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.
ABSENT: Mr. John Wetzel, Kenneth
Grossman.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:
Larry Wiener, Russell Stern.
Minutes of 3/10/08
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Giardina seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr.
Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
RESOLUTIONS
ZBA-08-J-7 – JOHN & LYN
KALI – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AND BUILDING COVERAGE
LOCATED ON GOLF COURSE ROAD, BLOCK 1302, LOT 32 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION
OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: March 10, 2008
Memorialized:
April 14, 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
applicants were proposing to replace an existing patio enclosure located
off the northeasterly corner of the house with a new enclosure, which
would be approximately 80 square feet larger than the existing enclosure.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated1/9/08 revised 3/10/08 from Joseph
McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.
- As
noted by the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer, the applicant’s proposal, as
originally presented, require the following relief:
- Total
impervious coverage – maximum permitted 25%, existing 40.66%, proposed
41.18%
- Total
building coverage – maximum permitted 15%, existing 20.73%, proposed
21.25%
- The
applicant’s proposed improvements were depicted on a plot plan attached to
the application. In addition, the applicant presented a set of plans prepared
by Walz Engineering, dated 1/15/08, which depicted more detail of the
proposed construction of improvements on-site.
- As
the applicant noted, his proposal would result in an additional 80 square
feet of building coverage. The Board, in reviewing the application, noted
there was an area of what appeared to be a 10’x24’ macadam section of a
former driveway on-site. This section was located behind the garage.
- After
a colloquy with the Board, the applicant agreed to remove the driveway,
which would result in bringing the proposed impervious coverage to below
the existing coverage. (A quick calculation showed approximately 0.15%
reduction in total impervious coverage.) This would more than offset the
additional building coverage.
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 (with the elimination of the 10’x24’
macadam area) to be an efficient and intelligent re-adaptation of the
existing structure. The applicant’s proposal will replace a very outmoded
portion of the existing home with a new patio enclosure. At the same
time, the total impervious coverage will be reduced.
- The
benefits to granting this variance and the elimination of the total
impervious coverage outweigh the detriment in permitting the slight
increase in building coverage.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
conditions: Roxbury on the 10th day of March, 2008 that the approval of the
within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Remove
10’x24’ existing macadam area to rear of the garage.
Mr. Crowley made a motion to
approve the resolution. Ms. Dargel seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley,
yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes;
Mr. Data, 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
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: March 10, 2008
Memorialized: April 14, 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 applicants recently
installed an in-ground swimming pool in the rear yard.
- Applicant received a letter
of denial dated 1/31/08 from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.
- In the instant application,
the applicant’s were seeking to construct a 4’ wide concrete patio around
the majority of the swimming pool with a 5’ area located at the southerly
end of the pool. The proposed improvements were depicted on a plot plan
submitted with the application.
- The applicant’s stated they
were unaware, that the way the pool was constructed, same would not be
readily adaptable for a state of the art winter safety cover. The
applicant’s noted the bolts for the cover would be best installed in
concrete. The proposed concrete “apron” around the pool would serve two
purposes. It would provide the opportunity for safe and secure bolts to
secure the safety cover plus a reasonable walkway, an amenity for the
in-ground swimming pool.
- As noted, the proposed
improvements results in raising the total impervious coverage to 30.1%
which is 5.1% over the existing and permitted maximum impervious coverage.
- The Board notes this is a
10,146 square foot lot in a zone that contemplates 15,000 square foot
lots. Had this been a conforming lot, the applicant’s proposed
improvements would not require a variance.
WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning
Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:
- The Board finds the
benefits to installing the applicant’s proposed pool deck/patio clearly
outweigh the detriment to the zoning Ordinance. The applicant’s proposal
will result in finishing off the swimming pool with a very reasonable and
modest deck and providing the opportunity for a state of the art safety
cover. The safety cover is clearly a benefit that promotes the general
welfare of the community and mitigates what would otherwise be an
attractive nuisance.
- The slight increase in
impervious coverage is more than offset by the benefits noted above. In
addition, this lot being approximately two thirds the size of a conforming
lot in the zone has a built-in hardship.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
conditions: Roxbury on the 10th day of March, 2008 that the approval of the
within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Removal of walkway as per
drawing. Maximum impervious coverage to be no more than 30.1% as
proposed. Pool decking to be sized and located as depicted on the plot
plan attached to the application.
Ms. Kinback made
a motion to approve the resolution. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr.
Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
AGENDA
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
John Tumminello was sworn in. He stated they are proposing a
one-story addition off the left side of the house. This is a corner lot and a
50 foot setback is required at the front and side. The property sits at 51
feet presently, and we propose a 13 foot addition which would encroach on the
setback. The present living room is rather tight for a growing family and
entertaining.
Ms. Robortaccio asked the dimensions of the room.
Mr. Tumminello said the existing living room is 13’ x 28’, and
we want to add on a bump-out that would be 13’ x 20’. One of the evergreen
trees will be removed. The Norway Spruce would remain. The addition wouldn’t
impact the look of the neighborhood. There is no other place on the property
where the addition could go and there is no land available to purchase to add
area.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the application. Looking
at the property, you wouldn’t even notice it the way the trees area located.
There is no issue with line of sight. Mr. Data seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Ms.
Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms.
Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-09 – WENDY WRZOS – VARIANCE FOR ROOF OVER STEPS
(FRONT YARD SETBACK) LOCATED ON CAREY RD. BLOCK 4401, LOT 3 IN R-1 ZONE
Wendy Wrzos was sworn in. She said she would like to apply
for a variance for a roof over the front step. There is currently no
overhang. The overhang won’t go past the current steps.
Ms. Wrzos submitted before-and-after photos (marked A-1 and
A-2).
Ms. Dargel said she knows Ms. Wrzos slightly, and doesn’t feel
there is any bias. The property is very deep and narrow. Is there any way you
could do anything else with this to make another entrance?
Ms. Wrzos said no, not unless she demolished the house and
moved it.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Data made a motion to approve the application. Mr.
D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Data, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms.
Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms.
Robortaccio, yes.
There was a 5 minute recess.
ZBA-07-60 – SCOTT BARBER – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON AURIEMMA CT. BLOCK 11903, LOT 9 IN R-3 ZONE
Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant. He stated
revisions to the plans have been forwarded to the Board. There was
considerable property that was not included in the original plans that were
submitted to the Board. We have done a title search, and when Mr. Barber took
title, there was a certain property that was not included that should have
been. The total lot has been increased. There have also been reductions in
impervious coverage. The ordinance permits 25% coverage, and we are proposing
26%.
Jeffrey Careaga, engineer for the applicant, stepped forward.
He said originally we had relied on a boundary survey from when Mr. Barber purchased
the property. That survey did not take into consideration that the property
actually extended out into the lake and that there was an agreement with the
neighbor so that there is actually some extra property on the side. On the
side, there was a previous lot line agreement that wasn’t on the original
survey that was closed on, which gave him extra property. Also, the original
survey showed the property line cutting through at the seawall which was not
accurate. The property actually extends about 60 to 70 feet out into the lake.
Mr. Stern stated in terms of the definition of lot area, this
is a portion of the applicant’s lot, and while the Board and myself may not
approve of it, it addresses the lot area. The overall lot area right now
includes the portion of the lot in the lake.
Mr. Careaga said if you disregard the lot area over the lake,
we would be at 35.3% coverage. We have reduced it by about 5 or 6%.
Mr. Data asked if we are to assume all the houses on the lake
can go out 50 to 60 feet?
Mr. Wiener said it depends upon title, when the lot was
created, etc.
Mr. Careaga said the total area of the property is 75,666.6
sq. ft., as opposed to the original application which was for 54,552 sq. ft.
There was also a reduction from 22,760 sq. ft. coverage to 19,700 sq. ft. The
percentage of coverage now is 26%.
Mr. Kron said we have also received a revised denial letter
from the Zoning Officer dated 4/8/08 indicating 26% coverage.
Mr. Crowley asked if a variance is required for building within
the lake buffer area.
Mr. Careaga said at this time, everything within 50 feet of
the lake will not be touched. The portion of the existing pool and concrete
patio that is within the buffer will not be touched. I would recommend us
putting silt fence around the base of the pool, but if that triggers a
variance, we will not do it.
Mr. Stern said he would recommend the note regarding
remodeling of the pool be removed from the drawings.
Mr. Careaga agreed, and said they will not be requesting that
variance.
Mr. Stern said as a result of the new survey, there is a 20
foot wide drainage easement shown on the drawings. Is that an easement to the
Township?
Mr. Careaga said he does not know.
Mr. Stern said this is a technicality to be worked out with the
Township Engineer. If it is an existing Township easement, the proposed
drywell needs to be relocated to outside the easement limits. An agreement
would have to be signed with the Township regarding the tree wells and any
landscaping in that easement. When the project is done, as-built drawings will
have to be submitted.
Mr. Wiener asked if Mr. Kron has done a title search on the
easement to determine the dominant and beneficiary.
Mr. Kron said that will be addressed.
Ms. Dargel said the report from the zoning office requires
that all present and proposed areas of bricks, concrete pavers and/or bluestone
are laid in sand.
Mr. Careaga said they are.
Mr. Stern said if the Board is inclined to approve the
application, it should be subject to a modified survey, metes and bounds,
conditions of the Lake Hopatcong Commission, relocation of the drywell outside
the easement. Should the easement be with the township, the hold harmless
engineer will be subject to approval of the Township Engineer and the Board
Attorney.
Mr. Careaga showed a Google image (marked A-1) of the
neighboring property to the right side on Auriemma Court, Lot 10. You can see
the extent of the improvements on that lot, and based on our calculations,
there is about 35% lot coverage on Lot 10. On Lot 11, based on our
calculations, we came up with about 30% lot coverage.
Eric Snyder, planner for the applicant, was sworn in. He
stated this is a somewhat unconventional situation, but it is consistent with
the Ordinance. This is a C-2 variance, where we have to show reasons that
balance between the purposes of zoning and any negative impact. Even when you
take out the area in the lake, you are in the same general area in terms of
coverage as adjacent properties. Impervious coverage calculations are imposed
for a few reasons. One is stormwater runoff. It is now necessary for
compensate for any increase in stormwater runoff with drywells, etc. The
purposes of impervious coverage also include aesthetics. Here it is even more
appropriate that this kind of improvement is proposed. The purposes of
planning and zoning talk about preservation of natural resources, providing
aesthetics that are pleasing, and overall, in planning, we talk about
consistency with the neighborhood. This is an aesthetically pleasing
approach. It is quite impressive and consistence with the adjacent property.
Insofar as negative criteria is concerned, there is no negative impact on the
neighborhood. As far as impact on the zone plan, all the stormwater rules have
been met, which means that even allowing for the dryland calculations, there is
no negative impact on the purposes of zoning. I believe the Board would be on
solid ground to approve this application.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
David Doyle, 15 Yellow Barn Avenue, was sworn in. He
confirmed that the lot line agreement happened before I owned the property.
There was a disagreement with the prior owner regarding the lot line. They
took 11 feet away from my lot and gave it over to Mr. Selengut. I agree with that
lot line agreement. I also agree that the construction of the home is gorgeous
and is an improvement to the area and the neighborhood. From an adjacent
property owner’s perspective, I would support the application.
No one else stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Data made a motion to approve the application subject the
applicant submitted an as-built survey; conditions of the Lake Hopatcong
Commission; relocation of drywell; title search to identify the dominant or
beneficiary of the stormwater easement; determination of the proposed
improvements and how they impact the easement by the Township Engineer;
confirmation as to the sand base of the pavers; verification of coverage
calculations; removal of note “existing pool to be remodeled”. Mr. Giardina
seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms.
Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-10 – MARKOVSKI LANDSCAPING – USE VARIANCE FOR
LANDSCAPING, RESIDENTIAL LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 2702, LOT 2 IN B-2 ZONE
Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant. He requested
that the application be carried to 7/14/08.
The application was carried to 7/14/08.
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. He stated at
the last hearing there was a jurisdictional matter regarding noticing which was
corrected.
Stephen Bias, architect for the applicant, stepped forward.
He gave an overview of the project, stating this is a single family lakefront
residence on King Cove. The existing structure is completely covered in red
brick and has a 1,900 sq. ft. main floor and a small second floor addition
towards the rear. At the lakeside there is a full height basement that only
occupies a small portion of the lakeside area of the home. We would like to
renovate and modify the structure and add some more floor area to the second
floor. The application doesn’t require us to go beyond the existing
foundation.
Mr. Crowley asked if they will be using the existing
foundation.
Mr. Bias stated we can only answer that once we get further
into the demolition. When I first visited the site I noticed some peculiar
conditions and wanted to find out more about the structure. Mr. and Mrs. Rude
started the removal of the interior sheetrock and some flooring, and we found
that the house is a structural mystery and is a hodgepodge of construction. It
is not a very safe structure as it exists. We then met with the building
inspector and the zoning officer. I suggest we are proposing to take the
existing structure down to the first floor platform, and if that is not level,
we hope to take it down to the block. We could properly frame a new first
floor and sub-floor. At this point, I feel the existing foundation would be
strong enough to build on.
Mr. Crowley said if you determine the foundation is not
suitable, do you have the ability to move the structure so that it would
require less variances?
Mr. Bias stated if you look at the house and how it is settled
on the property, it is slightly oriented towards the west. If we were to
remove the foundation we could bring the two primary sidelines of the house
into conformance with the 10 foot sideyard setbacks, except for the section
that is within 3.2 feet of the right hand side neighbor.
Mr. Crowley said it is his opinion that if it is determined
the foundation has to be removed, he would prefer to see the house moved or
built in such a way that it would require less variances.
Mr. Levitt said that is a point well taken.
Mr. Crowley asked what variances could be eliminated.
Mr. Bias said the left (southerly) sideyard setback variance
for the house would go away. On the right side, the setback is currently
nonconforming at 2.6 feet. If we rotate the foundation, we could propose a 5
foot setback there. If we need a new foundation, we will provide a drawing of
the proposed structure to the zoning officer for review.
Mr. Data asked how the determination is made whether or not
the foundation can support the structure.
Mr. Bias stated the brick veneer is what is causing a lot of
the damage. It is also concealing any indication of structure problems from
the outside.
Ms. Dargel questioned how the Board can approve two different
scenarios.
Mr. Stern explained that if they just receive the variance for
the small addition, and then they find out that they have to remove the
foundation, all work would have to stop until they could reschedule a meeting
with the Board. If it turns out that a teardown is required, there would be
less coverage, the setbacks would be better.
Mr. Wiener said the Board would be mandating what the setbacks
and coverage would be in the event of a tear-down.
Mr. Bias said the style of the house would be somewhat
traditional with a cedar looking siding and an average pitched roof. It would
have a cultured stone foundation and traditional windows. The general plan
would be similar to what is there. The new visual effects would bring it into
conformity with the neighborhood. Many of the homes in the area are upgrading
and renovating.
Ms. Robortaccio said the number of stories would have to be
changed on the drawings from 2 ½ to 3.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the application subject
to the following:
§
If the existing foundation is used, the right side setback will
be 2.6’ and the left side will be 7.4’ as depicted on the drawings with a maximum
building coverage of 23.74%.
§
In the event the foundation cannot be used, the house will be
moved so that the right side setback will be 5’, and the left side will be
10’. That will be done by reducing the size of the bumpout, still keeping the
building coverage less than the 23.74%.
§
In the event the foundation cannot used and the second plan is
implemented, it would require review and approval of the Township Planner and
Zoning Officer.
§
As-built plan with coverages calculated and setbacks dimensioned
prior to C.O.
§
Applicant agrees to the typical conditions from the Lake
Hopatcong Commission.
Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr.
Data, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms.
Robortaccio, yes.
The meeting was adjourned by motion at 9:00 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi, Secretary
lm/