9. A detailed grading/drainage
plan will be submitted to the Township Engineer for review and approval prior
to obtaining building permits.
10. The new dwelling shall
contain a garage.
11. The applicant shall comply
with Section 13-2.402A, Lot Line Revision Fee, prior to the filing of
subdivision deeds.
12. The applicant shall comply
with Section 13-11, Tree Conservation, and obtain a tree removal permit prior
to tree removal.
13. In accordance with Sections
13-4.6 and 13-4.7, the applicant shall pay their fair share of off-tract and
off-site improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.
14. The applicant shall comply with Section 13-7.829 that
requires a mandatory Mt. Laurel development fee.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms.
Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-07-51 – ALTO SIGN – PETCO – VARIANCE FOR SIGNS LOCATED
IN ROXBURY MALL, BLOCK 5004, LOT 7 IN B-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- James Gorman, Esquire
represented the applicant.
- The applicant is a sign
company. They are making the application on behalf of the tenant in the
proposed site “PETCO”. The proposed site is one of several stores in the
Roxbury Mall.
- Applicant received a letter
of denial from the Zoning Officer, dated 7/12/07 updated 11/6/07 and
1/14/08.
- The leasehold in question
is a corner location with two facades.
- The applicant was proposing
the following signs:
- 20’ x 50” PETCO sign above
the entrance
- 7’10” x 60” Dog and Cat
sign above the sign above the entrance
- 11’9” x 18” Grooming sign
on the front façade
- 5” x 42” Fish Aquatic
Superstore sign on the front façade
- 19’2” x 48” PETCO sign on
the side façade
- 6’3” x 48” Dog and Cat
sign on the side façade
- The signs do not comply
with the limitation of one wall mounted sign, which would be permitted as
of right.
- During the course of the
public hearing, the applicant presented exhibits A-1 and A-2 showing
various signage configurations within the shopping center. The applicant
also attached seven (7) colorized pages of sign drawings dated 2/15/06
with the application.
- During the course of the
hearing, the applicant stated that some of the signage would be modified
and they would come back with a plan that would come closer to meeting the
Ordinance. The matter was then carried to a future hearing date.
- The matter was carried to
1/14/08 at which time the applicant presented revised signage plans dated
12/4/07. There would be technically three individual signs above the
entrance which function as one sign on Sheet One and Sheet Two. If
considered as one sign, the square footage would conform (187.5 sq. ft.
vs. 225 sq. ft.). The height at 6’- 3” does not conform to 60”.
- As noted above, the
applicants had eliminated the Fish Aquatic Superstore sign on the front
façade. There would be three front entrance signs: Petco; “Dog and Cat
depiction”; and a Grooming sign under the Dog and Cat. This would be on
the front entrance of the proposed Petco establishment. The side façade
would feature two signs: Petco and the same “Dog and Cat depiction”.
- As noted by the Zoning
Officer, the present iteration, which was depicted on drawings dated
11/19/07 with revisions to 12/4/07, represent a significant reduction over
the signage originally proposed.
- The Board confirms the
Zoning Code Officer’s interpretation that we are dealing with three signs
on the front façade and two signs on the side façade. For the purposes of
zoning consideration, the Board is really viewing this as one sign on each
façade. This is a common sense way of dealing with the impact of what the
applicant is proposing. Had the signs been physically attached, this
would have been the net result in any event.
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 proposed signs are
consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and do not represent
visual clutter. The revised entrance sign package, if considered as one
sign, would be 187.5 sq. ft. vs. a maximum permitted total of 255 sq. ft.
The height at 6’ -3” is only for a small portion of the sign and will be
barely perceptible in looking at the sign. The side façade sign (as noted
by the Township Planner) is consistent with the spacing on the façade and
gives notice to the shopping center the location of Petco. The absence of
the sign might give an inference that there is an empty store in the
shopping center and this would be counterproductive.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 10th day of December 2007 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Signs to be constructed and
located as depicted on the drawings attached to the application and in
particular as set forth on the 11/19/07 drawings with revisions to
12/4/07.
- Applicant is to secure all
proper permits from the municipality. All lighting illumination shall
conform to the Sign Ordinance. No further wall signs permitted.
Mr. Giardina made a motion to
approve the resolution. Ms. Dargel seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Giardina,
yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms.
Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-07-64 – KENNETH & ELIZABETH MAAG – FRONT YARD
SETBACK FOR OVERHANG LOCATED ON HONEYMAN DRIVE, BLOCK 3005, LOT 10 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
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 re-construct a front overhang onto the existing home.
- The proposed addition was
depicted on a plot plan attached to the application
- Applicant received a letter
of denial dated 10/23/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.
- The proposed addition would
be 6’x 24’. It would replace a somewhat smaller existing structure that
was an open vertical lattice like structure.
- The applicant’s noted there
were many homes in this area of Roxbury Township that had similar front
porch type structures. The setbacks of the other homes would be similar
to that proposed by the applicant. The proposal would result in a front
yard setback of 23.66’ versus the existing 29.66’ and the required 35’.
- The applicant presented
pictures and elevation drawings showing the proposed overhang.
WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning
Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:
- The Board finds the
applicant’s proposal to be an aesthetic enhancement over the existing
lattice like structure that is of limited utility. The applicant’s proposal
will be a general aesthetic enhancement of the property consistent with
the numerous homes in this neighborhood that have similar porch
overhangs. Clearly, this will provide the subject premises with
additional curb appeal and be consistent with the intent and purpose of
the Zoning Ordinance.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 14th day of January 2008 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Addition is to be
constructed, sized, and located as depicted on the exhibits attached to
the application, and shall remain a covered and open structure as shown on
the plans.
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; Mr. Data, 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 R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- The applicant is the owner
and occupant of the single-family home on site.
- The applicant was proposing
a significant renovation of the existing one bedroom home.
- Applicant received a letter
of denial dated 11/1/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.
- The proposed addition would
be 35’x 16’ onto the rear of the existing home. Same was depicted on a
plot plan and elevation plan attached to the application.
- The applicant’s proposal
results in the need for the following variances:
- Northerly side yard – 10’
permitted, 8’ existing, 7’ proposed
- Total impervious coverage
– 25% maximum permitted, 21.86% existing, 27.35% proposed
- Total building coverage –
15% maximum permitted, 11.44% existing, 16.93% proposed
- The applicant noted the
existing home is a one bedroom home and totally inadequate as a single
family home. The proposed addition would convert the home to a three
bedroom home which would still be a modest albeit, much more functional
and desirable residence.
- The applicant’s proposal
was depicted on elevation drawings attached to the application. The new
addition would be blended into the existing home. The siding and the roof
would all be tied in and not give the impression of something haphazardly
added to the premises. In addition, the applicant agreed that the
existing sheds on-site would be removed.
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 existing house is
clearly an inadequate, outmoded, and unaesthetic structure. Clearly, a
re-adaptive utilization of the existing house, as envisioned by the
applicant, is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Municipal Land
Use Law of the Roxbury Township Zoning Ordinance.
- This proposal could only
have a positive impact on the neighborhood by taking an outmoded structure
and making same compatible with the existing housing stock.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
Roxbury on the 14th day of January 2008 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. No Certificate of Occupancy or
Approval to be issued unless the applicant has re-sided and re-roofed the
premises so as to create one integrated structure as testified to by the
applicant at the public hearing.
- Prior to construction, the
applicant shall provide an on-site stormwater plan, which may include a
drywell system. Same is to be reviewed and approved by the Municipal
Engineer as a condition of obtaining a building permit.
- The applicant shall confirm
that any septic system on-site has been property decommissioned. Same is
to be a condition of obtaining a building permit.
- All existing sheds to be
removed prior to certificate of occupancy for addition.
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; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley, 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
Mr. Careaga, engineer for the
applicant, was present. He stated on the previous application there was
confusion on the impervious coverage. The roadway was not included in the
calculations, so the lot coverage percentages have been modified. I went over
this with Mr. McDonnell, the Zoning Officer. The existing coverage is 46.9%
and with the roadway, the proposed coverage is 43%.
Discussion.
Mr. Stern said the engineer has
also minimized further impervious coverage leading up to the garage.
Ms. Dargel stated she came up
with about 37% if the roadway was not included. I don’t think the applicant
has any control over that. It would be 43% with the right-of-way and 37%
without it. You could say the roadway is an exceptional circumstance.
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- The
applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
- The
applicant’s property is one of many on this street that are bisected by
Yellow Barn Avenue. The area north of Yellow Barn Avenue is improved and
is the location of the applicant’s one story home. The home, itself, is a
lakefront home. This application involves the area to the south of Yellow
Barn Avenue (noting Yellow Barn Avenue is a private road) and is
essentially unimproved except for a paved parking area and a utility
shed. The total size of the applicant’s property is just over a quarter
acre at 11,510 square feet.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 6/20/07 from Tom Potere, the Zoning
Officer.
- The
Board also received a report from the Lake Hopatcong Commission, dated
1/11/08.
- The
applicant submitted the following exhibits:
- Survey
prepared by James A. Baker, Surveyor, dated 11/3/06 (same depicted
existing on-site conditions).
- Four
Sheet variance plan prepared by Jeffrey J. Careaga, Professional
Engineer, with revisions through 10/18/07,1/31/08.
- The
denial letter, dated 1/14/08, was signed by Joseph McDonnell who is the
present Zoning Officer who succeeded Mr. Potere. Mr. McDonnell noted the
following variances:
- Total
impervious coverage – maximum permitted 25%, existing 29.8%, proposed 43%
- Building
coverage – maximum permitted 15%, existing 12.92%, proposed 20.7%
- Building
height – maximum permitted 15’, proposed 15.75’
- Accessory
Building Size – total square feet of all accessory buildings are not to
exceed 50% of the principal building – as proposed, the house is at 1,240
sq. ft. and the accessory garage is approximately 1,120 sq. ft. or well over
50% of the size of the existing house
- Accessory
Building in Front Yard – Same is not permitted – technically because the
lot is bisected by Yellow Barn Avenue, both the northerly and southerly
portions of this property are located on front yards
- The
applicant’s engineer, Jeffrey J. Careaga, testified at the public
hearing. Mr. Careaga noted that the height of the garage would be kept to
no more than 15’ and thus one variance was eliminated. Mr. Careaga also
noted on Sheet 1 of his plan (the cover sheet) that his impervious cover
calculations were significantly different than those called out by the
Zoning Officer. He further noted that there could be some additional
minor improvement in removing some graveled areas that would further
reduce the impervious coverage. He calculated the proposed maximum
building coverage as 20.9% and the total impervious coverage as 43%. (At
the conclusion of the public hearing, as noted below, the Board requested
confirmation of these numbers and a final depiction of other impervious
coverage to be removed.)
- The
applicant, Georgianna Farnsworth, also testified at the public hearing.
She noted that the Board had approved other variances for garages for
other homes located on Yellow Barn Avenue. She testified that the garage
is a much-needed amenity for these lakeside homes. The homes required
larger garages due to the fact that most owners, in addition to having
automobiles, also had boats which would be stored inside the garage when
it was not boating season.
- She
testified the garage would provide much needed storage space in
conjunction with a rather small existing home.
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 testimony of the applicant to be credible. Taking the
total size of the proposed accessory garage and the existing house results
in a total square footage of approximately just under 2,400 square feet.
Had this been a fully integrated single family home, that size would not
be out of character for the neighborhood.
- The
Board notes the unique situation that homeowners on Yellow Barn Avenue
have. This is a private road that bisects the property. It creates two
front yards as well as the imposition of addition impervious coverage (the
road surface counts) that would not otherwise be attributable to a
traditional single family home.
- The
removal of the shed and the construction of this garage are consistent
with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, which promotes,
encourages, and requires interior storage of automobiles and accessory equipment
and adequate off-street parking.
- While
the Board has granted this approval based upon the impervious coverage, as
calculated by the applicant’s engineer, same is to be confirmed as noted
below.
- The
grant of this relief is totally consistent with the development on Yellow
Barn Avenue. In fact, the absence of a garage probably is more
detrimental to the Zoning Ordinance than the requested relief noted
herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury
on the 14th day of January, 2008 that the approval of the within application be
granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Confirmation
of impervious calculation as shown on the cover sheet of the Careaga
plans; 20.7% building coverage and 43% impervious coverage.
- The
applicant is to provide a stormwater runoff plan during and after
construction (in accordance with the recommendations of the Lake Hopatcong
Commission letter, dated1/11/08). Prior to construction, the applicant
shall meet with the Township Engineer and provide a detailed plan for
on-site stormwater retention and construction soil erosion, which shall be
part of the approval.
- As
noted in the testimony of the applicant and the applicant’s engineer, the
excess gravel paved areas shall be removed to promote additional non-paved
areas.
- The
use of the garage shall be limited to an accessory structure incidental to
and subordinate to the residential use of the main home. Same shall be
used only as a garage and shall not be used for habitation. The only
utility permitted, as requested by the applicant, shall be electricity.
There shall be no commercial use of the garage structure.
Ms. Dargel amended her previous
motion to approve the application and resolution, as the roadway exists and
several of the other properties have similar garages; the impervious coverage
would be 43% which would include the right-of-way. Mr. Giardina amended his
second.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms.
Robortaccio, yes.
AGENDA
ZBA-08-02 – KAY VAN NESS – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED
ON JUSTINE PL. BLOCK 1607, LOT 7 IN R-3 ZONE
Kay Van Ness was sworn in. She
stated she purchased her home in July of 1972 and wants to stay in the home.
She would like to put on a garage in order for safety purposes and to get her
car out of the elements. She would also like to expand the kitchen. It is a
very small kitchen and she entertains a lot and the additional room would make
entertaining and meal preparation more convenient. She is requesting a
variance for impervious coverage and she would reduce the size of the existing
driveway.
Donald Dyrness was sworn in. He
referred to an exhibit (marked A-1). He said the property is on Justine Place
in the R-3 zone. It is a 10,466 sq. ft. lot. We are requesting a variance for
building coverage and for impervious coverage. The existing home is
nonconforming for both as it is today. The existing house coverage is 15.3% of
the property and the total impervious coverage is 31.23% and zone allows 25%.
We are planning to add a one-car garage and a kitchen, laundry room and deck.
The whole new addition will be within the building envelope. The proposed
building coverage will be 22.97%. We propose to eliminate the existing shed.
We will eliminate part of the existing driveway. With the addition, the total
impervious coverage on the lot will decrease to 30.09%. The existing property
is less than ¼ acre in size. That is the hardship.
Mr. Wiener said the calculations
by Mr. McDonnell show the proposed impervious coverage at 29.9%.
Mr. Dyrness said his were done
electronically. It is a minor discrepancy.
Mr. Dyrness described the house,
stating it is a ranch style home. We will add a one car garage. There is
currently no garage on the property. There will be a laundry room off the
garage and entry into an expanded kitchen. We will also be adding a deck. The
advantage of this is that Ms. Van Ness will be able to park her car inside. It
is a benefit because the addition is primarily behind the house. Also, the
mass of the house as viewed from the road doesn’t change.
Ms. Dargel asked about the
driveway
Mr. Dyrness said the shaded part
of the driveway is to be removed. The reason we angled the garage is to
maintain the building envelope.
Mr. Stern said if the Board is
inclined to grant the variance, it would make sense to start the angled
approach at a point parallel to the front building elevation. There is a code
that all new construction requires a garage.
Ms. Dargel said the roofline is
somewhat unusual.
Mr. Dyrness said we did make a
modification to that. He showed the Board the revised roofline drawings.
Mr. Crowley said with a
modification to the driveway, it would only increase the coverage to about 32%.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. D’Amato made a motion to
approve the application subject to the impervious coverage not to exceed 32% so
as to allow easier access to the garage; shed to be removed. Mr. Wetzel
seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. D’Amato,
yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr.
Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-04 – ROBERT KNIERIM
– VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON BEEMAN PL., BLOCK 4902, LOT 16 IN R-3 ZONE
Attorney William Lovas
represented the applicant. He stated the applicant is applying for two
variances; one for the structure which encroaches 2.5 feet into the setback,
and it also encroaches into the sideyard with the driveway which presently
exists.
Robert Knierim was sworn in. In
answer to questions from Mr. Lovas, he stated he is the owner of the property
and bought it about 4 years ago. In order to have family members move in we
did an addition of some bedrooms and widened the driveway. The original set of
plans were denied as the building was already over the sideyard setback. We
drew up new plans that were approved by Zoning Permit. The mason on the job
had an old set of plans, and the house was built, and a certificate of
occupancy was obtained by him. We occupied the building. Subsequently, a
neighbor asked if we had gotten a variance for the garage as the neighbor’s
fence looked closer than it should. I tried to contact the contractor to have
him notify the town, but he did not. I notified the town of the possible
violation, and that is why we are here now.
Mr. Lovas said the variances are
for the sideyard setback where the addition encroaches 2.5 feet, and a variance
for the driveway, which pre-existed.
Photos of the house and driveway
as it exists today, and the driveway before it was paved over were submitted
(marked A-1 thru A-5).
Mr. Knierim said he tried to
contact the builder to testify, but he could not reach him.
Mr. Grossman asked what was
changed from the previously denied application.
Mr. Knierim said the garage was
narrowed.
Mr. Wetzel asked if the builder
had adjusted his price.
Mr. Knierim said no.
Ms. Dargel said when it
originally went to the zoning officer, shouldn’t it have come to the Zoning
Board for the driveway setback?
Mr. Stern said it was a
preexisting condition.
Ms. Dargel asked if the building
coverage and impervious coverage comply.
Mr. Lovas said yes.
Mr. Data asked if the neighbor on
the side of the garage has any objection.
Mr. Lovas said one of the
neighbors will come forward at the public portion.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
Joanne Slinger was sworn in. She
stated she had called the construction department because she thought they were
over the line, and they reassured me that they were correct. It is my property
value that will be affected. The pre-existing driveway was there, but the
prior garage was on the side of the house. They are using every inch of that
driveway. It is not fair to me. The fault lies with the builder and I am upset
with the town for not responding correctly. I have no objection now. We have
come up with a solution.
Mr. Lovas said the landscaping on
the side of the garage raised the grade and caused a drainage problem. In
order to alleviate the problem, Mr. Knierim has agreed to pay up to $4,000 for
landscaping between the two properties.
Mr. Wetzel asked if the problem
was brought to the attention of the owner.
Ms. Slinger said she did not, and
that she tried to talk to the workers, but they didn’t understand her.
Ms. Dargel said when the plans
were accepted, were you still planning to pave over the existing driveway?
Mr. Knierim said yes.
Ms. Dargel said she would like to
see some of that driveway removed.
Mr. Lovas said it is preexisting.
Ms. Slinger said there are 3 cars
parked there.
Mr. Crowley said the question of
how many cars are there is not a matter for the Board.
Mr. Stern said there is no
restriction on the number of cars that are parked in the driveway.
Mr. Lovas said if part of the
driveway needs to be removed, the agreement regarding landscaping is not on the
table.
No one else stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Crowley made a motion to
approve the application. There is a hardship that it was built wrong. The
applicant has tried to alleviate the situation through landscaping. The
driveway, since it was preexisting , should stay. Mr. Data seconded.
Mr. Wetzel said the motion should
note that this is an exception.
Mr. Wiener said he will emphasize
the circumstances in the resolution. Every case has to stand on its own merit.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms.
Dargel, no; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
There was a 5 minute recess at
8:30 p.m.
ZBA-08-01 - MERRY HEART NURSING HOME – AMENDED PHASE I AND PHASE II
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON RT. 10/MAIN ST. BLOCK 5201, LOT 6
IN B-2 ZONE
Attorney Larry Kron represented
the applicant. He stated Mr. Stern’s report summarizes the approvals received
by this project and explains the amendments. Two variances are required: a)
impervious coverage proposed is 58.5%, 55% permitted; b) floor area ratio.
Mr. Kron said we agree to
basically all the conditions in the reports from Mr. Stern and Mr. Hansen.
Gregory Ploussas, engineer for
the applicant, was sworn in.
Douglas Coleman, architect for
the applicant, was sworn in.
Drew Madlinger, of Benks Land
Services, was sworn in.
Mr. Ploussas gave an overview of
the project, referring to an enlarged copy of the Site Plan, sheet 5/23 (marked
A-1). He said he has highlighted the changes to the site plan on the exhibit
:
- enclosing small porch
- create paved terrace area and
fence it in
- extend small piece of sidewalk
along two parking spaces on driveway A
- install sidewalk in front of
phase 1 and relocating the existing retaining wall
- for phase 2 – put in a small
sidewalk next to curb
- relocate emergency generator
pad
- provide set of terraces and
walls and fountains –
- adding handicap ramps from
terraced area to existing building
- redoing porch on existing
building
- eliminate sidewalk, and put in
series of pavers and walks
- sidewalk connecting the
intersection of Main Street and Hillside Avenue has been eliminated
- extend sidewalk along Main
Street
- eliminate the change to the
dumpster enclosure
Mr. Ploussas
stated we are also seeking another minor change. In front of the assisted
living facility, steps are shown. Those steps will serve no function.
Exhibit
submitted (marked A-2)
Mr. Ploussas stated we would be eliminating the
steps and walls as they serve no purpose. We would do a little more
landscaping in the front. We will be revising the plans.
Ms. Dargel said
we had a lot of discussion about not having sidewalks on Main Street.
Mr. Stern said
that was at the direction of the Township, as a result of the Main Street
Improvement Plan.
Mr. Coleman
described the architectural changes to phase 1 and phase 2:
- covered porch area off resident
dining area to be enclosed with windows to allow residents to go out on
the porch in all weather
- handicap ramp will be added to
existing wraparound porch
Ms. Dargel asked if the yellow
house will be for office or for staff residence.
Mr. Coleman said it would be used
for both. The first floor will be for support staff, and there will be
bedrooms upstairs.
Mr. Madlinger stated his
qualifications as a landscape designer. He said he worked with the CPL on the
project, and showed an exhibit showing the proposed landscape plans (marked
A-3).
He said the nursing home plan
illustration shows the back of the nursing home area and it shows a
continuation of the patio. It has a circular planting in the middle with a
shade tree. There are benches proposed as well. The area will be fenced in
with a gate that is ADA accessible. The pavers proposed will match what is
existing, as far as color and style.
He submitted a pamphlet showing
the proposed paver blocks (marked A-4).
Mr. Madlinger described the
proposed extension of the dining room area to the outside with plantings and a
water feature and a stage area and seating area. (sheet 1 of 1, marked A-5)
Mr. Stern said he feels this plan
shows good alternatives for recreation.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of the witnesses who
have testified.
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
The applicant addressed Mr.
Stern’s report:
Item 1.1 – addressed
Item 1.2 – statement
Items 1.3, 1.4, 1.5 – agreed
Item 1.6 – variance requested for
58.5% impervious coverage.
Mr. Ploussas stated at the time
of the original application, the coverage maximum permitted was 70%. We are
just adjusting some of the amenities. We believe it will be a benefit to the
residents and the occupants. We are saving the existing house, adding
sidewalks as required by the Township, and we are also using pavers which do
not count as 100% in the coverage calculations.
Item1.7 - – Mr. Ploussas said we
received a memo from the Fire Official dated 2/5/08 indicating he wanted to
meet with us. We spoke with him and he has provided us with additional areas
to be marked No Parking- Fire Zone. We agree to those requirements
Ms. Robortaccio said regarding the trash enclosures, I
was there today and there are two large metal bins filled with cardboard.
Blanche Bonafacio was sworn in.
She stated those are temporary containers for the garbage during construction
Items 1.8 thru 2.19 – agree
Item 2.1 – statement
Item 2.2 – addressed
Item 2.3 – agreed
Item 2.4 – Mr. Ploussas said the
original floor area ratio was 0.714 and we are asking that it be increased to
0.7496. The reason for that is the porch and the yellow house. Those were
never included in the FAR.
Item 2.5 - agree - stucco
Item 2.6 - statement
Item 2.7 - agree
Item 3.1 - agree
Items 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5 – agree
Items 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9, 3.10,
3.11, 3.12 – agree
The applicant addressed the
report from John Hansen, stating they agree with everything in the report.
Mr. Ploussas said item 7 deals with the location of curbs and sidewalk along
Main Street. The ordinance requires a 5 1/2 foot setback, and we will require
a design waiver.
Mr. Hansen said we can work with
the applicant on that.
Ms. Dargel stated one of the
reasons we originally did not want the sidewalk was to preserve some of the
trees there.
Mr. Stern said some of the trees
there are dangerous now, and a number of them have come down since 1999.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application subject to all items agreed to and variances and design
waivers. Mr. Wetzel seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr.
Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
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
Scott Barber was sworn in.
Jeffrey Careaga, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in.
Mr. Barber said he is here to put
in sidewalks at his house. It requires a variance for impervious coverage.
Mr. Careaga said the house is
under construction. We had originally showed a map that showed 25% coverage.
The preexisting coverage was 28.7%.
Mr. Careaga said we had prepared
a revised plan in April that was revised in June to bring it down to 24.9%. We
have since applied with a 41.72% coverage.
Mr. Careaga stated to get the
Zoning Permit for construction of the house we had brought it down to 24.9%.
Mr. Barber had a landscape plan prepared for the project showing about 45%
coverage and we had taken that down to 41.72% with the current plan. The
preexisting driveway was increased the most from 3,804 sq. ft. to over 6,000
sq. ft. On page 2 there is an existing pool on the property with a small
concrete walkway. We propose to increase the patio area around the pool. The
existing gazebo will be relocated. Over 1,097 sq. ft. of walkways will be
reduced to 557 sq. ft. The building is maintaining the same at 689 sq. ft.
footprint. The preexisting boathouse of 259 sq. ft. will remain. The shape of
the pool is changing and the new pool will be 2,064 sq. ft. as opposed to the
preexisting 707 sq. ft. pool. The pool patio will now be changed from 1,055
sq. ft. to 10,079 q. ft. There is a variety of walls and steps proposed. The
resulting effect is from 15,662 sq. ft. to 22,760 sq. ft.
Mr. Crowley asked if the
preexisting conditions were included in the 28.7%.
Mr. Careaga said we had reduced
the coverage down in order to get a building permit for the house.
Mr. Barber said we didn’t know we
would be asking for all of this. His wife has been adding changes.
Ms. Robortaccio asked what the coverage is currently.
Mr. Careaga stated he doesn’t
know.
Mr. Stern said there is an
existing conditions map on sheet 2. Is that what currently exists?
Mr. Careaga said the current
driveway is smaller than what is shown.
Ms. Robortaccio asked what the
existing coverage is today.
Mr. Careaga said we are not over
the permitted percentage at this time.
Mr. Wiener said at some point you
will have to address why you need the variances.
Mr. Wiener said the zone
contemplates a 15,000 sq. ft. lot, and this house is over 3 times that size, at
54,000 sq. ft.
Mr. Careaga said that is correct.
Mr. Wiener said we will need
testimony to address what would justify granting the variance.
Mr. Careaga said there is a
substantial amount of landscaping and hardscape to enhance the neighborhood.
Ms. Robortaccio asked what the
reasoning is for this Board to grant a variance for impervious coverage this
high. The lot is very large.
Mr. Barber said we want to
beautify the lot. When we put the roof on the house and the gutters, we put on
extra large gutters so that it can handle more water. We also added drywells
and a substantial irrigation system.
Mr. Wiener said you need to
refocus this application. There is a big hurdle to overcome. You will need
more proofs other than that you want to make it beautiful. That is not
justification to grant a variance.
Mr. Barber said we have put in a
substantial irrigation system.
Mr. Wiener said this appears to
be a very ambitious project. I think you will need to consult a land use
attorney and/or a planner to address the proofs as to why the zoning ordinance
should be varied.
Ms. Robortaccio said this Board
will look at this application and at the size of the lot. Because the lot is
so large, you are creating a situation that doesn’t have to be. Normally the
Board would tell you to make every effort you can in terms of cutting down on
that impervious coverage.
Mr. Barber apologized for wasting
the Board’s time.
Mr. Wiener said it is not wasting
the Board’s time. Mr. Barber has every right to be here. This is an ambitious
project.
Mr. Stern said there is also an
issue regarding disturbance within 50 feet of the lake. There is a lot
proposed in that area. You need to think about that also.
Kevin Carroll was sworn in. He
stated he is the project manager. He said we were well within the coverage for
the building. We reduced the coverage from the first original plan in order to
get in the driveway in the winter. As the house developed, there are a series
of doors leading to the outside that have porches outside. This is the reason
we are going over the coverage. We are looking to join sidewalks all the way
around the building from each door. The back patio was in there, and that is
being increased somewhat.
Mr. Crowley suggested the doors
should not have been put in before the plan was approved.
Mr. Barber said we started the
project 3 years ago. My wife likes to improve the design.
Mr. Stern said the Board could
take a vote tonight, or this can be carried to a later hearing.
The applicant opted to carry the
application.
A poll of the Board was unanimous
that the impervious coverage should be reduced.
Mr. Crowley said the applicant
needs a planner to testify.
Mr. Barber asked if there is any
reason why they can’t move into the house.
Mr. Stern said that is to be
determined by the Construction Official.
The application was carried to
4/14/08. The applicant granted an extension of time to that date.
ZBA-08-03 – THOMAS, GRACE AND RONALD BLAKE – VARIANCE FOR
ADDITION LOCATED ON MT. ARLINGTON BLVD., BLOCK 11501, LOT 33 IN R-3 ZONE
Thomas Blake was sworn in. He stated
he is looking to expand the first floor of his home toward the lake with an
enclosed four-season room. The basement level is partially below grade.
Joseph Gates, architect for the applicant, was sworn in.
He referred to exhibit A-1, colorized version of the architectural plans. He
stated the plans show a one-story addition, however, the grade slopes toward
the lake. The floor is up over an existing raised patio. The addition will
be constructed on 5 piers. The floor plan shows the existing house is 35’1”
and the proposal is for a 12’ addition toward the lake. The footprint will
remain. The existing setback is at 49’ to the lake, and the proposed is 33’.
The dock, walkways and driveway are all existing. The impervious coverage will
not change. The increase will be the square footage of the building addition.
Ms. Robortaccio said Mr.
McDonnell’s report shows the setback to the lake at 45’.
Mr. Gates said that is correct
because of the irregularity of the shore line. We will correct that.
Mr. Gates said where the wood
stove is had been a bedroom and had become a living room. They are looking to
get a little more living space.
Ms. Dargel asked if it is
practical to build on the Mt. Arlington Boulevard side?
Mr. Gates said you could, but
that would present an increase in lot coverage. Currently, there is a masonry
patio underneath the proposed addition. There will be minimal site disturbance
as a result of putting the addition on the 5 piers.
Mr. Wetzel asked how the setback
to the lake compares with the neighbors.
Mr. Gates said the lake line is
rather irregular there so it is hard to get a straight line. This house would
be closer than the adjacent houses.
Mr. Wetzel asked if there has
been any comment from the neighbors.
Mr. Blake said they were
notified.
Ms. DeMasi said the application
was also sent to the Lake Hopatcong Commission, and we have received no
response.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. D’Amato made a motion to
approve the application, noting the discrepancies in the distance to the lake;
CAD drawing figures to be used for proposed setback to the lake (33.5’). Mr.
Wetzel seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. D’Amato,
yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms.
Robortaccio, yes.
New Business
There was discussion on starting
future Zoning Board meetings at 7:00 p.m. \
Mr. D’Amato made a motion to
amend the resolution for start times of the meetings in 2008 to begin at 7:00
p.m. Mr. Data seconded. A voice vote approved.
The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:00 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi, Secretary
lm/