to the
Board.
- A
neighboring property owner appeared at the public hearing and expressed
concern with the concept of the applicant being able to sell firearms
within a residence in a residential zone.
- After
a colloquy with the Board, the applicant accepted the limitations noted
below.
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 business (other than the fact that it involves firearms) is a
low key use that should in no way present any problem with the continued
residential use of the home nor will it have an impact on any of the
adjoining property owners, the zone scheme, or the Master Plan.
Theoretically, the applicant’s business would have no more impact than
someone re-selling items on an internet auction such as, ebay.
Notwithstanding the rather low impact from a zoning and planning
perspective, the Board is mindful of the general public policy of New Jersey
regarding firearms and the location of the applicant’s home in a
residential zone; thus the conditions noted below.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 10th day of July, 2006 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- There
shall be no receiving of firearms for re-sale. This includes firearms for
repairs, fabrication of complete weapons, or third party facilitation
transfers.
- Applicant’s
business shall be limited to parts, accessories, upgrades, but no complete
weapons.
- There
shall be no employees other than the applicant. No signage and no
person-to-person sales at the residence.
- Any
violation of the conditions of this approval shall constitute a violation
of the Zoning Ordinance.
- A
copy of this resolution of approval shall be forwarded to the Roxbury
Township Police Department or any other municipal agency, which is
required to provide documentation of the approval of the applicant’s business
so that same was transmitted along with any approval to the appropriate
Federal or State regulators.
Ms. Robortaccio stated Mr. Kramer
is present and has written a letter to the Board and the Board Attorney.
Mr. Kramer stated there is a
license I need, and the way you have written the limitations in the
resolution, I cannot get the license.
Ms. Robortaccio said the letter
states we edited the approval after the fact. I have the verbatim minutes and
the tape.
Mr. Kramer said you also said it
couldn’t be enforced and it was dropped after the vote was done. I am going to
be watched very closely by the State and Federal Government. There are two
retailers in town doing the same thing I’m doing, and there is absolutely no
reason to deny me the same right.
Ms. Robortaccio said they are
businesses in town and are in businesses zones.
Mr. Kramer said they both have
residences right across the street, just as close as the nearest house to me.
Mr. Wiener stated the Board has
read Mr. Kramer’s correspondence and has read an unofficial transcript and the
draft minutes. Mr. Kramer is saying in the letter that if the Board approves
it this way, he doesn’t get a license.
Mr. Kramer stated I can’t have
the license the way the resolution is written. They don’t have a limited
license. You are either allowed to do it, or not allowed.
Mr. Wiener said, so you want a
license that would allow you unfettered ability to do what Ramsey Outdoor
does? And that, in fact, is what you are seeking?
Mr. Kramer said absolutely. I
have a copy of what the State Police asks me. I need a letter from the town
stating I can do it. Not that I can do this, and not that. They don’t offer
that. It is one way, yes or no. It wouldn’t be right that one business can do
it and another couldn’t. If you are giving me permission to operate a business
from my home, then don’t limit me just because it’s out of my home.
Ms. Robortaccio said that is why
you are before us, because you are in a residential zone. If you were opening
up a store it would be different.
Mr. Kramer said you told me I
could operate the business from home, but don’t limit me as to what product I
can sell. If I were selling picture frames, you wouldn’t be telling me which
picture frames I could sell.
Mr. Wiener said you are not being
singled out. If anyone comes in and asks for a variance, typically there are
restrictions that are put on. That is the way it was approved. The record is
pretty clear on that.
Mr. Kramer stated it seems
strange that after the vote you would have asked me if it’s ok to put
limitations in. It is very strange that was you question after the vote, and I
told you absolutely not.
Mr. Wiener said he doesn’t recall
that.
Mr. Kramer said you asked me
after the vote, after I was approved, and I said absolutely not. And Mr. Stern
sat there and gave the thumbs up after I explained why I would not give up my
rights for any future growth in business. What I plan on doing today doesn’t
mean that in two years I could possible expand.
Mr. Wiener said you would
presumably go to a conforming location.
Mr. Kramer said right, but I
cannot get the license to go forward with the way you write it. You are
limiting me to a sale that the government doesn’t offer. You shut me down the way
it is written.
Mr. Potere asked if Mr. Kramer
contacted the State and they told you exactly what you are saying to us?
Mr. Kramer said he has a copy of
what he got from the website, and a copy of the federal application. He gave
it to Mr. Wiener
Mr. Wiener read from the
application where it says under Question A-7 – You must first obtain a letter
from the zoning officer that fire arms and/or ammunition sales are permitted
from your location. Once you receive this letter it tells you where to send the
application, and you’ll then be sent an application package.
Mr. Wiener said he would
respectfully suggest that the Board make a determination based on what the
applicant says tonight, if you feel that is what the applicant was applying for
at the last hearing, and that’s what you approved, you can approve the
resolution as drawn, in which case I would presume that would lead the
applicant to actually send a letter to the State of New Jersey, and then if he
has a grievance with whatever limitations they put on, he can come back here.
Or, you can make whatever changes to the resolution you want based on the
minutes and informal transcript.
Mr. Wiener said if you feel what
he is asking for is beyond the original application, it is different from what
he was originally applying for, and I would suggest that you carry this to a
future public hearing, require him to re-notice and be more specific in his
notice as to what activities will be taking place on the site.
Mr. Crowley said I did make the
motion to approve the application based on the restrictions in the resolution.
I asked specific questions about ammunition and guns, and even about bringing
in third party guns into the State, and what you could do with that license,
and you said there would be none of that. I did make the motion with the
stipulations you agreed to at the time.
Mr. Kramer said what I asked for
was the opportunity to get a Federal fire arms license. I told you I don’t
plan on selling guns, and I don’t. But, I cannot get a license with you
telling me I can’t. What I intend to do doesn’t matter. They will not give me
what I need.
Mr. Crowley said I believe we
should leave the resolution as it is, and vote on it. If that doesn’t give you
what you need, you can come back to the Board.
Mr. Kramer said you have to write
the letter, not me.
Mr. Potere said actually, the
letter comes from me. Once the Board approves the resolution, I would take
that resolution and attach it to a letter and send it to the State.
Ms. Dargel stated his application
was for an internet business vs. a retail store. How does the ordinance
differentiate between an internet business and retail store?
Mr. Wiener stated the license
would give him the opportunity to do lots of things, including allowing
customers to come to the house. We don’t address specifically internet
businesses in the ordinance. We do address home business. What we did here
was give a use variance, with conditions. He is stating the conditions don’t
work for him, based on some answers he is getting from a website.
Mr. Kramer said it is the New
Jersey State Police website.
Mr. Wiener stated I would suggest
that if those of you who voted for the applicant believe the resolution clearly
encompasses what was voted on, you should vote to adopt the resolution.
Mr. Kramer asked what the reason
is for not giving me what I asked for. What are you afraid of? I am a
licensed fire arms owner already.
Ms. Robortaccio said we discussed
that we were going to put restrictions on it, and you said right.
Mr. Kramer said I explained to
you what I need and what it needs to say. I need the federal license to sell
the parts.
Ms. Robortaccio said you are in a
residential zone and it makes a difference.
Mr. Kramer said so is the dentist
up the street. He delivers narcotics. What is the big deal?
Ms. Robortaccio said it doesn’t
matter what you are selling. You are operating a business out of your home and
you need a variance.
Mr. Crowley stated I believe the
variance that was granted was what you asked for.
Mr. D’Amato asked what are the
limitations they will accept?
Mr. Kramer said they won’t accept
limitations. You can either do this, or you can’t do this. The way you did
it, I can’t do any of it.
Ms. Robortaccio asked Mr. Wiener
what the Board’s options are.
Mr. Wiener said the first option
is that the Board can vote on the resolution if they feel it clearly and
accurately reflects what took place at the meeting. If Mr. Kramer doesn’t like
the resolution or he applies for a fire arms license and doesn’t get the
results he wants, he could come back with a different application.
Mr. Kramer asked if he could take
this to the County level at this point.
Ms. Robortaccio said first we
have to vote on this, and then you can appeal our decision.
Mr. Crowley made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Dargel, no; Mr. Giardina, yes.
Resolution approved.
AGENDA
BA-34-06 – PAXOS – VARIANCE
FOR SETBACK FOR SIGN LOCATED ON RT. 10, BLOCK 3604, LOT 2 IN B-2 ZONE
James Paxos was present.
Ms. Robortaccio said Mr. Paxos
has submitted plans moving the sign to the grassy area and has a new sign he is
proposing, 15 feet in from the shoulder.
Mr. D’Amato asked if the 15 feet
in from the shoulder is a requirement. Does it have to be that far in?
Mr. Potere stated the ordinance
says it has to be a certain footage from the roadway. That is for a sign
setback.
Ms. Robortaccio asked what is the
required setback?
Mr. Potere stated the front
setback requirement is 20 feet from the road right-of-way.
Ms. Robortaccio asked if this is
a monument sign.
Mr. Paxos said yes.
Ms. Dargel asked if the sign will
be lit.
Mr. Paxos said yes, and agreed it
will be lit in accordance with the ordinances.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. D’Amato made a motion to
approve the application. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. D’Amato,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr.
Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
Ms. Robortaccio announced Application
BA-20-06, Richard Bain, will not be heard and has been withdrawn. Application
BA-45-06 – Carolanne Donnelly, will not be heard and will be heard on
10/16/06.
Ms. DeMasi stated Petco will not
be heard and is carried to 9/11/06.
BA-20-06 - 1ST
BAPTIST CHUCH OF LEDGEWOOD – SITE PLAN FOR ALL-PURPOSE ROOM LOCATED ON MAIN ST.
BLOCK 6406, LOT 4/5 IN B2/R3 ZONE
Attorney Richard Wade represented
the applicant.
Nick Wunner, engineer for the
applicant addressed Mr. Ferriero’s report dated 8/14/06:
Item 1 – We wish to have the
building as shown on the plan because it is tucked into the corner of the
property and we wanted to keep it off the slopes, and there are trees to hide
the building. The church uses the grass area at the side of the building.
Mr. Wunner said Mr. Stern had
questions about the slopes, and I had stated they are manmade. Photos of the
slopes were marked A-2, A-3, A-4. The slopes are just piles of dirt, and they
are not pristine slopes.
Item 2 – Discussion. Fence will
be board-on-board, as per Mr. Stern’s request
Item 3 – done
Item 4 – agreed
Item 5 – will use PVC pipe – to
be worked out with Mr. Hansen
Items 6 thru 16 – agreed
Item 12 – will be field
inspected, and the type of light will be determined
Mark Bock, architect, stepped
forward. He stated he has provided new drawings (marked A-5). We are showing
a representation of the colors and materials. We are planning to use a base of
aggregate block for the bottom 3 feet of a light brown color. At the window
level there will be a base of pre-cast stone. Above that will be synthetic
stucco, two different colors. We will incorporate gothic style windows. The
back has not changed. The colors are representative of the area and work well
with the church itself. The original elevation was metal panel. The lower
right elevation is as you approach from the main road. The upper left is what
you would see from the parking lot.
Mr. Wade asked if Mr. Bock
considered using natural stone.
Mr. Bock stated he has considered
a cultured stone product, and that would run about $20,000 extra. I don’t know
if the owner would care to venture into that. I believe we can do a good job
with a block that has an aggregate in it and a variation of colors. We have
taken quite a few of the features of the church into consideration, such as the
style and shape of the window, and the main entrance which is a canopy, with an
inset corner.
Ms. Dargel asked if there will be
landscaping.
Mr. Bock said there will be
landscaping.
Ms. Dargel asked where the level
of the highway behind this comes on the building.
Mr. Bock said approximately at
the lower part of the upper windows. About 10 feet will be showing.
Ms. Darling asked if there is a
rendering of the rear elevation showing what it would look like from Route 46.
Mr. Bock said we don’t have color
renderings, but they would be the same color as that. It would be block, metal
panels representative of the efface which is a light beige, and the green
roof. It wouldn’t have all of the intricate reveals and windows.
Ms. Darling asked if we would be
seeing the metal panels or the efface on the second half?
Mr. Bock said on the other two
elevations you would be seeing the metal panels.
Ms. Darling asked how much of
that would be visible to people passing on Route 46.
Mr. Bock said yes. I don’t think
the visibility would be very clear, and the one elevation is behind the auto
body shop and probably wouldn’t be seen at all.
Mr. Crowley asked why they did
not use the same treatment as in the front.
Mr. Bock said it would be
cost-prohibitive. In the back of the building, I don’t think it is a wise
choice of material. If you don’t get a lot of sun, you end up getting mold and
mildew.
Ms. Robortaccio asked how
cost-restrictive it would be.
Mr. Bock stated it would be at
least 3 to 4 times the cost of the metal panels. We did what the Board asked
the last time for us to do.
Mr. Wiener said Mr. Stern has
some reservations.
Ms. Dargel asked if the metal
panels will be galvanized.
Mr. Bock said yes.
Ms. Robortaccio stated in Item
2.2 of Mr. Stern’s report it states approval is not recommended based on the
plans submitted.
Ms. Robortaccio said Item 2.3
refers to the side facing Route 46. He is not happy with that. It says in
some respects, the plans have taken a step backwards.
Mr. Bock said at the last hearing
I believe that it was really not that critical from the highway side because of
the coverage of the trees, as well as the other building hiding the third
elevation, and that we were more concerned about the treatment from the
neighborhood area and the parking lot and bank area.
Ms. Robortaccio said although the
Board is sympathetic to the cost involved, cost is not an issue for our
determination. We look at the structure itself as opposed to the cost to you.
Mr. Wade said the only building
in this whole zone that is stone is the church. We are next to an auto body
shop. They are in a treed area. You are not really visible from Route 46,
except maybe for a matter of seconds. We believe you should take into
consideration the type of building that is being put here.
Ms. Robortaccio said it is a
metal paneled building and looks like an industrial building from Route 46.
Mr. Wade said for the church,
cost is a factor, and it is not practical to do what Mr. Stern is asking.
There is no one walking there, and there is no visibility of any kind other
than traffic. For most of the year there are trees with leaves. The Board has
to bend to some extent for the church to build this building. As long as they
are building a facility that is new, decent, and aesthetically pleasing, under
the circumstances the back side is not something that is detrimental. It is
just not as nice as the front.
Mr. Crowley said I don’t’ believe
the back is aesthetically pleasing. I also don’t believe the trees will be
adequate screening. I also don’t believe we should make a determination based
on there being an auto body next door. It may move. This is a building in an
historic district, and in my opinion, I would like to see the best possible
building there. It may be there for along time.
Mr. Wade said there has to be
some balance. The building has to be affordable.
Mr. Wiener suggested it may be
fruitful for the applicant to meet with Mr. Stern to come to some kind of a
compromise.
Mr. D’Amato stated there are ways
of making a building more aesthetically pleasing from a distance, and it would
mimic the side of the building. Is that a possibility?
Mr. Bock said there are metal
panels with different finishes, but it would not look like stone. The only
place that has stone right now is the bottom 3 or 4 feet. Above that we might
be able to have an insulated metal panel with a faux concrete finish on it.
That is at a great expense, compared to just the metal paneled building.
Mr. Kurtz stated it appears you
will have the same color in the back except it will be metal siding vs.
stucco. That is about 14 feet possibly being seen with cars doing 50 mph. As
I recall, the Historic Advisory Committee was more worried about the right side
and the front and the side you would see from the driveway. The cost to make
it better I don’t see. I think you are putting a burden on the applicant.
Richard Cramond, Chairman of the
Historic Advisory Committee, stepped forward. He stated this rendering is
quite different from the first presentation. The changes are quite drastic.
While the arches on the windows are quite acceptable, the materials on the
fascias have totally changed. Originally it was stucco material with metal
panels above the second half. Now we have architectural block on the bottom,
and then synthetic stucco system. The first rendering had a bar to break up
the wall. Now, there is no continuation of the moldings to indicate a total
window area. That original treatment was quite satisfactory and we recommended
that treatment be continued on this facade. This was the principal discussion
we had on the exterior, to reflect more of the character of the original
church, not to cause increased expense in materials as far as stone was
concerned. Originally we had discussed a synthetic stone façade in the
entranceway under the overhang. That is the only stone we had recommended.
Why now is there a change to the new materials when the original materials were
acceptable?
Mr. Bock stated we tried to
simplify it a little bit. It was also a mixture of the stucco with the metal
panels. The metal panels did not agree with the Board.
Mr. Cramond stated we would like
to see more detail in the continuation of the window treatment down so it
matches the front. This can be done by putting a molded panel to make it look
like a continuation of the entire window system. I would agree in some ways
this is a step backwards. We had not seen this rendering before and have not
discussed it. I would make a suggestion that the architect and planner and me
meet to work out a compromise.
Mr. Wade agreed.
Pastor David Holwick stepped
forward. He said our committee is trying to make everyone happy. The inside
of the building is what is the most important to the church. We don’t see this
as a duplicate for the church. We want to make a distinction between the
sanctuary and the other buildings. We feel the architect has done a very good
job. We feel this is a good building. If you are on Route 46, you can barely
see the church right now without this building. Our building committee and
finance committee are in support of what was outlined tonight. We are willing
to meet with Mr. Cramond and Mr. Stern.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for
questions on tonight’s testimony.
Pat Jacke, 40 Horizon Drive, was
sworn in. She stated she has been a Roxbury resident for 31 years. She had no
questions
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
The application was carried to
10/16/06.
There was a 5 minute recess at
8:45 p.m.
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. He stated Mr. Trochez owns a single family home. The house is
in the B-2 zone district and is a pre-existing nonconforming use. The lot is
16,868 square feet, and the zone requires 10,000 square feet. The existing
building meets all the requirements for the zone in terms of bulk standards.
Mr. Trochez applied for a building permit to build two new bedrooms and a
bathroom in the basement. He was denied by the Zoning Officer based on the
fact that it constituted an expansion or enlargement of a nonconforming use.
We do not believe that it actually is an enlargement or extension. If the
Board determines it is, we believe it clearly constitutes a reason for the
Board to grant a variance for that purpose.
Jose Trochez was sworn in. In
answer to questions from Mr. Kron, Mr. Trochez said he lives at 1 Canal Street
and has lived there 4 years. He is the owner of the property, and his two
sisters and a brother-in-law live there with him. No one else lives there
other than those other three. The existing house has 3 rooms on the first
level, one bedroom, a kitchen and living room. I am requesting to put two
bedrooms and a bathroom in the basement. Right now I have my room in the
basement. I don’t rent rooms out, and don’t intend to. I have two motor
vehicles, and my sister has two. No one else in the house has vehicles.
Sometimes we have visitors.
Mr. Kron showed motor vehicles
registrations from two cars for Mr. Trochez, and two for the sister. (marked
–1 and A-2)
Mr. Trochez stated the proposal
is not for any work on the outside. All work is being done inside the
basement.
Ms. Dargel asked if Mr. Trochez
added an outside basement entrance.
Mr. Trochez said no. It was
already there when he bought the home. It was a single walk-out door. There
were also stairs there. The stairs are still there. There are about 5 steps.
Ms. Darling asked if there is a
laundry room and bathroom in the basement.
Mr. Trochez said yes.
Ms. Robortaccio asked how many
bedrooms there are.
Mr. Trochez said there are 3
bedrooms upstairs and we have already added 2 bedrooms in the basement.
Ms. Robortaccio asked if there
are children.
Mr. Trochez said no.
Ms. Robortaccio asked why they
need 5 bedrooms.
Mr. Trochez said he has a lot of
family around. They come from his country, and he needs places for them to
sleep when they come to visit.
Eric Snyder was sworn in. He gave
his qualifications as a professional planner and was accepted by the Board.
He stated he has reviewed the proposal.
He distributed copies of a report
he had prepared. (marked A-3).
Ms. Dargel said we were just
handed this document with no chance to review it before the hearing.
Mr. Kron stated Mr. Snyder will
testify to what is in the report.
Mr. Snyder stated this is an
expansion of a nonconforming use, as determined by the Zoning Officer. This is
an unusual expansion as there is no actual expansion. The home, as it stood 4
years ago, is the same from the outside. The rights that Mr. Trochez has to
occupy the home are the same as they were 4 years ago. One of the things we
don’t do is regulate family size. In preparing the report, I looked at the
ordinances and reexamination statement to see what Roxbury wants in their
town. Two of the principal objectives are the preservation of residential
neighborhoods, and ancillary to that is providing appropriate locations, etc.
for development such that they are compatible with adjacent land uses. This
home is at the beginning of a residential neighborhood. It is a single-family
neighborhood. Photos are included in the report showing that the house is
related to the other homes in the neighborhood and not to the highway. There
isn’t anything in the master plan to indicate why this home is included in the
B-2 zone. The photos show there is a tree barrier between this property and
the adjacent office structure. There were concerns about the impact of the
construction of two bedrooms and a bathroom in this house. In this case, there
won’t be any increase in traffic or impact to the neighborhood. There are only
4 people living in the house, but he has the right to have friends and family
stay there. There isn’t anything to suggest this will have any measurable
impact on the neighborhood. There is no relationship to the highway zone. It
is clearly connected to the residential neighborhood. The MLUL talks about
special reasons. I have quoted three – locating uses in appropriate locations;
health, safety and welfare; and this proposal simply makes living in the home
more convenient for Mr. Trochez. It doesn’t give him the right or ability to
do anything different from what he did 4 years ago. There are special reasons,
because this provides for public health, safety, and welfare. Mr. Trochez gets
some privacy in the basement and gets to have his family stay. This is a
family home, and it is appropriate. As to negative criteria, there won’t be
any impact to the neighborhood and zone plan. RSIS says a single family house
is permitted 10.2 trips per unit. There is no additional water use or sewage
discharge, no additional noise beyond what you would expect with any
single-family use. It is unique, as it is just barely a use variance. It is
an extended family living in a single-family home. What occurs in the house is
not perceptible from the outside.
Mr. Crowley asked why this is a
use variance.
Mr. Snyder said he chose not to
argue with the Zoning Officer. I don’t believe I would have looked at this as
an expansion. We are arguing it because we are here.
Mr. Wiener asked if Mr. Snyder
reviewed the memo dated 6/29/06 received from the Historic Advisory Committee.
Mr. Snyder said he did, and he
addressed the items in the report:
1- Property is adjacent to the
Drakesville Historic District – Mr. Snyder said it is just a single family home
and shares the same impact as other adjacent single family homes.
2- no comment
3- this is an extended family,
not three families.
4- no comment
5 – The testimony is that there
are 4 vehicles owned by the residents, and others may park there routinely.
There is a driveway with a gravel parking area off-street. There is no point
made that it is inappropriate or illegal. The concern with parking for
residences in general is that you don’t clog up the street. For a party, they
will park all over. I visited the site at different times on different days,
and I never saw more than 3 cars, and did not notice that the lawn was at all
torn up.
Mr. Snyder stated he doesn’t
think the comments of the Commission are germane to this application.
Ms. Robortaccio asked if the
bedrooms in the basement are building code violations.
Mr. Potere stated if constructed
correctly, no.
Mr. Wiener said any approval
would be subject to their complying with BOCA code regulations. If this is
approved, it does not supercede the building codes.
Ms. Dargel asked if Mr. Snyder is
aware the property directly to the left is a business use.
Mr. Snyder said yes.
Ms. Dargel said there is a
corner, and one of the two roads next to it is Main Street. Main Street is a
business zone as well, and there are businesses on Main Street. In affect,
this borders an office business, is adjacent to a highway, and borders a main street
that is a mixture of businesses and residences.
Mr. Snyder said it has no
frontage on the highway and is not related to the highway. It is at the edge
of the residential district and the highway district. The top picture on page
one gives a sense of how visible this piece is from the highway, because of the
trees. At the bottom of page three, the photo shows that between this
property and the highway, there is a relatively dense stand of trees, Main
Street, the grass strip and then the highway.
Ms. Dargel asked if Mr. Snyder
would maintain that if you were to pass this property and make a right, that is
not the highway?
Mr. Snyder stated it is the piece
of Main Street that feeds into the highway.
Ms. Dargel said in that picture
the car is on Rote 10 East which is the highway.
Mr. Snyder said that is correct,
and you can see how small the car looks, and see how remote it is.
Ms. Dargel said, to me it is not
remote.
Ms. Dargel asked if it is correct
that there are only 4 people living there.
Mr. Snyder said that appears to
be the testimony, with room for relatives to stay during certain periods of
time.
Ms. Dargel asked if there are any
stacking ordinances in Roxbury Township
Mr. Snyder said no.
Ms. Robortaccio stated she has
seen cars parked on the lawn many times.
Mr. Crowley asked Mr. Potere to
explain why this is a variance.
Mr. Potere stated there was a
complaint registered with the township over a year ago about a possible
stacking issue and a lot of cars. Myself and a health inspector conducted a
complete site inspection, and there were 3 cars in the parking lot and only 4
people living in the house. That’s when we saw the bedrooms and bathroom in
the basement. We asked if there were permits, and there were none. It is
somewhat of a life hazard use. It is in the basement and is not a normal
living area.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
Tom Stark, 10 Riggs Avenue, was
sworn in. He stated there are 4 cars there now. Up until recently there have
been 6 to 10 cars in front of the house. I don’t have a problem with them
fixing up the house. There are no stacking laws in Roxbury, and it is time we
had something like that. My concern is the number of cars that have been
there. They were there for more than a few days; they were there for a week or
more.
Ms. Robortaccio said if Mr. Stark
feels the township should have a stacking ordinance, he should probably take
his concerns to the Township Council.
Ms. Dargel asked if Mr. Stark has
seen any indication that there are more than 4 people living there.
Mr. Stark said he does not know.
He hasn’t been in the house.
Mr. Potere stated we don’t have a
stacking ordinance, but there is a State code that Roxbury adopted, and it is
what we use in place of the stacking code. That’s what we use as a model to
identify if there is an overcrowding problem. The regulation allows 30 square
feet per person for sleeping space, and 70 square feet for living space. For
that house, you probably could get 15 to 20 people, excluding the basement.
Mr. Kron stated the client’s
testimony is that he is not going to rent this out. There are 4 people living
there, and they are all related to them. That is his only intent. There is
also a State Supreme Court case that would regulate that which says you can’t have
unrelated people living there.
Mike Rodrigues, 1 Morris Street,
was sworn in. He stated if each person can drive 2 ½ cars, I would like to see
it. After the last meeting, Mr. Trochez’s wife talked to us and admitted to me
that last holiday there were 21 people there for over two months. If you
adopted the State ordinance, maybe you should re-look over the ordinance. It
isn’t working.
Mike Andrisano, 9 Riggs Avenue
was sworn in. He said he has nothing against anyone inviting their family in.
The planner made a statement about how there is no immediate impact on the
community. There is an impact - the number of cars there, the condition of the
home in front, the quantity of people. They all walk to WalMart. Riggs Avenue
is a dead end street. The town saw fit to stop us from making a left hand turn
at the end of Riggs. That means we have to make a left and go back down onto
Canal, which brings us right in front of this house. There are always more
than 4 cars there. I served on planning boards and boards of adjustment and
the Morristown Town Council. You need protection, like I do. I have watched
communities like Morristown and Dover where they have three and four-family
homes.
Mr. Wiener said we have to follow
certain rules and procedures. Lets talk specifically to the facts of this
application.
Mr. Andrisano said if he is
granted the application and decides to sell next week, you potentially have a
house in my neighborhood with 5 bedrooms. If he decides to rent it out and is renting
out to 4 families all belonging to him as relatives, that is an issue. The
main issue is stacking. If this Board wants to push it over to the Council,
that is what they should do. But don’t say it doesn’t impact the community,
because it does. With five bedrooms, bringing in family any time you want to,
what are you going to do? Are you going to ID these individuals? You don’t
have the right. The health inspector has the right, or the zoning officer, but
that is even limited. Who would go in? The fire official?
Mr. Kron objected, and said it
would have to be subject to the Zoning Officer and building codes. He has to
comply with those. That is not for this Board to decide.
Mr. Andrisano said the impact is
that you don’t know who is in your neighborhood, and you don’t want to see your
house burn down because of the close proximity, and you want to know how many
people are in the house. Does this Board have a right to make that decision?
Most certainly they do.
Mr. Wiener instructed the Board
to ignore the comments about who is walking around in their neighborhood. It
is irrelevant to the zoning issue before the Board.
Kathy Panetta, 14 Raritan Ave,
was sworn in. She stated this extended family seems to be all male who stare
at our children when they are playing.
Mr. Kron objected. It is not all
males. In fact, there are two females living there as well.
Ms. Panetta stated there are a
lot of men walking up and down the street to Wal Mart that we don’t know. We
are afraid of letting our children ride bikes freely and play. I moved out of
Dover to get away from it.
Mr. Wiener said the Board should
ignore that comment as well.
Ms. Robortaccio said that is a
prejudicial statement, and we are only here to discuss the merits of this
application. If you have a concern about people in your neighborhood, you may
want to speak to the police department.
No one else stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Wiener said the Board has to
deal with the zoning issue that is here and analyze the variance being sought,
assess the impact, and make a decision based on the local ordinance and
municipal land use law.
Mr. Kron stated the applicant is
a decent hard working gentleman and has testified to two sisters and a brother
in law. He just wants to put in two bedrooms and a bathroom. No one has
testified that the construction of the two bedrooms and bathroom is a problem.
It will be imperceptible to the outside. It is clearly a residence and what he
has done is minute and we don’t believe under the ordinance it even constitutes
an enlargement or extension. Since the Zoning Office has indicated it is, we
have clearly made a case for the variances we sought. Not one issue raised
legitimately indicates that what my client has done in any way impacts the
neighborhood or the neighborhood scheme or is it in any way detrimental. He is
subject to the building permit ordinance, health ordinances, electric
ordinances, etc.
Mr. Crowley made a motion to
approve the application. Ms. Darling seconded.
Roll as follows:
Mr. Crowley, yes. – I struggle
with whether it is use variance or not. The building footprint did not
change. The other issues can be dealt with in other ways.
Ms. Darling, yes. – For the same
reasons as Mr. Crowley stated. I don’t think anything has been stated that
this is not a family.
Ms. Kinback, yes. – I don’t’
think it is a zoning violation. He has to go through the permitting process.
Mr. D’Amato, yes – For the same
reasons. Family is family, and sometimes you need extra rooms.
Mr. Kurtz, no. The basement is
an intensified condition. It was not asked for. It is an area that was
intended for basement, not living space.
Ms. Dargel, yes. - Separating the
emotional issues from the zoning issue, the residence is in a business zone and
there are other residences there. I disagree with Mr. Snyder’s statement that
this is incorrectly zoned. However, the building footprint isn’t changing. A
single-family house can have 5 bedrooms. The issue of whether or not it is an
over use has no bearing on whether or not it is the proper use in the zone. It
is an older house, and I don’t think there is any reason to deny this
particular expansion
Ms. Robortaccio, yes. – I feel
the applicant went ahead and built this without proper permits. The only
reason I vote yes is that a lot of what we’ve heard didn’t have to do with
zoning, but with prejudices. That is an unfair way to deal with a zoning issue.
BA-33-06 – LUIGI &
JACQUELYN BASTONE – VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD SETBACK FOR DECK LOCATED ON MELISSA
LANE, BLOCK 4801, LOT 25 IN R-2 ZONE
Jacquelyn and Luigi Bastone were
sworn in.
Mr. Bastone stated he purchased a
home last November and the deck collapsed on Memorial Day. The original deck
was 20 by 15 and I want to replace it with a 32 x 15 deck. The requirement is
for 50 feet from the rear, and the end of the deck is only 40 feet from the
backyard. Behind us is woods and wetlands.
Ms. Dargel asked what is unique
about the lot that you would need a variance.
Mr. Bastone stated there are
wetlands behind us, and no adjoining property owner behind us.
Ms. Dargel asked if the reason
you are here is because the house is already on the rear yard setback?
Mr. Bastone said yes.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Kinback made a motion to
approve the application. Ms. Dargel seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Kinback,
yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr.
Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-42-06 – BILL WACHTER –
VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR A POOL LOCATED ON
MORNINGSIDE DR. BLOCK 3201, LOT 61 IN R-2 ZONE
Bill Wachter was sworn in. He
stated he wants to install a 21 foot pool and that he needs a variance for
impervious coverage. Existing is 25% and the pool will make it 27%. Also, the
best place for the pool will be 10 feet from the rear property line, where I
would need to be 15 feet from the line. The slope of the driveway is toward
the backyard, and this is the best place for the pool, and it gives me a little
more privacy.
Ms. Dargel asked where the lowest
area of the lot is.
Mr. Wachter said it is along the
property line to the rear. There are two storm drains. Any water that runs
goes along the back toward the storm drain.
Ms. Robortaccio asked if there is
10 feet between the deck and pool.
Mr. Wachter said yes.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes. She stated the application is not harmful to anyone around; there is a
storm drain there to mitigate. Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Darling,
yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-44-06 – TREND MOTORS –
VARIANCE FOR SIGN LOCATED ON COMMERCE BLVD., BLOCK 5002, LOT 3 IN B-3 ZONE
Mr. Wiener stated he spoke with
Mr. Inglesino, and Mr. Wiener represented the applicant in Rockaway Borough
when they made improvements to their site there, and hasn’t done any work for
them for 10 or 12 years. He said he has no problem sitting in on this
application.
Mr. Inglesino had no objection.
Attorney John Inglesino
represented the applicant. He stated we are here to appeal the denial of the
zoning permit for a sign, or to request a variance for the sign.
Exhibit A-1 was marked – photos
of existing sign and proposed sign.
Mr. Inglesino stated the reason
for the denial was for setback from the right-of-way. The ordinance requires a
15-foot setback, and the existing pole, which will not be changed, is 10 feet
from the right-of-way. There are two signs on the existing pole. Both of
those signs would be removed and would be replaced by a new Chrysler sign. The
new sign is less square footage and conforms with the ordinance in square
footage, and is 5 feet less than the ordinance permits. Today you have two
signs on the pole. The Zoning Officer was of the opinion that because the sign
was going to be not far enough from the right of way that the variance would be
required. We would request the Board would direct the Zoning Officer to issue
the permit. We are not adding to the existing nonconformity, so we can obtain
a permit from the Zoning Official. He can issue the permit when you are not
intensifying a pre-existing nonconforming structure. There is case law that
addresses it. Sherman v. Harvey Cedars, which is a 1990 appellate division
case. If the Board does not want to ask the Zoning Officer to reconsider, we
would ask for a C variance. If the Board would like to consider a variance, we
would have testimony from the owner.
Mr. Potere stated this site was
before the Board some time ago for almost the same issue. It is a car
dealership in a B-3 zone and is a conditional use. Car dealerships and auto
dealerships are only permitted in B-2 zones. It is a nonconforming site.
There was a planning board approval for it in the mid-1980s and there was an
issue about the sign then. When the application was submitted to me, the
location of the pole sits at 15 feet, but the actual sign itself projects
closer to the roadway, to within 10 feet of the road right-of-way. It is a
nonconforming sign, and any change to the sign would require a variance. The
new sign will protrude almost 1 foot closer to Commerce Boulevard.
Ms. Kinback said she thought the
sign was going to be smaller.
Mr. Inglesino said it is. We are
not intensifying a pre-existing structure. The pole is existing, and we don’t
propose to move it. All we are asking is to change the sign that is attached
to the pole with a smaller sign. There are two signs there, and we want to
replace them with one sign. My understanding was that the new sign is not
closer to Commerce Boulevard. If that is the case, we can proceed for a C
variance.
Mr. Potere stated the application
had a survey dated 1994. There was also an 8’ x 6’ branding sign from
Chrysler, and the sign is 6’ 1 ¾ “ x 8’3”. As per the plan that was
submitted, the sign that projects out towards Commerce Boulevard is 4 ½ feet
vs. 6 feet.
Mr. Inglesino said we are
withdrawing the request to appeal the decision of the Board and would like to
seek a C-1 variance.
Alessio Prizzi, general manager
of Trend Motors, was sworn in. He described the sign and its location for the
Board. He said there is a buffer of grass and white stone that separates the
display area from the grass. All the light posts are located there and that is
where the pole for the sign is located. To move it back 5 feet would ruin the
aesthetics and take away from the parking area we have now. It would also be a
considerable expense. There is a distance of 20 feet between the pole and the
curb now, and there is enough of a buffer. When we took over the dealership,
part of the franchise agreement was to put up the correct signs.
Ms. Kinback stated the new sign
is an improvement, and this takes it from two signs to one.
Mr. Kurtz stated they came to the
Board because they are nonconforming, and they want to improve the sign.
Mr. Giardina asked if the sign
can be mounted on the pole facing closer to the building.
Mr. Inglisino stated the sign is
already somewhat blocked, as shown on picture #2.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve
the application. Ms. Kinback seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes;
Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-43-06 – PRESTIGE
PLUMBING – VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, BUILDING COVERAGE AND
SETBACK FROM RAILROAD TO BUILD HOME LOCATED ON HIGH STREET, BLOCK 4001, LOT 30
IN R-3 ZONE
Attorney Larry Kron represented
the applicant. He stated the property is on High Street and is in the R-3
zone. The proposal is to construct a single family home on the lot. We have
noticed for four variances: front yard setback; impervious coverage; building
coverage; and setback from the railroad.
Mr. Kron stated for front yard
setback, the R-3 zone provides that when the existing buildings on the same
side of the street form an established line, the setback can be 25 feet if
compatible with the established setbacks for the area.
Steven Smith, surveyor and
professional planner, was sworn in. He gave his qualifications for the Board.
He referred to Exhibit A-1, an enlarged copy of the tax map sheet, and
described the approximate setbacks of the homes on the street. There is an
established setback which is 20± feet and would not require a variance. One of
the reasons for not pushing the house back farther (shown on sheet ½ of the
plot plan) is because of the setback requirement from the railroad right-of-way
in the back.
Mr. Smith discussed the variance
for setback from the railroad. The minimum setback is 100 feet from the
railroad right-of-way. The proposed dwelling is set back 54 feet. If we come
up with the established front yard setback and the Board goes along with that,
and we had the 100 foot setback from the railroad right-of-way, we would be
able to only construct a house 0 feet deep. The variance is a hardship
variance based on the shape and configuration of the property. We are asking
for the variance.
Mr. Wiener asked if the other
properties on the street are also in violation of the setback to the railroad
right-of- way.
Mr. Smith said yes. He referred
to tax map sheet 40, which shows all the lots on the northerly side of High
Street starting from Hillside Avenue. All the lots have the same
characteristics that our lot has.
Mr. Smith said regarding
imperious coverage, the further we push the house towards High Street, the less
driveway we need, and the less coverage we have. The R-3 zone permits 25%
impervious coverage and we proposed 26.6%. We are proposing 1,660 square feet
and are about 98 square feet over the ordinance. We could reduce it by about
50 square feet if we reduce the driveway to 10 feet width. We felt a 12-foot
wide driveway is easier to navigate. We would ask that you grant the variance
for impervious coverage.
Mr. Smith said the last variance
is for building coverage. The maximum allowed is 15% and we propose 21.1%.
These percentages were developed assuming a 15,000 square foot lot. In order
to comply, we would be able to have a footprint of 927 square feet. Most new homes
are constructed with at least a one car garage and that is what we propose.
That would allow us to have 740 square feet of living area on the first floor.
The size and styles of the homes in the area vary drastically. The new homes
are being constructed larger than the older homes. I feel the variance is
justified as it will not look out of place on the property. We comply with the
sideyard setbacks.
There was a 5 minute recess at
10:45 p.m.
Ms. Kinback asked what the soil
pile is.
Smith said we did some soil
tests, and that was left there.
Mr. Smith stated with the
property backing up to the railroad, it gives the feel of the lot being 250
feet in depth as opposed to 125 feet. It isn’t our property, but the feel of
not having another neighbor directly behind gives the sense of a large
property. Based on that, the building coverage has a feel of less percentage.
It is a unique property and a lot that was created by a subdivision.
Mr. Smith referred to exhibit
A-3, map dated June of 1813. In my opinion this would fit in with the
neighborhood zoning scheme. The lots in the area are of multiple sizes. It is
a preexisting lot and the proposed home will fit in. The house would have a
covered front porch and is pleasing architecturally from the street and would
be positive for the lot.
Mr. Kurtz asked if the applicant
would be wiling to put a fence in the backyard.
Mr. Smith said yes.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Potere said the applicant has
a plumbing business. Will you have the business there?
William Wrede was sworn in, and
said he will not. He is just building the house.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application. It is definitely a nonconforming lot. The
architecture of the house is well designed. The railroad didn’t show up, so I
guess there is no objection. Neither did any of the neighbors. The applicant
did agree to put a fence . Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes;
Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
Letter regarding Arminio
Landscape
There was a letter from Arminio
Landscaping requesting a change to the façade.
The Board had no objection to the
change.
Ms. Robortaccio asked about the
drain.
Mr. Potere stated that is being
addressed with the engineering department.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 11:00 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi, Secretary
lm/