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

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

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Gail Robortaccio, Mark Crowley, Joyce Dargel, Barbara Kinback.

ABSENT: Robert Kurtz, Peter Giardina, Sebastian D’Amato, Heather Darling, Candy DeVenezia.

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Larry Wiener, Russell Stern.

Also present: Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary.

Minutes of 10/16/06

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

Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

RESOLUTIONS

BA-53-06 – 52 MAIN ST. – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON MAIN ST. BLOCK 520, LOT 7, 8, 9, 12 & 13 IN B-1 ZONE

Case No. BA-53-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, 52 Main Street has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for final site plan approval for premises located at 52 Main Street and known as Block 3701, Lot 12 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-1” Zone; said request is made pursuant to the Site Plan requirements of the of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

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

The applicant is the owner of the premises that contains an office building in front and town houses in the rear.
Applicant is seeking final site plan approval for the site that received preliminary approval in 1998.
Prior to the public hearing, the Board received a Final Site Plan (1 sheet) prepared by Schoor DePalma revised to 6/30/06.
The Board received the following reports:

Russell Stern, the Township Planner, dated 8/2/06, updated to 10/12/06
John Hansen, the Township Engineer, dated 10/9/06

The project was partially constructed by a prior owner. This developer acquired the site and is seeking to complete the project in accordance with the preliminary site plan approval.
The Board’s Engineer presented his report dated 10/9/06 regarding the status of the project and all open items for review with the applicant. The applicant is requesting waivers from items 4, 5, 9(b).
The freestanding sign is located only 13’9” from the front setback although the preliminary approval requires and the site plan shows 15’. Since the setback requirement is 10’, the Board considers this a de minimis variation.
The applicant either has complied or will comply with the remaining items on the engineer’s report.
The Board Planner presented his report dated 10/12/06 for review with the applicant. The applicant is requesting a waiver from item 10 regarding installation of a paver sidewalk beneath the front office overhang. Applicant agrees that any replacement of the existing concrete sidewalk will be pavers.
Applicant either has completed or will comply with the remaining items in the planner’s report.
Applicant has sent a form of deed restriction addressing COAH affordability controls to the Board attorney for review.

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 that the requested waivers are reasonable. The non-compliance with the preliminary site plan approval was done by the prior owner. The Board finds that this developer is making diligent efforts to bring the site into compliance and has requested waivers only on items where it would be unreasonably burdensome to comply.
Allowing the waivers would permit the project to be completed and bring the subject site back into use.
The proposed use will have no impact on the surrounding properties or on the zone plan or Zoning Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 16th day of October 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

Subject to the review and/or approval of all other governmental agencies and/or enteritis with joint and/or concurrent jurisdiction over the within premises and the development thereof.
Payment of all fees, sureties and/or escrows required by Ordinance or prior approvals.
Applicant shall comply with all comments or conditions of the Board Engineer’s report dated 10/9/06 and in particular:

Drainage swale to be field verified by Board’s engineer.
Applicant shall provide a properly constructed overflow grate on the underground storm water detention system.
Applicant shall provide an “as built” survey (same to be in hard copy and digital format) showing the dimensions between the two principal structures to be at least 30 feet.
Applicant to install bench between the two structures.
Applicant to provide documentation that it has requested Title 39 enforcement on-site.

Applicant shall comply with all comments or conditions of the Board’s Planner’s report dated 10/12/06 and in particular:

Provide documentation (deed) to the Township Attorney showing compliance with COAH Affordability Controls. Same is a condition precedent to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
Applicant to install depressed curbs.
Fire Lane striping to be provided.
Basement area of the 2 market rate units shall be utilized for storage only- NO LIVING SPACE.
Back-shields to be provided on all free-standing lights to prevent off-site glare.
Final landscaping including deviations from the original plans to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
All conditions of the prior approval not specifically waiver or modified continue in full force and effect noting in particular:

1. The use is limited to four residential units- one low income, one moderate income, two market rate units, and the commercial use- Offices- shall not exceed 4,106 square feet. All COAH regulations as set forth in the Municipal Ordinance 13-7.826 et seq. shall be complied with. All compliance and/or regulatory fees shall be paid by the applicant. (see Paragraph 25. et seq. of Stern report dated 10/12/2006 update)

2. Attic Area in the commercial structure to be used for storage only.

3. Architecture and site amenities (lighting, signage, benches, paving, sidewalks) shall be historical in context.

4. “52 Main Street” shall be identified on the free standing sign and the applicant shall provide “caps” on the monument sign posts. Sign to be located in a conforming location.

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

Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

BA-57-06 – WEST CHESTER MACHINERY – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR OFFICE/WAREHOUSE LOCATED ON OLD LEDGEWOOD RD. BLOCK 9303, LOT 7 IN B-1A ZONE

Case No. BA-57-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, West Chester Machinery & Supply Co., Inc. have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for final site plan approval pursuant to the “Site Plan” section of the Township Zoning Ordinance for premises located at Old Ledgewood Road and known as Block 9303, Lot 7 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B1A” Zone; 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 of the premises that contain a retail/office use and warehouse.
Applicant is seeking final site plan approval for the site after receiving use variance in 2001 and preliminary site plan approval in 2003.
Applicant is seeking final site plan approval for the construction of a 4,800 square foot warehouse addition to the existing facility.
Prior the public hearing, the Board received the following plans:

Prepared by G. Gloede and Associates

Sheet 1, Final Key Map & General Notes, revised 5/8/06

Sheet 2, Final Site Plan, revised 5/8/06

Sheet 3, Profiles, revised 5/8/06

Sheet 4, Soil Erosion & Sediment Control revised 5/8/06

Sheet 5, Soil Erosion Notes and Details, revised 5/8/06

Sheet 6, Construction Details, revised 5/8/06

Prepared by Edward F. Secco

Sheet 1 of 1, Existing Conditions, dated 1/10/06

The Board received the following reports:

Russell Stern, the Township Planner, dated 10/12/06
John Hansen, the Township Engineer, dated 10/12/06

The Board Planner presented his report dated 10/12/06 regarding the status of the project and open issues for review with the applicant. Applicant has complied or agrees to comply with all conditions contained therein.
The Board Engineer presented his report dated 10/12/06 regarding the status of the project and open issues for review with the applicant. Applicant has complied or agrees with all conditions contained therein.
Applicant agreed to replace one wallpak light mounted on the side of the building with a shoebox type fixture.

The Board finds that the applicant has complied with or substantially completed all items requested by the Board Planner and Engineer.
The completed project will have no impact on the surrounding properties or on the zone plan or Zoning Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 9 th day of November 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

Outdoor storage shall only be allowed in conjunction with and accessory to the principal use conducted on the property. In addition, all outdoor storage shall not exceed a height of 14’.
All vehicle maintenance activities shall be performed within the building and there shall be no fuel transfer or dispensing of fuel permitted on site. All oil solvents, anti-freezes, and the like shall be stored indoor within containment systems approved by the Roxbury Township Health Department.
All conditions and recommendations of the Board’s Engineering Consultant and the Municipal Planner as set forth in their reports and as testified to and/or stipulated on the record and in particular:

Salt shed shall be setback 20 feet from the rear property line and 10 feet from the side property line.
A conforming dumpster enclosure on a concrete pad with board-on-board fencing shall be provided and set back ten feet from the rear property line.
Walpak lights located on the building shall be replaced with shoebox type fixtures.
The timber rack pipe shall be no higher than fourteen feet.
Payment of all fees, sureties, and escrows required by Ordinance.
Continued compliance with all conditions of the prior approvals including but not limited to:

1. Outdoor storage shall only be allowed in conjunction with the principal use conducted on the property. In addition all outdoor storage shall not exceed a height of 14 feet.

2. The applicant shall comply with the well testing and reporting requirements as set forth in the 1992 resolution and reiterated: Applicant shall perform well testing once per year to test volatile organic compounds using USEPA method 502-1 and 502-2 and test for inorganic chemical analysis, if needed. The results of this testing shall be submitted to both the Netcong and Roxbury Township Environmental Commission. Upon three tests showing no groundwater pollution, no further testing shall be required. This condition does not relieve the applicant from compliance with all rules and regulations of the Environmental Commission or other governmental agency with joint and/or concurrent jurisdiction.

g. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:

1. An “as built” survey (hard copy and CAD digital format) showing installation of all site improvements to be submitted to the Township Engineer.

2. Certification from the Board of Health on the abandonment of the septic system for the razed building.

Subject to all other governmental agencies with joint and/or concurrent jurisdiction over the subject premises and the within application.

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

Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

BA-30-06 – 1^ST BAPTIST CHURCH OF LEDGEWOOD – SITE PLAN FOR ALL PURPOSE ROOM LOCATED ON MAIN ST. BLOCK 6406, LOT 4/5 IN B2/R3 ZONE

Case No. BA-30-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, First Church of Ledgewood has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for preliminary site approval for premises located at Main Street and known as Block 6406, Lot 4/5 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B2/R3” Zone; 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:

Richard Wade, Esquire represented the applicant.
The applicant is a religious institution. It previously received a use variance (9/12/05) and the present application is for site plan approval.
The applicant submitted the following documents with the application:

Prepared by Nicholas J. Wunner

Sheet 1, Cover Sheet/Variance Map, revised 7/25/06, 10/2/06

Sheet 2, Grading and Drainage, revised 7/25/06, 10/2/06

Sheet 3, Soil Erosions and Sediment Control Plan, revised 7/25/06, 10/2/06

Sheet 4, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan Notes and Details, revised 7/25/06, 10/2/06

Sheet 5, Lighting and Landscaping, revised 7/25/06, 10/2/06

Sheet 6, Existing Conditions/Slopes, revised 7/25/06, 10/2/06

Sheet 7, Construction Detail Sheet, revised 7/25/06, 10/2/06

Prepared by Charles Schaffer Associates, Inc.

Sheet A-1, Elevations, revised 7/25/06, 9/28/06

Sheet A-2, Elevations, revised 7/25/06, 9/28/06

Sheet A-3, First Floor Plan, revised 7/25/06, 9/28/06

Sheet A-4, Second Floor Plan, revised 7/25/06, 9/28/06

The Board received the following memorandums:

Russell Stern, the Board’s Professional Planner, dated 6/7/06 with an 8/2/06 update and a 10/13/06 memo.
John Hansen, the Board’s Professional Engineer, dated 6/7/065, revised 8/14/06.
Richard D. Cramond, Historic Advisory Committee, dated 6/29/06.

The subject property consists of two tax lots designated 4 & 5. The total site encompasses 2.1 acres and is located partially in the R-3 Single Family Zone and the B-2 Highway Business District. The B-2 Zone fronts Route 46 and the R-3 Zone is situated along Main Street. Entry into the site is provided from Main Street. The property presently contains a church, a single family dwelling, and a parish office all of which are located within the R-3 Zone portion of the property. An existing parking lot play area and garage are situated in the B-2 Zone. It is also noted the site is located within the Township’s Historic District and a church is a permitted conditional use in both the R-3 and B-2 Zone Districts.
The main street area of the church adjoins residentially developed properties. To the northwest along Route 46 the adjoining property is an auto body shop and to the southeast is a branch of the Bank of New York.
As noted, the applicant is presented before the Zoning Board with a request for preliminary site plan approval for an 8,100 square foot two-story all-purpose building. The applicant would be demolishing the existing garage. The first floor of the proposed building would be 6,600 square feet and contain a gymnasium and four classrooms. There would be a second floor of 1,500 square feet, which would contain one classroom and a 36’4” x 25’ multi-purpose room. It is proposed that the existing parking lot would continue to accommodate parking generated by the new infrastructure.
At the first public hearing, the applicant offered the testimony of Reverend David Hallwick. Reverend Hallwick is a spiritual leader of the church. He gave a general overview of the project and explained the church’s vision for the use of the property and how the new structures would tie into church activities. He also noted that there had been a meeting with the Historic Advisory Committee and the ultimate design that was being presented was based upon concerns raised by the Historic Advisory Committee.
The applicant’s second witness was its architect, Mark Bak. Mr. Bak was an employee of the architectural firm, Charles Schaffer Associates, which prepared the architectural plans for the project. Mr. Bak reviewed the architectural features and design of the project.
The applicant’s third witness was its project engineer, Nicholas Wunner. Mr. Wunner presented exhibit A-1 (a colorized version of Sheet 2 of his engineering submissions). He provided the Board with an overview and did a “walk-through” of the different features and elements of the site.
Mr. Wunner concurred that the plans, as drawn, indicated the applicant would need a design waiver from Section 13-8.610 of the Roxbury Zoning Ordinance in that no sidewalks were be provided in front of the existing dwelling.
The matter was continued to a future public hearing date.

The matter was continued to the 8/13/06 public hearing. At that time, the applicant’s engineer, Nicholas Wunner, was recalled. Mr. Wunner reviewed the updated report of John Hansen. The applicant’s engineer and the Board’s engineer resolved the engineering issues. Mr. Wunner also introduced into evidence exhibits A-2, A-3, and A-4, which were photos of the existing site from different perspectives.
The applicant next recalled its architect, Mark Bak. Mr. Bak presented colorized elevation drawings (exhibit A-5), which showed revised architectural renderings. The architectural detail had been commented upon in Mr. Stern’s revised report and Richard Crammond of the Historic Advisory Committee was also present at the meeting. Both Mr. Stern and Mr. Crammond opined that the new architectural elevations were actually a step “backward” from the prior renderings.
Reverend Hallwick was recalled and stated the applicant would attempt to work with the municipality to revise the architectural plans. The matter was carried to a future public hearing.
The matter was continued to the 10/16/06 public hearing. At that time, the applicant recalled its engineer and architect.
Applicant’s professionals reviewed the reports of the Board’s engineer and planner. After discussion, all outstanding engineering, planning, and architectural issues were resolved.

The Board finds the applicant’s professionals to be credible and reasonable in resolving issues raised by the Board’s engineer and planner.
With no remaining site plan issues, the Board finds that it is appropriate to grant preliminary site plan approval.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 16th day of October, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

Applicant shall comply with all recommendations of the planner and engineer as agreed to at the public hearing and in particular the following:

Applicant to provide details of physical connection between the drywells.
A tee-wye and concrete splash block overflow detail shall be revised to incorporate to show the tee connection to be above grade.
Leader drain piping size and slope detail to be provided to be documented to confirm it is adequate for 100-year storm.
Mechanical pad and location to be detailed on plans.
All landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner including but not limited to replacement trees.
All lighting fixtures to be field inspected to verify compliance with Township lighting specifications. The light base shall be set back a minimum of 2.5 feet from the edge of pavement.
Pavement repair detail to be reviewed and approved by the Municipal Engineer.
Construction access shall be coordinated with current operations on-site.
Subject to availability of water and sewer.
Applicant shall secure a tree removal permit.
Lots 4 and 5 shall be merged.
As applicable, the applicant shall provide their pro-rata share of off-tract and off-site improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.
As applicable, the applicant shall pay a mandatory development fee.
On the front and right side elevations the applicant will exercise their best efforts to match the stone on the Church and will utilize a smooth faced color concrete block along the rear and left side elevations.
The applicant shall obtain a tree removal permit prior to site disturbance/tree removal.
A performance bond shall be posted for replacement trees prior to the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit.

Payment of all fees, sureties, and escrows required by Ordinance.
Subject: to the review and/or approval of all other governmental entities and/or subdivisions thereof with joint and/or concurrent jurisdiction over the within application.

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

Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

BA-55-06 – VIRGINIA GUIDER – VARIANCE TO REPLACE SHED IN FRONT YARD LOCATED ON KINGSLAND RD. BLOCK 11002, LOT 6 IN R-3 ZONE

Case No. BA-55-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, Virginia Guider has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an accessory structure requiring relief from the Zoning Ordinance for premises located at 26 Kingsland Road and known as Block 11002, Lot 6 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.810A(B) of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

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

The applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
The subject premise is a lake front property.
Applicant’s home faces the lake though it is accessed from Kingsland Road. As a result, the front and rear yards are de facto reversed.
Applicant is proposing to construct a 10’x10’ shed in the de facto rear yard. Applicant showed photographs of the property.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 8/8/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.

The Board finds that because of the way the house faces the lake, the real rear yard is on the street. There are several other houses in the area that are similarly situated and have sheds on the street side.
The proposed relief is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance. In reality, the shed is a rear yard amenity.

1. Shed to be sized (10’ x 10’) and located as depicted on the plans submitted with the application.

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

Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

BA-54-06 – CARLOS ORAMA – VARIANCE FOR SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON KINGS HWY. BLOCK 10005, LOT 9 IN R-3 ZONE

Case No. BA-54-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, Carlos M. Orama & Claribel Aviles Orama have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition resulting in the need for dimensional relief from the setback requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for premises located at 146 Kings Highway and known as Block 10005, Lot 9 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.13016a of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

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

1. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.

2. The subject premises are an improved lot of approximately 24,000 square feet.

3. The applicants were proposing to construct an addition onto the existing home as depicted on the drawings submitted with the application.

4. The addition will add a garage and master bedroom to the existing home.

5. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 7/26/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.

6. A side yard variance is needed for the rear corner of the house because the house was constructed on an angle.

The Board finds that the encroachment into the side yard is reasonable due to the angle on which the house is constructed.

House to be used solely as a single family home. The Zoning inspector shall inspect the property, review the plans, and verify that it is and will remain a single family dwelling.
Addition to be sized, constructed, and located as depicted on the plans submitted with the application. Side yard relief (“left side”) is to permit sideyard to be no less than seven feet as requested.

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

Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

BA-45-06 – CAROLANNE DONNELLY – VARIANCE FOR SHED LOCATED ON ROGERS DRIVE, BLOCK 11805, LOT 16 IN R-3 ZONE

Case No. BA-45-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, Carolanne Donnelly has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a shed in the front yard requiring a “c” variance for premises located at 579 Rogers Drive and known as Block 11805, Lot 16 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 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 submitted premise is a corner lot with front yards on both Rogers Drive and Curtis Road.
The applicant’s home actually faces Curtis Road though its mailing address is Rogers Drive.
The applicant is proposing to construct a shed (8’x12”) in one of the front yards as depicted on the plot plan submitted with the application.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 5/16/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.

1. The Board finds that the property is uniquely encumbered in that it is a corner lot with two front yards. One yard is steeply sloped so that there is only one realistic location for the shed to be situated.

2. The shed is necessary because the house is small with no other storage areas.

3. The proposed relief is consistent with the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zone scheme.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 16^th day of October 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

1. No water or electrical utilities are to be provided to the storage shed.

2. The shed shall be 8’x12’ and located as depicted on the plot plan submitted with the application.

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

Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

Ms. Robortaccio announced Application BA-63-06, Omnipoint, will not be heard and is carried to 12/11/06; Application BA-64-06, 109 Main St., will not be heard and is carried to 1/8/07; Application BA-60-06, Beneduce, will not be heard and is carried to 12/11/06.

AGENDA

BA-61-06 – GILBERT MULLER – VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD SETBACK FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON BROOKSIDE RD. BLOCK 3504, LOT 4 IN R-2 ZONE

Vicky Muller was sworn in.

Gilbert Muller was sworn in.

Mr. Muller stated they have lived in Roxbury for 27 years and would like to expand their family room so that they can enjoy their expanded family. The addition will be 8’ x 20’. The location for the addition was chosen because that is where the existing family room is and there is no other place where they could put the addition.

Mr. Crowley said it looks like it is an irregular lot.

Mr. Muller said it is. He also stated it will be a one-story addition.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the application because of the size of the addition and the dynamics of the lot. Ms. Kinback seconded.

Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

BA-58-06 - RON & DONNA CARAS – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON KINGSLAND ROAD, BLOCK 11002, LOT 30 IN R-3 ZONE

Ron and Donna Caras were sworn in. He stated we are trying to use this property on the lake and add a two-car garage on the front to clean up the front area. We presently have to park on association property. We want to put an additional bedroom over the garage and want to bump out 10 feet to the rear for a dining room area. We are adding a shed roof along the left side to protect the balcony and a second floor deck in the rear to recover some of the deck that we would lose.

Mr. Caras stated the existing covered porch will be extended to the front corner of the house to cover the walkway to shield it from weather.

The Board members felt the information submitted was not adequate for them to make a determination.

Mr. Crowley suggested the applicant should submit one diagram that shows the existing conditions and what is going to change.

Mr. Stern said typically the Board members get architectural drawings and it is very helpful for the Board to evaluate the application when you are requesting all these variances.

Ms. Dargel said there are 6 variances requested, and that is a lot.

Ms. Robortaccio said the impervious coverage of 69% is a very big variance. The building coverage is almost doubling. You might want to look at trying to reduce those.

Ms. Dargel stated on the survey, there are dimensions missing for the lengths and widths of the buildings.

Mr. Crowley said one of the things I will be looking for is an attempt to reduce the scope of the variances. If that can’t be done, you will have to offer proofs as to why that can’t be done.

It was determined the applicant will return to the Board with more accurate and complete drawings.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

The application was carried to 1/8/07.

Ba-59-06 – WILLIAM STEVENSON – VARIANCE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME LOCATED ON HIGH ST. BLOCK 4001, LOT 31 IN R-3 ZONE

Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant. He stated this lot is an isolated lot in the R-3 zone. The application is for a single family dwelling. There are variances required for front yard setback; setback from the railroad tracks; and building coverage – 15.94% proposed, 15% required.

William Stevenson was sworn in.

Steven Smith, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.

Mr. Kron stated we have written to the owner of the adjacent lots, and he has stated he is not interested in purchasing property from us or selling property to us.

Mr. Crowley asked if this house will line up with the house we gave a variance to a few months ago.

Mr. Smith referred to Exhibit A-2, an enlargement of the tax map, showing the existing home on Lot 29, the remains of the foundation on Lot 30. The blue shows the location of the house approved in August on Lot 30. The green is the proposed house on our lot, Lot 31. On Lot 32, 33, and 34, I show the existing dwellings. On Lot 32 the house is set back about 15 feet; on Lot 33 it is about 19 feet; on lot 34 it is about 21 feet. The existing house on Lot 31 is set back about 19 feet, and we propose a 26 foot setback. The house on lot 30 is at 25 feet, and the house on Lot 29 is at about 33 feet. The proposal is basically in keeping with the homes in the area.

Mr. Smith stated the lot requires 15,000 square feet, and this lot is 12,896 square feet. The ordinance allows for existing platted lots in existence, provided all yard requirements are complied with. This lot was established as part of a subdivision in 1913. We are complying with the lot width, side yard setback, rear yard setback. We are requesting a variance for setback to the railroad right-of-way.

Mr. Smith referred to sheet 1 of 2 of the plans submitted to the Board and stated a minimum of 100 feet is required from the railroad right-of-way. We propose a 60 foot setback to the right-of-way. It is about 71 feet from the tracks. It would not be possible for us to comply with the 100 foot setback. We also require a variance for building coverage. 15% is the maximum allowed and we propose 15.9%. We are proposing a two-story four bedroom dwelling with a 2-car garage. We believe the excess building coverage is di minimus. For lot coverage we are permitted 25% and are proposing 20.8%. We are doing an upgrade or renovation of the area. As each of the homes is rebuilt or reconstructed, we are upgrading the aesthetics of the neighborhood. We feel that by granting the variances there would be no substantial detriment to the neighborhood or public good and would not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan.

Mr. Smith said there are many different housing styles in the neighborhood – capes, ranches, bilevels, colonials. What we are proposing here is a two-story colonial. The home proposed on Lot 30 was also a two-story colonial, but was front-to-rear, rather than traditional colonial.

Ms. Dargel asked the square footage of the house itself.

Mr. Smith said the footprint is 2,056 square feet. The living area is about 2,900 square feet. The plans don’t show any provisions for a deck or shed.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application. The placement of the house is very strategic, and the size of the house is reasonable for the area and for the lot. Mr. Crowley seconded.

Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 8:15 p.m.

Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

lm/

Minutes of 10/16/06

Prepared by G. Gloede and Associates

Prepared by Edward F. Secco

Prepared by Nicholas J. Wunner

Live Edit