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, Sebastian D’Amato, Ed
Data, John Wetzel, Ken Grossman.
ABSENT: Barbara Kinback.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:
Larry Wiener, Russell Stern.
Ms. Robortaccio stated this is
Ms. DeMasi’s last meeting as Zoning Board Secretary and thanked her.
Minutes of 5/12/08
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Grossman, yes; Mr.
Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION ON ANNUAL ZONING
REPORT
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP
ANNUAL ZONING REPORT FOR 2007
WHEREAS,
NJSA 40:55D-70.1 of the Municipal Land Use Law requires the Zoning Board of
Adjustment at least once a year to review its decisions on applications and
appeals for variances and prepare and adopt by resolution a report of its
findings on zoning ordinance provisions which were the subject of variance
requests and its recommendations for zoning ordinance amendment or revision, if
any;
WHEREAS, said
stature requires the Board of Adjustment to send copies of the report and the
within resolution to the Governing Body and Planning Board;
THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that the attached annual zoning report for 2007 together with the
attached computerized chart of applications be and is hereby designated as the
annual zoning report for 2007 in conformance with said statute;
BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, that after discussion and analysis by the Zoning Board of
Adjustment, the Zoning Board of Adjustment has no specific recommendations to
make for the Governing Body and/or Planning Board at this particular time.
Mr. Crowley made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Data seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley,
yes; Mr. Data, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr.
Data, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Grossman, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-0014 – LOWER BERKSHIRE VALLEY METHODIST CHURCH – VARIANCE FOR SIGN LOCATED ON BERKSHIRE VALLEY RD.
BLOCK 13002, LOT 1 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:
- Larry
I. Kron, Esquire represented the applicant.
- The
applicant is a protestant house of worship located on Berkshire Valley
Road.
- Brian
Finnegan, a member of the congregation and the project manager for the
church testified at the public hearing.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 4/16/08 from Joseph McDonnell, the
Zoning Officer.
- The
applicant submitted a copy of a rendering for the new handicap ramp, which
was constructed (this resulted in the need to re-do the existing sign) at
the premises. The plan was prepared by Michael E. Byrne, architect, dated
11/9/05.
- The
proposed new sign was depicted on an exhibit attached to the application.
The top part of the sign would indicate the name of the religious
organization, i.e., Lower Berkshire Valley United Methodist Church and the bottom portion of the sign would indicate the time and date of services and the
name of the pastor.
- The
middle portion of the sign would be changeable copy presumably to give
messages such as the topic of the weekly sermon at the next service.
- As
noted by the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer, the applicant’s proposal
results in the need for two (2) variances. The maximum permitted sign
size is 24 sq. ft., the applicant’s proposal is approximately 38 sq. ft. –
it would consist of an approximate 6’x6’ sign parallel to Berkshire Valley
Road with a small 20”x30” base that would also be part of the sign (the
area of the service time and pastor’s name), thus the approximately size
being 38 sq. ft. The second area of relief is that the sign ordinance
does not permit interchangeable letters.
- The
sign would be internally illuminated.
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 religious use to be an inherently beneficial use that
serves the needs of certain members of the community.
- The
requested sign relief is a minor deviation from the zoning ordinance and
the proposed sign is actually an aesthetic improvement over the prior
existing V-shaped sign. There is only a minimal increase in sign size
noting this is only a one (1) sided sign.
- The
proposed changeable text is consistent with the need for a religious
institution to exercise its right to spread its religious message. The
governmental interest here is clearly outweighed by the need to advance
the first amendment rights of the applicant.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
conditions: Roxbury on the 12 th day of May 2008 , that the approval of the
within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Sign
to be sized and located as depicted on the exhibits attached to the
application. Same is to be internally illuminated. Sign shall not exceed
a total dimension of approximately 38 sq. ft. as described by the
applicant.
- Sign
to be field inspected by the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer after same is
erected to ensure the internal illumination does not pose a hazard or
nuisance to adjoining properties and/or vehicular traffic.
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. Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms.
Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-11 – KIMBERLY BROWN
– VARIANCE FOR BASKETBALL COURT LOCATED ON SUNNYSIDE DRIVE, BLOCK 2406, LOT 1 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: May 12, 20008
Memorialized: June 9, 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 construct a 20’x25’ macadam basketball court.
- Applicants
received a letter of denial dated 10/15/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the
Zoning Officer.
- The
lawn portion of the basketball court would be parallel to Canfield Avenue.
- After
discussion with the Board, the applicants agreed that the post and
backboard including the hoop would be located on the southerly portion of
the proposed basketball court. Same would be located approximately in the
middle of the 20’ dimension closest to the house and parallel to Sunnyside Drive. Both the Board and the applicant agreed that placing the basketball court
in this position as opposed to the other end of the court would lessen the
likelihood of creating a nuisance for the adjoining property owner to the
north.
- It
is noted the applicant’s property is a corner lot and thus is encumbered
with two front yards. The actual front yard is Sunnyside Drive and, while
Canfield Avenue is a front yard for zoning purposes, it is a de facto
side yard for the applicant.
- As
noted by the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer, the applicant’s proposal for
a basketball court violates Section 13-7.1301.B.6 as being a non-customary
accessory use in a front yard and, in addition, the front yard setback is
required to be 35’ and the applicant’s proposal is at 5’.
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 that there are several factors unique to the subject
property. It is a corner lot and the “frontage” on Canfield is actually a
“real world” side yard. In addition, the property immediately to the
north of the applicant is a another corner lot (Canfield and First Street)
and the portion of that property that is affected by this proposal is that
owner’s rear yard noting the closest improvement on Lot 2 to the applicant
is a shed and a nearby swimming pool.
- The
basketball court is no more intrusive than, if the applicant had simply
constructed same as additional off-street parking, noting no impervious
coverage relief was required.
- The
basketball court, in and of itself, will provide a normal amenity, which
is similar to many small basketball courts located on driveways in the
Township. It will provide an opportunity for recreation and outdoor
activity for the residence of the home.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
conditions: Roxbury on the 12th day of May, 2008
that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the
following conditions:
- Basketball
court to be sized and located as depicted on the application. Same to be
no more than 20’x25’ as requested.
- The
basketball hoop shall be located along the 20’ dimension furthest from Lot 2 (the southerly side of the basketball court).
- There
shall be only one (1) post and basketball hoop located on the property.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Giardina seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Ms.
Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-13 – JAI – QUALITY
INN – VARIANCE FOR SIGN LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9603, LOT 9 IN B-2 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:
- Larry I. Kron, Esquire
represented the applicant.
- The applicant is the
operator of a motel formerly known as the Days Inn (and formerly known as
the Holiday Inn) and now known as the “Quality Inn”.
- The hotel is located on
Route 46 westbound approximately a half mile east of the municipal
building.
- The applicant is requesting
to replace the existing sign with a new signage package.
- Applicant received a letter
of denial dated 3/20/08 from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.
- As originally proposed, the
applicant would be seeking a variance for a façade sign - that request was
withdrawn by the applicant.
- As a result of the
withdrawal, the only issue before the Board is a modification to the
existing site plan.
- The applicant’s proposal
was depicted on a one-sheet drawing prepared by Michael E. Byrne,
architect, dated 3/13/08. Mr. Byrne’s plans depicted the new sign
package, and in particular, the new freestanding pylon sign.
- The new sign would be
approximately 20’ high, 12’ wide at its top portion and then tapering off
to 8’ wide on the middle section and going to approximately 8’-8” wide at
its pedestal.
- Mr. Byrne’s plans depicted
a computer-simulated photo of what the actual sign would look like.
- The proposed freestanding
sign replaces and updates the former freestanding sign on-site. As noted
by the municipal planner, Russell Stern, the proposed sign was a
significant aesthetic upgrade from the prior sign, which had become very
outdated and “tired”.
- It was also noted that the
Zoning Code Enforcement Officer was unsure as to whether the proposed
sign, which incorporated both the Quality Inn and the component restaurant
(Rossi’s), was one or two signs. The Board takes note that, during the
history of this site, there has always been a component restaurant both
with the Holiday Inn and the Days Inn with its own incorporated signage on
the main pylon sign.
- The applicant also
requested an opportunity to post a temporary sign while the new sign was
being fabricated and installed.
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 is essentially a simple application to modify an
existing site plan. The façade sign will comply with the zoning ordinance
and the proposed “re-do” of the pylon sign is a much better and improved version
of what formerly existed.
- The Board also finds, if a
variance is needed for two signs, that same is clearly warranted. There
are two synergistic uses at this motel and clearly the sign is an
effective way of communicating the fact that there are two uses and will
alert the traveling public that the Quality Inn also includes Rossi’s
which is the restaurant lounge and catering facility for the motel.
- The Board finds a temporary
signage with the conditions noted below is warranted in assisting this business
owner in transitioning from the Days Inn to the Quality Inn and will also
provide a safety factor for the motoring public looking for this facility
during the change over.
- There will be no adverse
impact as a result of granting this relief and, as noted by the township
planner, this is a step towards improving and modernizing this facility
that was beginning to look and feel “tired”.
- The relief granted merely
is an upgraded version of what was previously on-site.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
conditions: Roxbury on the 12 th day of May, 2008 that the
approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the
following conditions:
- Façade signage is to
conform to the zoning ordinance.
- Applicant shall be
permitted to construct a proposed sign as depicted on the Byrne design
plan, dated 3/13/08. Same to be sized and located as shown on said plans.
- The Zoning Code Enforcement
Officer shall have the right to field inspect the sign after installation
to make sure that the illumination of the sign conforms to township
ordinance and does not pose a nuisance or hazard to vehicular traffic.
- Applicant shall be
permitted to place temporary signage on the building façade in the
location and not exceeding the dimensions of its proposed wall signs,
on-site during the transition period, but no more than 60 days or upon the
construction of the pylon sign, whichever shall occur first.
- The Board delegates the
review of the temporary sign to the township planner. The idea being that
the temporary sign shall be somewhat aesthetic notwithstanding the fact
that it is temporary and shall be in keeping with the intent of the sign
ordinance.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr.
Wetzel seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr.
Data, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-017 – MERRY HEART
NURSING HOME – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON RT. 10/MAIN ST./HILLSIDE
AVE., BLOCK 5201, LOT 9, 12, 13 IN PO/R ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved:
May 12, 2008
Memorialized: June 9, 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:
- Paul Nusbaum, Esquire
represented the applicant.
- The applicant is the
operator of a comprehensive health care facility located on the corner of Hillside Avenue and Route 10 West.
- The applicant has
previously received use variance approval from the Zoning Board as well as
phased site plan approval.
- The instant application is
for final site plan approval for Phase I and Phase II of the application,
which would also include some minor amendments to the approved plans.
- Prior to the public
hearing, the Board received the following documents:
Prepared
by Chester, Ploussas, Lisowsky Partnership, LLC
·
Final Site Plan Phases I and II,
23 sheets, dated 5/1/08
·
Comparison Letter, dated 5/7/08
Prepared
by Wilkinson & Associates of PA Inc.
·
Partial As-Built Survey, sheet 1
of 1, revised 5/1/08
- Prior to the public
hearing, the Board received reports from Russell Stern, Township Planner,
dated 5/9/08, John Hansen, Board Engineer, dated 5/1/08, updated 5/8/02,
and Michael Kobylarz, Township Engineer, dated 5/8/08.
- The Board conducted a
public hearing on 5/12/08. The applicant offered the testimony of its
professional engineer, Thomas T. McGrath. Mr. McGrath had previously
authored a comparison letter dated 5/7/08 which letter had been submitted
to the Board. The applicant also indicated that it was willing to comply
with the outstanding request of the township professional staff (same to
be discussed in detail below).
- As noted in the township
planner’s report, the open items were essentially broken down to safety
issues for the site; issues affecting the nursing home; issues affecting
the assisted living facility; and overall site issues.
- The applicant was not
presently seeking to occupy the “historic building” and was seeking the
final steps to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy for the assisted living
facility.
- The applicant’s engineer
reviewed the outstanding reports of Messrs. Stern, Hansen, and Kobylarz
and agreed to comply with same. The applicant requested deferring some of
the issues mostly affecting the historic building until such time as that
building would be ready for occupancy.
WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning
Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:
- The applicant’s proposal
implements the use variance and preliminary approvals previously granted.
The Board reiterates and re-affirms its findings in connection with the
grant of the prior relief both as to the positive and negative criteria.
- The applicant’s proposal
was one more step in making this a fully integrated and functional site in
accordance with the Board’s prior approval.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
conditions: Roxbury on the 12th day of May,
2008 that the approval of the within application
be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Subject to the review
and/or approval of all other governmental agencies with joint and/or
concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter of the within application.
- Subject to all conditions
of prior approval not expressly changed, modified, or deleted in this
resolution.
- All of the following items
set forth in Mr. Stern’s report under safety shall be completed prior to
the issuance of a temporary Certificate of Occupancy:
- Applicant shall install
decorative metal fencing along the raised port cochere paver patio, water
feature, retaining wall, and detention basin.
- Applicant shall have
decorative fencing installed for the paver patio to the south of the
Route 10 port cochere for safety.
- Applicant shall install
traffic signs, pavement markings, parking stall striping, and handicap
striping and signage.
- Applicant shall provide
fire zone striping and signage. Pursuant to the Fire Official, fire zone
pavement striping is not needed to the rear of the parking stalls and the
patient drop-off located between the two buildings.
- Applicant shall confirm
that the site is adequately illuminated pursuant to the approved plans.
- Applicant shall install
emergency building lights as specified on the approved lighting plans or
provide sign-off from the Construction Department. Same shall be reviewed
and approved by the Construction Department.
- Applicant shall install a
wall-mounted ‘SC’ light along the northerly elevation (facing nursing
home) or provide confirmation that equivalent illumination is provided by
the 4 installed canopy lights.
- Applicant shall install a
handicap ramp to access the two northwesterly assisted living handicap
spaces.
- Applicant shall cordon off
the active waterfall construction activity from the general public.
- The following items may be
bonded for with the understanding same will be completed within 45 days:
- Applicant shall install
the paver sidewalk and handicap ramp to the historic home (Main Street elevation).
- Applicant shall complete
the installation of the paver sidewalk accessing the o rear entrance to
the historic home.
- Applicant shall install
fire zone signs and pavement markings.
- Applicant shall complete
pavement top course.
- Applicant shall complete
enclosure of nursing home porch per amended preliminary site plan
approval.
- Applicant shall install a
decorative metal fence per plans to enclose the paver patio and install a
fence section by the nursing home generator pad to complete containment of
the area.
- Applicant shall complete
landscaping between Main Street and paver patio and provide a Zelkova street tree near the firehouse property line and another Norway Spruce and shrubs to
screen the existing residence across the street.
- Applicant shall topsoil,
fine grade, and sod as required.
- Applicant shall install
Entrance ‘C’ sign at the Main Street driveway.
- Applicant shall remove all
debris on-site.
- The Board grants the
deviations from the original plans provided decorative railing is provided
along the raised paver patio to the south of the port cochere.
- Applicant shall complete
painting of the port cochere.
- Applicant shall provide
railing on the Route 10 port cochere as depicted on the architectural
drawings.
- Applicant shall install
covered porch decorative brackets along the Main Street elevation.
- Applicant shall complete
decorative architectural brackets on the building bump-outs.
- Applicant shall install a
decorative metal fence as specified on the drawings and repair/replace
existing damaged fence.
- Applicant shall install
fire zone signs and pavement markings.
- Applicant shall complete
pavement top course, pavement markings, and parking stall striping.
- Applicant shall mill and
pave the common drive between the nursing home and the assisted living.
- Applicant shall install
traffic signs.
- Applicant shall complete
installation of irrigation system.
- Applicant shall complete
installation of landscaping.
- Applicant shall stake,
mulch trees, and remove plant tags.
- Applicant shall topsoil,
fine grade, and sod as required.
- Applicant shall fill
excavations.
- Applicant shall properly
connect assisted living building downspouts to underground drainage
system.
- Applicant shall remove silt
fence.
- Applicant shall replace
cracked sidewalk at the Main Street/Hillside Avenue intersection handicap
ramp and the easterly driveway (easterly side) handicap ramp along Main Street.
- Applicant shall lower the Main Street gas valve to grade (located by the fire hydrant).
- Applicant shall lower the
concrete light foundations to specification and/or grade same to reduce
exposure of the concrete light foundations.
- Applicant shall
repair/replace Route 10 curb and curb at former driveway.
- Previously erected Route 10
traffic signs shall be reinstalled per the direction of NJDOT, including
but not limited to:
- “Hillside Avenue” street
sign (located on the ground near Route 10).
- “No Stopping or Standing”
and “West 10” signs along Route 10 (located on the ground along Route
10).
- Applicant shall complete
handicap ramp at the historic building.
- Applicant shall install a
detention basin gate across from Route 10.
- Applicant shall install
decorative block veneer at the detention basin outlet structure per the
approved plans.
- Applicant shall eliminate
wood mulch within the detention basin and modify planting bed limits and
sod former area or provide decorative stone mulch (river jacks).
- Applicant shall install
guide rail by the service area.
- Applicant shall install
washed decorative stone at the service area.
- Applicant shall install a
safety fence by service/trash area.
- Applicant shall install a
trash enclosure gate.
- The Board grants the
applicant’s request to delete the arbor for the trash enclosure.
- The Board grants the
applicant’s request for a waiver for tree grates on the Porte cochere
area.
- Applicant shall paint trash
enclosure and Route 10 transformer bollards to match window and door color
finish.
- Applicant shall install
benches and trash/ash containers
- Applicant shall complete
installation of waterfall feature and all associated improvements
including retaining walls, seating walls, paver walks and patio, drainage,
fencing, gate, landscaping, etc.
- Applicant shall the
complete installation of the paver walk leading to the historic home.
- Applicant shall complete
construction of the historic home handicap ramp.
- Applicant shall reset
and/or re-grade the bollard lights to consistent heights.
- Applicant shall verify
filing of drainage easement to the Township.
- Applicant shall remove
debris and dumpsters.
- To reiterate as noted
above, the applicant shall comply with all prior conditions including but
not limited to the following:
- Payment of all fees
including Mandatory Development Fee (Mt. Laurel).
- Update As-Built Survey at
completion of project.
- Applicant shall comply
with all outstanding conditions of amended preliminary site plan approval
as addressed in Resolution Compliance Reports prepared by the Board’s
professionals.
- 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.
- Morris County Soil
Conservation District re-certification is required.
- Morris County Planning
Board approval is required.
- In addition, the applicant
shall comply with the following open items as noted in Mr. Kobylarz’s
report of 5/8/08 noting some of them may be duplicative of the items noted
by Mr. Stern:
- Incomplete signage
- Incomplete striping
- Incomplete trash enclosure
gates
- Incomplete decorative
safety rails
- Incomplete basin area
sodding
- Incomplete top coating of
drive and milling to existing drive
- Handicap parking/fire hose
connection location
- Incomplete cracked
sidewalk at 2 locations
- Incomplete 2nd
decorative wall
- Incomplete fountain
construction
- Incomplete ramp to house
- Incomplete driveway repair
(low trench)
- Landscaping ongoing
- Incomplete decorative
stone (matching) outflow structure
- Incomplete paver patio and
walkway to house
- Applicant shall also comply
with the following notations from John E. Hansen, the Board’s Professional
Engineer:
- Applicant shall install
top course paving and striping.
- Applicant shall complete
the construction of the patio, walkways, and fountain on the north side
of the structure.
- Applicant shall install
all signage including the Route 10 signs that have been temporarily
removed for construction.
- Applicant shall complete
curbing along Route 10.
- Applicant shall complete
fencing surrounding the detention basin.
- Applicant shall complete
all landscaping and same shall be reviewed and approved by the Township
Planner.
- A night lighting test
shall be performed to ensure lighting levels and shielding are in accordance
with the approved plans.
- Applicant shall complete
the grade around the light pole footings in accordance with the approved
detail.
- Applicant shall install
safety railings along the top of the retaining walls.
- Applicant shall clean
drainage inlets of sediment and debris and the interior of the drainage
inlets shall be finished in accordance with the approved detail.
- Final grading, topsoil,
and stabilization of the site must be performed.
- Applicant shall remove all
debris piles and material piles from the site.
- Applicant shall complete
the Main Street pavement repair in accordance with the requirements of
the Township Engineer. Same shall be reviewed and approved by the
Township Engineer.
- Applicant shall connect
the downspouts and leader drains on the staff home to the storm sewer
system.
- Upon completion of
construction, the applicant shall update the final “as built”.
- All operational conditions
shall be carried to the Final Site Plan resolution.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr. Crowley
seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr.
Data, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-12 – OMNIPOINT –
VARIANCE FOR ANTENNA ON EXISTING TOWER LOCATED ON PLEASANT HILL RD. BLOCK 501, LOT 3 IN R-1 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved:
May 12, 2008
Memorialized: June 9, 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:
- Richard
L. Schneider, Esquire represented the applicant.
- The
applicant is a FCC licensed provider of wireless telecommunications.
- The
subject property encompasses 7.15 acres located in the RR-5 Rural
Residential District. The site is developed with a single-family dwelling
and accessory building. A 285’ wide New Jersey Power & Light Company
Easement (JCP&L) as well as a 50’ wide gas pipeline right-of-way
traverses the property perpendicular to Pleasant Hill Road. The JCP&L
easement contains overhead electric transmission lines and a 140’ tall
lattice tower.
- Surrounding
land is residentially developed with the R-3 District located to the north
and the RR-5 District (minimum 5 acre lot size) located to the south, east
and west.
- A
“d” variance is necessary from Section 13-7.19A01 of the RR-5 Rural
Residence District as wireless telecommunication (WT) technology is not a permitted
or conditional use allowed in the zone.
- Prior
to the public hearing, the Board received the following documents:
Prepared by Pennoni Associates, Inc.
·
Sheet C-0001, Cover Sheet, revised
11/16/07
·
Sheet C-0002, General Notes and
Zoning Information revised 11/16/07
·
Sheet C-0101, Site Plan, revised
11/16/07
·
Sheet C-0102, Elevation Views
& Partial Site Plan, revised 11/16/07
·
Sheet C-0103, Antenna Details,
revised 11/16/07
·
Sheet C-0104, Construction
Details-1, revised 11/16/07
·
Sheet C-0105, Equipment Compound
Layout, Construction Details-2, revised 11/16/07
·
Environmental Impact Statement,
dated 3/19/07
Prepared by Archie Dickson
for Omnipoint Communications
·
Proposed Radio Frequency Coverage
Report, dated 8/8/07
Pinnacle Telecom Group
·
RF Compliance Assessment and
Report, dated 7/31/07
T.K. Design Associates
·
Visual Analysis, dated 3/4/07
- Prior
to the public hearing, the Board received reports from Russell Stern,
Township Planner, dated 5/8/08 and John Hansen, Board Engineer, dated
5/8/08.
- The
public hearing was conducted on 5/12/08 and the applicant put six (6)
exhibits in evidence:
- A-1
- a base map and overlay
- A-2
– view from 71 Pleasant Hill Road
- A-3
– view from 4 Catan Drive
- A-4
– view from 63 Pleasant Hill Road
- A5
– view from 65 Pleasant Hill Road
(Exhibits A-2 through A-5 were photo simulations
showing the proposed antennae array)
- A-6
– an aerial photo
- The
applicant’s first witness was its radio frequency engineer, Archie
Dickson. Mr. Dickson’s testimony is centered around exhibit A-1. Mr.
Dickson identified a significant gap of the Omnipoint wireless
telecommunication network in and around the proposed site. Mr. Dickson
identified this as an area that had a poor level of wireless telephone
service. Mr. Dickson gave an overview of the surrounding network and how
this particular gap fit into the network. He then utilized the overlay to
demonstrate that, if the site were implemented, a significant portion of
the gap in coverage would now be covered and there would be an acceptable
and reasonable level of Omnipoint wireless communication service. He
noted that the existing JCP&L tower, which is approximately 140’ high,
would be re-utilized by this applicant. The existing tower is a lattice
type tower with four essentially rectangular sides; albeit, sloping in
shape. Each of the four sides would have an array of two antennae (8
antennae in all) and the array would be located between 118’ and 120.25’
The antennae would be essentially flush mounted to each side and there
would be cabling running along two of the legs of the tower down to the
equipment cabinet which would be located within a dedicated compound at
the bottom of the tower.
- The
applicant’s next witness was Mark Nadell. Mr. Nadell is a radio frequency
expert. Mr. Nadell, affiliated with Pinnacle Telecom Group, made
reference to a report issued on 7/31/07 by Daniel J. Collins, the chief
technical officer at Pinnacle. He noted the proposed site would be fully
in compliance with all FCC and State of New Jersey regulations regarding
wireless telecommunication facilities and the emissions therefrom.
- The
applicant’s third witness was its site engineer, Todd M. Hay. Mr. Hay is
affiliated with Pennoni Associates, Inc. and was the author of the site
plan submission to the Board. Mr. Hay reviewed the reports of both Mr.
Stern and Mr. Hansen. He described and reiterated the site, the features
and topography of the site, the existing infrastructure and the attempts
the applicant would make to mitigate or ameliorate the impact of the
site. He noted the tower was an existing structure and the antennae array
would be located approximately 20’ from the top of the existing tower. He
also noted that the equipment compound be 20’ x 22’ and accessed via a 65’
driveway. The compound would consist of three equipment cabinets and
contain a 6’ high fence. The equipment cabinets would be located on a
concrete pad of approximately 4’ x 20’. Mr. Hay stated the applicant was
constrained and some attempts to ameliorate the visual impact on the site
by the rules and requirements of Jersey Central Power & Light
(JCP&L) which owned the tower and the easement on which the tower and
the proposed equipment facility would be located. He did offer and opine
that a composite type fence would be suggested for the compound in lieu of
a chain link fence and that attempts would be made to get consent from
JCP&L to implement a landscape buffer plan. In addition, he noted the
proximity of Lot 4 and noted the applicant would be seeking permission
from the owner of Lot 4 to implement some landscaping or buffering on that
site should the owner of that property be willing.
- The
applicant’s final witness was its professional planner, Chris Neville.
Mr. Neville reviewed the pertinent New Jersey cases affecting wireless
communication facilities and also reviewed the Township Ordinance.
- He
noted that the applicant was a provider of wireless telecommunication
facility and, therefore, provided a benefit to the public. He also noted
the Township did permit wireless communication facilities in certain
zones. However, there was no conforming zone within any reasonable
distance of the gap in the applicant’s coverage that could accommodate a
wireless telecommunication facility that would cover the gap. The planner
also noted the case of Smart SMR vs. Fairlawn Bd. of Adj.
152NJ309(1998) and Sica vs. the Bd. of Adj. of Tp. of Wall
127NJ152(1992) as being cases that set forth the standards for a Zoning
Board in granting or denying these types of variances. He noted, in
particular, that the applicant had established it was a licensed FCC
wireless carrier and that there was a significant gap in the applicant’s
service area. The applicant established that there was no conforming
location in which to locate a wireless communication facility and concomitantly
established that the proposed facility would “cover the gap” in coverage.
He then went on to do a Sica analysis noting and reciting from the
holding in Sica “in balancing positive and negative criteria in
determining whether to grant use variance for inherently beneficial use,
municipal board should identify public interest at stake, identify
detrimental effect that will ensue from grant of variance, and in some
cases reduce detrimental effect by imposing reasonable conditions on use,
and board should determine on the balance whether grant of variance would
cause substantial detriment to public good”.
- The
planner then reviewed the photo simulations A-2 through A-5 copies of
which had been submitted with the application as well as a Morris County aerial photo marked A-6. These photo simulations showed a depiction of what
the antennae would look like from various residential homes near the
proposed wireless telecommunication facility. The planner opined that
the applicant had met its burden with regard to the case law and was more
than willing to accept reasonable conditions of approval to ameliorate the
negative impact including but not limited to painting the new antennae and
cables on the tower the same color as the tower, seeking permission to put
a composite fence around the compound, and a willingness to enhance the
landscaping. The planner further noted that this is an existing facility
and an existing tower and this provided the applicant with the alternative
of reutilizing existing infrastructure as opposed to the alternative,
which would be the creation of a new tower, which would have much more
impact in a residential zone. He noted all of these homes had been
constructed and were located along the existing high-tension distribution
system of Jersey Central Power & Light.
- During
the course of the hearing, several members of the public were concerned
about the visual impact. Most of the concern centered around whatever
attempts could be made to deal with the equipment compound, which would be
located at the base of the tower.
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 that the testimony of the applicant’s planner was credible and
on point. The case of Smart SMR and Sica clearly are
applicable to the within application. The applicant has established that
it is impossible to fill the gap in its network by locating a wireless
telecommunication facility in a conforming zone. Therefore, the
applicant’s choice of an existing 140’ high tower is probably optimal
under the circumstance, and while not conforming to the township Wireless
Communication Ordinance as to the location of the site, it does conform
with the intent and spirit of the ordinance in that the applicant is
re-utilizing an existing structure.
- The
applicant’s proposed antennae and equipment compound may certainly have a
visual impact on surrounding properties, however, that impact is clearly
dwarfed by the mass and size of the existing high tension tower. As noted
in the photo simulations, the antennae are certainly of a minimal impact
and the equipment compound, itself, will have a much lower level of
visibility than the tower. It is hoped, as noted below, that the
applicant will be able to implement the various means of attenuating the
visual impact of the equipment compound as set forth below and as
testified to during the application.
- The
Board finds and reiterates that there will be no substantial impact on
adjoining properties or on the zone plan by the implementation and
construction of this wireless telecommunication facility. The Board is
certainly sympathetic to the neighbors concerns, but finds that any impact
will clearly be minimal.
- The
applicant’s proposed site plan is hereby approved as a minor site plan.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
conditions: Roxbury on the 12th day of May,
2008 that the approval of the within application
be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Subject
to the review and approval of all other governmental agencies with joint
and/or concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter of the within
application.
- Compliance
with all applicable FCC and New Jersey rules concerning wireless radio
frequency emissions.
- The
antennae brackets, equipment cabinets, and cabling associated with the
antennae, and the antennas themselves, shall be painted to match the color
of the existing tower.
- The
applicant shall request of Jersey Central Power & Light that the
fencing around the compound be a “timber tech” composite type fence. In
addition, the applicant shall request of Jersey Central Power & Light
the landscaping plan approvals so as to ameliorate and buffer the
compound. Applicant shall provide proof to the Township Planner and to
the Board that a bonafide attempt has been made with the landlord,
JCP&L, to implement these conditions of approval.
- Electric
service to the compound shall be underground electric service.
- The
title of the site plan set shall be changed to minor site plan.
- Applicant
shall identify the permitted hours of construction on the plans and same
shall be by the Township ordinance.
- Routine
maintenance of the wireless telecommunication facility shall be 7:00 AM to
7:00 PM. Plans shall be modified to include same.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Wetzel seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Giardino, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms.
Robortaccio, yes.
AGENDA
ZBA-08-015 – JIM &
MARIA BACCARO – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE TO ADD POOL AND PATIO ON
PROPERTY LOCATED ON FOX CHASE LANE, BLOCK 9202, LOT 4.08 IN R-2.5 ZONE
Jim and Maria Baccaro were sworn
in.
Mr. Baccaro said they want to put
in an above ground pool. We had one previously, and found we were over on our
coverage when we put on an addition and would like to get the pool back now.
We are also adding a 12 x 12 patio.
Ms. Dargel asked where the
entrance is to the patio.
Mr. Baccaro said it is at the back
door of the garage so that the dogs don’t track in dirt in the house or on the
deck.
Ms. Dargel asked how far from the
deck the pool will be.
Mr. Stern said the ordinance
states a pool has to be at least 10 feet from the foundation of the dwelling.
Mr. Baccaro stated the patio will
be at ground level. The deck is 66” above the ground. The railing will be 34
inches above the pool, and the pool is a 54” pool.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Dargel asked about the
aluminum shed.
Mr. Baccaro said it is not on our
property. I have one partial shed on the property, but it will be taken down.
Ms. Dargel asked if there is a
shed on the property.
Mr. Baccaro said there is one in
pieces, and it will be taken down.
Mr. Data made a motion to approve
the pool and patio and remove the shed. Mr. Giardina seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Data, yes;
Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley,
yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-19 – MARC &
JANET BASKINGER – VARIANCE FOR POOL, APRON AND FENCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON FOX CHASE LANE, BLOCK 9202, LOT 4.08 IN R 1.5 ON W
Mr. Wiener stepped down and Mr.
Lovas sat in for Mr. Wiener.
Attorney Edward Dunne represented
the applicant. He stated he is happy to be here to celebrate Dolores’ last
night with the Board and that when he was first the prosecutor for Roxbury in
1976, Ms. DeMasi was working for the Court.
Janet Baskinger was sworn in.
Mr. Dunne stated this is a
difficult application. The Baskingers purchased the property in 2001 and put
in a pool and filled in the backyard. They got all the appropriate permits. The
applicant had hand drawn documents that showed the pool on the property. No
one hired a surveyor and the pool was not staked by anyone, and it wasn’t
required. Part of the pool ended up being on property owned by the State
between the Route 80 right-of-way and this property line. We believe Green Acres
may have control over the property as it is zoned OS. We will be pursuing the
ability to leave at least the retaining wall and the fence back there. We are
seeking a C-1 variance to permit the pool to be located as it is currently
located, about one or two feet off the property line and not have to be
relocated. We are also asking that the fence be considered to be sufficient
safety for the pool. We would agree that if it has to be removed we will
install it along the property line.
Ms. Robortaccio asked if the Board
can approve a fence on State property.
Mr. Dunne said he is asking that
the Board require us to put it along the property line unless the State allows
us to leave it where it is. We will proceed with the State to try to get a
license agreement from them.
Mr. Lovas asked if the fence goes
along the retaining wall.
Mr. Dunne said yes.
Discussion.
Mr. Stern asked if the applicant
will seek approvals from the State for the fence and wall.
Mr. Dunne said yes, and we will
ask for a 90 day timeline.
Ms. Baskinger stated she acquired
the property in 2001. When they bought the house, the back yard was on a steep
grade. The dip in the topography started right after the patio.
Mr. Dunne showed photos (marked
A-1) of the property.
Maps marked A-2 and A-3 were
submitted. A-2 showed where the pool was supposed to be, and that map was
given to the town at the time of the permits. The pool could not be to the
left of the house because of a JCP&L easement.
Ms. Baskinger said when she
submitted A-2, it was not approved. We then submitted A-3. After we got the
zoning permit for the pool, we received a soil moving permit and built the
pool. Town officials were there while the pool was being built, and we did get
a construction permit. We then used the pool in 2004 thru 2007 without
complaint from anyone.
Mr. Dunne asked why the pool was
not built in the far rear corner.
Ms. Baskinger said it was
apparent we would have to put in a lot of soil. At the time we put in the
pool we didn’t know where the property line was.
Ms. Baskinger described the
photos on Exhibit A-1.
Mr. Dunne stated the patio is to
remain where it is, and the pool is to remain where it is. The only variance
is for the location of the pool almost to the property line.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Lovas suggested the
application should be placed on the docket in 90 days to discuss the
determination made by the State.
Discussion.
Ms. Dargel suggested carrying the
application for 90 days until a determination is made.
Mr. Dunne stated they would like
the approval tonight and will return when they have a determination from the State.
Mr. Wetzel made a motion to
approve the application for the pool variance with the proviso that the State
will confirm that the fence can stay on their property. If not, the fence will
have to be moved onto the property. The pool equipment and shed will be moved
accordingly. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Wetzel,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley,
yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-018 – VALIANTE &
SONS – APPLICATION FOR GARAGE LOCATED ON CULVER RD. BLOCK 11411, LOT 2 IN R-3 ZONE
Mr. Lovas stepped down, and Mr. Wiener
returned.
Michael P. Flynn, owner of the
property and Tom Valiante, contractor for the owner, were sworn in. Mr.
Valiante stated Mr. Flynn would like to construct an 18’ x 26’ garage to house
one car and a lawn mower. The current driveway is on a slope, and they have
had problems with ice.
Ms. Dargel stated the Zoning Officer’s
report says the applicant should clarify the garage height.
Mr. Valiante said it will be 13’ 5/8”
from finished grade to the top of the ridge.
Mr. Valiante submitted an exhibit
A-1 showing the height. From grade to the eve would be 7’ 8”.
Ms. Dargel asked if the garage
will be put into the hill.
Mr. Flynn said yes.
Mr. Stern asked if the driveway
will be extended to the garage.
Mr. Flynn said yes, but we had a
concern about impervious coverage.
Mr. Stern said Mr. McDonnell
calculated out that if the driveway were extended, the coverage would be 29.6%.
Mr. Flynn said he would prefer
asphalt but would agree to other surface. The shed on the property will be
removed.
After discussion, it was
determined the asphalt surface is acceptable and will be the same width as the
existing driveway.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application and the asphalt extension of the driveway to bring the
impervious coverage to 29.6%. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Giardina,
yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-20 – KEN JACOBSEN –
VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL GARAGE LOCATED ON EMMANS RD. BLOCK 5503, LOT 3 IN R-1
ZONE
Ken Jacobsen was sworn in.
Charles Bautz was sworn in.
Mr. Jacobsen stated there is an
existing garage which is already within the sideyard setback. We want to
increase the size of the garage and will make it match the existing house. The
garage was built many years ago. We constructed a new house since then and
would like to put a brick façade on the garage to match the existing
structure. There are no modifications planned to the house. We are just
looking for an extension on the accessory building only. There will be no
breezeway or connection between the two buildings.
Mr. Bautz stated variances are
necessary for sideyard setback (existing), height by 3.9’; and accessory garage
setback to dwelling; and number of accessory structures. The applicant wants
to put on the addition for storage of cars and equipment. We also want to put
a door in the back of the garage.
Ms. Dargel said the drawing shows
steps. Is the garage a single story or two?
Mr. Jacobsen said it is a two
story garage with the second story for storage. There are no windows on the
second story.
Ms. Dargel asked what the frame
garage to the rear is used for.
Mr. Bautz said there is no
driveway for access to that garage. It is used for storage of lawn furniture
and boat trailers. Nothing is stored outside.
Ms. Dargel asked where the 7 cars
are kept.
Mr. Jacobsen said there is a 2
car garage attached to the house; there is a 2 car garage with one door; and
there is a detached garage. There is shed in the back (shown as a frame garage
on the survey) for storage of the boat trailers.
Mr. Bautz stated that building is
for storage. None of the uses on site are proposed to be commercial. They have
been residents here for 25 years. The garage is for their automobiles.
Photos of the site were submitted
by the applicant (A-1 thru A-5).
Ms. Dargel asked the height of
the rear garage.
Mr. Jacobsen said it is 20 feet
to the peak. It is a barn. There is no water or plumbing in the accessory
structures. There is electricity.
Mr. Jacobsen stated the depth proposed
for the 3 car garage is needed because I can’t fit my 3 cars in the first
garage that is attached to the house. I also want to put some lawn equipment
there as well.
Ms. Dargel said we need
clarification on the height.
Mr. Stern said a variance is
required.
Mr. Jacobsen stated because of
the roofline of the existing house, we couldn’t make it meet the height
variance. The façade will be the same bricks, same slate.
Mr. Stern stated the applicant
would have to get applicable outside agency approvals as this is located in the
Highlands Preservation Area.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the application as the property is large and making the garage larger
is not a problem, and making it match the house will enhance the property. There
is to be no living quarters in the new garage or existing garage - electric
only. Approval is conditioned on approval from the Highlands Council if
applicable, and all other outside agencies. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley,
yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
ZBA-08-16 – MARIO TOLEDO –
VARIANCE FOR IN-GROUND POOL IN FRONT YARD LOCATED ON SUNSET TERRACE, BLOCK
2103, LOT 1 IN R-4 ZONE
Victor Guevara and Mario Toledo
were sworn in.
Mr. Guevara stated he is the son-in-law
of the applicant and lives on the property and is also an interpreter for Mr.
Toledo.
Mr. Guevara said when we moved in
3 years ago there was an above ground pool but it wasn’t useable. We tore it
down and we want to put in an in-ground pool. The application we submitted was
denied. We have two front yards and have to meet the setback requirements.
Mr. Stern said the variance is
for a pool within the front yard setback. There is also an issue of a fence
within the sight triangle.
Ms. Robortaccio said there are no
hedges existing. They have been removed.
Mr. Guevara said we removed the
hedges because there was poison ivy. We will be putting in a 4’ fence as
required by ordinance. It will be an open chain link fence with a self
latching gate.
Mr. Data asked if there will be
stone or patio around the pool.
Mr. Guevara said it will have a
walkway around the pool.
Ms. Dargel asked why they
wouldn’t put the pool in the side yard.
Mr. Guevara said he thought it
would be good to have it where the prior pool was, and it would be closer to
the neighbor on the sideyard.
Ms. Robortaccio asked if there
would be a patio.
Mr. Guevara said there will be
stone all the way around from the 4’ gate to the backyard. That is where the
patio will start up to the pool.
Mr. Wiener said they have to
comply with the 35% coverage. They have not applied for a variance for
impervious coverage.
Mr. Stern said the variance is
for the pool in the front yard. The drawings need to be detailed. This is
located at an intersection, and there will be people right in view of the
intersection. There will be no privacy. Would the Board consider suggesting
landscaping that is outside the sight triangle?
Discussion.
It was determined the applicant
will meet with Mr. Stern and Mr. McDonnell to revise their drawings to show
more specific details of the patio and landscaping, etc.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
Phil Byrne, 11 Sunset Terrace,
was sworn in. He said we wonder why the pool isn’t going in the back yard.
Mr. Guevara stated it was because
that is where the other pool was.
Ms. Dargel said it would create
two variances for setback to the house and side yard setback.
Mr. Byrne said he would think it
should be in the back because of privacy.
Anthony Lauro, 11 Sunset Terrace,
was sworn in. He said he is up at 4 in the morning. We hear everything. It
was ok when the hedge was there. I would suggest a wall of trees or some kind
of buffer for noise.
No one else stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
The application was carried to
7/14/08, no further notice required
.
DISCUSSION ON KINGTOWN
DIESEL
Mr. Stern said as part of the
approval for Kingtown, they were pushing for an outdoor contractor’s yard. The
Board said we wanted it enclosed with a solid fence and they would come back to
the Board to put the use in. Now they would like to eliminate the
contractor’s yard and not put in a fence. They will topsoil and seed that
area. There will be landscaping along the embankment. I think this is a good
proposal. I am asking for the Board’s consent to allow that. It eliminates a
use that is nonconforming.
The Board members agreed.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 9:10 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi, Secretary
lm/