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 Vice Chairman Mark Crowley presiding. After a salute to the Flag, Mr. Crowley read the “Open Public Meeting Act”.

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Peter Giardina, Joyce Dargel, Mark Crowley, Robert Kurtz, Sebastian D’Amato, Heather Darling,

ABSENT: Gail Robortaccio, Barbara Kinback, Candy DeVenezia.

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Larry Wiener, John Hansen, Tom Potere, Zoning Officer.

Also present: Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary

There was a moment of silence in memory of the victims of September 11, 2001.

Minutes of 8/14/06

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

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

RESOLUTIONS

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

In the matter of James Paxos

Case No. BA-34-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: August 14, 2006

Memorialized: September 11, 2006

WHEREAS, James Paxos has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a sign in violation of the Zoning Ordinance for premises located at 139 Route 10 and known as Block 3604, Lot 2 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-8904C 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 a tenant in the small strip shopping center located in the subject premises. The center consists of three contiguous small businesses.
The applicant was the operator of a delicatessen/small convenience store. Same is located on the eastbound side of Route 10 adjacent to Derings Garden Center, which is to the immediate east of the applicant’s site.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 5/11/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The applicant presented exhibits A-1, A-2, and A-3 showing existing conditions and proposed signage as well as an exhibit marked A-4.
It became apparent, during a discussion of the proposed variance, that there was insufficient information to determine the impact of the applicant’s request to adequately locate the physical location of the sign on-site without benefit of a site plan drawn to scale. The applicant could not adequately set forth the location of the sign nor did the applicant address other issues related to the sign such as landscaping, introduction of green areas, etc.
The matter was carried to a future public hearing to give the applicant an opportunity to further articulate both the relief being requested as well as the reasons for the relief.
The Board conducted a second public hearing on 8/14/06. The applicant submitted revised renderings of the sign and a small site plan showing the location of the sign.

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 proposed sign to be an aesthetic and appropriate enhancement of existing signage on-site. The location depicted is an appropriate location and it would be extremely difficult to find a conforming location on-site. Same would be located 15’ from the right-of-way whereas 20’ is required, and the Board finds the deviation to be minimal under the circumstances.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 14^th day of August, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

Sign to be sized and located as depicted on the drawings attached to the application. Setback to be no less than 15’ as proposed.

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; Mr. Crowley, yes.

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

In the matter of Jose Fernando Trochez

Case No. BA-36-06

TOWNSHIP RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: August 14, 2006

September 11, 2006

WHEREAS, Jose Fernando Trochez has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to obtain ex post facto approval for an addition requiring a use variance for an intensification of a non-conforming use for premises located at 1 Canal Street and known as Block 6302, Lot 3 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.7C 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:

Larry I. Kron, Esquire, represented the applicant.
The applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
Because the single-family home is located in the B2 Zone, it is a non-conforming use.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 1/27/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The applicant’s attorney took the position that the construction of two additional bedrooms, while internal improvements within the structure, should not be deemed intensification of a non-conforming use. The applicant’s attorney relied upon the case of Lane v. Bigelow, 135 N.J.L.199 (1946).
The matter was initially called for a public hearing on 7/10/06, and at the request of the applicant, the matter was carried.
The matter was carried to an 8/14/06 public hearing. Prior to the public hearing, the Board attorney submitted a legal memorandum in response to the applicant. The Board attorney cited Irvin v. Township of Neptune, 305 N.J. Super 652 (App. Div. 1997), Tp.of Fairfield v. Likanchuk’s Inc., 274 N.J. Super 320 (App. Div. 1994). As a result, while noting the instant case might be a close question, the Board and ultimately the applicant, agreed that the matter would proceed as an expansion of an existing non-conforming use requiring a “d” variance.
The applicant, Jose Fernando Trochez, testified at the public hearing. Mr. Trochez stated that he resided in the premises with his sister. Mr. Trochez stated there were four related adults residing in the subject premises. He produced exhibit A-1 and A-2, which were vehicle registrations for four vehicles belonging to persons residing in the premises.
Mr. Trochez acknowledged that he had a large extended family and many of them would stay for short periods of time at the subject premises. As a result of an investigation by the construction official and health department, it was discovered by the health department that the applicant had converted the basement area to living quarters (two bedrooms plus a bath). In essence, the applicant was now seeking ex post facto variance approval for the expansion within the interior of the home.
The applicant’s next witness was Eric Snyder, a professional planner. Mr. Snyder testified at the public hearing and also submitted a narrative report, which was marked A-3 in evidence. Mr. Snyder opinioned that the applicant’s expansion within the interior of a non-conforming residential use in a business zone barely rose to the level requiring a variance. Mr. Snyder noted the subject property was oversized for the zone in question and clearly would continue to be a residential use. He noted the many adjacent residential properties and opined the subject premises and its residential use was substantially in conformance with surrounding uses and provided a transition to nearby commercial uses. He noted the subject premises were at the beginning of a reasonably uniform single-family residential neighborhood. He opined upgrading from a three to five bedroom home did not constitute an aggressive intensification of a single-family use.
Mr. Snyder opined that the general purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law included the encouragement of appropriate use and development of lands that promote public safety, health, morals, and general welfare as well as the promotion and establishment of appropriate population densities and the goal to provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses in open space which were consistent with the end result of the within application and as such would be special reasons for the grant of a use variance. He further noted that it was hard to perceive how the grant of this application would have any negative impact on the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Several nearby property owners testified in opposition for the within application. They opined they were uncomfortable with the present use of the premises and concerned that there might be “stacking” of occupants of the subject premises and that they noted the presence of as many as 10 cars on-site.

An analysis of the subject application reveals that it barely rises to the level of an expansion of a non-conforming use. The structure and footprint are not being enlarged. The applicant is merely finishing out internal living space. The applicant (as noted below) will have to comply with all construction code issues.
The Board agrees with the gist of the planning testimony offered by the applicant’s planner and finds same credible and compelling. It is clear this non-conforming use is not likely to be converted to a conforming use. Given its unique location at the beginning of a residential area, there are special reasons why this non-conforming use will continue. The interior addition is minimal under these circumstances. A five bedroom home versus a three bedroom does not rise to the level of an over ambitious expansion of a non-conforming use noting that the entire expansion literally occurs within the four walls of the existing dwelling. The Board notes the testimony of the applicant’s planner and the sections of the purposes and preamble of the Municipal Land Use Law and concurs with those conclusions.
While several neighbors objected to the within application, none of those objections truly addressed the zoning issue. The Board agrees that “stacking” can be a problem, but that is a problem that can only be addressed by Municipal Ordinance. There is nothing in the record to suggest that “stacking” or any other illegal activity (other than a violation of the Zoning Ordinance and Construction Code) has taken place. There is nothing to contradict the applicant’s testimony that there are four related adults that reside in the subject premises. Of course, it would be beneficial if the applicant (like every other member of the community) made every effort to keep the property, its occupants, and guests in general conformance with the intent and purpose, not only of the Zoning Ordinance, but of the Municipal Ordinances.
Any of the issues cited by the neighbors should be addressed through enforcement officials within the municipality.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 14th day of August, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

Applicant shall secure all appropriate permits and inspections for the basement living space.
Premises shall only be used as a single-family residence. Same shall not be converted into any type of multi-family residence.
As testified to by the applicant, there shall be no rental of rooms nor shall the premises be turned into a “boarding house” of any kind.

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

Discussion. Corrections noted and made.

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

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

In the matter of Luigi & Jacquelyn Bastone

Case No. BA-33-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

Approved: August 14, 2006

September 11, 2006

WHEREAS, Luigi & Jacquelyn Bastone have applied to the Board of

Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a rear yard deck requiring a dimensional variance for premises located at 7 Melissa Lane and known as Block 4801, Lot 25 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

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 testified that they formerly had a rear yard deck (20’x15’) that had collapsed last year. They were proposing to construct a new deck, which would be 32’ wide by 15’ deep.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 6/8/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The applicant’s prior deck and the new deck would be set back 40’ from the rear yard. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 50’ setback and thus, a variance is required.
The applicant submitted a plot plan showing the location of the proposed deck. Same would follow and not expand the prior non-conforming setback that would be 12’ wider.
The applicants testified that the rear yard was open unimproved property consisting mostly of wetlands and not likely to be developed at any time in the future.

The Board finds the continuation of the existing non-conforming setback of 40’ to be de minimis in nature. The widening of this deck will have no further impact on the Zoning Ordinance, but will allow the applicant’s an enhanced outdoor living amenity.
The Board notes that the adjoining rear property is a large unimproved tract, which is unlikely to be developed in the future. As such, the applicant’s relief will have no impact on the zone scheme and zone plan.

Deck to be sized and located as depicted on the plot plan attached to the application. Same to have a rear yard setback of no less than 40’ as requested.
Deck to remain open and uncovered.

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

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

In the matter of William K. Wachter & Caroline H. Wachter

Case No. BA-42-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: August 14, 2006

Memorialized: September 11, 2006

WHEREAS, William K. Wachter & Caroline H. Wachter have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an above ground swimming pool for premises located at 19 Morningside Drive and known as Block 3201, Lot 61 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1101D5C, 13-7.1101D8 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 applicant was proposing to construct a 21’ diameter above ground swimming pool in the rear yard.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 3/24/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The location of the proposed swimming pool was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application.
As noted by Mr. Potere, the existing impervious coverage (24.6%) would be increased to 26.8% and would be in violation of the maximum impervious coverage requirement of 25%. In addition, the location of the applicant’s swimming pool would require a rear yard setback variance, as the applicant’s location would be 10’ off the rear property line whereas 15’ is required. The applicant noted the location of the swimming pool was required to avoid drainage type issues from a more conforming location. It would also afford better use of the open area of the backyard. He opined the deviation from the Zoning Ordinance was minimal and the impervious coverage was particularly minimal noting the area in question was a swimming pool.

The Board agrees that the applicant’s relief is minimal under the circumstances. The rear yard setback relief to an above ground swimming pool (10’ v. 15’) does not rise to the level of being an over ambitious or annoying intrusion on the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board accepts the applicant’s testimony as to the location being an appropriate location within the subject premises due to topography and drainage issues. The Board further agrees that the impervious coverage of variance of just under 2% is justified since most of this impervious coverage is in fact water within the swimming pool.
The Board notes the presence of two storm drains to the rear of the applicant’s property, and as such, its clear there will be minimal impact on the subject premises.

Swimming pool to be sized and located as depicted on the plot plan attached to the application. Impervious coverage to be no more than 26.8%, rear yard setback by swimming pool to be no less than 10’.
Applicant to comply with all rules, regulations, and construction code requirements concerning swimming pools.

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

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

BA-44-06 – TREND MOTORS – VARIANCE FOR SIGN LOCATED ON COMMERCE BLVD, BLOCK 5002, LOT 3 IN B-3 ZONE

In the matter of Trend Motors

Case No. BA-44-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: August 14, 2006

Memorialized: September 11, 2006

WHEREAS, Trend Motors have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to re-construct a non-conforming sign for premises located at Commerce Boulevard and known as Block 5002, Lot 3 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-8.916E2 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:

John P. Inglesino, Esquire represented the applicant.
The applicant is a tenant operating a Chrysler automobile dealership at the subject premises.
The applicant was proposing to re-construct and re-configure an existing non-conforming freestanding sign.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 6/1/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
Alesio Prizzi, the general manager of the dealership, testified at the public hearing. Mr. Prizzi presented six photographs (marked A-1) showing existing conditions on-site. He noted that the applicant was intending to re-utilize the existing sign pole, which was set 15’ from the right-of-way of Commerce Boulevard. The Zoning Ordinance requires a 20’ setback, and as such, a variance is needed.
Mr. Prizzi noted that the present freestanding sign was actually two signs – a lower sign was mounted parallel to Commerce Boulevard and a higher sign was mounted perpendicular to Commerce Boulevard. The present application would actually result in one two-sided sign perpendicular to Commerce Boulevard. The sign would be 18’ high and 6’-1 3/4” x 8’3” for approximately 50 square feet. The size of the sign was actually less than would be permitted by the Zoning Ordinance and significantly smaller than the two existing signs.
Mr. Prizzi said it was the applicant’s intent to re-utilize an existing resource – the existing pole. He noted the pole already had electric service to it, and in attempting to move the pole to a conforming location, would interfere with the parking area. He noted the unique location and what he described as a minimal intrusion into the Commerce Boulevard setback. An examination of the proposed setback would put same at approximately 8 ¾ feet.

The Board finds the applicant’s proposal to be reasonable under the circumstances. The re-utilization of an existing resource and the downsizing of the existing signs are clearly a better alternative for the site and for the area than strict adherence to the Zoning Ordinance. Moving the sign pole back would eat up some parking area on-site and be of little benefit in terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
The Board finds that the existing tree line obscures sight visibility of the sign (as clearly observed in the pictures) and thus, the variance should be granted. The sign will have no adverse impact on any adjoining property and is a much better sign than what presently exists.

Sign is to be internally illuminated, and at the option of the Engineering and Planning Department of the Township, may be field inspected so as to ensure that the illumination does not materially affect pedestrian or vehicular traffic.
Sign is to be sized and located as depicted on the exhibit submitted with the application. Same to be no closer than 8 ¾ feet from the Commerce Boulevard right-of-way.

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; Mr. Crowley, yes.

BA-43-06 – PRESTIGE PLUMBING INC. – VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, BUILDING COVERAGE AND SETBACK FROM RAILROAD TO BUILD HOME LOCATED ON HIGH STREET, BLOCK 4001, LOT 30 IN R-3 ZONE

In the matter of Prestige Plumbing, Inc.

Case No. BA-43-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: August 14, 2006

Memorialized: September 11, 2006

WHEREAS, Prestige Plumbing, Inc. has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a new home on an unimproved lot requiring four dimensional variances for premises located at High Street and known as Block 4001, 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 13-7.1301D4, 13-7.1301D8, 13-7.902 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:

Larry Kron, Esquire represented the applicant.
The applicant is the owner of the subject premises, an unimproved lot.
The applicant was proposing to develop the premises with a single-family home. Single-family homes are a permitted use in the R-3 Zone.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 5/25/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The applicant’s professional planner and surveyor, Steven I. Smith, was qualified and testified as an expert witness on behalf of the application.
Mr. Smith noted the existing premises were an undersized lot in the R-3 Zone. He noted the R-3 Zone contemplates 15,000 square foot lots and the subject premises is approximately 6,250 square feet. He noted the existing neighborhood in the area was substantially developed and was an eclectic mixture of housing types and lot sizes. He noted many of the nearby lots were similarly sized. He presented several exhibits A-1, A-2, and A-3 and demonstrated to the Board that there was an existing pattern of front yard setbacks that would arguably permit the applicant to take advantage of the front yard setback flexibility within the R-3 Zone to bring same to 25’. He noted the R-3 Zone would ordinarily require a 35’ setback and this applicant was requesting 25’.
Mr. Smith then went on to address the impervious coverage and building coverage variances. He noted the maximum total impervious coverage permitted in the Zone is 25%, and the applicant was requesting 26.6%. He also noted the total building coverage permitted as of right was 15% and the applicant was requesting 21.1%. Mr. Smith noted the applicant was handicapped due to the existing lot size being just over 40% of the anticipated lot size for this zone. As such, the relatively small home in the area of coverage will greatly magnify due to the small lot size. He noted the proposed footprint for the home and the one car garage were not overly ambitious. He also noted same would be compatible with the zone.
The other variance in play was a requirement that any home be set back at least 100’ from the railroad right-of-way line. He noted the house would be set back 54.83’from the rear yard setback and it was determined by Mr. Potere that the setback to the railroad right-of-way line would be 67’. Mr. Smith noted this was similar conditions for the adjoining properties and the applicant stated they would be amenable to constructing a fence in the rear yard as an added safety precaution.

The Board finds the testimony of the applicant’s planner, Steven Smith, to be credible and compelling. Most of the zoning issues of this lot arise from it being undersized for the zone in question. The requested relief under these circumstances is minimal. The front yard setback relief for 25’ essentially conforms to the established setback pattern in this area. The lot coverage and building coverage variances are clearly triggered by the lot being grossly undersized. The size of the proposed house (by 2006 standards) is very modest for a new home in Morris County.
The setback to the railroad right-of-way line conforms to the existing setback for the homes of adjoining properties along High Street. It is virtually impossible to develop this property and conform to the Ordinance.

Home to be sized, located, and constructed as depicted on the plans and submissions submitted with the application.
Front yard setback to be no less than 25’, total impervious coverage to be no more than 26.6%, and total building coverage to be no more than 21.1%. Setback to the railroad right-of-way to be no less than 67’.
Applicant shall construct a conforming fence along the rear of the property. Applicant shall provide details for the fence for the review of the construction official prior to construction and the completion of the fence shall be a condition of any Certificate of Occupancy. All construction details and design for said fence shall be reviewed and approved by the construction official.

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; Mr. Crowley, yes.

AGENDA

Mr. Crowley announced Application BA-53-06, 52 Main Street, will not be heard and is carried to 10/16/06; and Application BA-47-06, Alto Sign, will not be heard and is carried to 10/16/06.

Ms. DeMasi announced the Colonial Village application has been withdrawn

BA-52-06 – MERRY HEART NURSING HOME – SOIL RELOCATION PERMIT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON RT. 10/MAIN ST. BLOCK 5201, LOT 7-13 IN PO/R ZONE

Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant.

Thomas McGrath, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in. He stated he has calculated the approximate time frame for the soil removal to take place, which is about one month. The hours of operation are acceptable at 8 – 4 weekdays and until 12 noon on Saturdays. I have supplied the calculations to the Board Engineer. There will be about 170 truckloads. The ultimate destination will be out of town via Route 10W to Route 46W to Route 80W. The soil erosion will be in place prior to soil removal.

Mr. Hansen stated he did a review letter, and it confirms what the applicant has testified to. We have reviewed the calculations and they are acceptable. I have nothing further.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

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. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes.

BA-46-06 – JUNE GUIFFRIDA – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR RETAINING WALL LOCATED ON KINGSLAND RD., BLOCK 11011, LOT 31 IN R-3 ZONE

June Guiffrida was sworn in. She stated the work has been done. I was told a 4 foot retaining wall didn’t require any special permits. I later found that because of the impervious cover, a variance would be required. I took steps to try and improve the impervious coverage.

Ms. Guiffrida submitted a photo showing the finished product with drains in it. There is a huge pit that collects all the water from the property and it goes into a drywell. It doesn’t go into the lake.

Mr. Potere said the existing lot coverage was 44%. The coverage form I have filled out by the applicant has 58%.

Ms. Dargel asked what coverage was taken out.

Ms. Guiffrida stated I have put in patio pavers. There was also a pool on the patio that was removed by the previous owner. There was also some concrete that was removed at the water’s edge which was changed to pavers.

Ms. Dargel said on the survey it shows pavers written in three times.

Ms. Guiffrida said some of that area was previously concrete.

Mr. Kurtz asked if the drywell changes the coverage.

Mr. Potere said the original document showed brick pavers upper and lower. It was only a small path that was pavers. The photo shows that now only the lower level is brick pavers. The area where the pool used to be was included in the original calculations. That is why it dropped 9%.

Mr. Crowley said the Lake Hopatcong Commission has stated they don’t have a problem with it, but they have the incorrect coverage numbers. The coverage is now 49%.

Mr. Potere said the numbers have changed since the original denial letter.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application. The coverage is 49%. This is a very unique property that was in complete disrepair and it has been improved. Two other houses on either side of this property have a similar setup. This makes a third house that is treated in a similar fashion. By doing this, it will probably mitigate some silt and runoff that is detrimental to the lake. Mr. Kurtz seconded.

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

B-49-06 – EDWARD DATA – VARIANCE FOR SHED LOCATED IN FRONT YARD ON H ILLARY TERRACE, BLOCK 4201, LOT 38 IN R-1 ZONE

Edward Data was sworn in. He stated he is here for a variance because his shed is located in the front yard because his property is a through lot. The only access to the property is from Hillary Terrace. I want to build a shed that would match the color of my home. I need a shed to store equipment such as exercise equipment and ladders, etc.

Mr. Crowley asked if there will be a driveway to the shed.

Mr. Data said no, and there will be no water or electricity. The existing shrubs will remain. The houses on either side of mine face Hilary Terrace as well.

Ms. Dargel asked if there is another shed.

Mr. Data said yes, to the far right. That is where I store landscaping equipment.

Ms. Dargel said the floor plan shows a cutout from the rectangular floor plan.

Mr. Data said it was to be an overhang to improve the look of the building. No one will be living in the shed.

Mr. D’Amato stated the photos show that all the houses to the right and left face Hillary Terrace.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the application. Ms. Dargel seconded. She said this is in a wooded area, and there is a lot of buffering between the shed and Emmans Road. The neighbor has a shed in a similar position.

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

BA-50-06 – HARRY SAFREED – VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON HOWARD BLVD., BLOCK 13201, LOT 16 IN OS ZONE

Harry Safreed and Jennifer Safreed were sworn in.

Mr. Safreed stated he needs a variance for setbacks on his nonconforming lot. He wants to put on an addition as they have 4 children and there are only 3 bedrooms. They want to add on a bedroom and an extra bathroom, with a small office space. Where the house sits on the property it is a pie shaped lot, and this is the worst spot on the lot for a house.

Mr. Crowley asked what triggers the variance.

Mr. Safreed submitted photos which were marked A-1.

Mr. Potere said a variance is necessary as it is a nonconforming structure in the OS zone.

Mr. Crowley said the existing dwelling is nonconforming, and with the proposed addition, it is better than the existing 1.7 feet.

Mr. Safreed explained this lot was part of a subdivision years ago.

Ms. Dargel asked what is in back of this property.

Mr. Safreed said it is State green acres property.

Ms. Dargel said there is a big paved parking lot there.

Mr. Potere said it is a paper road. It accesses all three houses. The impervious coverage is only 9% on that lot.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application as the house is an older house, and the lot is very irregular. There is no way he could add anything without a variance. Since the coverages are low for the lot, I believe it is a reasonable addition. Mr. D’Amato seconded.

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

BA-48-06 – LESCO – USE VARIANCE TO HAVE LAWN AND GOLF COURSE SUPPLY DEALERSHIP LOCATED ON ORBEN DRIVE, BLOCK 9701, LOT 9 IN LI/OR ZONE

Attorney John Hague represented the applicant. He stated Lesco is in the business of supplying lawn care product and equipment to professional users. They would like to locate a dealership at 12 Orben Drive as a tenant. It is an existing vacant space. Currently under the township’s zoning this type of use doesn’t have a category.

Mr. Wiener stated there are only 6 Board members present, and Mr. Hague has indicated he wishes to proceed.

Mr. Hague submitted a disclosure document.

Mr. Hague stated the Board has received a revised application naming Lesco as the applicant; there is a floor plan dated 4/7/06; survey prepared by Norman Smith revised 8/4/89; and the notice package from the Clarion Group.

Frederick Hyatt, commercial real estate broker, was sworn in. He stated he is familiar with the property, and the space is currently vacant. Lesco proposes to be a tenant. Based on my review of the site, the survey appears to be accurate. The building is split into 6 separate units. Lesco will occupy units 4 and 5. Those units are on the side opposite the Orben Drive side. Current tenants are a sprinkler company, a Canadian equipment component corporation, and an office research organization. There are also vacancies in units 1 and 2. The Lesco space has been vacant for just over a year.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Hyatt.

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Ryan Somers, Branch/Sales Manager with Lesco, was sworn in. He stated he would be the manager of this site. The floor plan submitted is accurate as to how the site will be set up. Lesco is a wholesale operation that sells bulk products to landscape and lawn care professionals, such as fertilizers, pesticides, equipment, grass seed. We anticipate our customers’ needs. Customers are contacted, and we determine their needs and place orders. The product arrives at the branch and is picked up and off-loaded within about 7 business days. We get our products from Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. Each branch has a certified dealer on site with the State DEP. I have that license. We follow strict guidelines so that there is no pollution or environmental impact. There is no packaging or blending of product on the site. Packaged products are delivered to the site. My DEP license is for a pesticide dealer license. When a customer comes to the site, most of the loading is done indoors, except for grass seed, mulches, etc. The products we sell are generally the same as what is sold at a Home Depot or a typical garden center.

Mr. Crowley asked if there will be any outdoor storage.

Mr. Somers said absolutely not.

Ms. Darling asked how the product is delivered.

Mr. Somers said the deliveries are by tractor trailer once a week. Delivery hours are Monday thru Friday from 7:30 to 4:30 and Saturdays 8:00 to 12:00 noon. They will not come in the middle of the night. The landscapers come to pick up items with pickup trucks, mason dump trucks, etc.

Ms. Darling asked where the loading will be done.

Mr. Somers said it will be done at the door to the right. They back up to the bay door, and the product is loaded.

Ms. Dargel asked if this is a seasonal business.

Mr. Somers said we operate all year around. In the winter, we mainly prepare for the Spring, meet with customers, forecasting products, and we also sell rock salt as well, but not in bulk. We would also be selling salters, lawn mowers, leaf vacuums, etc. They would all be stored inside. Our market is lawn care professionals.

Mr. Kurtz asked what would be stored in the bulk storage area.

Mr. Somers said turf builder, grass seed products, fertilizer. They would be stored three palates high. I believe there are ventilation fans and a sprinkler system

Mr. Wiener asked if there is a spill plan in place.

Mr. Somers said there is a plan in place. We have never had a liquid spill. Sometimes there will be spills when moving palates out of the bulk storage area. The bag sometimes comes open. We would simply top off the forklift, tape up the bag, contain the spill, and sweep it up and put it into a metal container. The liquids we sell are in small bottles. The liquids will be stored on shelves.

Mr. D’Amato asked if the fertilizers and lawn chemicals will be reduced in the off seasons.

Mr. Somers said yes.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Somers.

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Mr. Potere asked what the estimate is of maximum bulk storage.

Mr. Somers stated if the store is at its full capacity, probably 100 tons of fertilizer, and grass seed and mulch in the other area. Our goal is to get product in and move it out as soon as possible. It is not designed to hold product for a long period of time.

Michael Kauker, licensed professional planner, was sworn in. He gave his professional and educational background for the Board and was accepted as a professional planner. He referred to an aerial photo (marked A-1) and a photo board of pictures of the site from different vantage points (marked A-2).

Mr. Kauker stated the property has an existing one-story building with 6 separate units. Currently 3 units are occupied by light industrial uses. The property consists of 6.3 acres and is accessed from Orben Drive. The site is isolated in a primarily undeveloped area except for a residential area to the east. There is also an adjacent building that is used as a dance studio and environmental care business. The railroad right-of-way and Route 80 is to the rear.

Mr. Kauker said the photos show the property and building from different vantage points. At the rear of the building are 6 existing garage doors and a separate loading area. Lesco will occupy the rear of the building in suites 4 and 5 and will utilize two of the bay doors. The photo shows the building next to this which is an industrial type building which has a dance studio in it. The elevation changes quickly as you go from this property to the residential property.

Mr. Kauker stated the site is isolated and is somewhat unique as it is well buffered on all sides except for the subdivision to the east which is at a different elevation. The existing building is 30,000 square feet with 104 existing parking spaces. There is a loading area in the back. The proposed use has been described. This use requires a use variance. There is no use category in the ordinance that this fits specifically into. This use would be likened to a wholesale trade use. The operational nature serves professionals in the lawn care industry and is somewhat unique in that they conduct meetings with their clients to anticipate demand. They order materials based on that demand. It is not something where you have extended bulk storage. There is a high turnover of the product. There would be an office component and a storage component. It doesn’t serve the general public.

Mr. Kauker stated he reviewed the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The Master Plan was reexamined in 2005. It contains goals and objectives, particularly those related to commercial development:

To control commercial development and its impacts - The aerial photo shows the site is accessed from Orben Drive. Vehicles and delivery trucks would not have to go into the residential area. They would enter and exit off of Orben Drive.

Insuring that intensity of development does not result in traffic which exceeds the capacity of the adjoining roadway to reasonably accommodate it safely and within an acceptable level of service - This is an existing use, and the roadway system here has the ability to handle the limited traffic that would be at this use. The unique nature of the operation would limit the intensity of the use on the site.

Mr. Kauker said the zoning ordinance states the property is in the LI/OR district which provides for light industrial and office uses. We are utilizing an existing building. The LI/OR zone permits professional office, business offices; manufacturing, packaging of finished products fabrication of clothing and apparel, min-warehousing, self storage facilities, child care centers, and essential services. One of the accessory uses permitted is flexible office and warehouse space.

Mr. Kauker stated the applicant is requesting a D1 use variance. We must show both the positive and negative criteria. As to negative criteria, there will be no substantial detriment to the public good and surrounding area, and that there will be no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The special reasons can be shown in two ways – if a use is considered inherently beneficial, it presumptively meets the positive criteria. This use is not inherently beneficial, but we can show that the general welfare is promoted because the site is particularly suited for the proposed use. It will be on a site that is already fully developed with a building and parking area that can accommodate the proposed use; the property is in an isolated location and is significantly buffered; this would represent an adaptive reuse of a vacant space within a building. It is my opinion this use is generically similar to some of the permitted uses and accessory uses in the zone. I think this zone is more suited for this type of use as compared to a typical retail type use. I feel the positive criteria has been met.

In addition, the application promotes the purpose of zoning as follows:

Promotion of general welfare – This is the adaptive reuse of vacant space in an existing building.

Provision of adequate light air and open space – The building is existing on a site over 6 acres. There will be no physical changes to the exterior of the building.

Sufficient space in an appropriate location for a variety of uses – This use is appropriate for this property and this building.

Negative criteria-

No substantial impact on surrounding area – This use will be entirely within the building. Loading will be behind the building, therefore no impact on the surrounding area. There will be no significant increase in traffic. The property is well buffered from the surrounding area. The tractor trailers will not travel through the residential areas.

No substantial impairment to Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance – This application furthers the goals and objectives of the Master Plan, as stated above. Regarding the Zoning Ordinance, this use is similar to some of the permitted uses.

Medici enhanced quality of proof – We need to reconcile the omission of the proposed use from the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. This is a use that was not envisioned by the Governing Body. It is appropriate for the site and is generically similar to the permitted uses, and meets the Medici enhanced quality of proof. It is my opinion the applicant has met its burden of proof, and the Board can feel confident in granting the requested use variance.

Mr. D’Amato asked if Lesco has a Hazmat plan in place, and if there is always an up-to-date inventory.

Mr. Somers said yes. All the material stored on site is given to the local fire department

Mr. Potere asked if the fertilizer is considered hazardous.

Mr. Somers said no. It is the same as what Home Depot has. The materials are pre-packaged materials.

Ms. Dargel asked how many contractors will be coming to the site on a weekly basis.

Mr. Somers said in the beginning it would not be much. Later on, it would be about 20 to 35 vehicles.

Ms. Dargel asked if the Shippenport Railroad trestle has been a problem lately with trucks getting stuck there.

Mr. Potere said not that he is aware of.

Ms. Dargel said if they are making a delivery and are coming off Route 80 onto Shippenport and make a right onto Orben, would that be a problem?

Mr. Potere said he has never heard of any problem there.

Ms. Dargel asked if there will be any deliveries by rail.

Mr. Somers said no.

Ms. Dargel asked if there is any odor from the fertilizer.

Mr. Somers said no. It is pre-packaged and wrapped in shrink-wrap.

Ms. Darling asked how long Mr. Somers has managed the Rockaway branch. She asked if he was aware of any fires or other incidents in the warehouses.

Mr. Somers said he has managed for about 3 years, and other branches for about 4 years. I am in the northeast zone and have never heard of any incidents.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Kauker.

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for general comments and questions.

Duane Durante, 9 Yellow Barn Avenue, was sworn in. He stated his concern is the 18 wheeler tractor trailer coming off of Route 80 and Shippenport Road. He said if there is only one delivery a week, that is fine, but if there are a lot, it would be a problem.

Mr. Somers said the existing tenants in the building take delivery by 18 wheelers. There would be only about one delivery per day.

No one else stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application. The planner’s testimony was compelling. It is a good application for that property per the testimony. Mr. D’Amato seconded.

Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes – He suggested the fire department and health department be notified of the application; Mr. Crowley, yes.

There was a 5 minute recess at 9:15 p.m.

BA-51-06 - JAMES GALLO – VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION, PORCH AND DECK/PATIO LOCATED ON YELLOW BARN AVE. BLOCK 11601, LOT 47 IN R-3 ZONE

Attorney Bernd Hefele represented the applicant. He stated this application is for an addition to the existing house, and the reconstruction of a dilapidated existing garage. The proposal requires 4 variances – front yard and rear yard setback for less than one foot; and for building coverage and impervious coverage.

James Gallo was sworn in. He stated he is the owner of the property, and he closed on it just before May 1, 2006. The house was built in 1961 or 1962. Currently on the property is a two-story house. The lower half has a brick face with vinyl siding above. The interior has 3 bedrooms upstairs and 2 bathrooms. The main level has what once was 2 bedrooms, one of which will be converted to a dining room, a small kitchen and small living room. The garage is across the street and sits very close to the street. It has a dirt floor, and has a hole in the roof. I can’t park in front of it because it is too close to the road. The house itself is not functional for my purposes. The upstairs if fairly functional and will be painted and trimmed. The main level has never had anything done to it. I would like to bring the living room out to meet the foyer, which would enlarge the living room. I would like to put the cement steps on the front and give the house a more architecturally favorable design. I would also like to add a deck. I would like to demolish the garage and maintain the side yard setback and replace it with a larger garage for my vehicles and lake equipment.

A colorized rendering of the architectural plans was marked A-1, A-2 and A-3.

Mr. Gallo showed on the exhibit how he would do the addition and the rendering of the proposed garage. He said Yellow Barn Avenue has all the homes on the waterfront side. Most of the homes have garages across the street.

Ms. Dargel said the proposed garage is 30 x 40. Why so large?

Mr. Gallo said it is barely enough room for two cars deep. In the other bay I could keep my other vehicle and/or boat. I made it wider so that I would have room to open the car doors comfortably. I will be storing bicycles, lawnmower, kayaks, boat, and two cars.

Mr. Crowley asked if there will be any vehicles outside the garage.

Mr. Gallo said possibly one car will be outside.

Ms. Dargel asked what type of vehicles they are.

Mr. Gallo said they are personal vehicles.

Ms. Dargel asked how long the boat is.

Mr. Gallo said it is 24 feet.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Gallo.

Howard Strunk, 10 Yellow Barn Avenue, was sworn in. He said he lives next door. The people who used to own this had the dirt dug out behind the garage. If he starts digging, will he put up a retaining wall?

Mr. Hefele said there will be engineering testimony on that.

Mr. Strunk said my yard is higher than his. On the house side of the street, it is 8’3” from his property to my fence and my house is lower. Where will be chimney be?

Mr. Gallo said there is no chimney proposed. We are proposing a direct vent furnace. The vent will be on the side toward Mr. Strunk’s house. The furnace will be on the front portion of the house, and Mr. Strunk’s house is not near it. There is a building code that will have to bee met. My chimney will be will be nowhere near your house. This type of furnace is very efficient, and is very quiet. It is just a small vent on the side of the house.

Mr. Strunk asked how the deck is accessed.

Mr. Gallo said from inside. We are not planning steps at this time, but I may put spiral steps on one corner of the deck.

Duane Durante, 9 Yellow Barn Ave., was sworn in. He said he hopes this gets done. He will ask his questions at the end of the testimony.

No further public.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Jeffrey Carriega, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in. He gave the Board his educational and professional background and was accepted. He stated he designed the plans for this application. He referred to sheet C-2 of the plans and described the proposal for the Board. A sand area in the rear will have a proposed deck over it. The new garage will be moved back farther from the road than the existing garage. Stormwater runoff will be handled by drywells. The additional impervious coverage will be a paved driveway, and additional size of the garage and addition to the house. Proposed changes include all of the preexisting variances. Also required are variances for rear yard setback; maximum building coverage; maximum impervious coverage.

Mr. Hefele said in terms of new dimensional variances, they are for front yard and rear yard setback and for building and impervious coverage. The coverage variances are being driven by the fact that Mr. Gallo needs a larger garage to house all of his vehicles so that there is no outside storage. He is also adding some driveway area for additional of-street parking.

Mr. Crowley asked about the rearyard setback for the garage.

Mr. Carriega stated regarding slopes, the setback from Yellow Barn for the garage is 30 feet from the right-of-way. We are disturbing about 175 square feet of steep slopes. In order to avoid the steep slopes, we would have to leave the garage setback as it is, or we could shrink the garage.

Ms. Dargel asked what surface the driveway will be.

Mr. Carriega said it will be asphalt paving.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Carriega.

Duane Durante stepped forward and asked if they are cutting into the hill.

Mr. Carriega said yes.

Mr. Durante said he has concerns about runoff to the lake.

Mr. Carriega stated as a result of additional impervious coverage, we have designed seepage pits to control any additional water being created by the impervious coverage. The additional coverage won’t create any additional runoff, but will reduce the runoff to the lake.

Mr. Carriega said to design drywells in accordance with state standards, you have to make sure the water in the drywell is treated before it goes into the aquifer. The existing sand on site does meet the requirements for filtering. Roof leaders will put the water directly into the drywells.

Mr. Crowley asked if there will be a retaining wall.

Mr. Carriega said the back of the garage foundation will act as a retaining wall.

Mr. Strunk stepped forward. He asked if the bottom of the garage will be cement block. In that area when it rains the water will come right through the cement block.

Mr. Carriega said the blocks will be sealed with tar so that it doesn’t happen. There will also be a footing drain.

Mr. Strunk asked what the distance to the property line is on the right side of the garage.

Mr. Carriega said 5.8 feet.

No further public.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

P. David Zimmerman, professional planner, was sworn in. He gave his educational and professional background for the Board. He stated he has reviewed the application and prepared some photo boards showing the existing property in relation to the surrounding properties.

Exhibit A-4 – Photo of property on Yellow Barn Ave. - showing the property and the juxtaposition of this house with the ones on either side.

Exhibit A-5 was shown – photo of existing garage

Exhibit A-6 – photo of rear of home

Exhibit A-7 – photos of area garages fronting Yellow Barn Ave.

Exhibit A-8 – photo of home on 21 Hilliard Road, Mt. Arlington – built by Mr. Gallo

Mr. Zimmerman said some of the variances are preexisting conditions and are not being changed with this application. The setback variances are being requested, but with the addition to the house, the sideyard will not be decreased, but it is being extended to the front and back with the addition which squares off the house. There are substantial plantings between the property and the adjacent property on the side where the addition will be going. There won’t be any interference with the neighbor’s enjoyment of their property.

Mr. Zimmerman stated the proposed addition would increase the coverage to the limit of 15% if he only did the addition and did nothing with the garage. However, the garage has to be replaced. We would rather have a garage of a size that enables all of the equipment to be stored inside the garage, rather than outdoors. One of the things I noticed in the Master Plan is some changes that are being recommended. Those changes dealt with changes to the coverage percentages. Those changes were to regulate the scale of housing so the street presence of dwellings doesn’t overwhelm the neighborhood. What is being proposed here is an extremely modest addition to the house. The impervious coverage is a result of the driveway to the garage, and the new patio being proposed under the deck. What is being proposed is in scale with the neighborhood. In terms of positive and negative reasons, I don’t think there will be any negative impact. The property will be a benefit to the neighborhood as well. The benefits far outweigh any detriments to the zoning ordinance or zone regulations.

Mr. Crowley asked what size the two story garages in the area are.

Mr. Zimmerman said most of them have a footprint that is less than 30 x 40. There is a house 4 houses down that has a footprint of 30 x 40.

Mr. Zimmerman distributed an exhibit showing that garage (marked A-9).

Ms. Darling asked if there will be electricity or water or heat to the garage.

Mr. Gallo said yes.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Zimmerman.

Duane Durante was sworn in. He stated the last two garages in Exhibit A-7 are residences, and are actually houses. I am only concerned about the well water, and the lake. I am relying on the Board to do the right thing.

No one else stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Mr. Potere said this is a two story structure. You are not taking it down, but are just putting on an addition?

Mr. Carriega said yes.

Mr. Potere asked if Mr. Carriega calculated the deck in the building coverage.

Mr. Carriega stated it was included in the impervious coverage because of the patio underneath the deck, but not in the building coverage.

Mr. Potere asked if there is any way to reduce the impervious coverage.

Ms. Dargel said she would like to see the garage moved forward 5 feet to reduce impervious coverage. It would also almost take it out of the steep slopes.

Mr. Hefele stated we would definitely go with the pavers, and would agree to move the garage forward 5 feet. We would prefer not to reduce the size of the garage.

Mr. Crowley asked if Mr. Gallo would consider reducing the size of the garage.

Mr. Gallo said he would consider taking 2 feet off the width.

Discussion.

Mr. Potere asked if the sidewalk on the side of the house could be removed.

Mr. Gallo agreed.

Mr. Kurtz said we don’t usually allow heating and plumbing in garages. Would you consider not having that? We don’t want anyone living in the garage or to have it used for a business.

Mr. Gallo said there won’t be any business as long as I will live there. It will be used just as a garage for storage.

Mr. Hefele said we agree to shrink the garage by 2 feet in width, move it forward 5 feet, use pavers for driveway, remove concrete walkway on left side of house.

Mr. Potere said doing that would drop it by about 3%.

Ms. DeMasi suggested the Board make any approvals contingent on review by the Township Engineer.

The Board members agreed.

GENERAL PUBLIC PORTION

Dave Doyle, 15 Yellow Barn Ave., was sworn in. He stated he knew the previous owners. What Mr. Gallo is proposing is gorgeous. He is adding a lot of style to the house and neighborhood. With the garage, he is trying to match the architectural style to the house, and it is a great idea. In this neighborhood, because of the lake, you need a larger garage because of all the equipment you have. I would ask the board to grant the variances.

Doug Williams, 8 Yellow Barn Ave., was sworn in. He stated he has seen what Mr. Gallo has done in other projects. He proposes to live in this house, and it will be nicer than those. I don’t think the garage is that much out of place. Behind this is a lot of woods and a big buffer zone. There are other big garages on the street. I don’t see any problem with it.

Harold Strunk stepped forward. He stated the only thing I am worried about is the hill in the back. There are trees up there that may eventually fall. I am worried about that because my property is higher.

No one else stepped forward.

Mr. Hefele asked if the Board would consider a deed restriction to allow water to the garage so that he could wash his vehicles.

A poll of the Board determined there will be no water to the garage.

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application subject to the items agreed to. Mr. D’Amato seconded.

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

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 11:00 p.m.

Dolores DeMasi, Secretary

lm/

Approved: August 14, 2006

Memorialized: September 11, 2006

TOWNSHIP RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Approved: August 14, 2006

Approved: August 14, 2006

Approved: August 14, 2006

Approved: August 14, 2006

Approved: August 14, 2006

Live Edit