A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:00 p.m. with Vice Chairman Mark
Crowley presiding. After a salute to the Flag, the Vice Chairman read the
“Open Public Meetings Act”.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Mark Crowley, Joyce Dargel, Peter
Giardina, Barbara Kinback, Sebastian D’Amato, Edward Data, Kenneth Grossman.
ABSENT: Gail Robortaccio, John Wetzel.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Larry Wiener, Esq., Russell
Stern, PP
Also present: Dorrie Fox, Land Use Administrator.
Mr. Crowley stated Lorraine Mullen is retiring, and thanked
her for her many years of service.
Mr. Stern introduced Dorrie Fox, Land Use Administrator for
the Planning Department.
Minutes of 6/9/08
Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr.
Giardina seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr.
Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Grossman, yes.
RESOLUTIONS
ZBA-08-15 – JIM & MARIA
BACCCARO – VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE TO ADD POOL AND PATIO ON PROPERTY
LOCATED ON JUDY RD. BLOCK 1503, LOT 34 IN R-3 ZONE
Approved: June 9, 2008
Memorialized: July 14, 2008
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 construct a 12’x12’ patio and an above ground swimming pool.
- Applicant received a letter
of denial dated 4/28/08 from Joseph McDonnell, the Zoning Officer.
- The proposal results in the
need for an impervious coverage variance (25% permitted, 23.7% existing,
and 28.34% proposed).
- The proposed swimming pool
is an above ground pool nominally sized at 18’x24’. The pool would be
self-contained with fencing and a drop down ladder integrated into the
pool.
WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning
Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:
- The Board finds the
applicant’s request for variance relief to be de minimis under the
circumstances. There is a slight increase in impervious coverage that is
more than offset by the benefit of allowing two normal rear yard
amenities, which will encourage productive use of the applicant’s
property. The brick paver patio will clearly not have a significant
impact on drainage and the benefit of providing this outdoor living
amenity will clearly have a benefit to the continued aesthetic upgrade of
the subject premises.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of
conditions: Roxbury on the 9th day of June, 2008 that the approval of the
within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Compliance with all
applicable regulations governing swimming pools.
- No other structures beyond
those depicted on the plot plan (noting, in particular, a partially
dismantled shed will be removed).
- Total impervious coverage
not to exceed 28.34%.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr.
Data seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardiana,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes.
ZBA-08-19 – MARC & JANET BASKINGER – VARIANCE FOR
POOL, APRON AND FENCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON FOX CHASE LANE, BLOCK 9202, LOT 4.08 IN R 2.5 ZONE
In the matter of Marc Baskinger
and Janet Baskinger
Case No. ZBA-08-19
RESOLUTION OFFINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: June 9, 2008
Memorialized: July 14, 1008
WHEREAS,
Marc Baskinger and Janet Baskinger have applied to the Board of Adjustment,
Township of Roxbury for permission to obtain ex post facto variance relief
permitting for the approval of an existing swimming pool for premises located
at 46 Fox Chase Lane and known as Block 9202, Lot 4.08 on the Tax Map of the
Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-2.5” Zone; said proposal
required relief from Section 13-7.1201.F12c 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 were represented by Edward M. Dunne, Esq.
2. The
applicants are the former owners of the subject premises. Said premises were
recently sold. In the process of closing title a new survey was obtained
which revealed that the swimming pool was built up to one (1) foot from the
rear property line and that other improvements around the pool were built over
the property line and in the State of New Jersey Right of Way for Route 80.
3. The
applicants applied for a zoning permit before the Zoning Officer after the fact
and said permit was denied by the Zoning Officer, Joseph McDonald, by letter
dated April 23, 2008.
4. The
applicants originally purchased the property from Hunter’s Ridge in 2001 and
retained the service of a pool contractor, Custom Pools by Tony LLC to
construct an in the ground pool. The applicants were the first occupants of
the home. All of the drawings and applications for the permit for construction of
the pool were submitted to the various township departments by the pool
company.
5. There
were various exhibits submitted by the applicants to the Board. Exhibit A-1
was a board of numerous pictures showing the present status of the pool and the
surrounding area. A-2 and A-3 were maps and diagrams of the pool as they were
submitted to the Zoning Officer and to the Engineering Department. Said maps
showed the pool in an entirely different location and one was the location
which was approved by the Township.
6. Subsequent
to the approval of the application for construction of the pool, the pool and
all of the surrounding walkways, retaining walls, etc. was constructed by the
pool company in a location where it presently exists, but through the confusion
the applicants did receive certificate of approval for the construction from
the Township.
7. The
applicants were not aware that the pool was built in violation of the Township
Ordinances and the applicants have come before the Board, not as a result of
any enforcement action by the municipality, but as a self discovery of the
violation and is now here before the Board in an honest and sincere attempt to
have the same approved after the fact. The problem arose by virtue of the
new purchasers having a new survey done on the property showing that the pool
was in violation.
8. The
applicants are asking for a variance to keep the pool in its present location
whereas the Zoning Ordinances of the Township require a ten (10) foot setback
and this results in a variance for a one (1) foot setback from the rear
property line.
9. There
are also improvements that were built on the Route 80 Right of Way which
include some concrete walkways, a block wall, concrete pad with water heater
and pool filter as well as the required fence which was built to surround and
enclose the pool. There is also a frame shed which is closer than five (5)
feet from the side and rear property lines.
10. The
applicants have requested that they have a period of time to obtain a license
or permit from the State of New Jersey for the improvements that have been
constructed on the Route 80 Right of Way, specifically the fence surrounding
the pool, so that they will have a delay in constructing a new fence along the
rear property line due to the fact that if they do get permission from the
State of New Jersey to keep the fence and other improvements where they are
they would not have to tear down the present fence and reconstruct it on the
property line.
11. The
meeting was open to the public and there was no comment from the public on this
application.
WHEREAS,
the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicants can be
granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning
Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:
1. The
Board finds that the issue of the pool and its mislocation is certainly an
unfortunate situation. The Board finds that the testimony of the applicants
is credible and also finds that it is significant that the applicants, in fact,
self reported the violation. The benefit to mechanically adhere with the
Zoning Ordinance which would require demolishing the swimming pool or having it
reconstructed in another location is clearly an outcome that defies logic. As
shown by the pictures that were submitted by the applicants, the pool and its
surroundings are esthetically pleasing and they are a benefit to the property.
2. The
applicants have agreed to a period of ninety (90) days from the approval of the
Resolution to obtain permission from the State of New Jersey to leave
specifically the fence in its present position and location and the applicants
have agreed that if this permission is not obtained, they would immediately
move the fence so that it is situated within the rear property line. The
applicants have also agreed to remove the concrete pad, water heater and pool
filter so that it is no closer than five (5) feet from any side or rear yard
and they have also agreed to remove the shed so that it also is no closer than
five (5) feet from any side or rear property line.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury
on this 9th day of June, 2008 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
1. The
pool equipment and shed shall be moved so that they are no closer than five (5)
feet from the side or rear property lines.
2. The
applicants shall relocate the fence so that it is within the property line
ninety (90) days after the date of this Resolution.
3.
The applicants shall at all times comply with the safety and construction
regulations governing swimming pools and the required enclosures for same.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Ms. Dargel,
yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes.
ZBA-08-18 – MICHAEL FLYNN –
APPLICATION FOR GARAGE LOCATED ON CULVER RD. BLOCK 11411, LOT 2 IN R-3 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: June 9, 2008
Memorialized: July 14, 2008
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- The
applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.
- The
applicant was proposing to construct a detached accessory garage.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 12/18/07 from Joseph McDonnell, the
Zoning Officer.
- The
applicant submitted elevation drawings marked A-1 confirming that the
height of the garage (just under 14’) would be in compliance with the
height maximum set forth in the Ordinance.
- The
applicant’s proposal results in the need for several coverage variances:
- Building
coverage – maximum permitted 15%, existing 11.84%, proposed 16.75%
- Total
impervious coverage – maximum permitted 25%, existing 21.2%, proposed
29.6%
- Percentage
of accessory building coverage to principal coverage – maximum permitted
50%, existing 12.69%, proposed 59.39%
- The
applicant stated the purpose and intent of this proposal was to construct
an 18’x26’ accessory residential garage that would be located in the rear
of the applicant’s property. Presently the applicant’s property has no
garage and simply a paved driveway that ends where an accessory shed is
located. The shed would be removed and the driveway would be extended to
the garage.
- As
originally proposed, the applicant was not going to pave the entire way
from the storage shed to the accessory garage. After some input from the
Township Planner, the Board encouraged the applicant to request an
additional slight increase in impervious coverage to 29.6% so as to tie
the garage into the driveway. The Board felt the minimal increase in
impervious coverage was outweighed by the logical utility of totally
integrating the garage into the driveway.
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:
- As
noted above, the applicant’s proposal advances the purpose of the local
Township Zoning Ordinance by providing indoor parking. It will also
remove an outmoded structure and promote the indoor storage of the vehicle
and other residential accessories such as snow blowers, lawn mowers, etc.
that would otherwise would be stored outside.
- The
proposed garage will be an aesthetic improvement over the existing shed
and the benefits to be gained by the grant of this variance clearly
outweigh the deviations from the Zoning Ordinance. The end result will be
a house with an accessory garage that is clearly more compatible with the
types of homes in this area of the Township.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 9th day of June, 2008 that the approval of the within application
be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Total
impervious coverage is not to exceed 29.6%. The applicant is to “tie” the
existing driveway into the garage and to do so within the 29.6% coverage
parameter.
- Accessory
garage is to be sized and located as depicted on the plot plan attached to
the application (18’x26’).
- The
building coverage shall not exceed 16.75% and the percentage of accessory
building coverage to principal building coverage shall not exceed 59.39%.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley,
yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes.
ZBA-08-20 – KEN JACOBSEN –
VARIANCE FOR ADDITIONAL GARAGE LOCATED ON EMMANS RD. BLOCK 5503, LOT 3 IN R-1
ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
TOWNSHIP
OF ROXBURY
RESOLUTION
Approved: June 9,
2008
Memorialized: July 14, 2008
WHEREAS,
the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant
and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
- The
applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
- The
subject property is an improved lot of approximately two (2) acres.
- Applicant
received a letter of denial dated 3/24/06 from Joseph McDonnell, the
Zoning Officer.
- The
following variances are noted:
- Side
yard setback – 10’ required, existing 6’6”, proposed 6’6”
- Number
of garages – no more than 3 permitted, existing 5, proposed 7
- Size
of accessory structure – total ground area of all accessory structures
not to exceed 50% of principal building, the existing home is 2,948 sq.
ft., the sq. ft. of the additions would equal 2,263 sq. ft. or well over
50%
- Height
of accessory structure – maximum permitted 15’, proposed 18’ 9 ½”
- The
applicant submitted the following exhibits:
- Photos
A-1 to A-5 existing site conditions
- Survey
plot plan, dated 3/15/08
- Elevation
plans, Fox Architects, dated 3/13/08
- The
applicant’s general contractor, Charles Bautz, testified at the public
hearing. Mr. Bautz reviewed the site conditions and “walked” the Board
through the various proposed improvements to the site.
- The
applicant noted that, while the Zoning Officer considered the site to have
the potential for seven (7) garage spaces, in reality, the building
labeled frame garage in the rear of the property was in actuality a
storage enclosure. The applicant noted that the renovation of the garage
on the southerly side of the property would be an aesthetic upgrade of
that building and bring same into architectural compatibility with the
main structure.
- The
applicant noted that he owned many vehicles and the additional garage
space, which in actuality would be the equivalent of five (5) garage
spaces (deducting the frame garage in the rear of the property noted
above), would eliminate the need to park vehicles outside.
- The
Board notes this is a large parcel being approximately two (2) acres in
size in the R-1 Zone.
- The applicant stated that,
given the size of the property, the proposed additions were relatively
what were to scale.
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, under the circumstances and the unique facts presented, that
the grant of the variance is justified noting the major improvement
proposed is a renovation of the existing frame garage located on the
southerly side of the property. This garage is an outmoded structure and
is totally incompatible with the applicant’s elegant existing home. The
applicant’s proposal brings an architectural compatibility and balance to
the subject premises. The height relief for the garage is modest and is
necessitated by the need to achieve the appropriate pitch on the roof.
- In
addition, the side yard relief merely reflects an existing condition that
only results in a modest increase. The request for what is in reality,
but is nominally seven (7) indoor parking spaces, is truly a request for
five (5) indoor parking spaces. The structure denoted frame garage
located at the rear of the property is clearly not a garage nor will it be
used to store everyday motor vehicles.
- Given
the size of this property for the zone, this property can clearly
accommodate what the applicant is proposing, and therefore, in this
particular case, granting the variance does not result in allowing a
structure that is incompatible or out of place with the site for the
neighborhood.
- The Board, in noting the
photographs and site visit by Board members, is clear that the applicant
has developed this property in a very dramatic and aesthetically pleasing
manner. This proposal eliminates the one structure on-site and is clearly
out of place.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 9th day of June, 2008 that the approval of the within
application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:
- Applicant
shall comply with all rules and regulations regarding the Highlands Act.
The approval is granted herein are subject to any developmental
constraints under said act or any other governmental regulation affecting
the premises.
- All
garages to be utilized as non-commercial storage areas for the residents
and occupants of the subject premises. Upper areas of the accessory
garage(s) to be used for storage only.
- Accessory
structures to be serviced only with electricity.
- Payment of all fees,
sureties, and escrows required by Ordinance.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution. Mr.
Giardina seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr.
Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Data, yes.
AGENDA
ZBA-07-33 – MOUNTAIN
LANDSCAPING – USE AND SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT LANDNG RD., BLOCK 9601,
LOT 5 IN LI/OR ZONE
Attorney Larry Kron was present.
The applicant requested to be carried to 9/15/08. Mr. Kron stated the
applicant grants an extension of time through 10/31/08.
The application was carried to
9/15/08.
ZBA-08-10 – MARKOVSKI
LANDSCAPING – USE VARIANCE FOR LANDSCAPING, RESIDENTIAL LOCATED ON RT. 46,
BLOCK 2702, LOT 2 IN B-2 ZONE
Attorney Larry Kron represented
the applicant. He stated the applicant requests that the application be
dismissed without prejudice.
Ms. Dargel made a motion to dismiss
the application without prejudice at the request of the applicant. Mr. Crowley
seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley,
yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes;
Mr. Data, yes.
ZBA-08-16 – MARIO TOLEDO –
VARIANCE FOR IN-GROUND POOL IN FRONT YARD LOCATED ON SUNSET TERRACE, BLOCK
2103, LOT 1 IN R-4 ZONE
Mr. Stern said we haven’t
received any revised drawings on this matter from the applicant.
Mr. Guevara was present and
stated he understands he is still under oath.
Mr. Wiener said at the last
meeting it was agreed the applicant would bring in a landscaping plan, and the
impervious coverage was to be revised.
Mr. Stern said there was an issue
as to where any decking would go around the pool, and revised coverage
calculations.
Mr. Guevara said we didn’t
understand the questions at the last hearing. I did bring a copy of the
drawings and highlighted where everything will be. He also stated his contractor
could not make it tonight but he sent a letter addressed to the Board.
Mr. Wiener said the Board can’t
use a letter because it is hearsay and is not admissible. At the last meeting
it was requested that we receive details as to decking and landscaping and
coverage.
Mr. Guevara said the letter we
have from the contractor states all the dimensions, etc. We are going to put
fencing all around the property. It will be according to the safety code and
the codes for the pool.
Mr. Crowley said the Board will
have to see a drawing and have them reviewed before the meeting.
Ms. Kinback stated she listened
to the recording and the applicant did agree he would come back before the Board
and would check with Mr. Stern and the Zoning Officer, and would indicate the
coverage and fencing.
The application was carried to
8/11/08, and the applicant will submit revised drawings and meet with Mr. Stern
and Mr. McDonnell prior to the hearing.
Mr. Guevara said there is a
utility pole at the corner. How do we handle that?
Mr. Crowley said that will be
discussed with Mr. Stern and the applicant prior to the next hearing.
The applicant will contact Mr. Stern
before the next hearing and will submit copies to the Board at least 10 days
prior to the hearing.
ZBA-08-21 – ROLAND KASCHER
– VARIANCE FOR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING DECK LOCATED ON KINGSLAND RD., BLOCK
11002, LOT 37 IN THE R-3 ZONE
Roland Kascher was sworn in.
Carolyn Kascher was sworn in.
Mr. Kascher stated they want to
rip down the deck they have and put a new deck on, and extend a small portion
of it. They want to make an extension on one end that would be 8’ x 8’and we
also want to add a platform with steps on the road side. The plan shows steps,
and on the right side will be a platform with steps to the stone walkway. The
dimensions of the new deck will be 8’ x 45’. From the road side of the house
would be another 8’ x 8’ extension. It would be L-shaped. The overall width
of the portion that juts out is 16’ wide.
Mr. Crowley said the variance
required is for how close it is to the lake.
Mr. Stern stated Mr. McDonnell’s
letter says the closest portion is 12’ from the lake
Ms. Kinback asked if the deed
states that they own land into the lake.
Mr. Stern said the prohibition is
to the water’s edge
Mr. Kascher said he will review
his deed.
Mr. Stern said the Board has a
letter from the Lake Hopatcong Commission saying they have no objection.
Ms. Dargel asked what will go
under the deck.
Ms. Kascher said currently under
the deck, for about 29 to 30, feet is a concrete pad. It goes 8 feet out. To
the side where we are going to extend it the ground is higher. There is a
retaining wall. The deck will be closer to the ground there than on the other
side. We do not intend to add any more concrete or impervious cover under the
deck. We will be adding three footings. That is the extent of the
disturbance. That will be 4’ further out than the existing footing.
Mr. Kascher submitted a sheet of
3 photos of the house and a view from the house (marked A-1).
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the application. Mr.
D’Amato seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr.
Giardina, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes.
New Business
Mr. Stern informed the Board that Ms. Arminio is trying to sell
her property and there was a requirement for an open storage structure for
landscape equipment and supplies. That is no longer needed, and she would like
to use a portion of the area for a trash enclosure and a board-on-board fence
along with additional landscaping.
Mr. Stern said he, Mr. Kobylarz, and Mr. Cramond of the Historic
Advisory Committee all support the request as a field change.
The meeting was adjourned by motion at 7:35 p.m.
Dorrie
Fox, Secretary
lm/