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

A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment 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, Edward Data, Joyce Dargel, Peter Giardina, Barbara Kinback, Sebastian D’Amato, John Wetzel, Kenneth Grossman.  Mark Crowley arrived at 7:40 p.m.

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener, Russell Stern.  Mr. Hansen arrived at 8:00 

 

Minutes 4/14/08

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Discussion.  Changes noted and made.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

ZBA-08-05 – JOHN & LORI TUMMINELLO – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION OVER GARAGE WITH A FRONT YARD SETBACK LOCATED ON EZRA RD., BLOCK 11704, LOT 25 IN R-2 ZONE

 

In the matter of Lori & John Tumminello

Case No. ZBA-08-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

                                                                                                                Approved:  April 14, 2008

                                                                                                      Memorialized:  May 12, 2008

 

                WHEREAS, Lori & John Tumminello have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring a front yard setback variance for premises located at 5 Ezra Road and known as Block 11704, Lot 25 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1101.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 add an addition onto the existing home.
  3. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 12/7/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.
  4. The applicant’s proposal results in a 37.1’ setback to Jeffrey Road – 50’ is required.
  5. As noted, the subject premises are a corner lot.  The front entrance to the home is oriented towards Ezra Road.  A second front yard is on Jeffrey Road, the northerly side of the home is orientated towards Jeffrey Road.
  6. The applicant submitted a Preliminary Plans map prepared by Joseph Gates, architect, dated 12/12/07 as well as a set of photos depicting the location of the area of the improvements.
  7. The Board notes, if this were not a corner lot, no variance would be needed.

                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 property does have a built-in hardship.  It is a corner lot with two front yards.  However, this particular home is clearly orientated with a front yard facing Ezra Road.  The Jeffrey Road “front” is a side yard.  The applicant’s proposal is well buffered and will have no impact on any adjoining property.  The benefits to granting this variance clearly outweigh any detriment.  Maintaining the Jeffrey Road setback at 50’ would merely achieve a mechanical adherence to the Zoning Ordinance.  In this particular instance, there is no benefit in not granting the variance or any harm to any adjoining property. 
  2. The grant of this variance will also enable the applicants to do an intelligent and thoughtful re-adaptation of the existing home.  The Gates plan is a well thought out architectural enhancement of the subject premises.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of conditions: Roxbury on the  14th day of  April, 2008 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Addition to be sized, located, and depicted on the Gates architectural plans.  All materials shall be blended so, at the end of construction, there will be one integrated structure.
  2. Front yard to Jeffrey Road to be no less than 37.1’ as proposed.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. Kinback seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

ZBA-8-09 – WENDY WRZOS – VARIANCE FOR ROOF OVER STEPS (FRONT YARD SETBACK) LOCATED ON CAREY RD. BLOCK 4401, LOT 3 IN R-1 ZONE

 

In the matter of Wendy Wzros

Case No. ZBA-08-09

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

                                                                                                                Approved:  April 14, 2008

                                                                                                      Memorialized:  May 12, 2008

 

                WHEREAS, Wendy Wzros has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring front yard setback relief for premises located at Carey Road and known as Block 4401, Lot 3 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-1” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1001.D4 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 applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicant was proposing to construct an “overhang” above the existing front stoop.
  3. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 11/28/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.
  4. The applicant presented plans, which essentially depicted the front of the applicant’s house with (A-1) and without (A-2) the proposed front overhang.
  5. The applicant’s proposal results in a front yard setback of 21’ instead of the required 50’.  It is noted the existing front yard setback is at 21’ and is non-conforming.
  6. The applicant submitted a plot plan showing the location of the existing site conditions as well as the proposed overhang.
  7. The applicant stated the overhang would provide an aesthetic upgrade to a rather tired “front” elevation and would provide the home with some curb appeal will not really intrude any further into the front yard.

                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 location of the existing infrastructure on-site constitutes a hardship peculiar to the premises.  The existing home was built in the front portion of the subject lot and almost the entire home is within the front yard setback area.
  2. The proposed relief is de minimis and will have absolutely no impact on the zone plan and zone scheme.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of conditions: Roxbury on the 14th day of  April 2008 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Overhang to be constructed as depicted over the front porch.   Same to be no closer than 21’ to the front yard setback.

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

ZBA-08-06 – RICHARD RUDE – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AND 3 STORIES LOCATED ON KING. RD., BLOCK 11912, LOT 4 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Richard Rude & Kathleen Rude

Case No. ZBA-08-06

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

                                                                                                Approved:  April 14, 2008

                                                                      Memorialized:   May 12, 2008

 

                WHEREAS, Richard Rude & Kathleen Rude have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to re-construct or modify an existing home requiring “c” variance for premises located at 61 King Road and known as Block 11912, Lot 4 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.D.7.a and 13-7.1301.D.8 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. Lee Levitt, Esquire represented the applicants.
  2. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  3. The premises in question are a lakefront home.  The premises are a narrow 51’ by 238’ and 246’ deep.  The rear of the premises is bordered by Lake Hopatcong.
  4. The applicant has a boathouse located in its rear.  The premises were depicted on a location survey submitted with the application.
  5. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 1/22/08 from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.  This letter was updated 4/14/08.  As noted by the Zoning Officer, the maximum building height permitted 2.5 stories, existing 3 stories, proposed 3 stories, and building coverage required 15%, existing 24.94%, proposed 23.74%.
  6. Prior to the public hearing, the Board received a letter from the Lake Hopatcong Commission, dated 2/5/08.
  7. The applicant’s architect, Stephen Bias, was present at the 3/10/08 public hearing.  Mr. Bias introduced a set of plans he had prepared which had a last revision date of 2/4/08.  Same consisted of five (5) sheets marked A-1 through A-5.
  8. At the conclusion of Mr. Bias’ preliminary testimony, it was apparent that the concern raised in the 2/27/08 letter of the Zoning Officer (that the premises would be a tear down and not a re-build) would result in the need for the applicant to re-notice for a future meeting.
  9. The matter was continued to the 4/14/08 meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment.  The Board also received an updated denial letter, dated 4/14/08, from Joseph McDonnell.
  10. Mr. Bias was recalled to the witness stand.  Mr. Bias stated that the number of stories in the house could be debated, but the net effect resulted from the different elevation from the rear to the front of the house, and to the extent a variance for a 3 story home was needed, same was being requested.  He further noted the height of the structure complied, and from a visual and physical standpoint, it would essentially be viewed as a 2.5 story home.
  11. Mr. Bias noted that it was impossible at this time to determine whether or not the house would have to be torn down to the footings and a new foundation constructed.  This could only be determined during the renovation process.  After a colloquy with the Board and the Board’s professionals, the applicant put the application forward essentially as an “either/or”.  The present plan before the Board contemplated re-utilization of the existing foundation.  As such, the applicant would be requesting relief for right side setback relief of 2.6’, left side setback relief of 7.4’, lot coverage 50% (51% existing, 20% maximum) and building coverage 23.7% proposed, (23.5% existing, 15% maximum permitted).  Mr. Bias noted the existing home is outmoded, unattractive, and unsafe.  He referred to an exhibit marked A-1 which was a colorized rendition of the proposed home.  He stated that, if the foundation had to be removed and redone, the applicant would construct a slightly smaller version of the same home.  The net result would be to set the left side setback at a conforming 10’ and the right side setback at 5’ requiring a variance for the home office bump-out.  It is anticipated that the total building coverage under that scenario would slightly decrease from what was proposed. 
  12. Mr. Bias (not surprisingly) opined that the house that he had designed would be an aesthetic upgrade of the existing structure, would provide a lake feel, and would be in keeping with the pattern of development within this area of the Township.   

                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 notes the subject property is slightly undersized for the zone.  In addition, there is the existing footprint and an existing disturbance area that represent a resource ripe for re-utilization.  The applicant’s proposal with or without the foundation makes good use of the existing disturbed area.  The proposed home strikes a balance between the types of homes being constructed on the lake and the realities of this narrow undersized lot.
  2. The grant of this variance is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.  It encourages the re-adaptation of existing infrastructure as to disturbing other areas in order to create opportunities for new and varied housing.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of conditions: Roxbury on the 14th day of April, 2008 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. The base line for approval and relief are those items set forth premised on re-construction and not a tear down.  The proposed side yards would be 2.6’ and 7.4’ as depicted on the 2/4/08 Stephen Bias architectural plans.
  2. To the extent that the dwelling would be considered a 3 story dwelling, relief is granted for same.
  3. In the event the existing foundation cannot be re-utilized, then the applicant shall be permitted to construct a slightly smaller version of the same home depicted on exhibit A-1 except that the left side yard shall be at 10’ and the right side yard at 5’ for the office bump-out.  All impervious coverage, both building and total lots, shall be no greater than the 50% and 23.7% proposed for Plan A. 
  4. Should the house be re-built, then the final plans for the house and building elevations and calculations shall be reviewed approved by the Township Planner so as to make sure the intent and spirit of the relief granted herein shall have been complied with by the applicant. 
  5. Applicant shall comply with the soil erosion and sediment controls as set forth in the 2/5/08 report of the Lake Hopatcong Commission.  All plans shall be revised to include same. 

 

Mr. Giardina made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Data seconded.

 

Discussion.  Changes noted and made.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

ZBA-07-60 – SCOTT BARBER – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON AURIEMMA CT., BLOCK 11903, LOT 9 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Tracy & Scott Barber

Case No. ZBA-07-60

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

                                                                                               

                                                                                                                Approved:  April 14, 2008

                                                                                                 Memorialized:   May 12, 2008

 

                WHEREAS, Tracy & Scott Barber have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a home requiring lot coverage variance relief for premises located at 15 Auriemma Court and known as Block 11903, Lot 9 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R- 3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D8 & 13-7.819 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 applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  3. Presently, the applicant was in the middle of constructing a home on the site. 
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 12/5/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.  Subsequently, the Board and applicant received an updated letter dated 4/8/08.
  5. The applicant testified that the house, presently under construction, was submitted to the construction official with conforming coverage for the purpose of obtaining a building permit.  The applicant acknowledged that their desire was to expand the amenities significantly.  The plans to expand the house were depicted on a five sheet engineering plan prepared by Jeffrey Careaga, engineer, dated 6/29/07, revised 2/28/08.  As noted, the proposed plan would increase the existing impervious coverage of 28.7% to 41.72%.  The maximum permitted in the R-3 Zone is 25%.  In addition, a significant portion of the proposed amenities would involve disturbance or construction within 50’ of Lake Hopatcong, which also requires a variance.
  6. As noted by the applicant’s engineer, Jeffrey Careaga, the applicant was proposing significant modifications for the exiting swimming pool, the walkway around the swimming pool, an added adjacent patio, various walkways, steps and walls, all of which significantly increase the impervious coverage on this lot.
  7. During the course of the discussion, the applicant’s builder, Kevin Carroll stated that the house that was being built was designed with various sliding doors that would then require the additional coverage being sought by the applicant.
  8. During the course of the initial public hearing, the Board attorney noted that the applicant had not provided and did not seem ready to provide any testimony as to the reasons that the requested relief might be granted.  It was noted that the subject property was 54,552 square feet in a 15,000 square foot zone.  It is extremely hard to understand why a lot that was over three times the size of the lot area for the R-3 zone could not comply with lot coverage constraints.  After some discussion, it was agreed that the matter would be re-visited by the applicant and carried to a future public hearing.
  9. The matter was continued to the 4/14/08 public hearing.  At that time, the applicant’s architect, Jeffrey Careaga, was called to the stand.  Mr. Careaga reviewed his revised plans.  He noted that a more detailed title search together with information from an adjoining property owner, David Doyle, revealed that the subject premises, which had originally been calculated as being 54,552 square feet, were, in fact, 75,666 square feet.  As a result of these new calculations, the only coverage variance required would be for total lot coverage (existing 19.6%, maximum permitted 25%, proposed 26%).  Mr. Careaga also noted that the request for relief for disturbance for construction within 50’ of the lake would not be required inasmuch as the only work being done on the existing pool would be renovation work and not trigger the need for a variance.
  10. It should be noted the Board received a 4/8/08 updated letter from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer, and an initial report from Michael A. Kobylarz, the Township Engineer.
  11. Mr. Careaga reiterated that the resulting home was consistent with the pattern of re-development along Auriemma Court and Yellow Barn Road.  He noted the only variance being requested was de minimis under the circumstances.
  12. The applicant’s planner, Eric Snyder, also testified at the hearing.  Mr. Snyder set forth the basis of a “C2” variance stating the benefits to granting the relief clearly outweighed any detriment.  Any negative impact would be mitigated by the conditions the applicant was agreeing to.

                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 certainly notes this is an unusual application.  It is very rare that during the course of an application that a property will literally grow by 40% in size.  Albeit, in this case, most of the increased area was from the applicant holding title to portions of Lake Hopatcong and a slight increase due to a lot line adjustment with a neighbor that had not been picked up on the prior surveying work.  Thus, the resulting variance of 26% maximum lot coverage is 1% over that which would be permitted.  The applicant’s willingness to install drywells and other on-site stormwater techniques will clearly mitigate this slight increase in impervious coverage over the permitted amount.
  2. The re-building and re-construction of the subject premises is consistent with the general pattern of re-development in the lakefront areas of the Township.
  3. The adjoining property owner, David Doyle, supported the applicant’s contention.
  4. The Board also finds the testimony of the applicant’s professional planner, Eric Snyder, to be credible.  Mr. Snyder noted that this particular structure would visually mirror existing patterns of development.  There will be little, if any, perceptible mass that would rise to the level of a negative impact. 

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 14th day of April 2008 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Applicant’s attorney is to do a title search and issue a legal opinion as to the ownership of the easement encumbering the property.  If municipality is the dominant or beneficial estate, then the matter will be referred to the Township Engineer, Michael Kobylarz, for the determination as to what, if any, further conditions need to be added to protect the municipality’s interest in said easement.
  2. Applicant shall provide a final “as built” survey confirming conformity of all setbacks and maximum total coverage of no more than 26%.
  3. Said coverage calculations shall include a positive affirmation from the applicant’s surveyor and/or architect that the pavers were installed on a sand base and thus entitled to the 25% reduction in coverage.
  4. Applicant is to remove from the plans note 4 indicating a request for a lake disturbance variance for construction within 50 feet of the lake.
  5. Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the 1/9/08 site plan review of the Lake Hopatcong Commission and shall incorporate the soil erosion plan and, to the extent necessary, same shall be added to the plans.
  6. Final drainage plans including drywells shall be subject to the review and approval of the Township Engineer noting the status of the easement may affect the location of these drywells.  All final calculations for stormwater management on-site shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer. 
  7. An as-built survey with impervious coverage calculations be provided prior to the issuance of a permanent certificate of occupancy.

 

Mr. Data made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Data, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

AGENDA

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced that Application ZBA-07-33, Mountain Landscaping, will not be heard and is carried to 7/14/08, no further notice required.

 

Ms. Dargel said this has been carried several times

 

Mr. Kron, attorney for the applicant, said they are requesting an adjournment since the applicant has redesigned their application after meeting with Mr. Stern.  They are scheduled to meet with him again this Friday.

 

ZBA-08-11 - KIMBERLY BROWN – VARIANCE FOR BASKETBALL COURT LOCATED ON SUNNYSIDE DRIVE, BLOCK 2406, LOT 1 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Russell Brown, husband of Kimberly Brown, was present and was sworn in. 

 

Mr. Brown stated he resides in the house and is an owner of the property.  He stated they would like to put up a basketball area.  They live on a corner lot and would like to place it on the back corner of the property, which would be in the front yard setback.

 

Mr. Stern said this is classified as an accessory structure in the front yard.  The driveway is there, and he could put a basketball backstop on the driveway.  Under this proposal, he avoids another curb cut, and the apron.

 

Mr. Brown said there is already a drainage issue and we would not be opposed to putting a depressed curb there, if required.

 

Mr. Brown said if we put the court in a conforming space we would lose 3 trees and it would be directly opposite the neighbor’s pool.  Across the street is a vacant lot and a car repair shop.

 

Mr. Brown distributed a handout marked A-1.

 

Mr. D’Amato asked if there will be any drainage mitigation incorporated with this such as drywells. 

 

Mr. Brown said no.  We are well under impervious coverage.

 

Mr. Wiener asked the dimensions.

 

Mr. Brown said 20’ x 25’.  It will be flat macadam with 1 basketball hoop in the inside corner closest to the neighbor.  The shed would be directly behind the backboard.  The macadam area won’t be used for parking. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked why there won’t be a fence.

 

Mr. Brown said there is a lawn area, sidewalk.  There is already existing decorative metal fence along the right-of-way that is about 42” high.

 

Ms Dargel asked what would prevent the basketball from going out to the street.

 

Mr. Brown said nothing.

 

Mr. Data asked if the court will be lit.

 

Mr. Brown said no.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if it would be an issue with the ball constantly going into the neighbor’s yard. 

 

Mr. Brown said he would be willing to put the backboard on the southerly side.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the application subject to the court being on the southerly side, and that there will be only 1 hoop.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, 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

 

Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant.  He stated the application does not involve any variances.  We request approval of a new sign to be constructed facing Route 46 to replace the prior sign. This sign is reduced in size, and it matches the style and material and color of the building.  We believe the sign advances a purpose of the Land Use Law which is desirable visual impact.  The sign will be internally illuminated. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said there is a report dated 3/20/08 from Mr. McDonnell stating a variance is required for the height of the sign.

 

Mr. Stern said that variance has been eliminated. They have modified the dimension of the wall sign to a maximum 5’ height.

 

Mr. Kron said the other sign is a façade sign that will match the color of the building and will be ground illuminated, shielded by landscaping.  It is less than one foot from the building.  They are an improvement over what was there before.

 

Mr. Stern said the combined area of both signs does not exceed the maximum square footage allowed.  It was Mr. McDonnell’s interpretation whether they were 2 signs.  He considered the signs as two signs, however, the combined area does not exceed the maximum square footage allowed.  This is a significant improvement.  It reduces the height and size of what is existing and is complementary to the hotel

 

Ms. Dargel asked if it meets the height requirement

 

Mr. Stern said yes.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the application based on the modification to the 1967 plan modifying the sign.   Mr. Wetzel seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Mr. Kron asked if the applicant can pick up the building permit before memorialization.

 

Mr. Wiener said he did not have an objection.

 

The Board members agreed.

 

Mr. Kron asked for a temporary sign banner the size of the Quality Inn sign until the new signs are installed.

 

After discussion, the Board agreed to the banner.

 

There was a 5 minute recess at 7:30 p.m.

 

ZBA-08-0014 - LOWER BERKSHIRE VALLEY METHODIST CHURCH – VARIANCE FOR SIGN LOCATED ON BERKSHIRE VALLEY RD. BLOCK 13002, LOT 1 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant.    He stated this application is for a sign.  There was an existing sign and the testimony will show it exceeded 40 sq. ft.  They want to replace it with a 38 sq. ft sign.  It is smaller than what was there, but bigger than what was permitted.  The Zoning Officer’s report said the prior sign was 35 feet, but that is not the case.

 

Brian Finigan was sworn in.  He stated the existing sign was right by the handicap ramp at the church.  That sign was about 6’ x 6’ and was about 40 sq. ft. with the bottom piece.  The sign was removed to put in the handicap sign.  The sign will be put in the original spot. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said there is a sign there.

 

Mr. Finigan said it is there, but was moved to build the handicap ramp.  We want to put a new sign back where the original sign was.  The sign is single faced, internally illuminated, 4’h x 8’ w.  It is mounted on a 20” high skirt x 30” wide.  It will be exactly where the previous sign was.  The lettering will be changeable copy text.  The old sign didn’t have that. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked about the total square footage.

 

Mr. Stern said it will be under 40 square feet.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

 

Mr. Data made a motion to approve the application.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Data, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Mr. Kron asked if they can pick up the permit before the memorialization.

 

The Board had no objection.

 

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

 

Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant.  He stated they are here to ask for final site plan approval for the assisted living facility, phase 2, and for phase 1, which was a modification to the nursing home exterior to enclose a porch and add landscaping.  We would like to have this approval tonight.  The Department of Health will not issue their certificate until there is a C.O. from the municipality.  A huge amount of work has been done on the exterior and it is very attractive.  The only area under active construction is the area around the yellow house, and some finishing details.  We are asking for final approval and that it become effective tonight.  Both the Planning Board planner and engineer have submitted reports and have detailed the items that remain undone.  It is my understanding those items are bondable in the most part.  Our engineer prepared a list of items that we are requesting be bonded.  There are some items that need to be done before C.O. is issued. 

 

Mr. Nusbaum addressed Mr. Stern’s report date 5/9/08.

 

Section 1.0– Safety Items

 

Mr. Nusbaum said we agree that various safety items need to be done.  We ask that some be deferred to completion.  The work is being staged from the area around the yellow house.  There are some items that relate to work around the house, such as installing paver sidewalk and handicap ramp to the historic home (1.7), complete installation of paver sidewalk accessing the rear entrance of the historic home (1.8), and we would ask that the Board consider holding up the requirement to complete them prior to temporary C.O.

 

Mr. Stern had no objection, also including item 1.9, as long as those be done prior to C.O. on the house

 

Mr. Nusbaum said they agree to item 1.10 as well.  Regarding item 1.3, those items will be done this coming week on the surface that exists there now. We will then put on the final course and will re-do the striping.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said all the other safety items either have been done or will be done.

 

Mr. Stern asked at what point the remaining items will be completed.

 

Mr. Benkendorf stated the site work will be completed within 45 days.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said all the items in the report are agreed to.

 

Mr. Stern said the applicant has deviated from the approved plans.  I don’t have any functional objection to the deviations. 

 

Mr. Nusbaum said we would also like to ask for a waiver regarding item 3.32, the installation of the trash enclosure arbor.  

 

Mr. Stern had no objection as this was anticipated. 

 

Mr. Stern said the applicant is also requesting a waiver from the installation of the tree grates on either side of the port cochere.  I have no objection.

 

Thomas McGrath, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.

 

After discussion, the applicant agreed to resolve item 3.39 with the Board professionals.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked that Mr. Stern go through the sections.

 

Section 1 – Items 1.7 and 1.8,  – deferred – all other items in section 1 agreed to.

 

Items 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10 – agreed

 

Items 3.1 – 3.34 – agreed

Item 3.5 – waiver requested 

Items 3.36 – 41 agreed

Item 3.39 – agreed, subject to review and approval by Board professionals

Item 4.1 done

Item 4.2 – will be filed

Items 4.3, 4.4 – agreed

 

The applicant addressed Mr. Hansen’s report dated 5/8/08:

 

Phase 1 –

Item 1 – will be done prior to c.o. on the yellow house

 

Phase 2

Item 1 – observation

2- 19 - agreed

 

The applicant addressed the report dated 5/8/08 from Michael Kobylarz:

 

1- agree prior to permanent c.o. – striping for safety prior to issuance of C.O.

2- addressed

3- will do

4- will do

5- will do

6-will comply

7-will re-stripe parking lot, moving the handicap cross hatching to be in front of the Siamese connection – will be shown on final site plan and will show a sketch to the engineering office before the striping is done.  As-built will be submitted prior to final C.O.

8- will be done

9- 15 - will do

 

Mr. Stern said his report, Item 1.9, does not apply to the yellow house, but applies to the spaces by the Siamese connection.  A handicap ramp needs to be retrofitted to that area.

 

Mr. McGrath stated that will be done prior to the issuance of a temporary c.o.

 

It was determined all safety items are to be completed prior to c.o.   All other items will be done within 45 days.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application, subject to all items agreed to – items 1.7 and 1.8 to be deferred until C.O. for the yellow house.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

ZBA-08-12 – OMNIPOINT – VARIANCE FOR ANTENNA LOCATED ON EXISTING TOWER LOCATED ON PLEASEANT HILL RD., BLOCK 501, LOT 3 IN R-1 ZONE

 

Mr. D’Amato stepped down.

 

Ms. Dargel said about 15 years ago, Ms. Dargel had a relationship with a tenant on the property.  The tenant is no longer there. 

 

It was determined there is no conflict.

 

Attorney Richard Schneider represented the applicant.  He stated this application is to collocate a wireless communications facility on a tower operated by JCP&L on Pleasant Hill Rd.  The proposed facility will consist of the installation of an antenna array of 8 antennas at 120 feet on the existing tower.  They will be flush mounted onto the tower.  There will also be an equipment cabinet below the tower beneath the tower legs.   All will be painted to match the tower.  This application is before the Board because it is not

in one of the zones that permit towers.

 

Okshay Dixon, radiofrequency engineer, was sworn in.  He stated he prepared a report and submitted it regarding the application.  Omnipoint is a carrier licensed by the FCC to provide wireless service to this area.  The report summarizes the reason this application is before the Board.  The basis for us coming to the Board is that there is a gap in wireless coverage. 

 

Mr. Dixon referred to Exhibit A-1 with one overlay, an outline of the township.  The green areas indicate Omnipoint coverage of a stronger signal.  The orange signal is a weaker signal.  The white area is a lower signal level and there is a low reliability factor in using a mobile phone in these areas.  We get about a 2 mile coverage area from most of the sites.  With this site, because it is an existing facility, it will give us an excellent area of coverage and will fill some of the gap area. By virtue of the elevation at the subject property and the tower height of 140 feet, you are able to achieve the coverage objectives even lower down on the tower.

 

Mr. Dixon referred to an overlay showing the area of proposed coverage.  The installation of the antenna array at 120 feet meets our technical objective.  We would use 8 antennas at 4 sectors.  We want to get as much new coverage from this site as possible. 

 

Mr. Schneider said we are also looking for another site at the Ledgewood Mall and Route 10 and Route 46.

 

Mr. Dixon said a tower is not permitted in this zone district.  I have done an analysis of whether or not we could use any existing structures that are in permitted zones.  The official Roxbury zoning map shows there are no permitted zones near this gap area. 

 

Mr. Crowley asked if Omnipoint has any antennas on this structure at this time.

 

Mr. Dixon said no.

 

Mr. Stern said the Board approved something in 2002 on another tower off Reger Rd.

 

Mr. Crowley asked why they don’t want to go to 140 feet? 

 

Mr. Dixon said we have to stay away from the high voltage cables.  I have to spread the coverage correctly so as not to spread the signal too thinly.  That just applies to mostly operators who use the 1900 mg band.

 

Ms. Kinback asked who uses that technology.  Will Roxbury benefit from this?

 

Mr. Dixon said  A T & T and Omnipoint are the two who use this.  Verizon and Sprint would also benefit.

 

Mr. Stern said we could foresee that there may be other providers looking to locate on this tower at the higher elevation?  Another carrier has submitted application for location at the higher level.

 

Mr. Dixon said that is correct.  We will be the first carrier here on this tower

 

Mr. Schneider said approval of this application for this tower wouldn’t preclude any other carriers from using it. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions on Mr. Dixon’s testimony.

 

Mr. Impagliazzo stepped forward.  He said in the letter we received, they state a section of the law.  Explain that law to me please.

 

Mr. Schneider said it means the applicant has applied for a variance because this use is not permitted in this zone and requires a use variance.

 

Mr. Impagliazzo asked why the town has made certain areas useable and not useable for these towers.

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mark Nidele, RF compliance officer, was sworn in and gave his qualifications to the Board.  He stated he is here to testify as to whether this application would meet the FCC requirements relative to radio frequency.  I have submitted a report summarizing my findings and conclusions.  We have prepared an analysis and have concluded that this site complies very comfortably .   The maximum permitted exposure level is at .0542, which is less than 1/10 of a percent of the maximum permitted exposure level, or 1800 times below the permitted level. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Nidele.

 

Andrew Impagliazzo stepped forward.   He asked if there has been any conclusive evidence on radio frequency. 

 

Mr. Wiener said once the uncontroverted testimony is in, it is not for the Board to second guess that information.

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Todd Hay, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He described the property, stating it is an irregularly shaped lot in the RR5 zone on Pleasant Hill Road.  There is one 144 ft. high transmission tower that is located on the forward area of the property.    The tower is about 315 feet back from Pleasant Hill Rd.  The applicant proposes, on that tower, a 20’ x 22’ gravelized compound surrounded by a 6’ high fence, 3 equipment cabinets mounted to a 4’ x 20’ concrete pad.  Electric and telephone will come from an existing pole.  We show soil erosion and a demarcation cabinet and a telephone cabinet within the compound.  On the tower we propose a series of arrays, two antennas per sector, with 4 sectors, for a total of 8 antennas.  The highest portion would be at 120.25 feet, and there would be cabling on two legs to the north of the tower.  The antennas are flush mounted to the tower and will be painted to match.  Regarding the fencing, the original plan proposes a 6 foot high chain link fence, and we are going to suggest an alternate to the chain link fence to JCP&L.  With this particular lot, it is difficult to put shrubbery under the primary wires.  We are proposing a composite type fence that would be decorative to the existing neighbor and building on Lot 4.  Putting in trees is a safety concern for JCP&L.  The existing paved driveway runs about 5 feet off the property line so there is very little area for landscaping.  If JCP&L allows landscaping the applicant would have no objection.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if the applicant would be willing to put in shrubbery on the adjoining property.


Mr. Hay said we could work with that property owner to come to an agreement.

 

Mr. Schneider asked about lighting.

 

Mr. Hay said there will be no lighting on the tower and internal lighting in the equipment cabinet.

 

Mr. Stern suggested the landscaping be a condition of approval.

 

Mr. Schneider asked what maintenance is required

 

Mr. Hay said there would be maintenance once every 3 to 4 weeks.  The technician arriving at the site would arrive in a standard SUV,

 

Mr. Schneider said it is routine maintenance and agreed it will be performed between 7:00 am and 7:00 pm.

 

Mr. Schneider said the applicant will comply with all the requirements in the reports of Mr. Stern and Mr. Hansen.

 

Mr. Hansen asked that the applicant respond to the adequacy of the equipment area for the site.

 

Mr. Hay said this is only for our carrier. Other carriers would have to provide their own area.  We would design the landscaping so that it wouldn’t interfere with another carrier coming to the site in the near future.  Electric service is all underground.

 

Mr. Stern said he was suggesting a composite type fencing.  If it were chain link, you would see the equipment cabinet and the other structures.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Hay.

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Christopher Nevill, Planner for the applicant, was sworn in. He stated he reviewed the reports from the professionals and is familiar with the site plan before the Board.  He said Roxbury does not permit wireless towers within this zone and this application requires a use variance and height variance for the existing tower and the proposed antennas.  The use serves the general welfare. This site is particularly suitable because of the existence of the present tower.  It is a relevant characteristic that the applicant can meet the technical objectives without increasing the height of the tower and the flushmounting of the antennas is a di minimus effect.  As to negative criteria, by virtue of the applicant holding a license from the FCC, we have the highest public interest. 

 

Mr. Nevill submitted photo simulations showing a view of the proposed tower from various locations that were marked A-2, A-3, A-4, A-5.  An aerial photo was marked A-6, with the subject site highlighted.  Mr. Nevill described the exhibits.  He said from a planning perspective, there is no detrimental impact to the surrounding area.  With the flush mounting of the antennas and the painting of the equipment the visual aspect of the application is di minimus

 

Mr. Schneider said the applicant has agreed to suggestions from the Board professionals regarding fencing, landscaping, etc, and that goes to ameliorating any negative aspects.  I believe on balance the positive aspects outweigh the negatives. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Nevill.

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

Mr. Crowley asked what this would look like on the ground with this and other carriers  on the tower.

 

Mr. Schneider said unlike new freestanding towers, usually after two that is all there are for structural reasons.  Generally you can expect about a 350 sq. ft. area for their equipment.  I would anticipate there would be only one other carrier, not located under the tower, but directly adjacent to the tower.

 

Mr. Hay stated our analysis was just for us, and these towers are very slender and can’t support more than one carrier.  There are ways to re-strengthen the towers, but I don’t believe for this particular tower, that there could be more than two carriers.  A second carrier would use the area outside the area underneath the tower, and the area for their equipment may be more.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for comments and general questions.

 

Mr. Impagliazzo was sworn in.  He asked why the town makes provisions to exclude residential areas from putting up towers, and then goes ahead and lets the towers go there.

 

Mr. Wiener said over the years, there have been cases where towns in New Jersey fought the facilities and in many  instances, the towns lost.  We have an ordinance that prohibits the towers in residential areas, but we also have an ordinance that encourages using an existing tower.  The applicant has stated they are using an existing 140 foot high tower, and in their opinion, this will be the one that will have the least impact.  This would be a more difficult case if this were not an existing tower.  The testimony is that this is an appropriate location that fills the gap in coverage.  The government has decided that wireless communication is something that should be encouraged.

 

Mr. Impagliazzo asked if they decide they want to put more antennas up there would they  have to come back to the Board?

 

Mr. Wiener stated this application is for the 4 arrays as described, and they would have to come back if they want to put up more.

 

Mr. Impagliazzo said you do see that tower clearly from the road.  Is there a way to approve it so that it is not noticed from the road?

 

Mr. Wiener said the applicant has agreed that they will make a bona fide effort to get approval from JCP&L for the composite fencing and the landscaping.

 

Mr. Hay stated the best we can do is put the request in.  I don’t see an issue with the fencing.  I do see an issue with the landscaping, but we will make the effort.  I can’t make any guarantees. 

 

Mr. Impagliazzo said he just wants it to look nice and not like an eyesore.

 

Jim DiMichino, 92A Pleasant Hill Rd., was sworn.  He asked how we know where the antennas are aimed and if current is increased at different times during the day.

 

Mr. Dixon said the 4 faces of the tower are pointing north, south, east and west.  The transmitted power does not increase at different times of day.  The antennas have a very narrow vertical area and that energy is transmitted over an area only 6 degrees wide.  It is very tightly controlled.  I choose which direction to point the antennas.  The site is based upon customer needs.  Because the antennas are so high up and because the vertical beam width is only 6 degrees, you could stand directly under the tower and there would be somewhere maybe ½ mile to 1 mile ahead where the signal would be its most useful, but wouldn’t be dangerous because it has weakened.  As a customer gets closer to the tower, the phone powers itself down and the tower powers itself down.  As they get farther away they power up, and as it gets farther away it transfers to another cell tower. 

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application with the conditions as discussed, including that the applicant will contact JCP&L to plant shrubbery to screen from the road and from the neighbor; provide composite fence; equipment to be painted to match the tower; cable to be painted; applicant will reach out to adjoining property owner to place additional shrubbery.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Annual Zoning Report

 

Mr. Stern stated pursuant to the MLUL the Board needs to do an annual analysis of the applications before them.  Lorraine and Dolores put the application summary together.  The report breaks down the applications by zone and by type.  I did not put in any specific recommendations for zoning at this point.  I am involved in setting forth a list of corrections and modifications for the Land Development ordinance.  My recommendation is to send the Council the report showing the numbers without any specific suggestions.

 

Ms. Dargel said the issue she sees is when we have an applicant who has a large lot where a portion is wetlands and a portion is built on, they say having only a small portion to build on is a hardship.   I think we need to make the zoning conform to the reality rather than the ideal. 

 

Mr. Stern said if you make the lot size requirement smaller, you would potentially increase the density.  In some of the cases they have lots that would permit subdivision.  A parallel issue is the Master Plan’s analysis of the Environmental Constraints ordinance.  If, for example, you had a 100-acre lot with 70 acres of wetlands, you would net out the wetlands portion and you would be left with 30 acres and would only be able to develop 30 homes on the property.  That is something that is being worked on and will be incorporated into the Land Use Plan Element update.

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:15 p.m.

 

                                                            Dolores DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/