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, Mark Crowley, Joyce Dargel, Barbara Kinback, Peter Giardina, Sebastian D’Amato.


ABSENT:  Edward Data, John Wetzel.


PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener, Russell Stern, Paul Ferriero.


Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary






In the matter of Kimberly & Daniel Coe

Case No. BA-07-34







Denied: June 11, 2007

Memorialized: July 9, 2007



                WHEREAS, Kimberly & Daniel Coe have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a fence in violation of the Zoning Ordinance for premises located at 18 Norman Lane and known as Block 1702, Lot 1 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-8.809B 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 applicants were proposing to construct a fence in the front yard at six feet in height.  The Ordinance permits a maximum fence height of four feet.
  3. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 4/13/07 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  4. The applicants stated they had a large dog and a four foot fence was inadequate to keep the dog within the fenced in area.
  5. The applicants stated, when they purchased the premises, they had no idea that their dog would not be able to scale a four foot fence and the primary concern in asking for a six foot fence was to deal with the fact that their dog was not easily contained by a four foot fence.

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant be denied for the following reasons:

  1. The applicants have set forth no legal basis for the grant of a variance.  There is no hardship peculiar to the premises that would permit the grant of a variance.  Owning or purchasing a large dog in an area where a maximum four foot fence height is permitted is clearly not a basis for the grant of a variance.  In addition, the location proposed by the applicant (along Righter Road) would be unaesthetic and antithetical to the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance.  It would give create the feeling of a stockade.

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 11th day of June, 2007 that the within application be denied


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


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




In the matter of Sandra Arminio/POE, LLC

Case No. BA-07-23







Approved: June 11, 2007

Memorialized: July 9, 2007



                WHEREAS, Sandra Arminio/POE, LLC has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to modify a use variance previously granted for premises located at 150 Shippenport Road and known as Block 10101, Lot 32 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “PO/R” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.2202A 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. Edward Dunn, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The instant matter is the third form of alternative relief requested by the applicant.  The applicant first asked to overturn a decision of the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer, or alternatively, an interpretation of the Zoning Ordinance as it pertained to the prior resolution.  That appeal and interpretation were adjudicated and memorialized in a resolution under Case No. BA-07-24 which resolution was adopted by the Board on 6/11/07.
  3. As noted above, the instant application was a request to modify the grant of the prior variance so as to permit a reconfiguration and reallocation on-site so as to permit a total of eight (8) “users” on-site.
  4. As noted above and in the prior resolution, the within site was developed by the late Frank Arminio for the specific purpose of being the site of Mr. Arminio’s landscaping business.  Mr. Arminio’s landscaping business would have been a completely integrated operation on-site and presumably would have utilized the entire infrastructure on-site.  Tragically, Mr. Arminio passed away before he could implement his vision for this parcel.
  5. Brian Sherence, a principal with BTS Landscaping, testified at the public hearing.  Mr. Sherence indicated that his business was to be the new principal tenant, a prospective purchaser of the building.  Mr. Sherence noted that his landscaping business was much smaller than Mr. Arminio’s landscaping business and could only undertake purchasing the property by utilizing the surplus space by renting to other tenants.  It was testified that there were four tenants at present including a catering company, a well equipment business, a vending company, and another company utilizing the site for the storage of equipment as well.  Presumably, the landscaping business would be the fifth user on site.  The other areas identified by Mr. Sherence at the public hearing (see A-1 and A-2 in evidence both of which were diagrams of the structures on-site) would be used together.  Mr. Sherence testified that he, as the owner of the property, would be careful to proscribe and limit the other potential users so that the site would essentially be fully integrated and working harmoniously.  Mr. Sherence testified the existing 17 parking spaces were sufficient for the proposed use.  The applicant also offered the testimony of John McDonough, professional planner.  Mr. McDonough’s testimony was that the requested modification, with the prior use variance, was totally consistent with the Board’s findings in that matter and that all of the reasons for granting the original use variance were valid.  He further noted that the new users were consistent with the intent of the prior resolution and would have no negative impact.  He further opined that getting the site into full operation would be consistent with the intent and purpose of the Municipal Ordinance.

                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:

  1. As noted below in a reiteration of the conditions of approval, the Board is somewhat frustrated in the applicant’s failure to complete all of the site plan improvements in a timely manner.  However, the Board finds the planning testimony of Mr. McDonough to be credible and competent.  It is tragic that Mr. Arminio did not live long enough to see the completion of this project.  Nevertheless, allowing the use to be broken up does not materially affect the viability of the approval and the net result will be something akin to what was approved.  Clearly, this type of site needs some flexibility in attempting to find a totally congruent user (another landscaping company operating in the same manner as the Arminio landscaping company).  It was probably not realistic and the degree of flexibility requested is minimal under the circumstances.  This approval should be a catalyst for completing the site and bringing vitality to this area of the Township.


                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 11th day of  June, 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Subject to compliance with all the prior conditions of approval not specifically modified herein.  Those conditions of approval apply to the original resolution granting the use variance as well as the site plan resolution.
  2. In particular, the applicant shall be limited to no more than eight (8) potential tenants in the general area described and testified to in exhibits A-1 and A-2 in evidence.  Prior to the change of any tenancy, the proposed tenancy shall be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer.  If there is any question as to the viability or appropriateness of any future use, same shall be reviewed and approved by the Board.
  3. Prior to issuing any certificates of occupancy for present or contemplated future tenants, the applicant shall make immediate repairs to the stormwater drainage system so as to effectuate and encourage stormwater control in the area of the driveway.  At present, there are two inlets that cannot be utilized.  Based on the comments of the Board’s Engineering Consultant, Paul Ferriero, the applicant will provide an “interim fix” which shall be reviewed and approved by Michael Kobylarz, the Township Engineer.  In addition, Mr. Kobylarz shall review the present site infrastructure to confirm that the use of the site shall not constitute a danger to health, safety, and welfare.
  4. Applicant shall have one year within which to “straighten out” its problem with an apparent encroachment into fresh water wetlands buffer.  The Board understands that this intrusion has created a chain reaction in getting the rest of the site infrastructure resolved.  Nevertheless, the Board wishes to emphasize that it is time that this project move forward with some alacrity.
  5. No zoning permit to be issued without the approval of the Township Engineer.





Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. Kinback seconded.


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




In the matter of Owl Realty, LLC

Case No. BA-07-35







Approved: June 11, 2007

Memorialized: July 9, 2007


                WHEREAS, Owl Realty, LLC have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury pursuant to NJSA 40:55D-68 for certification of a non-conforming use that would otherwise be prohibited in the OS Zone and pertaining to premises located at 36 Berkshire Valley Road and known as Block 6802, Lot 9on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury; 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. Bernd E. Hefele, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is a prospective purchaser of the subject premises.
  3. The applicant who was seeking to confirm that the existing non-conforming use consisted of a storage yard for site contracting equipment, truck storage facility, and on-site repairs within the existing repair garage.
  4. The Board received the following documents:
    1. A Time Line of Zoning and Planning Boards Actions – 36 Berkshire Valley Road/Block 6802, Lot 9, prepared by Thomas Potere, the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer;
    2. A copy of a denial of application from Mr. Potere, dated 4/9/07 (that denial being the basis of the within application).  
  5. During the course of the public hearing, the applicant introduced the following exhibits:
    1. A-1 - correspondence to Joseph Kowaski (presumably a prior owner of the subject premises) dated 10/5/64 indicating that the Planning Board had granted site plan approval to the site for the construction of a “masonry building” to be used for garage and storage.  Attached to A-1 was a rather informal sketch plat.
    2. A-2 and A-3 - consisted of two photoboards each of which had 9 pictures of the site.
    3. A-4 – a colorized map of the site
  6. Douglas Kelly, a principal of the applicant, testified at the public hearing.  Mr. Kelly noted his business would be a single user of the site and would conduct any truck repairs within the existing masonry building.  He stated his business had 55 pieces of equipment which included inter alia 9 dump trucks, 2 trailers, backhoes, bulldozers, etc. all consistent with the applicant’s business as a site development contractor.
  7. Mr. Kelly also reviewed the records for the benefit of the Board and described the existing on-site use, which now included the storage of dumpsters, a landscaping operation, and approximately 129 pieces of equipment.
  8. William Egbert, a long time neighbor of the subject premises, testified at the public hearing and confirmed that the site had been used as a truck storage and equipment storage site with on-site repairs for many, many years.

                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:

  1. Based upon the testimony of the applicant and in accordance with the statute, the Board has determined the following:  the applicant’s proposed use of the premises for the storage of site contracting equipment (approximately 55 pieces of equipment); truck repair of the applicant’s own trucks and equipment inside the building; and truck storage to be a valid non-conforming use.
  2. The Board finds the use of the masonry structure to be a valid non-conforming use for the repair of vehicles belonging to the applicant and used as one single integrated operation. 
  3. The non-conforming use certification granted by the Board contemplates a single integrated use as described herein.
  4. The Board can make no findings as to a site plan as the information provided clearly indicates that the “approved site plan” appears to have been a very casual sketch plat.  The Board finds the colorized map (A-4 in evidence) to be an approximate guideline as to the location of activities on-site.
  5. This certification is granted noting the following:
    1. There appears to have been a casual geometric progression of uses on this site.  Those uses appeared to have made this site almost into a trash/transfer station at times as well as a casual storage area for various contractor equipment.  The Board finds no basis for that part of the present operation to be considered a valid non-conforming use and any use beyond the certified use described to above, would constitute an unlawful expansion of a non-conforming use and be in violation of the Zoning Ordinance.  There is to be no mulching, wood chipping, salt storage, and topsoil screening operations on site.  No container storage is permitted.
    2. As noted above, the Board makes no findings as to the 1964 site plan.  The Board notes the site has been used in a very casual manner.  The Board does not and has not granted any relief from any environmental constraints or other Ordinance or statutory constraints on the property. 
    3. Applicant shall be required to obtain all appropriate approvals from the municipality relating to building issues affecting the structure on-site.  This would include septic, water, and other infrastructure issues within the purview of the building and/or health department.


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


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




Ms. Robortaccio announced Application BA-07-33, Mountain Landscape, will not be heard and is carried to 8/13/07, and Application BA-07-36, Catherine Troup, will not be heard and is carried to 8/13/07









Attorney Peter Wolfson represented the applicant.  He said after the last hearing the applicant met with the Board professionals.  The applicant has responded to the reports from the professionals in a memo dated 7/5/07.


Mr. Stern said we had a teleconference on 6/25/07 to go over the outstanding issues.  I would suggest we go over the professional reports and go over the items that are outstanding.  The Board hasn’t yet made a determination on the variance and waiver issues.


Mr. Stern went over his report dated 2/7/07, updated 6/5/07:


Mr. Stern said since the last hearing there was discussion on the ratio of office to warehouse.  The limit of the range will be 40 to 77%.


1.6 – variance required for parking distance to front of building.

3.1 – applicant agreed

3.2 – applicant agreed and depicted brick veneer on wall on the left building elevation

3.8 – design waiver required for setback of retaining wall and landscaping to be provided.  – will be addressed by engineer

4.1 – agreed

4.3 – discussed – revised rear building elevation and partial side elevations to reflect concrete block with brown face


Stephanie Pantale, architect, was sworn in.  She gave her professional and educational background and was accepted by the Board.  She showed a depiction of the contrasting materials that will be incorporated into the façade on the rear and side elevation (marked A-11).  She also showed sheet (marked A-12)  showing the façade treatment.


4.4 – agreed

4.5 – agreed

4.6 – to be addressed

4.7 – agreed

4.8 – agreed

4.9 – agreed – waiver required for not providing shade tree

6.7 – agreed


Mr. Stern went over his 6/6/07 memo:


Item 7.0 – planting end islands will not be placed at either side of the roll up doors


Mr. Stern went over his  5/29/07 memo:


He said the applicant has agreed to all except the following:


Item 2.6 – applicant agreed to do the wall as keystone and will submit an engineer’s sealed plan to be reviewed by the Township Engineer.

Item 2.8 – agreed to provide aerators in the pond

Item  2.12 – variance required for parking setback

Item 2.18 – addressed

Item 2.19 – design waiver required

Item 2.31 – street trees will be located on the far side of the sidewalk – Mr. Stern had no objection to the waiver – street trees will be provided along the full frontage to the extent possible.

All other items have been agreed to.


David Plante, engineer for the applicant, stepped forward.  He showed exhibit A-13 – site line profile for Route 80 dated 6/25/07.  The exhibit shows a cross section from the driver’s eye driving eastbound on Route 80.  For the westbound driveway we show another view about 200 feet to the east of the corner of the site.  There is vegetation along the Route 80 right-of-way.  There is a fairly heavy wooded condition to the west of the site.  There is some vegetation along the easterly side of the right-of-way.  In the middle of the driveway, the guide rail blocks the view.  Along Route 46 and the sides of the building, we have increased the height of the parapet wall to 25 feet, with some portions 27 feet.


Mr. Keiser said the parapet wall will be raised as necessary to screen the rooftop mechanical units from Route 46.


Mr. Plante showed Exhibit A-14, southern view section elevation of Woodmont flex  building, dated 7/9/07.  The highway is above the floor elevation. The exhibit does not accurately reflect the view of the Route 80 slope.


Mr. Stern stated this building is clearly visible from Route 80.  I don’t see a substantial negative impact by the applicant not landscaping along the Route 80 right-of-way. 


Ms. Dargel asked if there is an exhibit of the enhanced sign.


Mr. Stern said the sign still needs further detail.  It is still a 75 square foot sign.


Mr. Wolfson said it meets the ordinance requirements.


PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for testimony so far.


No one stepped forward. 




Mr. Ferriero went over his report dated 6/7/07:


General comments – informational items for the Board.  There has been testimony on those items.


Item 3 – environmental comments


Types of uses and materials – agreed as a condition of approval

Stormwater management comments – applicant is agreeing with all the items- except that  item 14 requires a waiver from the strict requirements of the best management practices manual for the service of the pond.  I recommend granting of that waiver.  Items 2, 6, 12 should be conditions of approval – applicant agreed.


Soil movement comments – applicant agrees to submit final earthwork calculations when plans are complete.  Soil application will come before the Board separately.


Individual plan sheet comments –


Sheet 4 – items 2, 3, 4, 5 – design waivers required

Page 6 – applicant addressed 7, 8, 9, 10


Sheet 5 – item 1 – keystone wall – reinforcing fabric – Board will want an architectural treatment on the concrete wall. – Mr. Keiser said we have been told by our engineer that it can be a keystone wall.  It will be either treated architecturally or will come back to the Board.


Item 2 – design waiver required – no objection


Sheet 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, all items addressed.




No one stepped forward.




Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application subject to all conditions set forth on the record, and approval of revised sign by Mr. Stern; approval of other governmental agencies particularly NJDOT and NJDEP.  Mr. Crowley seconded.


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


There was a 5 minute recess at 7:20 p.m.







Daniel Sicsko was sworn in.  He stated they live on a slope, and there is a walkout basement in the back of the house. 


Ms. Robortaccio said the second level floor plans were incomplete.


Mr. Sicsko passed around copies of the completed floor plan.  (marked A-1).


Ms. Robortaccio asked where bedroom #1 is.


Mr. Sicsko said the proposed bedroom will be bedroom #1.  There will be no stairs from the outside to the second level.  The entrance to the master bedroom will be from the loft area.


Ms. Dargel asked if the applicant tried to do something that was conforming.


Mr. Sicsko said the only way we could do that would be to tear the house down.


Ms. Dargel said there were pictures submitted of neighboring houses that have been done in a similar way.


Mr. Sicsko said there are many houses that have walkout basements.


Ms. Dargel asked what the walkout basement will be used for.


Mr. Sicsko said it will be used as a playroom


M. Dargel asked about all the equipment on the property.


Mr. Sicsko said there is one tire on an open well so that we can use the hill for sleigh riding. 


Mr. Crowley asked what the plans are for the driveway.


Mr. Sicsko said the side driveway will be taken away.


Mr. Crowley asked about the number of vehicles the applicant has.


Ms. Robortaccio said commercial vehicles should not be in a residential zone.


Mr. Stern said they are allowed only on the side or rear yard and there are certain screening requirements.


Mr. Crowley said you should make sure the driveway is big enough to park the vehicles.


Mr. Stern said you are only allowed one commercial vehicle on the property and it is required to be garaged.




No one stepped forward.




Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application.  The house is preexisting and this is a small house for the neighborhood.  The proposed improvements will improve the property and make it more in line with the neighborhood.  There is a large slope, and I would imagine it would be difficult to make it two stories.  The property needs to be cleaned up, and the commercial vehicle on the property should be garaged according to the ordinance.  Mr. Crowley seconded, and added that the applicant should get rid of some of the vehicles.


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




Attorney Heather Darling represented the applicant.


Janine Farinella was sworn in.  She stated the property was constructed under the I-5 zone.


Mr. Wiener said the applicant submitted a letter dated 4/11/07 which states her position. 


Ms. Farinella stated that is correct.  The list of tenants in the letter is accurate.  The building is 27,500 sq. feet and was built around 1982 as a warehouse and light manufacturing building.  At the time, A T & T was the primary tenant.  The building is separated in three parts of 10,000, 10,100 and 7,500 square feet.  Over the last several years we have had difficulty obtaining tenants for the building.  We have had smaller local tenants recently.  Currently we have a 10,000 sq. ft. tenant and the rest of the building remains vacant.  We have not had anyone interested in the office space.  The building was built to be like a trucking terminal.  There is no substantial office space in the building. The ceiling heights range from 18 feet to 24 feet, and there are 6 loading doors.  We went to the Zoning Officer with tenants and they were denied because they didn’t comply with the OR zone.  I would want to appeal to the Board to have us continue the ongoing nonconforming use.  It has never been our intent to abandon the use.  We are asking for certification that this building can be used for warehouse use.


Mr. Crowley asked if the use has ever been changed.


Ms. Farinella said it has not.  Also, the building is serviced by well and septic.


Ms. Dargel asked if there is currently any equipment in the parking lot of the building.


Ms. Farinella said we have large tractor trailers that come in that service the present tenant.  None of the vehicles are stored on the property.


Mr. Stern said the application is for certification of a nonconforming use.  This is not a request to store equipment?


Ms. Farinella said that is correct.


Mr. Wiener said the certification would be that it can be used for warehouse and light manufacturing only.




No one stepped forward.




Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the certification of nonconforming use with the stipulation that there is no outdoor storage and repair of equipment.  The building is only to be used for warehousing and light manufacturing.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.


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




Ms. Robortaccio stepped down as she was a noticed property owner within 200 feet of the site.


Attorney Bernd Hefele represented the applicant.  He stated this application is for property at 190 Mt. Arlington Blvd.  It is approximately an 8,950 sq. ft. building in a B-1 zone.  The property has a convenience store, and it has a devising wall down the middle.  There are two separate spaces about 4,500 sq. ft. each.  One half has been empty for several years.  The application is for a parking space variance. 


Mr. Wiener said the Board needs to determine the proper jurisdiction for this application


Mr. Hefele said we are only asking for the number of parking spaces.


Mr. Wiener went over the criteria for Planning Board jurisdiction.  Most of the criteria do not apply, except for the fact that the application involves a site plan or modification to a site plan.  In this case it does. That would send it to the Planning Board.


Mr. Hefele argued that there is nothing here in terms of a site plan that we are requesting.  This property is completely built out.  It has the store and 21 parking spaces.  We can’t locate any additional spaces on there. 


Mr. Stern stated this would be an intensification of the use, which would require site plan approval.  This went from one retail space to 3 retail spaces..


Mr. Wiener said once you make that determination, this matter should be referred to the Planning Board.


Mr. Hefele said what we are looking for is a variance from the parking space number requirement.  That is all.  I think the statute 70C provides for that.




Mr. Kurtz made a motion to defer the matter to the Planning Board.  Ms. Dargel seconded. 




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


Ms. Robortaccio returned to the Board at 9:10 p.m.




Bruce and Kathy Berglind were sworn in.


Mr. Berglind stated we are in the process of purchasing a home and the condition of that purchase is the continual use of a home office which has been in continuous use for 30 years.  We propose no changes to the site.  It is currently a chiropractor’ office, and was previously a dentist’s office.  We will also be living there.


Mr. Berglind stated the business is an administrative office for a private home care company.  We do not have clients or customers visit the office. We would have an average of 2 employees – no more than 4 on any given day.  The employees would be doing telephone and administrative work.   When clients call us, we visit them in their home.  The office employees are in this office. In the field are home health aids.  They do not work in the office.  There is more than adequate parking there.


Mr. Kurtz asked if there will be a sign.


Mr. Berglind said under separate application, we will apply for a new sign.


Ms. Robortaccio asked if business signs are permitted in a residential zone.


Mr. Stern said he will look into it.


Mr. Berglind said we are not asking for the sign at this time.


Ms. Robortaccio asked about new field employees being hired.


Mr. Berglind said at times, we do interview applicants for home health aids several times a week.  Those interviews would take place here.


Mr. Stern said, regarding signs, if the Board approves this, they would have to have a conforming sign, and would submit a Zoning Permit for that.


Ms. Dargel said the floor plan shows 3 offices.  If there are only two employees, who would be using the offices?


Mr. Berglind said there would be as many as 3 or 4 employees.  The waiting room is existing, and there is no plan for any other use of that space.  The meeting room would be used for training and orientation. 


Mr. D’Amato said this would be less traffic than a chiropractic office.




James Knopa, 330 Eyland Ave., was sworn in.  He asked how long Mr. Berglind has owned the franchise


Mr. Berglind said 4 years.  The business hours are 8 am to 5 p.m. Monday thru Friday.  No weekend hours.


Mr. Knopa stated he lives across from this location and his concern is any increase in traffic.  It sounds like a lot of people would be coming in.  It is a very busy corner.  There are numerous accidents in this area.  I am concerned with any increase in traffic.


Ms. Robortaccio asked if the chiropractor had heavy traffic.


Mr. Knopa stated this is a change, and this is strictly a residential area.


Mr. Wiener said the existing use was chiropractor, correct?


Mr. Knopa said yes.


Mr. Wiener said if another chiropractor came along and wanted to do the exact same thing as the prior chiropractor, he could probably do it as a matter of record.


Mr. Knopa said the proposal is for a change in business.


Mr. Berglind said I feel this business would generate less traffic than the chiropractic office.  The current owner is here if you want some perspective on this.


Ms. Dargel asked Mr. Berglind how many vehicles the business would generate daily – in and out.


Mr. Berglind said probably about 3 to 5 round trips, or 6 to 10 one-way.


James Campbell was sworn in.  He stated he is the current owner of the property.  He currently has a chiropractic office here.  During the course of a day we get anywhere from 6 to 10 and up to 20 or 25.  It would be a minimum of 8 to 10 per day.  The current hours are Monday thru Thursday from 9:30 to 6:00.  There were Saturday hours as well.  The only deliveries were Fed Ex or UPS type trucks.  No box trucks or tractor trailers.


Mr. Campbell said the volume of traffic that would be coming in would be substantially less than what we had.  It is a busy road and intersection.  There is room in the parking area for cars to turn around so they don’t have to back out onto Eyland Avenue.


Robert Thomas, 327 Eyland Avenue, was sworn in.  He asked about the future growth of the business.


Mr. Berglind stated if we double our volume that might increase our traffic by 1 round trip a day.  I don’t foresee doubling our volume for several years.


Mr. Thomas asked if there are any plans to expand the business.


We don’t sell any products.  We don’t have an inventory.  We may get a UPS truck on average of once a week.


Mr. Stern said the home business conditional use standards state the approval will terminate when the use is terminated. The hours of operation should be 8 to 5 pm Monday thru Friday.


No one else stepped forward.






The Board discussed limiting the number of persons other than the applicants on site at any given time.


A Poll of the board determined the number of visitors to the site at any one time would be 5.


Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the application and limit the number of visitors to the site to 5, permanent or transient.  Hours of operation to be 8 to 5 Monday thru Friday.  Any change in ownership or use would have to come back to the Board.  Existing nonconforming sign to be removed. Any sign that is installed has to be conforming with the Ordinance.  Ms. Dargel seconded.


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




Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant.  He said this application is to construct a home in the OB zone on Mary Louise Avenue.  This lot is the second lot after Rutgers Place.  It is a 2.83 acre tract.  Behind the lot on the northeast are all residential houses.  The reason we are asking for the variance is that the property is located along Drakes Brook.  Any major development in a Category 1 water requires a buffer zone.  Also, there are freshwater wetlands on the site.  Our engineer will demonstrate that it is impossible to locate an office building on the property because of those restrictions.  We propose to put in a house that would be less than an acre of disturbance and less than ¼ acre of development.  We would be in compliance with all the requirements of the abutting R-3 zone except for the sideyard setback. We would not access the property on Mary Louse Avenue, but would access from Raritan Avenue.  It is a special need because the property cannot be developed as zoned. 


Mark Walker, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He said the property has frontage on Mary Louse Avenue and Raritan Avenue.  It is located in the OB zone.  The requirement for lot area is 5 acres.  This lot is undersized and is substantially smaller than what is required.  It is also lacking in lot width and lot frontage.  The property is adjacent to a category 1 water which requires a 300 foot buffer.


Mr. Walker referred to a rendering dated 7/9/07 (marked A-1).  He stated you are not allowed to disturb within the buffer for a major project.  Given that fact, the limit of disturbance would be limited and the building area would be very limiting.  We would construct the house on the highest point of the property.  There is no basement allowed in this area, so there would be a crawl space.  Recognizing the property is directly adjacent to the residential zone, it makes sense to have the driveway come off of Raritan Ave. rather than Mary Louise Avenue.


Ms. Dargel asked when the wetlands delineation was done.


Mr. Walker said our environmentalist did the delineation this spring.  Any approval here would be subject to obtaining DEP approval. 


Ms. Kinback asked if this will fall within the new DEP guidelines.


Mr. Walker said we feel we will be grand fathered in under the old regulations.


Ms. Robortaccio asked if that would apply if they don’t agree with the delineation.


Mr. Walker said we would be permitted to modify the plan as long as we did not increase the disturbance.


Ms. Dargel stated with the wetland restrictions, would a shed or pool be allowed?


Mr. Walker said sheet 3/5 gives an idea of the limit of disturbance.  My opinion is there isn’t enough room for a swimming pool.


Mr. Wiener said it would have to be disclosed to the purchaser of the property.  This whole application, if it is approved, is contingent on DEP approval.


Ms. Dargel asked about the orientation of the house.


Mr. Walker said the thought was that rather than twisting the house so the garage was adjacent to the neighbors to the east, we put the front of the house there.  There is a study and dining room in the front, and the family room and kitchen in the back part of the house. 


Mr. Stern stated you could decrease the impact to the neighbors by flipping this and having the garage facing Drakes Brook.




Mr. Walker said you would be sharing the private driveway, when it is actually a public road.


It was determined the Board would need input from the Township Engineer and the Fire Official.


Ms. Robortaccio said before we make a decision we need input from the Township Engineer, Zoning Board Engineer, police and fire.


Mr. Stern said should the Board approve the use variance, there would need to be conditions regarding the lack of obligation to the Township.





Ron Sanna, 1 Rutgers Place, stepped forward.  He said the way the driveway is facing is undesirable.


Leonard Teliotif stepped forward and stated her sister owns in the area.  She asked the width of the driveway.


Mr. Walker said it is 12’ wide and is paved.


Mr. Teliotif asked when the DEP data was last updated.


Mr. Walker said it was done in Spring, 2007.  The DEP will come to the site and inspect it.


Mr. Teliotif stated last October we lost 11 trees because of the water table.  He asked why the house is facing his backyard.


Mr. Walker said the architect placed it that way.


Mr. Teliotif asked how far the driveway is from his property.


Mr. Walker stated it is 8’ from the property line.


No one else stepped forward.




Mr. Stern said this is a 5 bedroom house and it is massive.  Only the side elevation is provided.  He asked that the applicant provide other elevations.


A poll of the Board determined the applicant should explore reorienting the house.


Mr. Stern stated the application would require a tree removal permit.  A conservation easement should be required, and there should be no access to Mary Louise Avenue.


The application was carried to 8/13/07.


                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Board Secretary