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, Joyce Dargel, Robert Kurtz, Mark Crowley, Barbara Kinback,
Sebastian D’Amato, Peter Giardina, Edward Data, John Wetzel.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:
Richard Saunders for Larry Wiener, Russell Stern, John Hansen.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Board Secretary.
RESOLUTIONS
ZBA-07-57 –
KIMBERLY FLANNELLY – VARIANCE FOR SETBACKS AND HEIGHT FOR A SECOND FLOOR
LOCATED ON COTTAGE AVE., BLOCK 11907, LOT 1 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved:
November 8, 2007
Memorialized:
December 10, 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 essentially add a level to the existing
home.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 9/6/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning
Officer.
- As
noted by Mr. McDonnell, the applicant’s needed a variance due to the fact
that the proposed addition would turn the existing home from a 2 ½ story
home to a 3 story home.
- The
applicant’s introduced photos A-1 through A-6 in evidence. They depicted
existing conditions in the neighborhood and the surrounding area.
- The
applicants also produced a set of plans together with a plot plan, which
is attached to the application. Caffrey and Associates, Surveyors
prepared the plot plan, and the elevation plans were for illustrative
purposes and not sealed by an architect. Nevertheless, the applicants
testified that the addition would essentially follow the lines of the
plans submitted with the application.
- The
applicants noted the existing home is extremely small and very much broken
up. The addition would provide an opportunity to upgrade the appearance
of the home and make same much more user friendly and the multiplicity of
dormers would be eliminated with the addition.
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
applicant’s relief is truly minimal. The addition is staying within the
existing footprint and represents an intelligent and well thought out
re-adaptation of the existing house, which clearly is in need of an
aesthetic upgrade.
- Someone
viewing this house, post construction, would find it difficult to identify
the area, which requires variance relief.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of November, 2007 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- House
is to be sized and located as depicted on the plan submitted with the
application and as set forth on the plot plan. The addition is to stay
within the existing footprint and the only variance granted is that which
occurs due to the upper floor becoming a full story for zoning purposes.
Mr. Kurtz made
a motion to approve the resolution. Ms. Dargel seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Kurtz, yes;
Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr.
D’Amato, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-07-58 –
KENNETH RIBE – VARIANCE FOR BUILDING COVERAGE AND SIDE YARD FOR A DORMER
LOCATED ON KINGSLAND RD., BLOCK 11002, LOT 21 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION
OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved:
November 8, 2007
Memorialized:
December 10, 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 an addition onto the existing home. The
addition would stay within the footprint of the existing home.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 8/22/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the
Zoning Officer.
- As
noted by the Zoning Officer, the applicant’s proposal results in the need
for another side yard variance (the R-3 Zone requires a 10’ setback, the
existing structure is at 4’ and some of the new mass will be at 6.5’
which, while less than the existing non-conforming location, adds another
non-conformity albeit, a lesser one at another location within the same
side yard). In addition, the applicants were requesting 22.7% for
building coverage - the Zone permits 15%, the existing condition is 22.7%
including a small existing 42 square foot shed.
- The
applicants noted their existing lot and the existing home were rather
small. Same was located in the Kingsland Community like many homes in
what was once a summer home area. Same were built on small lots and not
truly intended, when constructed, for year round occupancy.
- The
applicants presented several photos with the application as well as a
depiction of the new addition to the home. The new addition primarily
consisted of squaring off an existing roofline by extending the dormer
area of the roof.
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
applicant’s proposal is a reasonable and modest expansion of a very small
home. This proposal provides an opportunity for the aesthetic upgrade of
both the exterior of the home as well as its functionality. There is no
meaningful increase in variance relief nor is there any material relief in
building coverage. The Board finds the applicant’s request to be de
minimis under the circumstances and will have no adverse impact.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of November, 2007 that the approval of the
with
in
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Addition
is to be sized and located as depicted on the submissions made with the
application. The new addition will come no closer than 6.5’ to the side
yard and the total building coverage including the existing shed to be no
more than 22.7%.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Giardina seconded.
Roll as
follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. D’Amato,
yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-07-56-
WALTER & MAUREEN BERENDT – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR ADDITION
LOCATED ON VAIL RD., BLOCK 11102, LOT 14 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: November 8, 2007
Memorialized: December 10, 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 an addition onto the existing home.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 8/6/07 from Tom Potere, the Zoning
Officer, revised 11/5/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the new Zoning Officer.
- The
applicant’s proposed addition and improvements were depicted on a
two-sheet drawing prepared by Alfred Stewart, Jr., Surveyor and P.E.,
dated 6/20/07. The applicants also submitted a set of elevation plans
showing the location and design of the proposed addition. Those plans
were not architecturally sealed, but were presented for illustrative
purposes.
- As
noted in the 11/5/07 report, the applicant’s were seeking coverage
relief. The total impervious coverage presently existing was just under
28%. As part of the applicant’s proposal, it would be removing a patio
and reducing the total impervious coverage to 26.75%. It is noted, the
total permissible impervious coverage is 25% and in this case, the
applicants are actually reducing a non-conforming condition. However, the
applicants are increasing building coverage as a result of the proposed
addition. The existing 14.55% conforms to the total allowable building
coverage of 15%. The applicant’s proposal at 17.4% requires a variance.
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 benefits to granting this variance clearly outweigh any
detriment. The total impervious coverage is actually being reduced. The
building size and re-design set forth by the applicant represent an
aesthetic upgrade and intelligent re-adaptation of the existing infrastructure.
The benefits to be gained to the applicant’s property, the zone scheme,
and the neighborhood clearly outweigh any negative impact. In fact, as
noted above, the total impervious coverage has actually been reduced.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of November, 2007 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Addition
to be sized and located as depicted on the plot plan and elevation
drawings. Total impervious coverage to be reduced to 26.75% and maximum
building coverage to be no more than 17.4% as requested.
Ms. Dargel
made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr. Wetzel seconded.
Roll as
follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato,
yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-07-53
– STAVRAKIS/COOPER – SUBDIVISION FOR 2 LOTS LOCATED ON EYLAND AVE., BLOCK 1091,
LOT 20 IN R-4 ZONE
No action.
AGENDA
Letter
from Larry Kron, Esq., in regard to Stavrakis and Cooper
Attorney Larry
Kron represented the applicant. He stated he is requesting to reopen the
application due to the fact that at the last hearing he did not explain the
variance request sufficiently to all Board members.
This is a use
variance application for an expansion of a nonconforming use which is somewhat
unusual. This is an existing 2-family home that we are not expanding. In 1991
there was a case with a residential house on an 8-acre tract in a commercial
zone. The appellate division said that when you reduce the size of the area
where the nonconforming use is, you are technically intensifying the
nonconforming use and therefore, we have to apply for the variance because we
are reducing the size of the lot that has the existing 2-family home. Both
lots are in the R-4 zone. Both of the lots conform in every way. Both of the
homes are on oversized lots for the zone. The impervious coverage and building
coverage are within the requirements as well. There is sufficient parking on
each lot.
Mr. Kron said
there was a report from Mr. Stern and we agreed to all items in the report that
we could. He also stated that the Board should evaluate whether the reduced
lot size is sufficient for the 2-family use. He also said the Board should
determine whether it would be a substantial detriment. The lots will be bigger
than what is required for the zone. In Mr. Hansen’s report, we agreed to all
items as well. We also agreed to move the shed. Regarding the historic
aspect, we met with the Historic Advisory Committee and we agreed to the
changes they recommended. I think we satisfied all the positive criteria.
Mr. Kron
stated as to negative criteria, we are not proposing any variances so there is
no negative impact to the zone plan. No one spoke negatively about this.
There were no facts presented that there would be any negative impact.
Ms.
Robortaccio made a motion to reopen the application. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as
follows: Ms. Robortaccio, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr.
Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes.
The
application was reopened, and tonight’s testimony is included in the record.
PULBIC PORTION
OPENED
No one stepped
forward.
PUBLIC PORTION
CLOSED
Ms. Dargel
made a motion to approve the application subject to there being no shutters on
the home; lot line to be moved; pool to be removed; items agreed to in the
reports from Mr. Stern and Mr. Hansen; shed to be removed. Mr. D’Amato
seconded.
Discussion.
Mr. Crowley
said it is difficult to tell what size lot is big enough for a 2-family house.
There is no zoning for a 2-family house in Roxbury.
Mr. Stern said
the building is in an historic area and it is an existing 2-family home.
Approval would retain the historic use.
Roll call:
Ms. Dargel; yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr.
Crowley, no; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes – because both lots are more
than conforming and the 2-family home was pre-existing.
ZBA-07-33
– MOUNTAIN LANDSCAPING – USE VARIANCE FOR A LANDSCAPE OPERATION LOCATED ON
LEDGEWOOD LANDING RD. BLOCK 9601, LOT 5 IN LI/OR ZONE
Attorney Larry
Kron represented the applicant. He stated the applicant will be revising their
plans and they will be submitted by 1/2/08. We would like to carry the
application to 1/14/08.
Ms. Dargel
stated this application has been on the schedule for some time and should be
denied without prejudice if it is not heard at the January hearing.
The
application was carried to 1/14/08.
ZBA-07-60
– STACY AND SCOTT BARBER – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON AURIEMMA COURT, BLOCK 11903, LOT 9 IN R-3 ZONE
Mr. Saunders
stated the Board has not received any documentation that this application was property
noticed.
Kevin Carrol,
project manager, was present and said they were noticed, but he doesn’t have
the receipts with him tonight.
Mr. Saunders
said the Board cannot hear the application as we have to have the documentation
before the hearing.
The
application was carried to 1/14/08.
ZBA-07-54
– JOHN SELBY – USE AND SITE PLAN FOR HOME AND OFFICE/INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE
LOCATED ON PINE ST./DELL AVE., BLOCK 6901, LOT 9 IN I-3 ZONE
Attorney
Edward Dunne represented the applicant. He stated he submitted a letter dated
12/4/07 responding to Mr. Stern’s report of 11/5/07.
Tsvia Adar was
sworn in. She stated she is a Licensed Professional Planner and gave here
educational and professional background for the Board.
Ms. Adar
submitted a planning analysis dated December 2007 (marked A-3). She referred
to Exhibits A-2 and A-3, aerial photos of the site taken from a long distance
and close by, showing the mixed uses around the site – some residential and
some industrial.
Ms. Adar
showed 6 photos (marked A-5) showing the general view of the street and the
street face of the Selby property in particular. A colorized elevation plan
was marked A-6. Ms. Adar stated there is only 1 façade sign proposed. Exhibit
A-7 was marked (6 photos showing the surrounding land uses).
Ms. Dargel
asked what type of façade there will be.
Mr. Selby
stated it would be gray concrete block and siding., but the color can change.
Beige is acceptable, and it would be the same color as the existing house.
Ms. Adar
stated the residential structure is what is nonconforming for the zone. That
will not be changed inside – only the façade. There will be also be
landscaping added. This application requires two use variances and some bulk
variances. There will be two principal uses on the property. A variance is
also necessary for the office use. C variances required are for lot size, lot
width and lot frontage. The reason for these is the right-of-way dedication.
Bulk variances are necessary for rear yard setback for the new garage; side
yard setback; parking in over 25% of the front yard area; parking setback.
Ms. Adar said
in her findings, regarding special reasons, Purpose A of the MLUL is the
promotion of the public health, safety, morals and general welfare. The site circulation
will be improved and the site will be brought closer in conformance to the zone
district. Purpose E is to promote appropriate population densities and this
use goes well with the existing character of the area and is a very small and
passive use. Purpose I is to promote a desirable visual environment – we are
doing visual improvements. We are also complying with Purpose M, the
encouragement of efficient use of the land. We feel the site is particularly
suitable as the mixed uses currently exist on the property and the development
of the site will improve the current conditions. Also, no potential merger
appears to be feasible with adjacent larger properties. Such a merger was
attempted by the owner with no interest shown.
Ms. Adar said
there will be no night activity on the industrial area. The C variances
required are largely due to the fact that the lot is substandard and that is
the hardship. The positive criteria outweighs the negative.
Mr. D’Amato
asked how tall the house will be as compared to the existing house.
Ms. Adar
stated it will be 25’4”, within the height limitations of the zone.
The applicant
addressed the outstanding items in Mr. Stern’s report updated 12/5/07:
Item 2 – the
office is existing in the residential space.
Item 2.12 –
agreed
Item 2.31 – no
sidewalks are in the area
Item 3 – one
way in on the far left drive
Item 3.3 –
waiver requested – Mr. Stern said the waiver is di minimus
Item 3.6 – to
be worked out with Mr. Stern – partial waiver required
Item 3.9 – design
waiver
Item 3.10 –
not a requirement
Item 4.2 –
agreed
Item 4.3 –
agreed
Regarding
lighting, Mr. Parker stated there is a very low intense use and doesn’t require
much lighting. We propose just enough light for Mr. Selby to go to his house.
It is in keeping with a residential type use and is a motion sensor light.
Mr. Selby said
there is only about one trip a day in the dark.
Item 5.4 –
applicant will revise
Item 5.5 –
agreed
Item 5.6 –
agreed
Item 7.1 – to
be worked out with Mr. Stern
Item 7.2 –
waiver required
Item 7.6 -
applicant will work with Mr. Stern
Item 7.10 –
applicant will work with Mr. Stern
Item 7.12 –
applicant will work with Mr. Stern
PUBLIC PORTION
OPENED
No one stepped
forward.
PUBLIC PORTION
CLOSED
Mr. D’Amato
made a motion to approve the applicant subject to Mr. Stern’s report and all
items agreed to. Mr. Giardina seconded.
Roll as
follows: Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Dargel
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
The meeting
was adjourned by motion at 9:00 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi, Secretary