A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the
Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:00 p.m. with Chairperson
Gail Robortaccio presiding. After a salute to the Flag, Ms. Robortaccio read
the “Open Public Meetings Act”.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Gail
Robortaccio, Mark Crowley, Joyce Dargel, Peter Giardina, Barbara Kinback,
Sebastian D’Amato, Edward Data, John Wetzel, Kenneth Grossman.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:
Larry Wiener, Russell Stern, John Hansen.
Also present: Dolores A. DeMasi,
Secretary.
Presentation to Robert Kurtz
Ms. Robortaccio read into the record a special resolution
of commendation thanking Mr. Kurtz for his loyalty serving the Board of
Adjustment for 10 years, including 4 years as Chairman and two years as Vice
Chairman.
Robert Kurtz was present and
thanked the Board for their recognition of his term on the Board.
Minutes of 1/14/08
Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the minutes. 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.
Minutes of 2/11/08
Mr. Data made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. D’Amato
seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Data, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr.
Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
RESOLUTIONS
ZBA-08-02 – KAY VAN NESS – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED
ON JUSTINE PL. BLOCK 1607, LOT 7 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: February 11, 2008
Memorialized: March 10,2008
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 to construct an addition onto the existing home.
- Applicant’s
builder, Spectrum Construction, received a letter of denial dated 1/4/08
from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.
- The
applicant was proposing to construct a 903 square foot building addition
onto the rear and northerly side of the existing home. The existing
conditions were depicted on a plot plan attached to the application and a
set of drawings attached to the application.
- The
applicant’s contractor, Donald Dyrness of Spectrum Construction, testified
at the public hearing. Mr. Dyrness noted the lot is a 10,466 square foot
lot in the R-3 Zone. The R-3 Zone requires and contemplates a minimum lot
size of 15,000 square feet. He noted the proposal results in increased
building coverage of 7.67 percent. He stated the proposed addition, which
included a one-car garage, was intentionally located to the side and rear
of the existing dwelling. He noted the side yard setback was respected
and opined that viewing the proposed addition from Justine Place would not
result in any perceptible changes.
- Mr.
Dyrness also noted that the existing 1,575 square foot driveway would be
reduced in size (this was later modified at the request of the Township
Planner). A significant portion of existing asphalt could be removed as
part of the benefit of providing the indoor parking space in the garage.
- As
noted by the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer, the following relief is
required:
- Total
impervious coverage – 25% permitted, 31.32% existing, 30.09% proposed
- Total
building coverage – 15% permitted, 15.3% existing, 22.97% proposed
- Mr.
Dyrness presented exhibits A-1 and A-2 which were photos, plot plan, and
elevation plan. Exhibit A-3 was a copy of the plot plan that was marked
by the Township Planner. During the course of the hearing, the Township
Planner opined sua sponte that the benefit of increasing the
width of the driveway in a conforming manner by up to one percent
additional impervious coverage was more of a benefit to making the
driveway more functional and safe than any benefit that might be gained by
simply reducing impervious coverage below what was already existing.
Thus, the total impervious coverage would probably not be reduced but
would remain no more than what is existing albeit, non-conforming.
WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning
Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:
- The
Board finds the benefits to permitting the construction of a garage (which
is consistent with the Township Zoning Ordinance) and the proposed
addition, to be a reasonable and re-adaptive use of the existing modest
home. The Board finds the testimony of the applicant’s builder to be
credible. The applicant has diligently respected the Zoning Ordinance and
came up with a unique design that works with the very unusual shape of the
property and the fact that the property is undersized for the zone.
- The
grant of this variance will have no negative impact and is consistent with
the intent and purpose of Municipal Zoning Ordinance.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
conditions: Roxbury on the 11th day of February, 2008 that the approval of the
within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- As
noted on the plans, the existing shed and significant portions of the
existing driveway are to be removed.
- The
addition is to be sized and located as depicted on the plot plan attached
to the application.
- The
total building coverage shall not exceed 22.97% as proposed. The total
impervious coverage shall not exceed the existing 31.32% and the final configuration
of the driveway shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner
consistent with the markings on exhibit A-3. The intent is to slightly
widen the driveway to make the turn in and out of the garage (which is
angled) a much more user-friendly maneuver.
Mr. Crowley made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Giardina seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr.
Wetzel, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio,
yes.
ZBA-08-04 – ROBERT KNIERIM – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION
LOCATED ON BEEMAN PL., BLOCK 4902, LOT 16 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: February 11, 2008
Memorialized: March 10, 2008
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- William
Lovas, Esquire represented the applicant.
- The
applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
- The
premises were recently improved with a significant addition. The existing
site conditions were depicted on a 10/26/07 plan presented by Richard M.
Piacentini, architect, consisting of two sheets. The applicant also
submitted five exhibits at the public hearing, which were a series of
photographs marked A-1 through A-5 that depicted existing conditions
on-site.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 10/5/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the
Zoning Officer.
- The
applicant’s addition was not built in accordance with the plans that were
submitted to the construction department. As testified to by the
applicant, there were two sets of plans. One plan which mislocated the
garage (which is the feature of this addition that offends the zoning
ordinance) at 8.75’ from the adjoining property side yard was rejected.
The plans were revised and the new plan provided for a 10’ setback to the
common boundary line with property known as 20 Beeman Place. The
applicant testifies that unbeknownst to him there was a mix up and the
subcontractor (presumably, the mason) built in accordance with the
rejected plans and the as built house was built with a side yard setback
of 8.75’.
- The
applicant came before the Board, not as a result of any enforcement action
by the municipality, but as a result of a self-discovery of the violation
and an honest and sincere attempt to have same approved after the fact.
- The
applicant’s existing driveway was set back from the property line at a
non-conforming 3.17’. This a pre-existing condition. When the applicant
first applied for a permit, the former Zoning Officer did not cite this as
requiring a variance from the 5’ driveway setback (which has been in
effect since 2001). The property was obviously built long before the
requirement for a driveway setback came into play.
- The
adjoining property owner, Joanne Slinger, who is the owner of 20 Beeman
Place, testified at the public hearing. Ms. Slinger noted her frustration
with the situation but agreed with the proposition that it made no sense
to tear down the whole garage over 1.25’. She noted the applicant’s
counsel confirmed that an accommodation had apparently been arrived at
between her and the applicant, which involved the applicant doing a
significant amount of landscaping or other buffering between the two
properties.
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 driveway setback deviation to be simply the continuance of
an existing non-conforming situation. The driveway is located 3’ instead
of 5’ off the property line. This is not (under the circumstances of this
case) a significant deviation from the Zoning Ordinance and the impact of
this driveway at either distance would be the same on the adjoining
property owner.
- The
issue of the garage and its mislocation is certainly a sad and undesirable
situation. The Board finds the testimony of the applicant to be credible
and finds it very significant that the applicant, in fact, self reported
the violation. The benefit to mechanical adherence with the zoning
ordinance, which would require tearing down the existing structure, is
clearly an outcome that defies logic. As noted by the adjoining property
owner, it just does not make sense to do that over 1.25’. While the Board
did not take any testimony and will not get into specifics of any
negotiations between the applicant and the adjoining property owner. The
Board notes the applicant has apparently agreed to undertake a
considerable plan in providing buffering that should mitigate the slight
deviation from the zoning ordinance. Based upon the exceptional
circumstances of this case, the Board finds the benefits to granting this
variance clearly outweigh the deviation from the zoning ordinance.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
conditions: Roxbury on the 14th day of January, 2008 that the approval of the
within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Driveway
and existing building structure may remain in the present location with
setback of 3.17’ driveway and garage at 8.75’.
Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr.
Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. D’Amato,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms.
Robortaccio, yes.
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
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: February 11, 2008
Memorialized: March 10, 2008
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- Larry
I. Kron, Esquire represented the applicant.
- The
applicant is the owner and operator of the Merry Heart Nursing Home.
- Prior
to the public hearing, the Board received the following drawings:
Prepared
by the Chester, Ploussas, Lisowsky Partnership, LLP
-
Sheet 1, Key Map and Sheet Index,
revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 2, Amended Vicinity Map and
General Notes, revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 3, Existing Conditions Map,
revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 4, Demolition Plan, revised
1/24/08
-
Sheet 5, Amended Preliminary Site
Plan, revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 6, Amended Utility Plan,
revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 7, Amended Preliminary
Grading Plan, revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 8, Phasing Plan, revised
1/24/08
-
Sheet 9, Signage and Traffic
Control Plan, revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 10, Amended Profiles,
revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 11, Existing Drainage Areas
Map, revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 12, Amended Surface Water
Runoff Control Plan, revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 13,Amended Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan, revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 14, Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan Notes and Details, revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 15, Landscape Plan, revised
1/24/08
-
Sheet 16, Amended Landscape
Details, revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 17, Amended Construction
Details, revised 1/24/08
-
Sheet 18, Slope Analysis, revised
1/24/08
-
Sheets 19 and 20, Site Lighting
and Details, 1/24/08
-
Sheet 21, Lighting Details,
revised 1/24/08
-
Sheets 22 and 23, Route 10 Cross
Sections, revised 1/24/08
Prepared
by Beer and Coleman Architects and Associates
-
Sheet A-1, Partial Plan / Section,
revised 1/11/08
-
Sheet A-2, Partial Elevations,
revised 1/11/08
Prepared by Benks Land Services
- Sheet 1 of 1, Rear Terrace Site Plan
- The
premises encompass a total of just over four (4) acres located in the PO/R
Professional Office/Residence District. The property was formerly zoned
Highway Business B-2 and Residential R-3 prior to the April 2001 zoning
revisions. The site is improved with a three-story 97-bed nursing home, a
two-story staff residence building located at the northeasterly corner of
the tract and an 86 bed assisted living facility which is currently under
construction.
- On
April 12, 1999, the Zoning Board granted use variance for the 97-bed
nursing home, a 36-person adult daycare facility (in the old nursing home)
and a three-story, 84-bed assisted living building. The existing staff
residence would remain, and the site would be serviced by 86 parking
spaces.
- On
August 9, 1999, the applicant received preliminary site plan approval and
associated variances for the health care complex. Subsequent applications
were made and granted by the Zoning Board to relocate the adult daycare to
the new nursing home, revise architecture, and modify signage. In
November of 2002, the Zoning Board granted final site plan approval for
“Phase I” which encompassed the new nursing home and associated
improvements.
- The
“Phase I” final site plan approval required the applicant to appear before
the Board within three (3) years for an amended preliminary site plan
approval for “Phase II”. Certain changes in “Phase I” materially effect
“Phase II”.
- On
May 9, 2005, by resolution memorialized June 13, 2005, the applicant
received amended “Phase II” preliminary site plan approval for the
assisted living facility. The amended approval permitted:
-
Modified building footprint
-
Total floor area reduction from
66,634 s.f. to 63,586 s.f.
-
Modified architecture design -
compatible yet contrasting with the nursing home.
-
Reduced building coverage
-
Number of assisted living beds
increased to 86. The April 1999 resolution allowed only 84 beds.
-
Elimination of the service tunnel
linking the nursing home to the assisted living facility. The new building
will operate independently with its own kitchen, receiving, trash and support
facilities
-
A trash enclosure constructed of
brick, and pergola roof will be located to the east of the building in the
vicinity of the Route 10/Hillside Avenue intersection.
6.
The present application is seeking
amended “Phase 1 and Phase II” amended preliminary site plan approval. As will
be discussed below, several of the applicant’s modifications require additional
variance and design waiver relief.
- The
noted improvements are as follows:
Phase
I – Nursing Home
-
Enclose 549 square feet of the
existing covered porch
-
Construct a paver terrace for
Alzheimer/dementia patients
-
Enclose the proposed paver terrace
with a decorative steel fence
Phase II – Assisted Living Facility
-
Construct a paver terrace with
waterfalls and ponds
-
Construct a small paver terrace
with raised planter bed facing Hillside Avenue
-
Modify paving in the vicinity of
the delivery/trash/service area
-
Install a handicap ramp to access
the staff residence building
-
Relocate the emergency generator
-
Enlarge detention basin and
construct a new retaining wall
Overall Site
-
Provide sidewalk along the entire
Main Street frontage
-
Eliminate a segment of sidewalk
leading from the staff residence building to the Hillside/Main Street
intersection
-
Increase impervious coverage to
58.5%
-
Increase floor area ratio to
0.7496
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 two (2) variances requested to be de minimis. This
site is truly a campus and its original design was predicated on a Zoning
Ordinance that allowed up to 70 percent of impervious coverage. Thus, the
increase from 56.5 percent to 58.6 percent is minimal. The deviation is
justified in that the applicant has presented a much more aesthetic and
comprehensive plan that will, in fact, make the site much more functional
for the proposed residence.
- The
applicant also is requesting a variance for floor area ratio. This is a
“d” variance - 40:55D-70d(4). The applicant provided testimony that the
proposed floor area ratio increased to 0.734 while the original
application was approved at 0.714. The increase in FAR arose as a result
of enclosing the 549 square foot covered porch. The Board finds this
deviation to be de minimis. The increase in FAR is more technical
than real. The deviation will not in any way affect the zone plan/zone
scheme or have any true impact on the site. Granting the relief has the
opposite effect in that it makes the site and its facilities function as
originally contemplated. Enclosing the porch advances the purposes of the
MLUL and enhances the positive attributes of this inherently beneficial
use.
- The
design waivers for the sidewalk and shade trees are very viable
alternatives that merely reflect an applicant working with the land.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
conditions: Roxbury on the 11th day of February, 2008 that the
approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the
following conditions:
- Applicant
is to provide the Board with input from the Historic Advisory Committee
relative to the staff home.
- All
exhibits, maps, and documents shall be revised to include current lot and
block numbers. Same to be reviewed and approved by the Municipal Tax
Assessor.
- Applicant
shall provide “hard” figures on existing and proposed impervious coverage
numbers. Same shall be reviewed and confirmed by the Board’s Engineering
Consultant.
- Applicant
shall incorporate the revised signage noted in the February 5, 2008
memorandum from the Township Fire Official. Applicant shall meet with the
Fire Official and provide confirmation that the appropriate signage has
been installed.
- Applicant
shall provide documentation that they have pursued Title 39 Motor Vehicle
Enforcement on-site with the governing body.
- Detailed
grading plans and/or field stakeout of the Main Street sidewalk shall be
provided to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer.
- The
Board notes a 5.5 foot setback is required between the Main Street
sidewalk and the edge of the pavement. (The Board also notes it may not
be practical for the applicant to totally comply with that design
feature. As noted above, the Board is granting a design waiver where
existing conditions make compliance impractical.) Applicant shall provide
the proposed setback for the sidewalk, which will be reviewed and approved
during the construction process with the Board Engineer. It is the
Board’s intent that wherever practical and possible, the 5.5-foot setback
be maintained.
- All
proposed fencing shall be specified as decorative black metal fence,
similar to the fence along Hillside Avenue. Fence height shall be
specified. Fence height cannot exceed 4 feet unless a design waiver is
granted.
- Fence
heights, along the retaining walls and in relation to the water feature,
shall meet BOCA requirements.
- Decorative
block and paver samples shall be provided. (It is noted that Exhibit A-4
presented by the applicant at the public hearing was, in fact, a
demonstration of the proposed block and paver samples.) The Township
Planner shall review and approve the proposed block and paver along the
same lines as presented by the applicant.
- Many
of the Main Street trees shall be removed due to their poor condition.
The new street trees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Township
Planner.
- It
is noted the applicant is proposing four (4) ornamental flowering cherry
trees along Main Street. Same would be spaced 20 feet on center, which is
a deviation from the design standards of the Ordinance (three (3) shade
trees spaced 40 feet on center). (The Board finds this alternative to be
desirable treatment.) The final review and approval including the
appropriate caliper size of the trees to be reviewed and approved by the
Township Planner.
- Height,
caliper and spacing labeling on the Plant Schedule, sheet 16, shall be
corrected. Minimum heights for shade trees and under story trees shall be
specified as was originally depicted on the April 1, 2004 plan.
- The
landscape plan shall be revised to eliminate the use of Ilex Glabra, or
substantially reduce the quantity, as this plant has not faired well
within Roxbury. Depending upon location, the use of a variety of Japanese
Yew may be appropriate. Landscaping shall be provided in front of the
former delivery area stairs. Same to be reviewed and approved by the
Township Planner.
- The
final landscape plan and tree removal permit are subject to the review and
approval of the Township Planner.
- The
conditions of prior approvals remain in effect (to the extent not
inconsistent).
- Exterior
building finishes/materials shall be consistent with the existing
building. Applicant shall provide “hard” floor area ratio calculations
consisting with the testimony at the public hearing.
- Any
missing/dead/marginal plants between the new paver terrace and Main Street
shall be replaced/planted per the approved landscape plan.
- It
is understood that the within approval does not include the construction
of a new cardboard dumpster or concrete pad. It is specifically
understood that at some time in the future, the applicant may appear
before the Board for variance or other approval to construct a new
enclosure. The area has been designed to accommodate an enclosure should
one be necessary.
- Reference
to a future recycling cardboard dumpster enclosure on the sheet 2 Loading
Area Detail shall be removed.
- Notes
on the demolition plan shall be revised as the existing brick trash
enclosure is now proposed to remain.
- The
‘SA’ light pole shall be relocated to avoid conflict with the existing
trash enclosure and future enclosure.
- It
is noted the length of the stone apron has been increased. The stone
apron shall be reconfigured with an inlet and pipe. Same to be approved
by the Board’s Engineer.
- Applicant
shall provide elevations of the handicap ramp.
- The
architectural treatment of the handicap ramp shall be compatible with the
building architecture.
- Handicap
ramp details shall be provided.
- The
sidewalk to the front porch shall be “pushed forward” to allow more
planting area between the sidewalk and handicap ramp. Details shall be
reviewed and approved by the Municipal Planner.
- It
is noted there are some differences in the sidewalk layout leading to the
rear entry between the engineering drawing and the landscape drawing.
Same is to be reconciled, reviewed, and approved by the Board Planner.
- Applicant
shall provide architectural drawings depicting the elevation and raising
of the enclosed porch.
-
The new detention basin retaining wall shall be consistent and match the
existing basin wall.
- The
plans shall be revised to show the correct current zoning information and
bulk data. The exact areas of each structure shall be shown instead of
approximate (+/-).
- The
sequence of construction and limit of disturbance on sheet 13 shall be
revised to include all improvements proposed in this application. The
plan shall be re-certified by the Morris County Soil Conservation
District.
- It
is noted the applicant’s proposed stormwater management design has been
performed for Drainage Area #3 only. As noted by the Board’s Engineer,
the report must also address Drainage Areas #2 and #4. Same must be
reviewed and approved by the Board’s Engineer.
- The
stormwater report submitted with this application does not address the
water quality analysis previously performed for the site. The report
shall be revised to be consistent with the data supplied in the previous
report.
- Applicant
shall file the appropriate sidewalk easements. Same to be reviewed and
approved by the Board’s Engineer.
- Applicant’s
plan note an existing well to be field verified between the Phase II
building and the driveway. Applicant shall clarify the proposed use of
the well. If same is not going to be used, the well shall be sealed in
accordance with governmental requirements.
- Morris
County Soil Conservation District re-certification is required.
- Morris
County Planning Board approval is required.
- Subject
to all of the conditions of the previous approvals, not specifically
modified or superceded by the approval.
Mr. Crowley made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Giardina seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley,
yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms.
Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-03 – THOMAS, GRACE & RONALD BLAKE – VARIANCE
FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON MT. ARLINGTON BLVD, BLOCK 11501, LOT 33 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: February 11, 2008
Memorialized: March 10, 2008
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
subject premises are located on Mt. Arlington Boulevard with frontage on
Lake Hopatcong.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated12/14/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the
Zoning Officer.
- The
applicant’s proposed addition and existing site conditions were depicted
on a one sheet drawing prepared by Joseph A. Gates, architect, dated
12/13/07.
- The
subject premises are approximately 8,725 feet in size. The R-3 Zone
contemplates a minimum lot area of 15,000 square feet thus, the lot
itself, is slightly more than half the size contemplated in the zone.
- The
proposed variances are for:
- Building
coverage - maximum permitted 15%, existing 15.59%, proposed 20.83%
- Total
impervious coverage – maximum permitted 25%, existing 31.32%, proposed
31.32%
- Building/Construction
distance from lake – maximum permitted 50’, existing 45’, proposed 33.5’
- The
applicant’s proposal essentially consisted of a 12’ x 38’ addition onto
the upper floor of the existing home. The addition would essentially be
cantilevered and supported with piers over the existing patio. As noted,
the applicant is not increasing the total impervious coverage since the
proposed addition is over existing impervious coverage.
- The
applicant’s architect, Mr. Gates, testified at the hearing. He noted the
existing home was probably built as a summer home and the upper floor (the
area of the addition) had limited functionality and very small existing
rooms. The proposed addition would provide an opportunity to re-adapt the
home and make same more consistent with the type of lakefront housing in
Roxbury Township. The rear treatment with the stone veneer on the piers
would be maintaining the lake type architecture. Mr. Gates opined the
total coverage variance was truly a function of a normal sized house
located on a very undersized lot.
- Because
of the location of the property along the shores of Lake Hopatcong, a copy
of the application was forwarded to the Lake Hopatcong Commission. The
Board did not receive any comments from the Lake Hopatcong Commission.
- During
the course of his testimony, Mr. Gates presented A-1 which was a colorized
rendition of his 12/13/07 plan.
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’s architect, Joseph Gates, to
be credible.
- The
variances here arise as a result of the lot being undersized for the R-3
Zone. The applicant’s proposal does not increase the existing impervious
coverage. The addition takes a house that is somewhat outmoded and not
compatible with the type of housing presently contemplated in the zone and
makes the house much more functional as a year round home. All of the
variances reflect existing conditions. The construction close to the lake
is a modest disturbance necessary to install four (4) piers that will
support the overhanging addition. The grant of this variance will provide
an opportunity to re-adapt and re-utilize the existing home. The design
presented by Mr. Gates is an aesthetic enhancement and consistent with the
type of architecture found in lakefront homes along New Jersey’s largest
lake.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
conditions: 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, located, and designed as shown on the Gates architectural
plans, dated 12/13/07, submitted with the application.
- Total
impervious coverage not to exceed 31.32%, total building coverage not to
exceed 20.83%, and total building construction distance from the lake not
to exceed 33.5’.
- Applicant
shall comply with all soil erosions, silt, and sedimentation control
practices. Prior to construction, the applicant’s plan shall depict the
construction soil erosion techniques to be employed. Same to be reviewed
and approved by the Board Engineer.
Mr. Data made a motion to approve
the resolution. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Data, yes;
Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr.
Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
AGENDA
ZBA-08-07 – JOHN & LYN KALI – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION
FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AND BUILDING COVERAGE LOCATED ON GOLF COURSE RD., BLOCK
1302, LOT 32 IN R-3 ZONE
John Kali was sworn in.
Dominic Wronko, representative of
the proposed contractor, was sworn in.
Mr. Kali stated they moved into
the home in 1978, and at that time there was an existing patio enclosure. In
1981 they built a garage addition. In 1983 they built an additional bedroom.
The patio enclosure is showing signs of disrepair. There is a concrete block wall
that is moving in each year and a roof that appears to be bowing. I want to
replace the structure, and add an additional 80 square feet. It is a very
small amount of addition to make the room more livable.
Ms. Dargel asked if the sidewalk
is included in the coverage calculations.
Mr. Kali said it is not, because the survey shows the
property extends 31 feet from the existing house, and the sidewalk is at 33
feet.
Ms. Dargel asked where the water
problems are.
Mr. Kali said anytime it rains,
it leaks inside the patio enclosure and seeps in through the foundation. The
water is coming in through leaks in the corrugated aluminum roof.
Mr. Crowley said the calculations
show the increase in building and lot coverage is about one-half of one
percent.
Ms. Dargel asked if there is
anywhere else the addition could go or anything else that can be done to
decrease the coverage?
Mr. Kali said there is some
existing blacktop dating back to before we moved in. When we tore down the
previous carport and built the garage, there was some pavement that did not get
removed. We could remove that. It is 240 sq. ft. It is behind the existing
garage.
Mr. Data asked if the new
structure would be on a slab.
Mr. Wronko stated it will be on a
new concrete foundation with perimeter footings.
Mr. Data asked if the asphalt
could be removed.
After discussion, Mr. Kali agreed
to remove the 240 sq. ft. of asphalt.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application as presented, except that the applicant will remove the
240 sq. ft. of pavement behind the garage. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr.
Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-08 – EUGENE CRESCIBENE – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE LOCATED ON GEORGE ST., BLOCK 1503, LOT 10 IN R-3 ZONE
Eugene Crescibene and Elizabeth Crescibene were sworn in.
Mr. Crescibene said they would
like to put a 4 ft. walkway around the perimeter of the pool, and a 5 foot
patio at the shallow end.
Mr. Crowley asked if they want to
put this in for safety reasons.
Mr. Crescibene said at the time
we put the pool in, I wasn’t aware about the maximum coverage regulations. At
the time the pool was put in, we were at the maximum coverage. One of the
inspectors at that time asked about a walkway, and we were told we needed to
have a walkway in order to put a safety cover on the pool.
Mr. Stern said the public safety
aspect provides an element of planning that is advanced through the application.
Ms. Dargel asked if pavers could
be substituted for concrete to reduce coverage.
Ms. Crescibene said the
manufacturer of the pool covers recommends concrete for anchoring.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Data made a motion to approve
the application with the stipulation the walkway on the side of the garage is
to be removed. Ms. Kinback seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Data, yes;
Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr.
Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-05 – JOHN & LORI TUMMINELLO – VARIANCE FOR
ADDITION OVER GARAGE WITH A FRONT YARD SETBACK LOCATED ON EZRA RD., BLOCK
11704, LOT 25 IN R-2 ZONE
Application not heard. Carried to 4/14/08.
ZBA-08-06 – RICHARD RUDE – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE AND 3 STORIES LOCATED ON KING RD., BLOCK 11912, LOT 4 IN R-3 ZONE
Attorney Lee Levitt represented the applicant.
Richard Rude was sworn in.
Steve Bias, architect for the
applicant, was sworn in.
Mr. Levitt said this application
is for two variances: building height and building coverage.
In answer to questions from Mr.
Levitt, Mr. Rude stated they purchased the property in September of 2007 and
intended to make the lake view from the master suite more appealing by opening
it up and adding windows. We retained Mr. Bias to make the architectural
changes. He pointed out several suspect issues with the building, and
recommended we remove the drywall to see what was behind it. We did that and
it was Mr. Bias’s opinion that we should speak with the Roxbury officials for
opinions. There are a lot of structural issues and water damage. The building
appears to be below grade on the street side and there is a lot of rot. We
came up with a plan to make the house safe and change some of the layouts to
make it more appealing. It is our intention to move into the house as our
primary residence.
Ms. Robortaccio asked if this is
going to be a teardown.
Mr. Levitt said I believe that is
what we are recommending, to go from the foundation up.
Mr. Stern said there is an issue
here because there are nonconforming setbacks. If you take it down to the
foundation and rebuild, it would require a variance and that would have to be
re-noticed.
Mr. Levitt said we have discussed
that, and there are jurisdictional issues.
Mr. Bias said when we first went
in there and removed some of the sheetrock, I immediately asked that the
Building Inspector come out and look at it. He saw the various structural
conditions that were in there and there are some concerns. We also spoke with
the Zoning Officer. We told him the problems and wanted him to come and look
at it. He did not feel that was necessary because the Building Inspector had
been there. We have no intentions of going beyond the limitations of the
existing footprint. The Zoning Officer said that would not be a problem. He
said if we maintain the setbacks for the second floor he had no problem with
the application. We filled out the paper work.
Mr. Wiener said based on the
letter from the Zoning Officer, I feel the applicant will have to re-notice for
the variances that will be required.
Mr. Levitt asked what the Board
considers a total knock-down.
Ms. Robortaccio said this is
considered a knock-down.
Mr. Bias said if it is just a
matter of re-noticing, we have no problem, but our intentions were made clear
to Mr. McDonnell and Mr. Stern from the first.
Mr. Rude said he doesn’t
understand why the initial denial didn’t include this.
Mr. Stern said right now, the
drawings before us don’t give any indication of it being torn down to the
foundation.
The application as carried to
4/14/08. The applicant is required to re-notice for that hearing.
There was a 5 minute recess.
ZBA-07-33 – MOUNTAIN LANDSCAPING – USE AND SITE PLAN FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON LANDING RD., BLOCK 9601, LOT 5 IN LI/OR ZONE
Attorney
Larry Kron represented the applicant. He stated the applicant appeared before
the Board on January 14th. At that time, Mr. Hathaway testified to
the existing conditions on the site and the cleanup work that has been done and
the general proposal. Since then, we have submitted revised site plans dated
2/5/08, a survey and topo, a colorized landscape rendering, environmental
report concerning the presence or absence of wetlands, and a planning report by
Mr. Snyder, and a report from the Health Department. We are undergoing now a
Phase I EIS and a septic and well inspection. Today we will deal with the use
variance. The applicant has met and spoken with all the neighbors and some of
them are here.
George
Gloede, engineer for the applicant, stepped forward. He described the
revisions to the plans:
§
Relocated
the southern entrance driveway
§
Moved curb
line 10 feet off property line
§
Created a
buffer between the curb and property line
§
Handicap
spaces will have a handicap ramp going to the back entrance of the house
§
Closed off
driveway at the northern entrance to Lot 4 with curbing. Pavement will be
removed and restored back to grass
§
Existing
shed will be moved to the back for fertilizer storage.
§
Front shed
will be for dry seed storage
§
Existing
site had about 48.4% impervious cover. We are reducing it to 33.7% That is
from areas of gravel, etc. that will be restored to grass. The ordinance
allows a maximum of 50%.
§
Removing
the driveway to the existing house
§
We show a
delineation along the driveway showing boulders at 2 foot intervals to prevent
vehicles from going in between them
§
Sight line
of 425 feet is shown
§
Widened
radii on the entrance
§
Showed
location of on-site lighting and signage
Mr.
Wiener asked if any design waivers or variances have been eliminated.
Mr.
Gloede stated I believe we have eliminated a design waiver by pulling the
driveway 10 feet off the property line. We also lessened the intensity of it.
Ms.
Dargel asked if there is screening proposed for the area behind the existing
sheds where the tank is.
Mr.
Gloede said we can propose something there.
Mr.
Wetzel asked if the pool in the back will stay.
Mr.
Gloede said it is intended to stay at this time.
Mr.
Hathaway stated we intend to improve the landscape and to put in a water garden
there using the pool outline. The pool deck would be a variety of hardscape
ideas. It is nice to have a visual tool to show our employees to describe to
customers.
Mr.
Wetzel asked what will be stored in the tank.
Mr.
Hathaway said it is liquid nitrogen, non-phosphoric fertilizer.
PUBLIC
PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Gloede
Glenn
Bott, property owner of 284 North Frontage Road, Lot 7, was sworn in. He
stated the property is a rental property. In answer to questions from Mr.
Kron, he said he has spoken to Mr. Hathaway and has seen the plans. I like the
fact that there will be a lot of landscaping there. Some of my concerns were
relieved. The lighting will be down lighting. New Jersey has to inspect the
chemicals on the property. I understand the hours of operation will be regular
hours, except during snow days.
Mr.
Wetzel asked if Mr. Bott has gotten feedback from his tenants.
Mr.
Bott said yes. I phoned them and asked them if they had any concerns and to
call Mr. Hathaway’s office. The tenants had no concerns. One of my tenants
works for the Town and said she did not want to meet with them, and if it
really bothered her she would move. She didn’t seem too concerned. I feel
there could be other uses of the property that could be less desirable.
Mr.
Stern asked if Mr. Bott is familiar with the zoning of the property and is
aware it does not allow outdoor storage or outdoor contractor yards.
Mr.
Bott said you could also put a big building on it. I would rather have
landscaping around than a big building. I understand that even if it were a
site plan, those issues would be addressed.
Mr.
Wiener said any use before the Planning Board would require landscaping and
aesthetic improvements.
Mr.
Bott said it is a big improvement over the auto body that was there when he
purchased the property.
Mr.
Wetzel asked if Mr. Bott has any concerns that have not yet been addressed.
Mr.
Bott said no. I like the fact that there will be a berm and bushes that will
help screen the property.
Mr.
Stern asked if Mr. Bott is familiar with the height of the berm.
Mr.
Bott said he understands it will be 2 feet high.
Ms.
Dargel asked Mr. Kron what facts or knowledge was presented to the witness that
go to the application vs. the fact that Mr. Hathaway told him things.
Mr.
Kron said we will have testimony on those matters. Mr. Hathaway will have
testimony on what happens when it snows. The planner will testify as to what can
be used on the site under the zone.
Ms.
Dargel said she asked what facts or knowledge this witness brings to this
application other than what she heard from Mr. Hathaway.
Mr.
Wiener said presumably he was brought as a witness on behalf of the application.
Mr.
Kron said one of the requirements under the Land Use Law is that we have to
show negative criteria. We are showing that we have other neighbors who have
looked at the project and are satisfied with what we are doing. I object to
the Board trying to cross-examine.
Ms.
Robortaccio said usually the residents come forward as part of the public.
Mr.
Wiener said Mr. Kron has the right to call a fact witness and the Board has a
right to cross examine to make sure the witness understands what is going on.
Mr.
Kron asked what was there before Mr. Hathaway came there.
Mr.
Bott said there were a lot of cars and engines, etc. and it spilled over into
my property. It looks better already just being cleaned up. I did look at the
site plans and the color renditions of the proposed plantings.
Ms.
Robortaccio asked if it is fair to say that Mr. Bott would not be impacted on a
daily basis because he doesn’t live there.
Mr.
Bott said it does impact me because it is my property. It would not affect my
daily living.
Mr.
Grossman asked Mr. Bott if he has any future plans for the rear portion of his
property.
Mr.
Bott said probably not. I have no plans at this point.
Mr.
Kron called Dwayne Galate.
Dwayne
Galate, 210 Landing Rd., owner of Lot 4, was sworn in. In answer to questions
from Mr. Kron, Mr. Galate said he met with Mr. Hathaway to discuss the project
and he answered my questions. I have no problem with the project. I know how
hard it is to get property anywhere. Our contractors are being pushed out of
town. I think he is doing a good job with the place. I had concerns with the
entrance driveway. The people in there now are leaving, and I may put an
office of some kind in there. I am concerned that he is not running a truck
stop there. It has to be clean and neat. He will be adding trees and
shrubberies. He addressed all the concerns I had. I think it can work hand in
hand with what I’m doing. I think he is a reasonable man.
Ms.
Dargel asked what business is there now.
Mr.
Galate said he is not here to discuss his property. He has no renters. He is
contemplating having an office type use or medical office at some point.
Mr.
Wiener asked Mr. Galate his opinion, as the owner of Lot 4, of this applicant’s
proposal.
Mr.
Galate said he saw the site plans, expressed his concerns and future plans for
an immediate care center or office to Mr. Hathaway. My mind is at ease that
he will take care of my concerns.
Mr.
Stern said Mr. Galate’s property is labeled as commercial. Was it commercial
when you bought it?
Mr.
Galate said it was a residence.
Mr.
Stern asked Mr. Gloede how he made the assessment that it was commercial.
Mr.
Gloede said he looked at the use.
PUBLIC
PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Galate.
No
one stepped forward.
PUBLIC
PORTION CLOSED
Orlando
Chaparro, 280 Landing Road, was sworn in.
In answer to questions from Mr.
Kron, Mr. Chaparro stated he owns Lot 6. It is a residence. He said he has
spoken to Mr. Hathaway, and he has no problem with the proposal. His ideas are
good, and they are nice people.
Mr. D’Amato asked Mr. Chaparro if
Mr. Hathaway has shown him what is on the site plan.
Mr. Chaparro said yes, and he
thinks it’s an improvement over what was before. He has owned his property for
about 6 years.
Ms. Dargel asked if Mr. Chaparro
works for Mr. Hathaway.
Mr. Chaparro said no.
Mr. Stern asked if Mr. Chaparro
has a private well.
Mr. Chaparro said yes.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for
questions of Mr. Chaparro.
Mr. Kron asked Mr. Hathaway if he
contacted the two tenants on Lot 7.
Mr. Hathaway said he spoke to
Joyce Goldenberg and asked if she had felt any impact from the proposal
regarding lights, noise, and inconsiderate operation of machinery. She stated
she did not feel it was an imposition. She did not state whether it was better
or worse than what was there before. I also spoke to Julie Torlucci, and she
has stated she does not have a problem. She is a tenant and said if she has a
problem she will leave. She stated she might have a problem if there are
back-up alarms. I reassured her we would put switches on the trucks to disarm
them when they are on the property.
Mr. Kron asked if Mr. Hathaway
spoke with Mr. Runyon from Lot 1.
Mr. Hathaway said one of his
employees spoke with Mr. Runyon.
Mr. Kron asked Mr. Hathaway if he
kept a log during the recent snows of February 12, 21, 26 and 29th.
Mr. Hathaway said he did.
The log, dated 3/10/08, was
submitted to the Board members (marked A-17).
Mr. Hathaway went over the log of
snow removal events. He said he has been plowing snow for 19 years under
Mountain Landscapes. This is widely typical of snow removal operations.
Mr. Data said to clarify the
reloading, how many reloads are there?
Mr. Hathaway said one load is usually enough to cover all the properties that
truck is responsible for. Sometimes the first few places that get done need to
be salted again. Sometimes if it snows all day, we are coming in and out.
Mr. Wetzel asked how many trucks
are typically run.
Mr. Hathaway said we have
contracts for 3 salters, and I do subcontract others. I believe we plow with 6
of our own vehicles. The subcontractors don’t come to the site.
Mr. Wetzel asked what percent of
the vehicles do a reload.
Mr. Hathaway said only the salt
trucks.
Ms. Robortaccio said regarding
parking, there are 16 trucks and 10 trailers. There are 12 parking spaces.
When I went by tonight, there were trucks everywhere. Where do you intend to
accommodate all these vehicles?
Mr. Hathaway said most of the
trucks go home. There are significantly less than 16 trucks on the property.
Our method of parking is trailers behind the trucks, and I believe the 12
spaces are there for 12 trucks overnight. The remainder go home at night. We
did not annotate separate spaces for the trailers.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for
questions of Mr. Hathaway.
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Kron asked if Mr. Hathaway
spoke with Mrs. Gigantelli of Lot 8.
Mr. Hathaway said he did speak
with her and her son. She represented that all previous tenants on the
property had resulted in an aggravated occupancy and that people had made
promises that were not followed through on. She felt her best course of action
was to offer opposition to anyone coming in on the property. She had a lot of
concerns about the birds and animals, etc. and the impact of outside storage.
She felt any development of the property would be a problem.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
Frank Gigantelli, representing
his mother, stepped forward. He said he was there when Mr. Hathaway came. My
mother is 86 years old. Didn’t she say she didn’t oppose anything down there,
and that she did oppose the landscaping business because of the noise factor,
the smoke, etc. Mr. Runyon was also there. You also told us that Mr. Runyon
was in favor of it, and Mr. Runyon is here and had to leave, and he opposes it.
Mr. Kron objected to Mr.
Gigantelli stating Mr. Runyon’s opinion.
Mr. Hathaway said that is not
what Mrs. Gigantelli said. She said she would oppose anything there.
Eric Snyder, planner for the
applicant, was sworn in. He described the project, stating the application is
to operate a landscaping and snow plow business on property in the LI/OR Zone.
The property has been substantially cleaned up from the previous uses. This is
a use variance application and we are required to discuss special reasons. The
two special reasons that apply are to provide appropriate uses on appropriate
sites; and aesthetics and creative design. This property is zoned for office and
light industry. It is not unusual for zoning to meet some, but not all of the
objectives. This is a 3 acre lot in a 5 acre zone. It is difficult to get to.
The rationale behind zoning it LI/OR is that it is close to major highways and
away from residential neighborhoods. The homes surrounding the site are in the
LI/OR zone and still have the right to continue occupancy as pre-existing
nonconforming uses. We don’t intend to have an unreasonable effect on them.
We are doing our best to make sure no one is motivated to move out. We believe
this use is better than some other uses that are permitted under the code.
Mr. Snyder handed out copies of a
synopsis, supplemental to his report (A-18). He stated the use is less
intense than would be permitted with a lot area variance. The zone permits an
FAR of .25, impervious coverage maximum of 50%, and office buildings up to 4
stories. With that in mind, you could wind up with a maximum 33,469 sq. ft.
building. That would require 167 parking spaces. That would be 50,205 sq.
ft. A three story building of 11,100 sq. ft. would be permitted. That would
yield 92 jobs, with 92 traffic trips in and out in addition to deliveries and
clients, meetings, etc. The parking areas would be well lighted. Also, with
the impervious coverage, stormwater would be less able to infiltrate and
recharge the aquifer even with a substantial measure of on-site retention per
the newly adopted stormwater regulations. With this proposal for a variance,
there is a significantly greater amount of control by the municipality as there
are conditions the Board can set. There will be impact. Interstate Route 80
runs right by this site. People living in the area don’t want to be
disturbed. The statute requires that we show there will be no substantial
negative impact. Under the code, having zoned all of these residences into
nonconformity, it is the Township’s objective to have them change over to
conforming uses. We aren’t suggesting that they should go away. We are doing
our best with this application to accommodate them with a use that is
significantly less intense than you could otherwise construct.
Mr. Snyder said Mr. Hathaway has
spent a great deal of time and energy cleaning up the site and making it more
attractive. It will have an environmental benefit by removal of impervious
coverage. There will be less of an issue of stormwater. There will be greater
recharge and less disturbance. It will be a significant benefit to the
township and the neighborhood. I would conclude this lot is particularly
suited to the use. It is consistent with the Master Plan.
Mr. Hansen asked if Mr. Snyder
took into account that the property is not served by sanitary sewer and served
by septic system.
Mr. Snyder said that is another
plus, because this relatively low intensity use can better be served by a
septic system than would be the case for an office.
Mr. Hansen said under Exhibit
A-18, the numbers may not be able to be achieved under a practical site plan,
under the current wastewater management plan.
Ms. Robortaccio asked if the well
would be able to support a 33,000 sq. ft. building.
Mr. Hansen said the well would
have to be tested.
Mr. Snyder said that also would
merit an application like ours.
Mr. Data said if there were an office
building there, you could put in a smaller building than what is permitted in
the zone.
Mr. Wiener said the Planning
Board and the Governing Body have made a determination as to their vision of
use for this property. It is not this use. Should the Board grant this
variance, it will have an impact of the future development of the out-parcel,
as well as the residential uses. Could a case be made for combining some of
the properties and come up with a 5 acre lot that would be conforming?
Mr. Snyder said if the town had
indicated that it is an area for redevelopment, I would say that could be
true. I didn’t see that in the Master Plan. Given the current circumstances,
it doesn’t appear to be something that was explicitly set forth.
Ms. Robortaccio said if you were
only allowed to build a 16,000 sq. ft. building, that would cut down on the
parking requirement.
Mr. Stern said the parking
requirement is 1 space per 250 sq. ft. The zone also allows other uses that
are contained within the building and don’t have exterior storage. Those would
be lower employee generators, low parking standards, fully contained within the
structure. Have you looked at those scenarios, regarding parking and septics,
etc.?
Mr. Snyder said there has been
some discussion on alternative septics. DEP has been advocating them, which
allow for 90% reduction in most of the pathogens and nutrients in septic
effluent. As such, a significantly greater size could be supported with a
significantly lesser impact. Looking at lesser impact generating sites, the
numbers used through COAH can go down as low as .8 jobs per 1,000 sq. ft. for a
warehouse use. There would be significantly fewer employees. With a warehouse
use, there would be greater tractor trailer traffic, which this use would have
very little, if any. There would be a different site configuration, with
loading docks; more pavement. Even if there were a warehouse use, the impact
would be greater than the applicant’s proposal.
Ms. Robortaccio asked the
rationale for this to be zoned LI/OR.
Mr. Stern said a key concern was
to eliminate outdoor storage. That was ultimately done. These uses aren’t the
most visually attractive types of uses. Outdoor storage uses tend to grow over
time. With all the activity occurring outdoors, and the equipment and
materials being exposed to the elements, there was concern about potential
environmental impacts. Outdoor storage uses are prohibited in the LI/OR zone.
In 2005 the goals and objectives were confirmed for that zoning district.
Mr. Kron asked Mr. Stern if he
would agree, since this is a use variance, the Board is entitled to attach many
conditions which would eliminate their concerns.
Mr. Stern said those conditions
can, to some extent, protect how things are done on the property, but when you
have that magnitude of conditions, it could be a Board’s interpretation that
with that many conditions, it’s a use that shouldn’t be there.
Mr. Snyder said we feel we have
addressed the concerns – that you don’t want it to be aesthetically
unappealing; the former junkyard, auto body shop and parts place that was on
the site had a negative environmental impact; my client’s vehicles are well
maintained, because if not, he goes broke; he won’t have hydraulic fluids, oil,
etc. draining out of the vehicles. When the issue was first raised regarding
snow plows, the applicant proposed constructing a pole barn to put the
materials inside, which is now part of the proposal. The applicant is
sensitive to the reasons behind the LI/OR zoning.
Mr. Kron said Mr. Stern’s report,
Item 5.6, contains detailed restrictions on the use, mostly about the outside
storage. Wouldn’t you say that with those restrictions, it would basically
eliminate the concerns, and that it is an enforcement issue if not followed?
Ms. Robortaccio said the Board
will make their own conclusions. She asked Mr. Stern if it is a form of spot
zoning if we were to allow this use there?
Mr. Stern stated I could see it
affecting adjoining properties in this case. I don’t consider it spot zoning.
I consider it a use variance that if left unchecked, and untreated could have
some serious impacts. In those zones where outdoor storage is permitted
(equipment and vehicles) those operations could only occur behind the building.
Mr. Snyder said regarding the
list of concerns in Item 5.6, those restrictions are already agreed to by the
applicant. The issue before the Board is whether or not we have properly
addressed the impact of the use in the context of your zoning in the geographic
location, such that the impact is mitigated to a reasonable extent.
Mr. Stern said as shown on the
drawings, I don’t feel the proposal achieves that at this point. The screening
provided on the drawings is inaccurate. One of the goals is to get as much
material as possible in the structure. Very little structure is provided. At
this point, I don’t believe the drawings satisfy some of the goals of buffering
and screening.
Mr. Hathaway said we will
continue to refine the application.
Mr. Kron asked if we agree to the
comments, and revisions are made in accordance with the report, would that
satisfy those concerns?
Ms. Robortaccio said we haven’t
gotten to that point yet.
Mr. Data said the site has been
an eyesore for over 20 years. Generally, at this point in the hearings, I like
the idea of the landscaping business, and I trust you would keep up with the
site. I believe it would be hard to put another business in there with one
entrance and one exit in the same area. The storage issue needs to be
addressed. This is a business where you don’t have a lot of in and out
activity.
PULBIC PORTION OPENED for
questions of Mr. Snyder.
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
The application was carried to
5/12/08.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 9:45 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi, Secretary
lm/