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

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

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Gail Robortaccio, Robert Kurtz, Sebastian D’Amato, Robert Crowley, Joyce Dargel, Peter Giardina.

ABSENT: Heather Darling, Barbara Kinback, Candy DeVenezia.

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Richard Saunders for Larry Wiener, Russell Stern, Paul Ferriero for John Hansen.

Also present: Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary.

Minutes of 9/11/06

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

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

RESOLUTIONS

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

ROXBURY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MAJOR SOIL REMOVAL/RELOCATION PERMIT

Pursuant to Chapter XVII of the General Ordinances of the Township of Roxbury, Article 17-1 et.seq. (the “Ordinance”), the Roxbury Township Zoning Board of Adjustmen5t (the “Board”), having conducted a public hearing with public notice pursuant to the Ordinance, does hereby grant to the Applicant identified herein a Major Soil Permit, subject to the terms and conditions enumerated herein below.

1. Applicant/Permittee: Merry Heart Nursing Home

2. Application Number: BA-52-06

3. Property Identification: Block 5201, Lots 7,8,9,12&13

4. Subdivision/Site Plan Approval Date(s): 6/13/05

5. Major Soil Permit Approval Date: 9/11/06

6. Effective Date: 9/11/06

7. Findings of Fact:

a. The Board has received an Application consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-6, and the Applicant has paid the application fee pursuant to ordinance Section 17-7.1.

b. Proof of adequate notice of this Application, pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-6.5, has been furnished to the Board.

c. A public hearing was conducted in accordance with the Ordinance and with opportunity for comment by interested members of the public on the following dates:

d. In granting this Permit, the Board has considered the factors enumerated in Section 17-6.6 of the Ordinance. The Board has received and considered the following documents in connection with this Application: (1) soil moving application dated 8/22/06; (2) earthwork calculations by Thomas McGrath, PE dated 8/2/06; and (3) reports of the Zoning Board Engineer, John Hansen, dated 8/25/06, 8/27/06 and 9/6/06.

e. The Board has made the following additional findings of fact:

i. The Applicant intends to export 3,030 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil.

ii. The Applicant proposes to relocate within the site 2,563 c.y. of soil.

iii. The Applicant intends to obtain export fill to a location outside the Township.

iv. The route of truck travel to Applicant’s site to the disposal site will be: Route 10 West to Route 46 West to Route 80 West.

v. The Applicant has agreed to comply with the recommendations contained in the report of the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s Engineer dated 9/6/06. .

vi. Pursuant to Section 17-9d of the Ordinance, the Board finds that circumstances warrant the restriction of the hours of soil moving operations to 8:00 AM .to 4:00 PM weekdays and 8:00AM to 12 Noon on Saturdays (with such operations prohibited on Sundays and legal holidays.

vii. Pursuant to Section 17-17 of the Ordinance, the Board finds that strict application of the following Ordinance provisions would impose hardship and hereby grants waivers with respect thereto;

8. Conditions of Approval: This Permit is granted subject to the following terms and conditions:

a. Applicant shall post a performance guarantee, consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-8, in an amount indicated in Subparagraph H.5 below, as determined by the Board Engineer.

b. This Permit shall remain valid for a term of one year from the Effective Date specified in Paragraph 6 hereinabove, subject to extension thereafter in accordance with Ordinance Section 17-9c.

c. The Applicant shall pay the engineering review and inspection fees as required in Ordinance Section 17-7.3.

d. This approval shall not become effective until: (i) Applicant has paid all outstanding property taxes and assessment due or delinquent as of the date hereof; and (ii) all conditions of the 6/13/05 approval fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer.

e. Applicant shall comply with (i) “Hours of Operation” established pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-9d; (ii) “General Terms and Conditions of Operation” stipulated in Section 17-10; (iii) “Topsoil Restrictions”, pursuant to Section 17-11; (iv) “Depth of Excavation; pursuant to Section 17-12; and (v) “Final Grades”, pursuant to Section 17-13.

f. Applicant grants to the Township Engineer and/or his duly authorized agents, the right of entry to the property to conduct inspections to determine compliance with this Permit.

g. This approval is subject to all outside agency review, as may have jurisdiction over this matter.

h. This Permit is subject to the following additional terms and conditions:

i. All fill will be exported from Applicant’s site to a site out of town.

ii. The route of truck travel from Applicant’s site from the borrow site to the disposal site shall be Route 10 West to Route 46 West to Route 80.

iii. The Erosion Control Plan shall be modified to indicate the following note: “Notwithstanding the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, the Applicant shall implement all measures needed to satisfactorily control erosion, dust, and sediment transport as may be reasonably determined by the Township Engineer during construction”.

iv. Applicant shall post fees as follows: $588.95 (5,593 cy x $0.15 minus $250.00 application fee).

v. Per Section 17-8 of the Ordinance, Applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount of $2,000.00 (Ordinance Minimum).

vi. Applicant shall place hay bales on the site to supplement planned silt fencing for erosion control to the satisfaction of the Planning Board Engineer.

vii. In accordance with Ordinance Section 17-6.1(t), the Applicant shall stake out interior improvements with appropriate cut sheets to the satisfaction of the Township Engineer.

The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate recitation of the action taken by the Zoning Board on the approval date designated hereinabove.

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

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

BA-46-06 – JUNE GUIFFRIDA – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR RETAINING WALL LOCATED ON KINGSLAND RD. BLOCK 11002, LOT 31 IN R-3 ZONE

In the matter of June Guiffrida

Case No. BA-46-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: September 11, 2006

Memorialized: October 16, 2006

WHEREAS, June Guiffrida has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to obtain approval for impervious relief requiring a variance for premises located at 217 Kingsland Road and known as Block 11002, Lot 31 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13- 7.1301D8 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

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

The applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
The subject premise is on an improved 6,000 square foot lot.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 6/8/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The Board received a report dated 8/30/06 from the Lake Hopatcong Commission.
The applicant installed a retaining wall and pavers in the rear yard. She did so without benefit of a zoning review and, as constructed, resulted in impervious coverage originally shown as 58%, but presently noted and requested as 49%.
The applicant presented a series of photographs in evidence that depicted before and after conditions on-site.
The applicant stated that efforts were made to reduce the impervious coverage and provide for on-site drainage in the area of the new pavers.
The applicant’s proposal results in increasing impervious coverage from the presently non-conforming 44% to 49% noting the maximum permitted is 25%.

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 applicant’s proposal to be an aesthetic upgrade of the premises. The materials and drainage system provided by the applicant should ameliorate and attenuate an increase in impervious coverage.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 11th day of September, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

Applicant is to secure all proper permits and approvals from the municipality. Same to include a review of the on-site stormwater trenching techniques described by the applicant at the public hearing. Same was also depicted on several photographs provided by the applicant.
Total impervious coverage not to exceed 49%.

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

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

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

In the matter of Veronica & Edward Data

Case No. BA-49-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: September 11, 2006

Memorialized: October 16, 2006

WHEREAS, Veronica & Edward Data have 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 5 Hillary Terrace and known as Block 4201, Lot 38 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-1” 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 applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
The subject premises are a “through-lot” with frontage on Hillary Terrace and Emmans Road.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 7/19/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The applicant’s home (along with their adjacent neighbors) faces and is accessed via Hillary Terrace. The area “fronting” Emmans Road is utilized as a “de facto” rear yard.
The applicants were proposing to construct a large shed (24’x24’) in the rear yard. Same was depicted on a plot plan attached to the application as well as sketched in on an aerial photo. The applicant also presented floor plans and elevation drawings.

The Board finds the subject premises to be peculiarly handicapped and that the lot is a “through lot” with two front yards. The “real world” front yard is Hillary Terrace and the “real world” rear yard is Emmans Road. There are several similarly situated properties on Hillary Terrace and all treat Hillary Terrace as their front yard and Emmans Road as their rear yard.
The proposed relief is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zone Scheme. In reality, this is truly a rear yard amenity.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the11th day of September, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

No water or electric utilities are to be provided to the storage shed.
Same is to be sized and located as depicted on the plot plan and drawings attached to the application.

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

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

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

In the matter of Jennifer & Harry Safreed

Case No. BA-50-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: September 11, 2006

Memorialized: October 16, 2006

WHEREAS, Jennifer & Harry Safreed have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition in violation of the Zoning Ordinance requiring a “c” variance for premises located at 298B Howard Boulevard and known as Block 13201, Lot 16 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “OS” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.7B 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 subject premises are one of three premises sharing a common entryway off of Howard Boulevard near the border of Roxbury and Mount Arlington.
Applicant received a letter of denial (revised) dated 4/11/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The applicants were proposing to construct an addition onto the existing home. Same was depicted on elevation drawings attached to the application.
Addition would be approximately 28’x 24’ and the garage would be 10’x14’.
The applicant’s proposal does not comply with the dimensional setbacks required in the OS Zone. The applicant’s side yard would be 7.5’ and 13’ with a nominal front yard of 25’. The OS Zone contemplates a front yard setback of 100’, side yard setback of 50’, and clearly, the applicant does not presently nor can any addition conform to the requirements of the zone. The subject premises are nearly 1 ½ acre in size although the zone requires a 3-acre lot size.

The Board finds the applicant’s proposal to be reasonable under the circumstances. The existing infrastructure on the lot is clearly positioned so that any addition is going to require a variance. The applicant’s proposal actually brings the existing home into closer conformity with the type of housing that would be contemplated in a zone that requires 3 acres. Providing a garage and off-street parking is consistent with the intent and purpose of the local Land Use Law.

Addition to be sized and located as depicted on the elevations and plot plan attached to the application. Applicant is to provide all other aspects of the Zoning Ordinance including but not limited to impervious coverage regulations.

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

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

In the matter of Lesco, Inc.

Case No. BA-48-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: September 11, 2006

Memorialized: October 16, 2006

WHEREAS, Lesco, Inc. has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for use variance approval and site plan approval for premises located at 12 Orben Drive and known as Block 9701, Lot 9 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “LI/OR” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.3402(5) 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 Hague, Esquire represented the applicant.
The applicant is a publicly traded company supplying lawn care and similar supplies and equipment for re-sale for landscaping businesses.
The applicant is a proposed tenant for 6,500 square feet of space in the Maione Industrial Park and would occupy units 4/5 of the building as depicted on the survey.
The applicant is proposing to occupy 6,500 square feet of tenant space within the 30,000 square foot building located at 12 Orben Drive. As noted, the subject property is located in the LI/OR Light Industrial/Office Research District. The applicant was seeking a use variance, as a lawn care and golf course product supply dealer is not a permitted use within the parameters of the LI/OR Zone.
As noted, Lesco, Inc. is a lawn care and golf course product supply dealer with distribution centers throughout the United States of America. Lesco provides a wide range of packaged lawn care products to professional landscapers as a merchant wholesaler. The applicant’s branch manager, Ryan Summers, testified that the basic products supplied by the applicant are grass seeds, herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers. These are pre-packaged materials and would be stored on pallets within the center. He noted that Lesco also provided professional landscape and turf care equipment and parts including mowers, sprayers, spreaders, renovators, hand held equipment, golf accessories, and irrigation products for the maintenance and service of golf courses. He noted Lesco would not be providing bulk mulch, rock, stone, live plant material, or heavy landscaping equipment.
Mr. Summers noted customers of Lesco range from owners/operators of landscaping companies, golf course superintendents, grounds maintenance and landscaping organizations; to nationally recognized companies and institutions, municipalities, sports venues, athletic facilities, schools, and cemeteries. Lesco customers would receive the product direct from the Center. Customers could order the product at the store, over the phone, or from Lesco’s website and then pick up the product using a small truck or van. The product would be typically stored on-site on skids (pallets) and access would be via forklifts. The actual product is delivered to the service centers typically via tractor-trailers usually once a week during normal operational hours (7:30 am to 5:00 pm weekdays and 7:30 am to noon on Saturdays).
Frederick Hyatt, who is a rental agent for the landlord, noted that a substantial portion of the building was presently unoccupied and marketing the property for prospective tenants had proved somewhat difficult. He opined the proposed use by Lesco while not hitting into the parameters of the LI/OR Zone would still be within the spirit and intent of the zone plan for the zone.
The applicant called as its final witness its professional planner, Michael Kauker. Mr. Kauker presented exhibits A-1 (aerial photo) and A-2 (a photoboard consisting of five photos). Mr. Kauker noted the applicant’s proposed use did not seem to fit within the exact parameters of any zone in Roxbury. He characterized the proposed use as a unique use particularly suited for the site in question. He noted the site had not attracted conforming tenants and noted the applicant’s use was generically similar to a conforming use and many of the elements of the applicant’s use were elements that would be common to a conforming use. In reviewing the aerial map and inventory of nearby land uses, Mr. Kauker opined that the proposed use was consistent with and would not have an adverse impact on any of the existing uses as well as on any of the adjoining properties. He noted this is a contained use, which would essentially be taking place within the structure and that any of the traffic impacts would be no greater than (and to a certain extent certainly lesser than) some permitted uses. He characterized the proposed use as an adaptive re-use of an existing structure.

The Board agrees with the expert testimony of the applicant’s professional planner. The Board finds the applicant’s planner to be credible. The proposed use is a unique niche use that does not seem to fit within the specific parameters of any zone in the Township. It is the Board’s finding that this type of use would be consistent with the intent and purpose of the proposed uses in the LI/OR Zone. It is the type of use that was clearly not contemplated when the Zoning Ordinance was drawn. It is especially and uniquely suitable for the site in question. It is truly, in many respects, an “ultra light industrial use”.
Permitting this use will provide an opportunity to bring a significant portion of the subject property back into utility.
This proposed use will have absolutely no impact on any of the surrounding properties nor will it have an adverse impact on the zone plan and zone scheme.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 11th day of Septemer, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

Only pre-packed products may be stored on-site. There shall be no compounding/mixing/fabricating of materials on-site.
There shall be no outside storage of any products.
All business operations other than loading and unloading shall take place within the confines of the building.
As noted by the applicant, there shall be no changes to the infrastructure of the approved site plan as well as the building in question.
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, at the request of the municipality, the applicant shall meet with the construction official at the site to discuss an outline of the areas on-site which are to be utilized by the applicant including but not limited to loading, unloading of delivered products and the products for re-sale.
Applicant shall provide a list of all materials typically stored on-site to the Board of Health and the Fire Department.

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

Discussion. Changes noted and made.

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

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

In the matter of James Gallo

Case No. BA-51-06

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: September 11, 2006

Memorialized: October 16, 2006

WHEREAS, James Gallo has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a home and a garage requiring bulk variances, “c” variances, and steep slope relief for premises located at 11 Yellow Barn Avenue and known as Block 11601, Lot 47 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.818G2, 13-7.1301D, 13-7.1301D6a, 13-7.1301D8, 13-1301d8, 13-7.819, 13-7.905C 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:

Bernd Hefle, Esquire represented the applicant.
The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site. The premises are a lakefront home fronting Lake Hopatcong.
The Board received a letter dated 8/30/06 from the Lake Hopatcong Commission.
Applicant received a letter of denial dated 7/26/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
The premises are somewhat unique and Yellow Barn Avenue is a semi-public right-of-way that bisects the applicant’s property (and many other properties along Yellow Barn Avenue). The lakeside consists of the residence and the opposite side is the location of the applicant’s existing garage structure.
The applicant submitted the following exhibits:

Careaga Engineering, dated 6/14/06 consisting of 5 sheets
Byrne Design Associates, consisting of 7 sheets

The following is a tabulation of the zone requirements:

ITEM REQUIRED EXISTING PROPOSED

LOT SIZE & DIMENSIONS

Minimum Lot Area 15,000 S.F. 13,171 S.F.* 13,171 S.F.*

Minimum Lot Width at Setback 100 FT. 49.50 FT.* 49,50 FT.*

Minimum Lot Frontage 120 FT. 49.50 FT.* 49.50 FT.*

PRINCIPAL BUILDING

Minimum Front Yard 35 FT. 31.1 FT.* 30.2 FT.**

Minimum Side Yard 10 FT. 8.1 FT.* 8.1 FT.**

Maximum Building Height 2 ½ ST/35 FT. <2 ½ ST/35 FT. <2 ½ ST/35 FT.

Lot Area Without R.O.W. -------- 11,929 S.F. 11,929 S.F.

Maximum Building Coverage*** 15% 12.3% 20.5%**

Maximum Impervious Coverage*** 25% 23.1% 36.1%**

ACCESSORY BUILDING

Minimum Side Yard 5 FT. 7.2 FT. 5.8 FT.

Minimum Rear Yard 5 FT. 101.0 FT. 59.4 FT.

Maximum Building Height 15 FT. < 15 FT. < 15 FT.

*Pre-existing variance

** Proposed variance

***Maximum building coverage and maximum impervious coverage are each calculated based on lot area and impervious area of the lot not including the R.O.W.

8. The applicant also introduced during the public hearing the following exhibits:

c. A-1 – street side elevations

d. A-2 – rear elevation

e. A-3 – garage elevation

f. A-4 – panoramic photos (view of properties)

g. A-5 – garage

h. A-6 – rear of house

i. A-7 – Yellow Barn Road streetscape and garages

j. A-8 – a home built by the applicant in Mt. Arlington

k. A-9 – 30’x40’ garage located somewhere near the premises in question

9. The applicant called several witnesses. The applicant, himself, testified as to his purchase of the premises in the spring of 2006 and the need to renovate and retrofit the house so that same would bring the house into conformity with amenities associated with newer homes in a prime lakefront location in Roxbury Township. The applicant indicated the existing garage was dilapidated and inutile. The applicant’s proposal would create the opportunity to provide a substantial amount of off-street parking in front of the proposed garage as well as the opportunity to park a boat and two or three motor vehicles in the proposed garage. The applicant also testified that there was a significant difference in the front yard setback between his house and his immediate neighbor. He noted that his vented chimney and HVAC system would not be located between his house and the Strung house but would, in fact, be located well forward of the Strung property.

10. The applicant’s next witness was its engineer, Jeffrey Careaga. Mr. Careaga reviewed the engineering details of the property and described the on-site stormwater management techniques that would be instituted and utilized to control stormwater management on-site. He noted the soils were sandy, and in his opinion, somewhat permeable. Mr. Careaga also reviewed some of the exhibits marked in evidence and the other salient engineering issues affecting the premises.

11. The applicant’s final witness was its planner, P. David Zimmerman. Mr. Zimmerman opined that what the applicant was proposing was of substantial benefit both to the immediate neighborhood (a housing type and structure totally incongruous in an upscale lakefront area) and would be replaced with a modern aesthetic structure. He noted the house, itself, was only being modestly increased and that same was essentially squaring off an odd looking “bump out” of the existing structure. He further noted and opined that the location of the existing infrastructure impaired the ability to develop this property without need of dimensional variances. In analyzing the garage, (which as proposed was 40’x30’) Mr. Zimmerman noted the garage would take the place of sheds, outdoor storage, and other things that were incompatible with what should evolve into a more upscale lakefront neighborhood. Mr. Zimmerman noted the absence of any neighbors to the rear of the proposed garage as well as the location of other garages along the bisected line of Yellow Barn Avenue. Mr. Zimmerman noted that the applicant’s proposal was consistent with upgrading the lakefront properties and promoting off-street parking. He noted the provisions for stormwater management and characterized the expansion of the house as minimal – noting the house was being squared off and made more functional with dramatic aesthetic enhancements.

12. Mr. Zimmerman characterized the garage as somewhat larger than would be expected, but noted this garage would provide an opportunity to promote off-street parking and put personal items, automobiles, and a boat with inside storage. He demonstrated, through photographs, the present and formal arrangements taking place on the “garage side” of Yellow Barn Avenue.

The Board finds the testimony of the applicant’s planner P. David Zimmerman to be credible. The subject premises clearly are in need of a “redo”. The existing house is no longer compatible with the present zoning and the amenities that would be associated with a lakefront home. The aesthetic upgrade of this home and the increased functionality are all consistent with the intent and purpose of the zone plan. Same is further consistent with the Master Plan, and in addition, the applicant is providing a significant amount of off-street parking which will improve the existing circulation flow along Yellow Barn Avenue.
The benefits to granting this variance (the aesthetic upgrade, the provision for off-street and inside parking and storage of personality) clearly outweigh any detriment to the zone plan and zone scheme.
The existing home is outmoded and incongruous with its location as a lakefront home. The proposed new home is certainly more compatible with and works with a lakefront location.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 11^th day of September 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

Exterior HVAC system and venting for the heating system described by the applicant and the applicant’s testimony shall be located in a position so that same is not directly opposite the adjoining property owner. Applicant shall also provide a shrub screen for the HVAC system. Same to be reviewed and approved by the township planner.
Applicant shall remove the sidewalk on the southerly side of the house.
The width of the garage shall be reduced from 30’ to 28’ and the garage shall be “pushed” 5’ forward from its present location. Prior to construction, the applicant shall amend the plans to incorporate those changes. In addition, the applicant shall use pavers to promote permeability. The design of the pavers shall be approved by the township planner.
Prior to construction, the applicant shall provide updated impervious coverage calculations. It is the Board’s anticipation that the total impervious coverage shall be reduced from the present 36.1% by several percentage points.
The garage shall have no utility except electric. It is understood and agreed that the garage shall be used solely as an accessory residential garage to the principal residence located on the opposite side of Yellow Bard Avenue. The garage shall be used for the storage of the applicant’s motor vehicles and/or personal property. There shall be no commercial or residential use of the garage. Prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a grading and stormwater management plan for the review and approval of the township engineer.
Applicant shall comply with and shall add to the plans the recommendation the Lake Hopatcong Commission regarding soil erosion, sediment control, silt fencing, and hay bales.
During construction, applicant shall conduct full construction site cleanups at the end of every workday.

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

Discussion. Changes noted and made.

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

AGENDA

Ms. Robortaccio announced Application BA-56-06, Ginger Stillman/Efigene Carrero/Luz Sanchez will not be heard and is carried to 11/906

BA-53-06 - 52 MAIN STREET ROXBURY LLC – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON MAIN ST. BLOCK 5201, LOTS 7, 8, 9, 12 & 13 IN B-1 ZONE

Attorney Lee Levitt represented the applicant. He stated Roy Solondz , the managing member of 52 Main Street LLC, is present. This was originally approved several years ago. The project was started and never completed. We took over the project and completed it as it is today. We are here seeking final site plan approval.

Roy Solondz was sworn in.

The applicant addressed Mr. Ferriero’s report of 10/9/06:

#1 – no comment

#2 – Will be corrected on revised plans to show the sign is 15 feet from the existing sidewalk.

#3 – Mr. Levitt stated the Construction Official felt it was constructed in an acceptable manner. It is a deviation from the approved site plan.

Mr. Stern said the plan was approved and envisioned this, and it is acceptable.

#4 – The applicant submitted an amended plan prepared by Michael Bengis (marked A-1), and said it will comply with ADA requirements. The only proposed use here is office use, and we don’t anticipate any large trucks. There will not be excessive truck traffic. Loading and unloading will be done in an expeditions fashion.

Mr. Stern said the plan originally had a space that included the handicap stall, handicap access, and a loading stall. It was constructed with an insufficient width. Because of that, they cannot construct all three. The proposal is to provide the handicap space with an access area. There will be no designated loading space. Any loading would occur on the street. The shortest route into the building for a delivery would be from the road. A design waiver would be required.

Ms. Dargel said at the time of preliminary, a problem with this site was that Kenvil Avenue comes out across from here, and it is a dangerous intersection there. I don’t think street parking should be promoted there.

Mr. Levitt said there is sufficient parking on the site if they would use it.

Discussion. The Board felt the plan, as shown, is acceptable.

#5 – design waiver requested.

Mr. Ferriero stated a depressed curb is required.

Mr. Solondz said the curbs were already in when we got the site. The prior builder had raised the building because of the water table in the area. There is already a step going up from the sidewalk into the building.

Mr. Ferriero said even if the Board grants the design waiver, the ADA Act is Federal Legislation.

Mr. Levitt said the applicant can go the State, and the State may assist the developer.

Design waiver granted. The depressed curb may be required by the construction official.

#6 – has been done – will be regraded – will comply

#7 - will comply

#8 – will be shown on revised plans – will comply

#9 – will comply and will be anchored

#10 – waiver requested - granted

#10A- will comply

#10B – have complied – applicant submitted letter of exemption from Morris County Planning Board.

#10C – nothing

#10D – yes

The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report updated 10/12/06:

#1 –Deeds have been prepared – applicant’s attorney will work with Board Attorney on deed restriction

#2 – done

#3, 4 – done

#5 – will comply

#7 – addressed

#8 – will comply

#9 – Mr. Solondz said the mailboxes were relocated as per the Post Office

#10 – waiver requested – granted – site plan will be amended – if replaced, will be replaced with pavers

#11 – addressed

#12 – no basement

#13 – agreed

#14 – addressed

#18 – agreed

#25 – 1 – moot

#10A – acceptable

#10B – agreed

#10C – agreed

#10D – acceptable

#10E - acceptable

#12 – acceptable

#21 – will be verified by Board Secretary

#25, 26 – agreed

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions and terms discussed, specifically a deed restriction pursuant to COAH. Mr. D’Amato seconded.

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

Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant.

James Gordon was sworn in.

The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report dated 10/12/06:

1 – comment

2 – Mr. Gordon said he wants to move the storage shelter back. Mr. Stern had no objection.

3 – agreed

4 – Mr. Stern had no objection

5 – agreed – Applicant submitted 10/1/06 letter from GPU (marked A-1)

6 – Discussion – Mr. Gordon said he would agree to change the light on the side of the building facing the residents.

7 – height of the timber (pack light) is 13’2”

8 – Mr. Stern had no objection

9 – to be confirmed by Land Use Administrator

10 – done

11 – agreed

The application addressed Mr. Ferriero’s report dated 10/12/06:

1 – no comment

2 – no additional modifications

3 – agreed

4 – agreed

5 a - acceptable

5b – Applicant submitted a copy of septic tank abandonment approval from Health Department (marked A-2) and house demolition permit (marked A-1)

5c – agreed

5d – agreed

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application with the two modifications noted. Mr. Kurtz seconded.

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

Attorney Richard Wade represented the applicant.

Nicholas Wunner, engineer for the applicant, addressed Mr. Ferriero’s report dated 10/11/06:

1 – comment

2 – comment

3 – manhole cover is 6” below grade because there are children playing there. Tie distances will be shown on the plan.

4 – submitted

5 – did show concrete pad

6 – to be addressed by architect

7 – subject to Mr. Stern’s review

8 – will put same type of lights that are existing

9, 10, 11 – agree

12 – done

The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report dated 10/13/06:

1.1 – design waiver requested – Board agreed to design waiver

1.2 - done

1.3 – agreed

1.4 – addressed

1.5 – no off-tract or off-site improvements

1.6 – agreed

2.0 – to be addressed by architect

3.1 – agreed

3.2 – agreed

3.3 – discussed – design waiver granted

3.4 – agree

3,5, 3.6 – agreed

Mark Bock, architect for the applicant, stepped forward. He addressed items 5 and 6 in Mr. Ferriero’s report. He stated the storage room floor was raised about a foot above the finished floor because of the grading around the building. It should not be a problem. A concrete pad is shown.

Regarding Item#6 in Mr. Ferriero’s report, and Section 2.0 in Mr. Stern’s report regarding architecture, Mr. Bock stated we met with Mr. Stern, the Historic Advisory Committee, and the Board Engineer. The biggest change was to the entrance to the building. We have incorporated some stone at the entrance, buttresses at the corners, and have some block around the base that is a darker color which will match one of the lighter brown colors of the stone. At the view from the road, the classrooms have windows at the grade level. One issue was the look of the building from the highway and the auto body shop, and we agreed to downplay those elevations. We took out the windows and the metal panels. It is more of a blank façade. The material we want to use is an exterior finish system. On the back we will continue the dark band and will use basically a monotone façade of a colored block about 10 feet high, and above that would be a metal panel with a stucco look to it. It would look almost identical to the efface at the front of the building.

Mr. Bock passed out literature to the Board members showing the proposed finish.

Mr. Stern stated he believes this is a very good improvement. I also offered landscaping suggestions and they have agreed to comply with those suggestions.

Ms. Dargel asked if Mr. Cramond is in agreement with this plan.

Mr. Stern said he could not attend tonight, but is in agreement with the changes.

Ms. Dargel said she is very happy with the changes, and would also be in agreement to forego some of the landscaping.

Mr. Stern asked what the block treatment is for the Rt.46 façade.

Mr. Bock said it is a smooth, colored block.

Mr. Stern said the Rt. 46 elevation and the body shop elevation have been a concern. What is proposed is acceptable.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

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

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

Mr. Ferriero left at 9:00 p.m.

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

Virginia Guider was sworn in. She stated there was always a shed on the premises. The current shed has been there for at least 30 years. She requested the variance because she needs the storage, and the new house doesn’t have a basement. She can’t put a shed to the rear because it would hinder the view to the lake.

Ms. Robortaccio said if the Board were to grant this it would be for a shed the same size as the existing shed.

Ms. Guider submitted photos of sheds on neighboring properties (markedA-1, A-2, A-3).

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the application for a 10’ x 10’ shed. He said most people around there have sheds in front. Mr. Giardina seconded.

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

BA-54-06 – CARLOS ORAMA – VARIANCE FOR SIDEYARD SETBACK FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON KINGS HIGHWAY, BLOCK 10005, LOT 9 IN R-3 ZONE

Carlos Orama was sworn in. He stated he would like to put an addition on his house. There will be a garage with master bedroom above. The addition will be 21’9” x 25’9”. The back addition will line up with the back of the house, as will the front. The sideyard setback will be 7 feet.

Ms. Dargel said when she went to the house, there was a paved area on one side of the property. Also, a lady answered one of the two front doors and said the people putting on the addition were on the other side of the house. Is this a two family house?

Mr. Orama said no. She is a cousin. There is another driveway. It is a on-family house.

Ms. Robortaccio suggested any approval be conditioned on the zoning officer making a determination that it is a single family home, and that it remain a single family home.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the application with the conditions set forth, and to confirm it is a single family and remains that way. Ms. Dargel seconded.

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

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

Carolanne Jackmore (Donnelly) was sworn in. She stated she is here to get a variance. Her ex-husband had applied for the variance. There is a shed on the property which is in the front yard. There are two front yards as this is a corner property. It also exceeds the impervious coverage. We needed a zoning permit, and that was denied because of the variances. I need the shed for storage because the house is rather small. On the other side of the lot there is a drop. There is no other place we could locate the shed.

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

No one stepped forward.

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application as the property is severely constrained with the slopes, and there are two front yards. This is a reasonable amenity. Mr. Giardina seconded.

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

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 9:30 p.m.

Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

lm/

Approved: September 11, 2006

Approved: September 11, 2006

Approved: September 11, 2006

Approved: September 11, 2006

Approved: September 11, 2006

PRINCIPAL BUILDING

ACCESSORY BUILDING

Live Edit