A regular and Reorganizational meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:00 p.m.  There was a salute to the Flag.

 

Ms. DeMasi announced the new appointments for 2008:  Peter Giardina has been reappointed for a 4 year term; Ed Data has been appointed to the unexpired term of Robert Kurtz; John Wetzel has been appointed Alternate #1; Kenneth Grossman has been appointed Alternate #2.

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Gail Robortaccio, Mark Crowley, Joyce Dargel, Barbara Kinback, Peter Giardina, Sebastian D’Amato, Ed Data, John Wetzel, Kenneth Grossman.

 

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

 

REORGANIZATION

 

Ms. DeMasi asked for nominations for Chairperson.

 

Mr. D’Amato nominated Gail Robortaccio.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

There were no other nominations.

 

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

 

Ms. Robortaccio assumed the Chair.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked for nominations for Vice Chair.

 

Ms. Dargel nominated Mark Crowley.  Ms. Kinback seconded.

 

There were no other nominations.

 

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

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked for nominations for Board Secretary

 

Ms. Dargel nominated Dolores DeMasi.  Mr. Giardina seconded.

 

There were no other nominations.

 

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

 

Ms. Robortaccio read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.

 

 

Resolution #1

 

 

 

                                                RESOLUTION

                TO PROVIDE ANNUAL NOTICE OF MEETINGS

 

                WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury, Morris County, New Jersey, must provide annual notice to all regular meetings to be held by said Board during the calendar year 2008.

               

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the schedule of regular meeting dates annexed hereto as Exhibit A, be and hereby declared to be the official list of dates of regular meetings to be held by the Board

                                   

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said meetings shall commence at 7:30p.m.; unless otherwise called by the Municipal Building, 1715 Route 46, Ledgewood, New Jersey

 

EXHIBIT A

 

January 14, 2008                                   July 14, 2008

 

February 11, 2008                 August 11, 2008

 

March 10, 2008                                     September 15, 2008

 

April 14, 2008                                    October 16, 2008

 

May 12, 2008                                         November  10, 2008

 

June 9, 2008                                        December 15, 2008

 

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

 

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

 

Resolution #2

 

#2

 

RESOLUTION FOR NOTICES AND

        DESIGNATING  NEWSPAPERS

 

            WHEREAS,  the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury, Morris County, New Jersey, is required to select a public place for the posting of notices all regular and special meetings; and

 

            WHEREAS,  said Board must provide notice of all regular and special meetings to at least two(2) newspapers, one of which must be the official municipal newspaper.

 

            NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the public place for the posting of notices of all regular and special meetings of said Board be the bulletin board for the calendar year 2007, located within the Municipal Building of the municipality located at 1715 Route 46, Ledgewood, New Jersey, and

 

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all notices of the meeting of this board be furnished to the following two newspapers as designated by the Township Council.

 

Daily Record

Star Ledger

 

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

 

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

 

Resolution #3

 

#3

 

RESOLUTION FIXING “FEES” FOR NOTICE OF MEETING

 

            WHEREAS, N.J.S. 10:4-6 et. Seq. Known as the “Open Public Meetings Act”, provides for the fixing of a reasonable charge to be paid by any person requesting notification of meetings of the Board of Adjustment.

 

            NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury that the sum of $40.00 is hereby fixed as a fee to be paid by anyone requesting that notices of meetings of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury for the 2008 calendar year to be mailed to such person; but, as provided in N.J.S. 40:4-19, no charge shall be made to any newspaper requesting the mail of such notices to its business office.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Resolution #4

 

#4

 

                RESOLUTION OF RETAINING AN ATTORNEY AND CONSULTING

                                                ENGINEER

 

            WHEREAS, there exists a need for the retention of an attorney and engineer by the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury, and

 

            WHEREAS, the funds are available for this purpose; and

 

            WHEREAS, Section 40:55D-71b, Article 9 of the Municipal Land Use Laws states that the Board of Adjustment may employ, or contract form and fix the compensation of legal counsel, other than the municipal attorney and experts, and other staff and services as it may deem necessary, of exceeding the amount appropriated by the governing body for its use; and

 

            WHEREAS, the Local Public Contracts Law (N.J.S.A. 40A:11-1 et.seq.) requires that the “Professional Services”; without competitive bids must be publicly advertised.

 

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury as follows:

 

            1. Weiner & McMahon is retained to serve as Counsel to the Board during the year of 2008..

 

            2. Ferriero Engineering is retained to serve as Engineer to the Board during the year of 2008.

 

            3.  These contracts are awarded without competitive bidding as a “Professional Service” under the provisions of the Local Contracts Law because legal services and engineering services are rendered by persons authorized by law to practice their recognized professions and because such services are a qualitative nature as will not reasonably permit the drawing of specifications or the receipt of competitive bids.

 

            4.  A copy of this resolution shall be published in the official newspaper as designated by the Township Committee as required by law within ten (10) days of its passage.

 

5.  This resolution shall take effect immediately.

 

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. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

REGULAR MEETING

                                               

RESOLUTIONS

 

ZBA-07-53 – STAVRAKIS/COOPER – SUBDIVISION FOR 2 LOTS LOCATED ON EYLAND AVE., BLOCK 1091, LOT 20 IN R-4 ZONE

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to table the resolution until the next hearing as the Board did not receive an edited copy of the resolution.  A voice vote approved.

 

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

 

In the matter of John Selby

Case No. ZBA-07-54

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: December 10, 2007

Memorialized: January 14, 2008

 

 

WHEREAS, John Selby has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury to obtain a use variance, bulk variance, and preliminary site plan approval to construct a one-story 2,400 square foot 4-bay industrial garage for premises located at 4 Pine Street and known as Block 6901, Lot 9 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a I-3 Zone; said proposal required relief from Sections 13-7.701 and 13-7.810B 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 M. Dunne, Esquire represented the applicant.

2.         The applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.

3.         Prior to the public hearing, the Board received the following reports:

a.         Russell Stern, Township Planner, dated 11/5/07 and updated 12/5/07

b.         Michael Kobylarz, Township Engineer, dated 10/30/07

c.         Ptl. Gregg Prendergast, Roxbury Township Police Dept., dated 10/18/07

d.         Health Department, dated 10/12/07

e.         Michael Pellek, Fire Official, dated 10/18/07

4.         Prior to the public hearing, the Board received the following documents:

Prepared by Parker Engineering & Surveying, P.C.

a.         Sheet 1, Title Sheet, revised 2/14/07

b.         Sheet 2, Existing conditions Plan, revised 2/14/07

c.         Sheet 3, Site and Utility Plan, revised 2/14/07

d.         Sheet 4, Grading, Drainage & Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan, revised 2/14/07

e.         Sheet 5, Landscaping & Lighting Plan, revised 2/14/07

f.          Sheet 6, Construction Details, revised 2/14/07

Prepared by Mistry Design:  Sheet A2.00 Floor Plan and Elevations, revised 12/12/06.

5.         The subject property is an undersized lot approximately 3/5 of an acre located in the I-3 Light Industrial District.  The parcel is somewhat flat and improved with a modest single-family dwelling and gravel parking area.  The home is a pre-existing nonconforming use as the I-3 Zone prohibits residences.  In addition, the lot itself has several pre-existing non-conformities as to bulk requirements of the I-3 Zone:

a.         Lot size 3 acres required, 0.582 acres existing

b.         Lot width 300 feet required, 173.32 existing

c.         Lot frontage 300 feet required, 210.17 existing

d.         Front yard setback 100 feet, 77.6 existing

e.         Side yard setback 50 feet, 25.1 existing

f.          Rear yard setback 50 feet, 32.9 feet

6.         As noted by the Township Planner, the surrounding properties are similarly zoned I-3.  The area is actually developed with a mix of residential and industrial uses.  Located to the south and west is the Marsh industrial complex developed with industrial uses and outdoor storage which abuts the applicants property.  To the north is a single family home and to the northeast and east are three single-family dwellings.  To the southeast is the entrance to the Sanlee/Hunkele industrial facility, which contains a residential dwelling along Dell Avenue.

7.         The applicant now seeks a use variance, bulk variance, and preliminary site plan approval to construct a one-story 2,400 square foot 4-bay industrial garage while retaining the existing dwelling.  The site is proposed to be accessed by 2 two-way driveways and served by six (6) parking spaces.  A small portion of the existing home would be converted to an office.  As noted, this lot is undersized and as such triggers a number of bulk variances.

8.         The following variances are noted:

a.         A d(2) variance is necessary from Section 13-7.701, which prohibits any nonconforming use, such as the residential property use, to be changed to any other use other than a conforming use. 

 

b.         A d (1) variance is necessary from Section 13-7.810B, which prohibits more than one principal use on the property.   

c.         A variance is necessary from Section 13-7810C, as a 30-foot setback is required between principal buildings. 

d.         A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.3002D1 that requires a 3-acre minimum lot size. The subject property has a preexisting lot area of 0.582 acres. 

e.         Variances are necessary from Sections 13-7.3002D2 and 3, which require a minimum lot width and frontage of 300 feet.  Existing lot width is 1732.32 feet and lot frontage is 210.17. 

f.          A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.3002D4 as a 100-foot front yard setback is required while the applicant proposes a 65-foot setback from the proposed Pine Street right-of-way. 

g.         A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.3002D5 as a 50-foot rear yard setback is required while the applicant proposes a 15-foot setback.  

h.         A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.3002D6 as a 50-foot side yard setback is required while the applicant proposes a 39.6-foot setback.    

i.          A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.3002D10(a) as no more than 25% of the front yard area can be consumed for off-street parking, access aisles and driveways while the applicant proposed 49.8%. 

j.          A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.3002D10(a) as no more than 25% of the front yard area can be consumed for off-street parking, access aisles and driveways while the applicant proposed 49.8%. 

k.         A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.2002D10(b) as a minimum parking/access aisle setback of 60 feet is required from the proposed Pine Street right-of-way while the applicant proposes a setback of approximately 19.8 feet to the traffic aisle and parking.

l.          A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.2002D10(c) as a minimum parking setback of 15 feet is required from any building, while a 5 foot setback is proposed from the existing dwelling.

  9.       In addition, the following design waivers are noted:

a.         A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.610A as sidewalks are required along Pine Street while none are proposed.

b.         A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.702E as the two-way access aisle requires a minimum 24-foot width while the applicant proposes an 18 foot wide driveway at Pine Street and a 20 foot wide interior aisle.  The applicant later stated that one-way access aisles will be provided.

c.         A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.702F, as parking shall be located a minimum of 20 feet from the road right-of-way while the applicant proposes 19.8 feet from the corner to the easterly stall.

d.         Initially applicant requested design waivers from Sections 13-8.702I and J, as a minimum 6-foot wide sidewalk is required along the residential dwelling while a 5-foot width is proposed.  Applicant later stated they would comply.

e.         Initially applicant requested a design waiver from Section 13-8.702K, as the applicant has not provided hairpin striping.  Applicant later stated they would comply.

f.          Initially applicant requested design waivers from Sections 13-8.702N and 13-8.807E, as a 2-3 inch caliper has not been provided within the planting end islands.  Applicant later stated they would partially comply.

g.         A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.703A, as a 15’x 60' loading/unloading space is not provided.

h.         A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.703D, as loading/unloading is prohibited within the front yard setback area while loading is proposed in front of the garage.

i.          A design waiver is necessary from Sections 13-8.707C and F, as the lighting plan does not cover the driveways and full extent of the parking lot and traffic aisles.

j.          A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.707D, as the wall light detail on sheet 5 of the engineering drawings and the wall sconce detail on sheet A2.00 on the architectural drawings do not conform to the Township standard of having the light lens flush with the fixture housing.

k.         A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.807A, as a planted buffer is not provided between the parking lot/traffic aisle and adjoining properties.  Applicant will provide additional landscaping per Township Planner.

l.          A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.807B, as the loading/unloading area is not screened from the adjoining street.

m.        Initially applicant requested a design waiver from Section 13-8.807D, as the applicant has not provided two shade trees for the 6 proposed parking spaces.  Applicant later stated they would comply.

n.         Initially applicant requested a design waiver from Section 13-8.807E, as the applicant has not provided a shade tree across from the easterly dwelling building corner and to the west of the 6 stall parking bay.  Applicant later stated they would comply.

 

10.       The applicant, John Selby, testified at the 11/8/07 public hearing.  He gave the Board an overview of the property and his vision for its use should relief be granted.  He noted he presently lives there, stores personal antique vehicles, and his primary business was shopping mall maintenance.  He stated his heaviest piece of equipment was a backhoe.  There would be no retail or wholesale sales from the site and no plumbing to the accessory structure.  All vehicles and equipment would be stored inside the proposed building.  Mr. Selby identified exhibit A-1 which was a floor plan of the existing home.  He noted same was approximately 695 square feet.

11.       In addition, the applicants professional engineer, Stephen Parker, testified at the public hearing.  He reviewed the plans he had submitted.

12.       The application was continued at the 12/10/07 public hearing.  At that time, the applicant presented testimony from its planner, Tsvia Adar. During Ms. Adar’s testimony, the following exhibits were identified:

a.         A-2  an aerial photo of the site and surrounding area

b.         A-3  her narrative report

c.         A B 4 a closer aerial photo of the site

d.         A-5 a sheet of six (6) photographs of the site

e.         A-6 a colorized elevation of the proposed garage

f.          A-7 a sheet of six (6) photos of surrounding land uses

13.       Ms. Adar described the surrounding area as a mixture of industrial and residential uses.

14.       The house and proposed garage will be the same color, which will blend in with the neighborhood.  The colorized elevation shows a gray building.  The applicant testified that the color would be matched to blend with the neighborhood.

15.       The residential structure is non-conforming and will not change except that applicant will use a small portion (i.e., a dining room table) as an office to do paperwork. 

16.       The property is much smaller than that required in the zone, which creates the need for most of the bulk variances.  The variances for lot size, width, and frontage will be intensified due to a dedication of land to the Township of Roxbury for street widening.  The rear yard and side yard setbacks are necessary for the proposed garage and remaining c variances are for the parking area in the front yard.

17.       Ms. Adar testified that the addition to the site of the conforming use to the non-conforming use makes the site compatible with the neighborhood.  It will have no impact on the character of the street and other uses in the area.

18.       Ms. Adar identified special reasons that the application would promote public health and safety by incorporating the site improvements, particularly, the approved parking area and traffic flow.  It will enhance the well being of the neighborhood by making this site more compatible to the mixed use character of the neighborhood.  Ms. Adar also testified that the application would also promote a desirable visual environment by locating the garage towards the rear of the property with related aesthetic improvements.  It also provides a more efficient use of the land, as the site is too small for a large industrial use and rather large for the modest size home that exists.  She further testified that the site is particularly suited for the proposed uses as there are several mixed uses already existing in the area. 

19.       Ms. Adar testified that the negative criteria are satisfied because the functional impact of the traffic circulation would be much better than what currently exists.  Storage of vehicles would now be indoor instead of outside.  There are no wetlands, flood plains, or other environmental features on the site to be impacted.  The site would have no impact on the surrounding properties.  Applicant is proposing additional landscape screening to minimize any visual impact on the surrounding properties.  There will also be an improvement of the aesthetics on site and there would be no increased noise or pollution provided as a result of this application.

20.       Ms. Adar testified that the bulk variances could be justified under a C(2) analysis in that the benefits of the application far outweigh any detriments created thereby.

21.       The driveway and parking area was modified to provide for one-way circulation in that one driveway would be entrance only and another one would be exit only.

22.       There will be one sign on the garage, which would be 2’x 6’.  It would be located on the façade and would not be illuminated.

23.       All lighting would be low intensity, more appropriate for a residential use rather than an industrial use.  The lighting would be activated by motion sensors so that they would not be continually lit. 

24.       There were no adjoining property owners or members of the public who spoke in opposition to the application.

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.         The property is located in an Industrial Zone but there are several residential and mixed uses in the area so that the addition of the garages to this modest house will be compatible with the other uses in the Zone.

2.         While the property is undersized for the Zone, the proposed uses for the site are reasonably related to the size of the property and not over crowding it.

3.         The aesthetic improvements to the site, e.g. the additional landscaping, residing of the house, will greatly enhance the quality of the site.

4.         The indoor storage of vehicles and improved traffic circulation make the site function better.

5.         The Board finds that the benefits resulting from the granting of this Application far outweigh any detriments caused thereby.

6.         The granting of this Application will have no impact on the surrounding properties.

 

NOW, THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of Roxbury on the 10^th day of December,2008 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

1.         Applicant will comply with all requirements of the Township Planner’s 11/5/07 report, updated on 12/5/07, the Township Engineer’s 10/30/07 report, and the representations made in the applicant’s attorney’s 12/4/07 correspondence.

2.         Applicant will meet with and coordinate with the Township Planner regarding changes and the landscaping plan.

3.         Design waiver is granted for the provision of sidewalks as no one else in the area has sidewalks on their properties.

4.      The house and the garage will match in color with a colored vinyl siding to conform to the neighborhood.

5.      Occupancy of the dwelling is restricted to the property owner, an employee of the property owner, and/or an employee working out of the industrial building.

6.      Outdoor storage of materials and products is prohibited.

7.      Commercial repair work or sales of any kind is prohibited in the parking area, driveway, and traffic aisles.  Parking areas shall be used exclusively for the parking of automobiles.

8.      Applicant will comply with Section 13-7.812 Communication Antennas.

9.      Pursuant to Section 13-7.814, no loud speakers, radios, amplifiers, or similar devices, which are situated, as to be heard outside the building are prohibited.

10.  Applicant shall construct an additional dumpster, if same is needed, which shall be determined by the Zoning Officer.

11.  Applicant shall recycle all mandated material as required by the Morris County Solid Waste Management Plan. 

12.  Engineering inspection escrow fees shall be paid prior to commencing site construction.

 

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

 

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

 

There was a 5 minute recess at 7:15 p.m.

 

ZBA-07-51 – ALTO SIGN – PETCO – VARIANCE FOR SIGNS LOCATED IN THE ROXTURY MALL, BLOCK 5004, LOT 7 IN B-3 ZONE

 

Attorney James Forman represented the applicant.  He stated at the last hearing the Board made some suggestions for changes to the proposed signs and facades.  The new façade eliminates the ability to use the stacked sign.  We are now proposing a linear sign and the front façade showing the Petco sign with the cat and dog logo and a grooming sign.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if the entire shopping center façade is being changed.

 

Mr. Stern said the planning board authorized them to do the entire façade.  Similar treatments will go all the way around.

 

Mr. Forman said the variance for the front is for a little bit over height. The ordinance allows 48” and this will be 59” top to bottom.  The allowable square footage is some 70 feet greater than what this sign is.  The maximum is 250 square feet and this is 180 square feet with all three signs combined.  In the shopping center all the corner locations have signs on both facades. 

 

Mr. Crowley asked if the front sign is 60” high.

 

Mr. Stern said from the top of the dog ears to the bottom is 6’3”.  The Zoning Officer interpreted them as 3 individual signs, and I think this is a much better treatment than the prior proposal. 

 

Mr. D’Amato said the new façade treatment is not completed yet.  Where did the applicant get the plans for the future façade?

 

Mr. Forman said they got the information from the sign company.  The sign will be installed after the new façade is completed.  The Petco store won ‘t be opening until the fall. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Discussion.  The Board looks at the signs as one sign as they give the visual appearance of one sign.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the 3 signs on the Pet Goods side and 2 signs on the Staples side; all signs on the Pet Goods side must work together as a functional single sign; the sign consists of the logo and the name which is a typical business amenity.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

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

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced Application ZA-07-60 – Stacy and Scott Barber will not be heard and is carried to 2/11/08 and the Merry Heart application will not be heard and is carried to 2/11/08 as well.

 

 

AGENDA

 

ZBA-07-63 – KENNETH & ELIZABETH MAAG – FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR OVERHANG LOCATED ON HONEYMAN DRIVE, BLOCK 3005, LOT 10 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Kenneth Maag & Elizabeth Maag were sworn in.   Mr. Maag said we are requesting a front yard setback variance.  We propose a 6’ x 24’ overhang.  The existing overhang is a kind of a trellis.  We want to add something to provide shelter and add an aesthetic value.  The addition will be in keeping with other homes in the neighborhood.  We have submitted photos of similar homes with similar overhangs. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said all you are doing is increasing the setback an additional 3 feet.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if the house is in line with the other homes on the street.

 

Mr. Maag said the houses to the left are in line with ours, but the house on the right is back farther and the next one is in line with ours.

 

Mr. D’Amato said he drove by and noticed there are many houses with the same sort of overhang.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the application as this is clearly an enhancement to the home and similar to other houses in the neighborhood.  Mr. Giardina seconded.

 

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

 

ZBA-07-63 – GEORGE MARKOU – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON MT. ARLINGTON BLVD. BLOCK 11404, LOT 9 IN AN R-3 ZONE

 

George Markou was sworn in.

 

Ed Dulio  was sworn in

 

Mr. Markou stated he has a small house with one bedroom.  I have a son with two children.  I want to put in 2 bedrooms and a bathroom in the back for my son and his children.   Once I put on the bedroom I will keep it.  My son will live there.

 

Mr. Wetzel said he went by and noticed there is a sign that the property is for sale by owner.

 

Mr. Markou said he put the sign up, but when people call and find out there is just one bathroom, they don’t want it. 

 

Mr. Wetzel asked if he is going to sell or is going to live there.

 

Mr. Markou said he will keep it and his son will live there.

 

Mr. Wiener said if a variance is granted, he can sell it if he wants.  The hardship has to relate to the property- not anything on a personal level.

 

Mr. Dulio said the house is on  sewer.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said there was a septic lid above the ground in the back.  Was that filled in?

 

Mr. Markou said yes

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there will be a basement back there.

 

Mr. Markou said I will put in a small basement. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked if town water is there.

 

Mr. Markou said yes. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked about the shed.

 

Mr. Markou said both sheds are coming out.

 

Ms. Dargel asked why they are going farther into the sideyard.

 

Mr. Markou said we are extending the house straight back, and that is the reason for the variance.

 

Ms. Dargel asked about the rock wall.

 

Mr. Markou said it is a temporary fence.

 

Mr. Wiener said the survey shows a chain link fence.

 

Mr. Dulio said the stockade fence was there originally and is the neighbor’s, and the man who was living in this house before put in a chain link fence.   

 

Ms. Dargel said there are a lot of rocks in between the chain link and the wood fence.  It looks like a retaining wall.  I am concerned that will cave down.

 

Mr. Stern said the Board could require a detailed grading and drainage plan to make sure it is done correctly.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application.  This is a substandard house in poor condition.  The variances required are not much in excess of what is permitted.  A grading and drainage plan is to be submitted to the Engineering Department if necessary.  The building will be resided and re-roofed. Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

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

 

ZBA-07-59 – GEORGIANA FARNSWORTH – VARIANCE FOR GARAGE LOCATED ON YELLOW BARN AVE., BLOCK 11601, LOT 50 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Georgiana Farnsworth was sworn in. 

 

Jeff Careaga, engineer for the applicant, as sworn in. 

 

Ms. Farnsworth stated we would like to put a garage on the property.   It is in keeping with the neighborhood.  The only house on the street without a garage has a carport.  There had been a garage on the property previously which burned down in 2000.  We live on the lake and we have cars and a boat and outdoor furniture.  We also have a sports car.  We feel it is time for us to put in a garage.

 

Mr. Wetzel asked where the old garage was.

 

Ms. Farnsworth said it was where the shed is now.  It is across the street from the house.  I am trying to get a feel for the impervious coverage.

 

Mr. Careaga stated the prior garage is not included in the existing coverage.  Where the old garage was is now paved, and there is a gravel area.  The proposed condition has less impervious coverage than the existing conditions.  I received a calculation from the Zoning Officer that says the existing conditions are 29.8% and the proposed is 50.39%.  My calculations are that the existing coverage is 40% and 33.4% is the proposed.    Sheet #2 shows the existing paved and gravel area.  We are removing the gravel area and some of the pavement.  My calculations include Yellow Barn Ave.     The existing shed will be removed.

 

Discussion.

 

Ms. Dargel said the proposed garage is 28’ x 40’.  Why is it so deep?

 

Mr. Careaga said for storage of boats and cars. 

 

Ms. Dargel said a height variance is required for ¾ ft.  Can that be brought into conformance?

 

Mr. Careaga said it can be.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if there will be electricity in the garage.

 

Mr. Careaga said there will be electricity, but no water.  There will also be a loft for storage upstairs. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

David Doyle, 15 Yellow Barn Ave., was sworn in.  He said he has no problem with the proposed garage.  The coverage they had is far more than what is proposed.  With what they are proposing, it will create a much better situation.  It fits sin with the character of the neighborhood. 

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Stern recommended that the coverage calculations be reconfirmed with the Zoning Officer. 

 

Ms. DeMasi said there was a letter from the Lake Hopatcong Regional Planning Board.

 

The applicant agreed to the comments in the letter.

 

Mr. Wiener suggested the Board authorize him to prepare a draft resolution for the next hearing, while we are awaiting the coverage percentages.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application, conditioned on the fact that the impervious coverage and any other coverages are confirmed and is based on the applicant’s computations of impervious coverage of 33.4% rather than 50/69% by the Zoning Officer; building height be brought into conformation.; pavement to be removed; Township Engineer to review the plans as per the recommendation of the Lake Hopatcong Commission; electricity only- no water to garage; garage to be used only for storage; authorize Mr. Wiener to draft a resolution of approval – the actual approval to be at the next hearing.  Mr. Giardina seconded.

 

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

 

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.  The application has been deemed complete for completeness purposes only, and there are certain items that are still required.  The building site plan we have here tonight.  The survey will be completed next week.  The property is at 278 Landing Road and we will present testimony on the pre-existing use and the proposal for the site.  We will also address some of the issues raised at the engineer and planners reports.  We will submit a revised plan at the next hearing. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked who the owner of the property is.

 

Mr. Kron stated the owner is J.R.C. Investment Corporation.  My client is the purchaser under contract, and is a tenant on the property presently. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the lots are merged.

 

Mr. Kron said Mr. Gloede will address that question.

 

Robert Hathaway, the purchaser under contractor, was sworn in.

 

George Gloede, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He described the site and the surrounding area.  He said it is 3.06 acres and is generally level but rises up a little in the rear corner.  There is a slope down to a ramp.  Surrounding properties have existing commercial uses and residences.

 

Mr. Gloede referred to an aerial photo of the site (marked A-1) from the NJDEP IMap website taken in 2000.  The right-of-way is very difficult to determine.  The property behind this is vacant.  There are some buildings and sheds and outbuildings on the site.  In the front there were some trailers and old junk cars.  The surveyor had the property broken in two pieces.  They were joined together, and there is only one Lot 5.  We will have a certified survey for the Board by the end of next week.

 

In answer to questions from Mr. Kron, Mr. Hathaway said he is a landscape contractor and his business has been located in various locations in Roxbury.  We were at the County Concrete property, then in Mine Hill, and recently moved to this site.  We have done some projects for Roxbury Township.  We used to maintain the garden club plot across from the Mobil Station on Eyland Ave.  We recently organized the installation of the pavers at the Veterans Memorial Park.  The Township Clerk often asks us for participation in events, which we have done.  We have done landscaping for the VFW.  We feel it is good business to say yes to requests from reputable charities. 

 

Mr. Hathaway said he had considered this site in 2006 and didn’t feel this property was right for his use because of the condition of the site.  Later on, I came to a tenancy contract purchase arrangement with the sellers in late November or early December 2006.  It was represented to me that outside storage of autos was permitted on this property.  I did research, and outside storage was previously permitted on the property and I presumed the information I had was correct.

 

The motor vehicle license for storing vehicles  that was presented to him by the owner was marked A-2.

 

Mr. Kron asked Mr. Hathaway to describe the condition of the property when he looked at it in 2006.

 

Mr. Hathaway stated exhibit A-1 shows the condition of the site.  The auto body shop, an abandoned swimming pool, and the house are shown on the aerial.  The building was surrounded by junk autos, trailers, and refuse.  I took photos of the site in December of 2006.

 

A series of photos taken by Mr. Hathaway were marked A-3 thru A-14 and he described them for the Board stating they show the disarray of the site and the various junked vehicles and the poor condition of the site. 

 

Mr. Hathaway stated the Zoning Official came on January 2, 2007, and we were told we were not permitted to have outdoor storage on the site.   It was suggested by the Zoning Official that I had to file an application and to cease and desist any activity on the property after January1 of 2007.  We did cease and desist at that time.   We had not yet moved our bulk storage or any office staff from Mine Hill.  We filed a Zoning Permit application and then submitted a variance application.  I met with the Zoning Official then to find out what I could do to help my case.  He suggested we could do some things to make it easier for the Board to side with me.  Coverage and planting trees were mentioned.  We made some improvements to the property – cleaned up all the junk autos; removed all tenants from the property; removed all fuel storage into above-ground containers; brought electrical service underground.  This was all done in the expectation that I could prevail on this application. 

 

Mr. Kron asked if a lot of the conditions shown in the photos have been corrected.

 

Mr. Hathaway said most of the things have been corrected, except that there are some trailers still on the property.

 

Mr. Kron said if you were to acquire the property, would you intend to remove all the junk items on the site?

 

Mr. Hathaway said yes.

 

Mr. Crowley said you said someone told you to remove these items, and they told you to move the tenants out?  Who said that?

 

Mr. Hathaway said Tom Potere.  It was represented to me the tenancy on the property was a problem.  I took that to mean a single occupant/owner is not a problem.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said you are giving the impression that the only reason you are here is the motor vehicles.  No outside storage at all is permitted in this zone.

 

Mr. Crowley said if you are moving in as a tenant, why would you feel obligated to move all the garbage?  Did you not get compensated?

 

Mr. Hathaway said the contract states that I would be compensated for any expenses I incur if I don’t complete the contract.

 

Mr. Kron said if he had not already done some of this work, part of our case would be that he would do improvements to the property.  He has already done that.

 

Mr. Data said this is 12 months later, and you are still under contract.  Why didn’t you appear before the Board sooner?

 

Mr. Hathaway said he had hired the incorrect representation, and had to start the process over.  I contacted the Township Clerk for advice, as she is a personal friend, and she suggested I contact Larry Kron.  I did that, and we are here before you now.

 

Mr. Kron said we are at the point now where within the next we will have everything done that was requested for completeness.

 

Mr. Ferriero asked if the underground storage tanks were removed.

 

Mr. Hathaway said they are still there and are empty.  We installed above ground tanks.  I would agree to either remove or abandon those tanks if required.

 

Mr. Ferriero asked if there was a phase 1 environmental audit done on the property.

 

Mr. Hathaway said no.  I have been given one by the sellers, and I know I have to perform my own.

 

Mr. Ferriero said there may be some ECRA issues as far as the cleanup on the site.  If you have an auto body tank with septic tanks, that is a point that it needs to be looked at.  Banks will not be happy about lending money unless you have the full ECRA clearance.

 

Mr. Wiener concurred.  It might be prudent to deal with that early rather than later.

 

Mr. Crowley asked it is his intention that this is a preexisting condition and that you are extending the use?

 

Mr. Kron said no.  We have a planner who will testify in terms of a use variance.

 

Mr. Kron stated Mr. Hathaway has prepared a response to item 4.2 in Mr. Stern’s report.  The response is dated 1/13/08 (markedA-15).

 

(a)    Mr. Hathaway said Mountain Landscape provides a full service landscape operation including grounds maintenance, landscape installation, planting, hardscapes, irrigation, fertilization, lighting, design services. On the property would be the need for an office and the maintenance of the machinery in the garage.  

(b)    At the Route 46 address in Mine Hill, people do walk in and ask for deliveries.  We don’t advertise for retail business.  We don’t intend to conduct a retail operation on this site. 

(c)    We don’t have any nursery stock on the site.  The material generally goes right to the work site.

(d)    The maintenance would consist of oil changes, tune-ups, blade sharpening, welding, minor repair of machinery, vehicles and tools.  Major work is outsourced.  We don’t work on any vehicles other than our own. 

(e)    We don’t propose any outdoor maintenance.  The machinery would be repaired inside the facility on the concrete floor.  Large machinery would be parked behind the building as it is waiting to come in. 

(f)      In the residential dwelling, we would have the office operation, C.A.D. design services and landscape planning.  There would be no overnight accommodations and no retail operation.

(g)    The outdoor storage would consist of 12 bins, palletized stone, brick and block, small amounts of lumber, timbers, and pipe.

(h)    Outdoor storage areas are identified on the site plan.

(i)      Liquid fertilizer is to be stored adjacent to the garage/auto body facility.  Dry fertilizer, insecticides and pesticides will be stored in the existing shed.  Mixing may only occur by law within approved application tanks.  Any mixing would occur on the asphalt pavement in front of the shed.  Penn mulch seed starter is proposed to be stored in the shed at the rear of the property.

 

Mr. Data asked if any thought was given to moving the existing fertilizer storage facility somewhere further away from the adjacent dwelling.

 

Mr. Hathaway said there is a concrete floor there.  It could be relocated if required.

 

(j)      On site fuel storage would be in OSHA approved fuel locker.  No other fuel storage is proposed.

(k)    See item g.

(l)      The tree open dumpsters are for debris collected during the landscape operation.

(m)  Snow removal is as weather dictates.  Most trucks report directly to the work site from the drivers’ homes.  Salters would dispatch from the facility.  Vehicles are generally preloaded during business hours.  Ongoing activities may be within the offices and shop during the overnight hours.

(n)    Salt will be stored in a block bin and is ordered as needed.

(o)    Hours of operation would be 6:00 a.m. for a skeleton crew; gross labor force at 7:00 a.m..  All mechanized loading/support to be executed after 7:00 a.m. Crews report back between 5 and 6:00 p.m..  In extreme circumstances crews may remain out until dark – 9:00 p.m.  Office staff finishes by 6 p.m.

(p)    We do not hire seasonal or part time staff except for office staff.

(q)    Current shared access to be eliminated.

(r)     Commercial use Is less demanding than residential, and we believe the well is adequate.  No testing has been done to date.

(s)     There is a steel cover on the well supported by concrete block.

(t)      We believe the existing septic system is adequate.  No testing has been done to date.

(u)    No architectural improvements proposed.

(v)    Current signage to be removed.  A wall and freestanding sign may be proposed.

(w)  No physical barriers between storage areas currently proposed.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked what other equipment would be moved here.

 

Mr. Hathaway said the bins at the Iron Mountain facility.

 

Mr. Kron asked where that would be on the site.

 

Mr. Hathaway said to the north as shown on the plans.  There is also some outside storage proposed next to the shop.   The regulated chemicals will be stored in an existing shed across from the pool.  The liquid fertilizer will be the tank, and pen mulch would be stored in the back.  There are stringent DEP guidelines that need to be met. 

 

Mr. Data asked how many trucks are in the fleet.

 

Mr. Hathaway said 19.  Twelve would be stored on the premises.  There are 3 Class B vehicles, 6 mason dumps, and the remainder are pickup trucks.  There are a range of 25 to 30 employees.

 

Mr. Hathaway referred to the floor plan (marked A-15) and described it for the Board.

 

Mr. Crowley asked where the employees park their cars.

 

Mr. Hathaway said in front of the shop.  He agreed to not use the premises for overnight accommodations. 

 

There was a 5 minute recess at 9:35 p.m.

 

Mr. Ferriero asked how the bulk materials are delivered to the site.  There may be a need for a sign.

 

Mr. Hathaway said the building number would probably be sufficient.  The County will require ingress and egress signage as well.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked how often there would be deliveries.

 

Mr. Hathaway said about once a week.

 

Mr. Giardina asked what will be stored on the upper level.

 

Mr. Hathaway probably paper and office supplies.  It is only a crawl space.

 

Mr. Wetzel said in the off season, where is the equipment stored?

 

Mr. Hathaway said there would be a maximum of 12 vehicles, and some additional excavating equipment.  There really is no off-season.

 

Ms. Dargel asked about work days.

 

Mr. Hathaway said Monday thru Friday and some work is done on Saturdays, and some on Sundays.

 

Mr. Giardina asked if there are any plans for expanding the business.

 

Mr. Hathaway said not short term.  Possibly we would add one truck and one trailer a year.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked how many trailers there are.

 

Mr. Hathaway said about 10.  There are 4 enclosed trailers. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions on tonight’s testimony

 

Frank Gigantelli stepped forward.  He said he is representing his mother who lives at 298 North Frontage Road.  She is 83 years old and he has questions on her behalf.   He said along the chain link fence they dug the woods out and stored rocks back there. 

 

Mr. Hathaway said the snowplows were put in the western corner.  They aren’t there any longer.  We did build a berm there.  That is where the pallets are. 

 

Mr. Gigantelli said they are working on the property every day.  They put lights on the building, and it lights up the whole bedroom in my house. 

 

Mr. Hathaway said the lights were brought to our attention by the Zoning Department, and the lights have been off since then.  We will be installing shoebox type lights.

 

Mr. Gigantelli said they were on tonight, and have been on for quite a few nights.

 

Ms. Robortaccio suggested Mr. Gigantelli notify the Zoning Officer.

 

Mr. Gigantelli said the work is going on there as normal.  Nothing has ceased or desisted.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said while the applicant is before the Board, we cannot stop the work on the site.

 

Mr. Gigantelli said he didn’t know you could store salt outside.  All the homes in the area are on wells.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said we will be discussing that issue at a later date.

 

Mr. Gigantelli asked what will be done with the gas cans that are in the trailers.

 

Mr. Hathaway said they will be stored in the fuel locker.

 

Mr. Gigantelli asked about where the equipment is washed down and where the waste goes.

 

Mr. Hathaway said we have a parts washer.  We are not washing motors on the site.

 

Mr. Gigantelli said he is also concerned that this could be an all night operation.  It would disturb the residents.

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

The application was carried to 3/10/08.

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:00 p.m.

 

                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/