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
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- The
applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
- The
applicants were proposing to add an addition onto the existing home.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 12/7/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the
Zoning Officer.
- The
applicant’s proposal results in a 37.1’ setback to Jeffrey Road – 50’ is
required.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved:
April 14, 2008
Memorialized: May 12, 2008
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- The
applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
- The
applicant was proposing to construct an “overhang” above the existing
front stoop.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 11/28/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the
Zoning Officer.
- 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.
- 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.
- The
applicant submitted a plot plan showing the location of the existing site
conditions as well as the proposed overhang.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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:
- 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
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- Lee
Levitt, Esquire represented the applicants.
- The
applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
- 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.
- The
applicant has a boathouse located in its rear. The premises were depicted
on a location survey submitted with the application.
- 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%.
- Prior
to the public hearing, the Board received a letter from the Lake Hopatcong
Commission, dated 2/5/08.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- To
the extent that the dwelling would be considered a 3 story dwelling,
relief is granted for same.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved:
April 14, 2008
Memorialized: May 12, 2008
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- Larry
I. Kron, Esquire represented the applicant.
- The
applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
- Presently,
the applicant was in the middle of constructing a home on the site.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- The
adjoining property owner, David Doyle, supported the applicant’s
contention.
- 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:
- 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.
- Applicant
shall provide a final “as built” survey confirming conformity of all
setbacks and maximum total coverage of no more than 26%.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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/