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
RESOLUTIONS
BA-07-34 – DANIEL &
KIMBERLY COE – VARIANCE FOR 6 FT. FENCE IN FRONT YARD LOCATED ON NORMAN
LANE/RIGHTER RD., BLOCK 1702, LOT 1 IN R-2 ZONE
RESOLUTION
OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
OF DENIAL
Denied: June 11,
2007
Memorialized:
July 9, 2007
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- The
applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
- The
applicants were proposing to construct a fence in the front yard at six
feet in height. The Ordinance permits a maximum fence height of four
feet.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 4/13/07 from Tom Potere, the Zoning
Officer.
- The
applicants stated they had a large dog and a four foot fence was
inadequate to keep the dog within the fenced in area.
- 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:
- 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.
BA-07-23 – SANDRA ARMINIO – USE
VARIANCE FOR CHANGE OF TENANCY LOCATED ON SHIPPENPORT RD., BLOCK 10101, LOT 32
IN PO/R ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: June 11, 2007
Memorialized: July 9, 2007
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- Edward
Dunn, Esquire represented the applicant.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
BA-07-35 - OWL REALTY – CONTINUING OF A NONCONFORMING USE LOCATED ON
BERKSHIRE VALLEY RD. BLOCK 6802, LOT 9 IN OS ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: June 11, 2007
Memorialized: July 9, 2007
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
E. Hefele, Esquire represented the applicant.
- The
applicant is a prospective purchaser of the subject premises.
- 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.
- The
Board received the following documents:
- 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;
- A
copy of a denial of application from Mr. Potere, dated 4/9/07 (that
denial being the basis of the within application).
- During
the course of the public hearing, the applicant introduced the following
exhibits:
- 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.
- A-2
and A-3 - consisted of two photoboards each of which had 9 pictures of
the site.
- A-4
– a colorized map of the site
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- The
non-conforming use certification granted by the Board contemplates a
single integrated use as described herein.
- 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.
- This
certification is granted noting the following:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
AGENDA
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
BA-07-07 - WOODMONT REALTY
– SITE PLAN FOR WAREHOUSE/OFFICE LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9603, LOTS 3 & 4
IN OB ZONE
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.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
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.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
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.
BA-07-39 – DANIEL SICSKO – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED
ON GORDON RD. BLOCK 12802, LOT 5 IN R-2 ZONE
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.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
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.
BA-07-38 - KENVIL ASSOCIATES – CERTIFICATION OF NONCONFORMING USE FOR
WAREHOUSE/LIGHT MANUFACTURING LOCATED ON HOWARD PL. BLOCK 8901, LOT 9 IN OR
ZONE
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.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
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.
BA-07-40 – KRISHNA KRUPA – VARIANCE FOR PARKING LOCATED
ON MT. ARLINGTON BLVD., BLOCK 11301, LOT 16 IN B-1 ZONE
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.
Discussion.
Mr. Kurtz made a motion to defer the
matter to the Planning Board. Ms. Dargel seconded.
Discussion.
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.
BA-07-42 – BRUCE & KATHY BERGLIND – VARIANCE TO HAVE
OFFICE IN HOME LOCATED ON EYLAND AVE., BLOCK 2801, LOT 19 IN R-1 ZONE
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.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
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.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Discussion.
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.
BA-07-41 - ENVISION MANAGEMENT – VARIANCE TO BUILD HOME
IN AN OB ZONE, LOCATED ON MARY LOUISE AVE., BLOCK 6101, LOT 5
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.
Discussion.
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.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
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.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
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
lm/