View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

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

 

In the matter of Lower Berkshire Valley United Methodist Church

Case No. ZBA-08-14

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

                                                                                                Approved:   May 12, 2008

                                                                                       Memorialized:     June 9, 2008

 

                WHEREAS, Lower Berkshire Valley United Methodist Church has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a sign requiring sign variances for premises located at Berkshire Valley Road and known as Block 13002, Lot 1 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-8.915.E & 13-8.909.C of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. Larry I. Kron, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is a protestant house of worship located on Berkshire Valley Road.
  3. Brian Finnegan, a member of the congregation and the project manager for the church testified at the public hearing.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 4/16/08 from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.
  5. 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.
  6. 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. 
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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:

  1. The Board finds the religious use to be an inherently beneficial use that serves the needs of certain members of the community.
  2. 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. 
  3. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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

 

In the matter of Kimberly & Russell Brown

Case No. ZBA-08-11

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

                                                                                         Approved:  May 12, 20008

                                                                                    Memorialized:   June 9, 2008

 

 

                WHEREAS, Kimberly & Russell Brown have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a basketball court in a front yard setback area for premises located at Sunnyside Drive and known as Block 2406, Lot 1 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301.B.6 & 13-7.1301.D.4 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicants were proposing to construct a 20’x25’ macadam basketball court.
  3. Applicants received a letter of denial dated 10/15/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.
  4. The lawn portion of the basketball court would be parallel to Canfield Avenue.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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:

  1. Basketball court to be sized and located as depicted on the application.  Same to be no more than 20’x25’ as requested.
  2. The basketball hoop shall be located along the 20’ dimension furthest from Lot 2 (the southerly side of the basketball court). 
  3. 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

 

In the matter of JAI Laxminarayan, LLC (Quality Inn)

Case No. ZBA-08-13

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

 

                                                                                                Approved:  May 12, 2008

                                                                                Memorialized:  June 9, 2008

 

 

                WHEREAS, JAI Laxminarayan, LLC (Quality Inn) have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to modify an existing site plan for premises located at 1691 Route 46 and known as Block 9603, Lot 9 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-2.603  & 13-8.905.D of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. Larry I. Kron, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. 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”.
  3. The hotel is located on Route 46 westbound approximately a half mile east of the municipal building.
  4. The applicant is requesting to replace the existing sign with a new signage package.
  5. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 3/20/08 from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.
  6. As originally proposed, the applicant would be seeking a variance for a façade sign - that request was withdrawn by the applicant.
  7. As a result of the withdrawal, the only issue before the Board is a modification to the existing site plan.
  8. 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. 
  9. 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.
  10. Mr. Byrne’s plans depicted a computer-simulated photo of what the actual sign would look like.
  11. 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”.
  12. 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.
  13. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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”.
  5. 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:

  1. Façade signage is to conform to the zoning ordinance.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

 

In the matter of Merry Heart Nursing Home

Case No. ZBA-08-017

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

                                                                                                 Approved:  May 12, 2008

                                                                   Memorialized:  June 9, 2008

 

                WHEREAS, Merry Heart Nursing Home has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for final site plan approval of Phase I and Phase II for premises located at Hillside Avenue & Route 10 and known as Block 5201, Lots 9, 12, & 13 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “PO/R” Zone; said proposal is pursuant to the site plan requirements of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. Paul Nusbaum, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is the operator of a comprehensive health care facility located on the corner of Hillside Avenue and Route 10 West. 
  3. The applicant has previously received use variance approval from the Zoning Board as well as phased site plan approval.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. 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.   
  4. 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.
  5. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. Subject to all conditions of prior approval not expressly changed, modified, or deleted in this resolution.
  3. 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:
    1. Applicant shall install decorative metal fencing along the raised port cochere paver patio, water feature, retaining wall, and detention basin.
    2. Applicant shall have decorative fencing installed for the paver patio to the south of the Route 10 port cochere for safety.
    3. Applicant shall install traffic signs, pavement markings, parking stall striping, and handicap striping and signage.
    4. 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.
    5. Applicant shall confirm that the site is adequately illuminated pursuant to the approved plans.
    6.  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.
    7. 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.
    8. Applicant shall install a handicap ramp to access the two northwesterly assisted living handicap spaces.
    9. Applicant shall cordon off the active waterfall construction activity from the general public.
  4. The following items may be bonded for with the understanding same will be completed within 45 days:
    1. Applicant shall install the paver sidewalk and handicap ramp to the historic home (Main Street elevation).
    2. Applicant shall complete the installation of the paver sidewalk accessing the o rear entrance to the historic home.
  5. Applicant shall install fire zone signs and pavement markings.
  6. Applicant shall complete pavement top course.
  7. Applicant shall complete enclosure of nursing home porch per amended preliminary site plan approval.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Applicant shall topsoil, fine grade, and sod as required.
  11. Applicant shall install Entrance ‘C’ sign at the Main Street driveway.
  12.  Applicant shall remove all debris on-site.
  13. 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. 
  14.  Applicant shall complete painting of the port cochere.
  15. Applicant shall provide railing on the Route 10 port cochere as depicted on the architectural drawings.
  16. Applicant shall install covered porch decorative brackets along the Main Street elevation.
  17. Applicant shall complete decorative architectural brackets on the building bump-outs.
  18. Applicant shall install a decorative metal fence as specified on the drawings and repair/replace existing damaged fence.
  19. Applicant shall install fire zone signs and pavement markings.
  20. Applicant shall complete pavement top course, pavement markings, and parking stall striping.
  21. Applicant shall mill and pave the common drive between the nursing home and the assisted living.
  22. Applicant shall install traffic signs.
  23. Applicant shall complete installation of irrigation system.
  24. Applicant shall complete installation of landscaping.
  25. Applicant shall stake, mulch trees, and remove plant tags.
  26. Applicant shall topsoil, fine grade, and sod as required.
  27. Applicant shall fill excavations.
  28. Applicant shall properly connect assisted living building downspouts to underground drainage system.
  29. Applicant shall remove silt fence.
  30. 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.
  31. Applicant shall lower the Main Street gas valve to grade (located by the fire hydrant).
  32. Applicant shall lower the concrete light foundations to specification and/or grade same to reduce exposure of the concrete light foundations.
  33. Applicant shall repair/replace Route 10 curb and curb at former driveway.
  34. Previously erected Route 10 traffic signs shall be reinstalled per the direction of NJDOT, including but not limited to:
    1. “Hillside Avenue” street sign (located on the ground near Route 10).
    2. “No Stopping or Standing” and “West 10” signs along Route 10 (located on the ground along Route 10).
  35. Applicant shall complete handicap ramp at the historic building.
  36. Applicant shall install a detention basin gate across from Route 10.
  37. Applicant shall install decorative block veneer at the detention basin outlet structure per the approved plans.
  38. 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).
  39. Applicant shall install guide rail by the service area.
  40. Applicant shall install washed decorative stone at the service area.
  41. Applicant shall install a safety fence by service/trash area.
  42. Applicant shall install a trash enclosure gate.
  43. The Board grants the applicant’s request to delete the arbor for the trash enclosure. 
  44. The Board grants the applicant’s request for a waiver for tree grates on the Porte cochere area.
  45. Applicant shall paint trash enclosure and Route 10 transformer bollards to match window and door color finish.
  46. Applicant shall install benches and trash/ash containers
  47. 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.
  48. Applicant shall the complete installation of the paver walk leading to the historic home.
  49. Applicant shall complete construction of the historic home handicap ramp.
  50. Applicant shall reset and/or re-grade the bollard lights to consistent heights.
  51. Applicant shall verify filing of drainage easement to the Township.
  52. Applicant shall remove debris and dumpsters.
  53. To reiterate as noted above, the applicant shall comply with all prior conditions including but not limited to the following:
    1. Payment of all fees including Mandatory Development Fee (Mt. Laurel).
    2. Update As-Built Survey at completion of project.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Morris County Soil Conservation District re-certification is required.
    6. Morris County Planning Board approval is required.
  54. 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:
    1. Incomplete signage
    2. Incomplete striping
    3. Incomplete trash enclosure gates
    4. Incomplete decorative safety rails
    5. Incomplete basin area sodding
    6. Incomplete top coating of drive and milling to existing drive
    7. Handicap parking/fire hose connection location
    8. Incomplete cracked sidewalk at 2 locations
    9. Incomplete 2nd decorative wall
    10. Incomplete fountain construction
    11. Incomplete ramp to house
    12. Incomplete driveway repair (low trench)
    13. Landscaping ongoing
    14. Incomplete decorative stone (matching) outflow structure
    15. Incomplete paver patio and walkway to house
  55. Applicant shall also comply with the following notations from John E. Hansen, the Board’s Professional Engineer:
    1. Applicant shall install top course paving and striping.
    2. Applicant shall complete the construction of the patio, walkways, and fountain on the north side of the structure.
    3. Applicant shall install all signage including the Route 10 signs that have been temporarily removed for construction.
    4. Applicant shall complete curbing along Route 10.
    5. Applicant shall complete fencing surrounding the detention basin.
    6. Applicant shall complete all landscaping and same shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
    7. A night lighting test shall be performed to ensure lighting levels and shielding are in accordance with the approved plans.
    8. Applicant shall complete the grade around the light pole footings in accordance with the approved detail.
    9. Applicant shall install safety railings along the top of the retaining walls.
    10. 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.
    11. Final grading, topsoil, and stabilization of the site must be performed.
    12. Applicant shall remove all debris piles and material piles from the site.
    13. 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.
    14. Applicant shall connect the downspouts and leader drains on the staff home to the storm sewer system.
    15. Upon completion of construction, the applicant shall update the final “as built”.
    16. 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

 

In the matter of Omnipoint Communications, Inc.

Case No. ZBA-08-12

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

                                                                                                 Approved: May 12, 2008

                                                                                 Memorialized: June 9, 2008

 

 

                WHEREAS, Omnipoint Communications, Inc. have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a wireless telecommunication facility requiring a “d1” use variance and a “d6” height variance affecting real property located at Pleasant Hill Road and known as Block 501, Lot 3 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “RR-5” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.3511 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. Richard L. Schneider, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is a FCC licensed provider of wireless telecommunications. 
  3. 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. 
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

  1. 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.
  2. The public hearing was conducted on 5/12/08 and the applicant put six (6) exhibits in evidence:
    1. A-1 - a base map and overlay
    2. A-2 – view from 71 Pleasant Hill Road
    3. A-3 – view from 4 Catan Drive
    4. A-4 – view from 63 Pleasant Hill Road
    5. A5 – view from 65 Pleasant Hill Road

(Exhibits A-2 through A-5 were photo simulations showing the proposed antennae array)

    1. A-6 – an aerial photo
  1. 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. 
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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”.
  6. 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.
  7. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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. 
  3. 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.
  4. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. Compliance with all applicable FCC and New Jersey rules concerning wireless radio frequency emissions.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. Electric service to the compound shall be underground electric service.
  6. The title of the site plan set shall be changed to minor site plan.
  7. Applicant shall identify the permitted hours of construction on the plans and same shall be by the Township ordinance.
  8. 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/