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

A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 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, Robert Kurtz, Kathy DeFillippo, Mark Crowley, Joyce Dargel, Scott Meyer.  Heather Darling arrived at 7:45 p.m.

 

ABSENT:  Barbara Kinback, Robert Church.

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener, Russell Stern.

 

Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced that there are not enough Board members present to hear the use variance applications.  We will proceed, and expect other member to arrive, as we have not heard from them.

 

Minutes of 3/14/05

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Meyer, abstain; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Minutes of 4/11/05

 

Mr. Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

BA-15-05 – MARK & CATHY MAGNUSSON – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON CAREY RD. BLOCK 4403, LOT 54 IN R-1 ZONE

 

In the matter of Cathy & Mark Magnusson

Case No. BA-15-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: April 11, 2005

Memorialized: May 9, 2005

 

 

 

            WHEREAS, Cathy & Mark Magnusson have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring a dimensional variance(s) for premises located at Carey Road and known as Block 4403, Lot 54 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-1” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.10, 13-7.1001D5a, 13-7.1001D4, 13-7.1001D8b 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 do an extreme renovation of the existing home.
  3. The proposed addition was depicted on a two-sheet exhibit prepared by Kenneth Fox, architect, dated 10/7/04 with revisions to 1/12/05
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 12/1/04, revised 1/12/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The proposal results in the following variances:
    1. Front yard setback – 50’ required, 37.1’ proposed
    2. Impervious coverage – 20% maximum permitted, 22.29% proposed
    3. Rear yard setback – 50’ required, 41.3’ proposed (house)
    4. Rear yard setback – 50’ required, 26.7’ proposed (deck/covered porch)
  6. The applicant’s architect/planner testified that the plans would be altered to reduce impervious coverage so that same would not exceed 20%.  Mr. Fox presented exhibit A-1 which was a colorized version of sheet Z-1 of his exhibit.

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The Board finds the applicant’s style of home (a single level ranch) primarily responsible for the need for coverage variances.  The applicant’s proposed reutilization of the subject premises is a reasonable upgrade and readaptation of the existing infrastructure.  As testified to by the applicant’s architect, “going up” was not a viable or practical option.  By eliminating the impervious coverage variance, the applicant has really addressed the main negative of this proposal.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 11th day of April, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Plans to be revised to reduce impervious coverage to 20% or less in accordance with the testimony of the applicant’s architect.
  2. Addition to be sized and located as depicted on the plans attached to the application (subject to the reduction of impervious coverage noted above).

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA-16-05 – KARLA LESSIG – VARIANCE FOR SECOND FLOOR ADDITION LOCATED ON MITCHELL AVE., BLOCK 10019, LOTS 2, 3, 5 IN R-1 ZONE

 

In the matter of Karla Lessig

Case No. BA-16-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: April 11, 2005

Memorialized: May 9, 2005

 

            WHEREAS, Karla Lessig has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring dimensional variance for premises located at Mitchell Avenue and known as Block 10019, Lots 2,3,5 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-1” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-1001D5A, 13-1001D4 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

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

  1. Larry I. Kron, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is the owner of the subject premises.  The subject premises are a single-family home. 
  3. The applicant and her husband (Douglas Lessig) own the adjoining unimproved parcel designated tax lots 1 & 4, block 10019.
  4. The applicant was proposing to merge the two properties into a single parcel.  The applicant had previously submitted an application to construct an addition and received a letter of denial dated 2/4/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. Mr. Potere, in reviewing the application, noted the need for two dimensional variances:
    1. Rear yard setback – 50’ required, 11’ existing, 9’ proposed on the new addition
    2. Front yard setback – 50’ required, 15.1’ existing, 15.1’ proposed
  6. The applicant’s testimony was that by merging the two adjoining properties the need for the rear yard setback variance would be eliminated.
  7. The applicant presented an architectural exhibit prepared by Jeffry R. McEntee, architect, dated 9/27/04 consisting of sheets A-1 through A-5 showing the proposed renovation of the existing house.
  8. The applicant also submitted with the application a portion of the tax map showing the two properties in question as well as a plot plan showing the location of the existing improvements.

                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 location of the existing infrastructure and its non-conforming front yard to be a hardship peculiar to the premises.  The applicant’s property is steeply sloped and on the radius of Riggs Avenue and Mitchell Avenue.
  2. The applicant’s agreement to merge the adjoining unimproved parcel will bring the lot into greater conformity with the R1 Zone standards.  It will eliminate the potential for developing an undersized parcel and in fact advances the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the Municipal Land Use Law.
  3. The proposed reconstruction was consistent with the type of housing stock anticipated by the R1 Zone and an improvement over the existing structure.  Same will only have a positive benefit on the area.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 11th day of  April, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Applicant is to file a perimeter deed merging the subject premises with lots 1 & 4.  Applicant is to notify the tax assessor the desire to have the parcels merged and treated as one tax lot for assessment purposes.
  2. Home is to be sized and constructed in accordance with the Jeffry R. McEntee plans submitted with the application.  Front yard setback to be no less than 15.1’ as proposed.  No other variances were requested and none were granted.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-17-05 – KENNETH & KATHY RIBE – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION AND DECK LOCATED ON KINGSLAND RD. BLOCK 1002, LOT 21 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Kathy & Kenneth Ribe

Case No. BA-17-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: April 11, 2005

Memorialized: May 9, 2005

 

 

                WHEREAS, Kathy & Kenneth Ribe have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring dimensional variance(s) for premises located at Kingsland Road and known as Block 1002, Lot 21 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D6C, 13-7.1301D8, 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. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicants were proposing to construct an addition onto the rear of this existing lakefront home.  The existing rear of the home was depicted on a digital photo provided by the applicant. 
  3. The proposed addition was depicted on an elevation drawing submitted by the applicant and a five-sheet submission prepared by Charles Schaffer Associates, architects and planner, dated 3/17/05.
  4. The main area of the applicant’s renovation would be the existing porch and rear deck as depicted on the plans.
  5. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 2/25/05 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  6. As noted by Mr. Potere, the following variances are required:
    1. Left side yard – 10’ required, 3’ existing and proposed (no change)
    2. Total impervious coverage – 25% permitted, 36.34% existing, 38.40% proposed
    3. Building coverage – 15% permitted, 17.96% existing, 19.33% proposed
    4. Lake buffer – 50’ required, 43’ existing and proposed
  1. The applicant testified that the addition would essentially be replacing an existing porch and squaring off the deck.  The area of the screened-in porch will be the location of the new family room.  The existing deck would be removed and the new deck rebuilt.  The total improvements by the applicant were estimated to be under 50 square feet and the lot coverage increase less than 1½ percent.
  2. Because the subject premises are lakefront property, the application was forwarded to the Lake Hopatcong Commission.  At the time of the public hearing on 4/11/05, the Commission had not transmitted any comments to the Board.

                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 location of the existing infrastructure and the size of the existing property to be hardships peculiar to the subject premises.  The adoptive reutilization of the existing home is consistent with the intent and purpose of both the Zoning Ordinance and the Municipal Land Use Law.
  2. The applicant’s improvements will have a positive impact both on the subject premises and the area in general.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 11th day of April, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Addition to be sized and located as depicted on the plans attached to the application.  Impervious coverage to be no more than 38.40%, building coverage to be no more than 19.33%.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-12-05 – WACHOVIA BANK – VARIANCE FOR SIGN LOCATED ON LAKESIDE BLVD. (GRAND UNION MALL) BLOCK 10901, LOT 8 IN B-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Wachovia Bank

Case No. BA-12-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: April 11, 2005

Memorialized: May 9, 2005

 

            WHEREAS, Wachovia Bank has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to maintain a freestanding ATM facility with related sign variances for premises located at 17 Lakeside Road and known as Block 10901, Lot 8 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-8.916E1 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. Michael K. Ligorano, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant was proposing to install a freestanding drive-up ATM kiosk.
  3. The kiosk would have signs on all four sides.  The proposed kiosk was depicted on a photo submitted with the application.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 8/6/04 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The applicant submitted a digital photo attached to the application showing the ATM machine and a depiction of part of the original site plan showing the location of the ATM machine.  Same is located in the parking area and is not attached to any other building.  It is an unmanned facility and believed to be the site of a former “Moto Photo” freestanding kiosk.
  6. The applicant stated the signage was needed for vehicular safety and to identify the ATM machine to drivers entering the site.
  7. Durwood Hankison, Wachovia Vice-President of corporate real estate, testified on behalf of the application stating same was needed to provide adequate safety and security for this type of facility.
  8. Janice Christensen an officer with a local branch of Valley National Bank testified during the public hearing.  She testified that Valley National Bank was not given the type of signage relief the applicant was requesting and she did not think it was “fair”.
  9. The Zoning Ordinance would allow the installation of one sign on the kiosk and the applicant’s relief was for the three additional signs (noting the kiosk was four sides all of which are visible from different prospectives on site).

                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 instant application to be truly unique and not likely to be duplicated on other sites.  This is an existing structure that is being readapted for use as an ATM machine.  The signage relief under the unique fact pattern of this case is merely minimal.  It is not the type of signage that is being directed to increase business, but rather to identify a facility for the convenience and safety of the public. 
  2. The Board notes the concerns raised by one of the applicant’s competitors, but the Board notes the unique facts of the instant case.  There are likely to be few instances of freestanding ATM machines in the middle of a strip shopping center parking lot.   
  3. Given the existing on-site conditions and the fact that the facility is in the parking area, there will be no negative impact on the zone plan and zone scheme and the Board finds the signage will help promote vehicular safety and security.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 11th day of April, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. There are to be no banners, no advertising materials of any kind placed on the kiosk other than the signs approved in this application.  (This does not apply to instructions for use of the ATM or the ATM keypad and other information directly related to the use of the ATM.)
  2. All lighting is to comply with Township standards.  The signage is to be “back lighted” and same may be field inspected by the Zoning Compliance Officer after installation to ensure that the lighting does not interfere with vehicular or pedestrian safety and is not excessive or a nuisance.

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA-14-05 – RALPH’S REALTY CORP – LAKE’S END MARINA – APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE ZONING OFFICER LOCATED ON MT. ARLINGTON BLVD. BLOCK 10101, LOT 48 IN B-1 ZONE

 

In the matter of Ralph’s Realty Corp.

Case No. BA-14-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: April 11, 2005

Memorialized: May 9, 2005

 

            WHEREAS, Ralph’s Realty Corporation has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury to appeal a decision of the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer for 

premises located at Lake’s End Marina and known as Block 10101, Lot 48 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B1” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.2302A 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. Prior to the 4/11/05 public hearing, the applicants indicated that they would withdraw the appeal part of their application.
  2. The Board notes there are no substantive findings made relating to the appeal.
  3. Applicant received a letter dated 5/26/04 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.

      THEREFORE, the Board hereby grants the applicant’s request to withdraw the instant application.  The Board notes there are jurisdictional time limits to the filing of an appeal from the decision of the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer and the withdrawal of this application effectively bars the applicant from appealing the decision of the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer that was the subject of the instant application (5/26/04 decision of Tom Potere).   

 

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Meyer seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

AGENDA

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced Application BA-66-04, John Shelby will not be heard and is carried to 6/13/05.

 

Ms. Dargel suggested at the next hearing it should be denied without prejudice, as this application has been carried several times.

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced Application BA-21-05, Tree King will not be heard and is carried to 6/13/05.  The other Board members agreed.

 

 

 

 

BA-20-05 - BRIAN CONKLIN – VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD AND BUILDING COVERAGE FOR A COVERED PORCH LOCATED ON FIRST ST. BLOCK 2609, LOT 12 IN R-4 ZONE

 

Brian Conklin was sworn in.  He stated he would like to put a 6’ x 32’ covered front porch on his house.  The sun is very hot, and there is a need to keep the sun out of the living room and front bedroom.  We would like somewhere to go to sit and enjoy the weather.  It would enhance the appearance of the front of the house.  

 

Ms. DeFillippo said the walkway has been removed.  Will there be a walkway to the proposed porch?

 

Mr. Conklin said there will be stairs going down on the side toward the driveway.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked if the shed is included in the calculations.

 

Mr. Conklin said yes, it is 16’ x 20’.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked what are the dimensions of the front porch?

 

Mr. Conklin said 6’ wide x 32 feet long. The deck in the rear is 16’ x 16’.

 

Mr. Crowley asked how it sits in line with the other houses on the street.

 

Mr. Conklin said the foundations are all in line, but two houses down they have a partial front porch that is forward about 6 feet.  He submitted a photo of that house (marked A-1).  He also submitted another photo of a house with an offset (marked A-2).

 

Heather Darling arrived at 7:45 p.m.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there are any other similar houses on this street.

 

Mr. Conklin said just this one.  There are no others with porches across the entire frontage.  

 

Mr. Stern said on the drawings it shows a front porch.  Where is the sidewalk from the front porch?

 

Mr. Conklin said that has not been drawn yet.

 

Mr. Stern said that will increase the impervious coverage somewhat.

 

Mr. Conklin said the steps will come down by the driveway so there won’t be any increase.  It would only require a cement pad, modest in size.

 

Ms. Dargel said sheets A-2 and A-1 show steps coming in front of the porch.

 

Mr. Conklin said if it will take it out too far, he will switch it.

 

Ms. Dargel said she would be more in favor of the steps coming off the side.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked if the original walkway was included in the impervious coverage.

 

Mr. Conklin said it was not included.

 

Mr. Crowley said the letter from Mr. Potere is dated 5/19/04.  Has anything changed since then?

 

Mr. Conklin said no.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application, as the porch is not detrimental to the area. There are some others in the neighborhood.  Approval is subject to the steps being  moved to the side.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Ms. DeMasi stated there are only 5 Board members eligible to listen to the Viacom application tonight.

 

Attorney Angelo Morressi was present for Viacom and stated the applicant would request that this be postponed to the next hearing.

 

The application was carried to 6/13/05.

 

Ms. DeMasi announced Application BA-19-05, Enrique Sanabria will not be heard due to a problem with notice to the neighboring property owners and is carried to 6/13/05.

 

BA-22-05 – LILY SPATZ & BLANCHE VALENTINO – USE VARIANCE TO BUILD A HOME IN A PO/R ZONE ON MAIN ST. BLOCK 6501, LOT 6.02

 

Attorney Bernard Berkowitz represented the applicant.

 

Lily Spatz was sworn in.  She stated she has built homes in Roxbury before, and has done that for the last 20 years.  She stated she and Ms. Valentino own the subject property.  There is an existing house on the one lot which has been refurbished and sold.  We want to build a single family home on the vacant property.  The entire Main Street is residential and we will build a colonial home that will fit in with the area.

 

Ms. Spatz submitted photos of the subject property and the homes along the street (marked A-1 through A-7) and described the photos for the Board.     She stated there are no sidewalks along the street.  She said they propose a 4 bedroom colonial with a two car garage, similar to the one shown on A-1, which is on Hercules Road.

 

Mr. Berkowitz asked if there any home offices on the street.

 

Ms. Spatz said there was one, but it has been sold.  There are no other ones on Main Street.  There is only one house on the street that has curbing.

 

Ms. Dargel said there was a Planning Board resolution on this property which approved an office development.

 

Ms. Stern said on 7/21/04 the Planning Board approved a minor subdivision.  One lot has an existing home, and it was envisioned there would be an office building on the vacant parcel.  PO/R does not allow new residential development.  The applicant doesn’t want to pursue the office development and is here for a use variance and wants to build a residential home.  The subdivision drawings were signed 11/8/04.  There is a resolution requiring the consideration of certain road improvements.  As a result of this single family dwelling proposal, there will be a variance for having a residential dwelling in the PO/R district and for front yard setback.  This is the remainder lot from that subdivision.  The subdivision approval required a conceptual development office.  It was not approved as a site plan, but was just to show how it could conform. 

 

Mr. Crowley said the subdivision approval required road improvements.

 

Mr. Stern said those issues are to be addressed as part of this application.

 

Mr. Meyer asked how long this parcel has been zoned PO/R.

 

Mr. Stern said it has been here for a while, even before the 2001 revision to the Zoning Ordinance.  The PO/R zone does allow expansion of existing single family dwellings, as a conditional use, as long as they meet the setbacks.  There is the realization that there is the presence of single family development within the PO/R district.

 

Mr. Kurtz asked if the applicant explored the possibility of making this professional office space.

 

Ms. Spatz said it would not have been feasible as it would have been the only office building on the entire street.  All the other parcels are residential.

 

Ms. Dargel asked why this was zoned PO/R.

 

Mr. Stern said there was a movement some years ago for a conversion of residential properties to office use.  That included the property cited by Ms. Spatz.  On the other side of the street were a few residences which have since been torn down and become retail uses.  The Planning Board kept in mind that there are existing residences which could either be converted or expanded.  Therefore, expansion of a single family dwelling is permitted as long as it meets the setbacks.  There was a feeling that this area would go retail.  Ms. Spatz has indicated that is not the case.  The fact the accountant’s office has converted from an office use to residential shows it is predominantly residential.  Also, you have a known quantity.  Across the street were some residential properties which have since been developed with the Vitamin Shop, EB games, and Subway. 

 

Ms. DeFillippo said the homes on the block are much older homes.  Are they being converted, updated, or expanded?

 

Ms. Spatz said they are well kept houses.  We refurbished the house that was existing on the other lot in the subdivision before it was sold. 

 

Mr. Stern said the proposed home is 2,700 to 2,800 square feet.  Is that in character?

 

Ms. Spatz said the white house next door is about 2,900 square feet (shown on exhibit A-6).  I think this house would blend in nicely. 

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked, aside from the front yard setback, does it appear to meet the ordinance requirements?

 

Mr. Stern said yes.

 

Ms. Dargel asked what the required setback is.

 

Mr. Stern said the table is shown on the site plan drawings.

 

Ms. Dargel said it looks like the road there is very uneven, and there are overhead wires in a grassy area.  Actually, there is more of a front yard, visually, than 35 feet.

 

Ms. DeFillippo said the house on the left is closer than the required setback.  How big is that house?  Where does the proposed house fall?

 

Charles Brozuski, surveyor and planner for the applicant, was sworn in and gave his educational and professional background for the Board.

 

Mr. Brozuski said the existing house next to the proposed house has a 21.3 foot setback to the right-of-way.  That house was built 85 years ago.  That, and the other prevailing setbacks, all seem to have the same setback line.  The reason we designed the house at 35 feet was to give it a larger back yard, and it would match the prevailing setbacks. 

 

Ms. DeFillippo said the proposed house is coming very close to the back of the existing house.  Would it be in the back yard of the existing house?

 

Mr. Brozuski said pretty close.  The side yard of the proposed house would face the back of the houses adjacent.   The right-of-way on Main Street is 66 feet wide.  The pavement is 30.5± feet wide.   We would have another 15 feet of grass area in the right-of-way, owned by the township. 

 

Mr. Brozuski said the neighborhood is residential on this side of the street.  There were other homes on the other side of the street which have been torn down for commercial uses facing Route 10.  The proposed house would fit in on this side of the street with no negative impact. 

 

Mr. Meyer said at the time the subdivision was approved, the applicant knew what the zoning was.  Across the street it is 100% commercial.  Professional offices could be put there that would look like a residential home.  That was the intent of the zoning here.  He said he doesn’t think it’s an ideal place to build a single family home across the street from commercial buildings.

 

Blanche Valentino was sworn in.  She said when we originally went in for a professional building we changed our minds about it because the building would be so small because of the impervious coverage and parking requirements, it wouldn’t be conducive for a professional building. 

 

Mr. Brozuski said we had proposed a general plan, and most of the parking would have been in the back yard, as well as the dumpster area, which would be the backyard of most of the neighbors.  At the time we did the subdivision there were residential properties across the street.  Since then the residential houses are on this side only.

 

Mr. Berkowitz  submitted a copy of the approved minor subdivision plan

 

Ms. Spatz said the original property was 200’ x 150’.  We got the minor subdivision and created two lots 100’ x 150’.  It is in line with all the other houses, except for this lot, where we propose a residential home.  This would enhance the area and would be very nice.  

 

Mr. Berkowitz said there was even thought to build a home office, but that would not have complied with the ordinance and would also have required a use variance.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Stern said if the Board is considering this, they should be fulfilling the conditions of the minor subdivision, such as the road improvements.  This should be referred to the Township Engineer, or if the Board is inclined to approve the application, they condition approval on the appropriate improvements along these two lots as directed by the Township Engineer, in terms of curbs, road width, and sidewalks.  Since this subdivision, there has been a change of conditions on both lots, and across the street.  On the applicant’s side of the street there are no sidewalks.  There are curbs on one property, and there are curbs across the street as well.

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to deny the application, stating the zoning is there for a purpose.  There is no reason to add another house.  Mr. Meyer seconded.  He said this is a good location for a PO/R zone.  If a new home is built here, across from a commercial property, there will be complaints from residents regarding the businesses.  

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Dargel, no; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes.  Ms. DeFillippo said it is not a suitable location for a residential home.  Ms. Robortaccio, no.  Ms. Robortaccio said she would rather see a residence there.

 

Application denied.

 

BA-25-04 – KINGTOWN DIESEL – AMENDED SITE PLAN DN USE FOR SERVICE STATION ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9302, LOT 3 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Attorney Ronald Heymann represented the applicant.  He said we met with Mr. Stern last week and went through the proposed signs.  On the canopy we will have the 2 Citgo signs on top, and a food mart at the convenience store.  We are asking for an additional sign over the diesel pumps on the canopy.    The ordinance allows 1’x 2’ freestanding signs going into the station.  We are going to ask for them to be 2’ x 4’.    All the signs inside the food mart have been removed.  There are two signs on the highway advertising the price of the gasoline.  Under those, it now says “food mart”.  Mr. Stern has told us that as long as we could prove that there was an existing sign there, we can replace it.  The existing sign is shown on a photo (entered as an exhibit and marked A-23).

 

Mr. Heymann said we also have the test results from the well, taken in June of last year, which were acceptable. 

 

Mr. Wiener said any approval would be subject to a demonstration to the satisfaction of the local Board of Health and/or DEP that the water meets the appropriate standards. 

 

Mr. Heymann said we were going to remove the water tank, but we realized we would need a crane, and we are going to have it removed.  We will either put in a POET System  or put in a new well.  We will do whatever we have to do to meet the Board’s requirements and the State requirements.

 

Mr. Heymann summed up, stating this is an existing mixed-use property.  It has been here since 1939.  We have presented testimony from a planner, landscape expert, traffic and engineering.  It is important to know this has been a station that has been of some concern to the Township.  We have met with the staff numerous times and have made the flow of traffic much better.  We are seeking a convenience store of 1,800 square feet, which requires a variance.  We have designed the plans to meet a better flow of traffic for cars and trucks.  It will be safer and more efficient.  We are trying to make the property a safer property, and it will be better organized.  We are a permitted junkyard on this site.  We are giving up that use and will have a contractor’s yard.  If we do that, we will return to the Board for a site plan approval for that contractor’s yard.   We will improve the lighting, reduce signage, remove the water tank, put in a new septic system, improve landscaping.  Ms. Dolan had testified regarding sight distance, and has testified there will be an improvement.  We will put in fencing around the back of the property and will gravel certain areas.  We will be asking that the church on the adjacent property remove the trailers on our property.

 

Mr. Stern said the applicant had agreed to remove those trailers, topsoil it, seed the area, and they will demarcate where the curbline is for Grace Baptist Church and delineate their property line with a split rail fence.

 

Mr. Heymann said we feel we are making this a better site. 

 

Mr. Kurtz asked if there is a time frame when the improvements will be done.

 

Mr. Heymann said if there is a favorable resolution, we would ask for a time frame of 12 months to do the improvements.

 

Mr. Stern   said revised drawings must be submitted within 60 days.

 

Mr. Stern went over the variances as stated in his report dated 5/6, updated 11/4/04:

 

3.2 – expansion or enlargement of nonconforming use of the land

3.3 – more than one principal use or building 

3.4 – some of the proposed uses not permitted in the zone 

4.2 – convenience store in excess of 750 sq. ft.

4.3 – partial variance for landscape strip in vicinity of existing pumps 

4.4 – bodywork and painting on vehicles, and truck repairs 

4.5 – applicant will comply – no variance required

4.7 – above ground storage tanks – water tank will be removed; variance requested for propane tank

4.8 – applicant will comply – no variance required

4.10 – applicant will comply – revised architectural plans required

4.14 – No more than a total of 3 wall and/or canopy signs- applicant proposes to keep 2 canopy signs, and a sign on the building above the food mart.  There is also a request for 1 sign on the diesel fuel pumps.  Detail of convenience mart sign should be submitted.  There is also a request for 2 tenant signs and a small sign between the 2 garage bays.

 

Mr. Heymann said 4’ x 8’ John Diesel sign will be removed.  We propose to keep the smaller sign which is 2’ x 2’.

 

4.15 – pump island signs – applicant will comply w/72 sq. inches permitted – variance required for freestanding sign 8 sq. ft. where 2 sq. ft. is permitted.  Mr. Stern does not support the variance. – A poll of the Board unanimously decided not to support the variance.  Applicant will comply.

 

Mr. Hashemi submitted the proposed signage plan – sheet 9/9, dated 5/4/05 (marked A-24). 

 

Mr. Meyer asked why just a directional sign to the diesel pumps would not suffice.

 

Mr. Heymann said there will be a canopy there, and we are asking for the sign on the canopy.

 

After discussion, it was determined the diesel sign will be permitted, provided it is color-coordinated with the Citgo signs.  Applicant will provide a color rendering.

 

There was discussion on whether or not a sign for the food mart will be permitted on the building.  It was determined the food mart sign will be permitted, subject to approval by the Township Planner.  The drawings will state that all signs not specifically noted as being proposed will be removed.

 

4.16 – Applicant will comply.  Mr. Stern said  the two Sunoco signs will be retained and the sign frame for another freestanding sign will be removed.  There will only be two typical freestanding signs on the property.

 

4.17 – parking area setback from building elevation – Mr. Hashemi said the closest parking space to the building is a handicap parking space, and it is more than 6 feet away from the building.  The parking spaces to the rear of the building are not being counted as part of the parking requirement for the site. They are for cars in for repairs.  A variance is required

 

4.18 – variance for car and truck sales conditional use – gravel is existing – applicant complies with the other conditional use requirements

 

Regarding Mr. Stern’s memo dated 5/11/04 updated 11/4/04:

 

1.5 – contractor yard required to be behind the building - variance required – applicant will comply with the other conditions for the contractors yard.

 

Discussion.

 

1.6 – sidewalks required – discussion – a poll of the Board determined sidewalks will be required along the entire frontage– applicant agreed.

 

1.7 – paving of off-street parking areas – parking areas in front of the main building and fueling stations will be paved.   5 tractor trailer spaces in front will be paved.  Area between roadway and diesel pumps, and access to diesel fuel pumps will be paved.  Storage parking spaces, service repair spaces, and sales area will not be paved.

1.8 – not all parking areas will be curbed

1.9 – design waiver required for off-street parking

1.10 – hairpin striping will be provided on all paved areas

1.11 – curbed planting islands not provided at ends of parking bays – design waiver required

1.12 – no need for a planting island – waiver required

1.16 – applicant will comply

3.3 – waiver needed for traffic aisle closer than 20 feet to right-of-way in front of gasoline pumps

3.4 – addressed

3.5 – design waiver required for size of loading space

4.5 – community wells are located at the motel, office building across the street, and the Gemini site – variance required

5.11 – applicant will comply

 

The applicant agreed to work out the landscaping with Mr. Stern – partial waiver for street trees, and double hedge plantings – partial waiver for interior landscaping, etc.- certain waivers required.

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked about the vehicle painting. 

 

Mr. Sarafaz stated part of the business in the repair shop is painting.  We rent out that operation.  It has been going on for many years. It is behind the building.  We are requesting the body shop with painting continues.  The truck repairs have been going on for many years. 

 

It was determined the repair and body shop will be designated on the plans.

 

Mr. Crowley asked where the trucks that are being repaired are parked.

 

Mr. Hashemi stated said the  parking spaces are in the back. 

 

Mr. Kurtz asked if there is a license for the body shop.  The State requires a sign for a body shop.

 

Mr. Heymann said we don’t know.  A tenant runs the body shop.  If it is not licensed, we will remedy that.  If a sign is required, we would ask that it be permitted.

 

There was discussion on whether the body shop use is permitted. 

 

Mr. Stern said the uses permitted on prior approvals are:  fuel station and repair garage, offices on second floor of building, truck and trailer rental service, new and used truck dealership and storage of merchandise, new part sales incidental to the truck dealership, heavy equipment maintenance, repair, sales, storage, inutile storage behind building.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the application subject to all items agreed to; subject to proper licensing for all the uses.  Mr. Meyer seconded.

 

Discussion. 

 

Ms. Dargel suggested adding to the motion that the food mart opening is conditional on all site improvements being completed, particularly potable water and acceptable septic and/or sewer resolution.

 

The applicant agreed.  All site improvements will be completed within 12 months.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-23-05 – MC SKI CLUB – USE VARIANCE TO HAVE A SKI CLUB LOCATED ON LAKE SILVER SPRING LAKE LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 2702, LOT 1 IN OS ZONE

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced that the Board will not be hearing this application due to time constraints this evening.

 

Attorney Bernd Hefele was present for the applicant.  He stated this application is for an interpretation as to whether this is a permitted use in the zone.  We don’t have a violation at the present time, and we are here to request an interpretation.  We request that they be able to continue with the skiing until the next meeting. 

 

Mr. Wiener said he does not believe the Board has the discretion to allow them to stay open.  Mr. Hefele should speak with the Zoning Officer regarding the decision as to whether it can stay open or not.

 

There was a 5 minute recess at 10:05 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA-11 –05 – ROBERT KOCOSKI – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON FERROMONTE AVE. BLOCK 2604, LOT 8 IN R-4 ZONE

 

The applicant submitted plans (marked A-1).

 

Mr. Stern said there was an issue at the time of the subdivision regarding the roadway improvements.  Those improvements are going in, and it requires a planning variance as those improvements don’t meet the standards of the township.

 

Mr. Kocoski said the driveway now comes in off DeHart Street.  Regarding the basement, we have changed the beam so that part of the basement is a wine cellar and the rest of the basement will remain open. It is shown on the foundation plan.

 

Mr. Kocoski stated the main concern was regarding a side door, and we are willing to remove the side door completely – it is shown on the left side elevation.   We will not be using it as a handicap entrance for our parents as they will only be staying with us for about 5 years.  We have also changed the plan to take away part of the kitchen, and will remove the wall and leave it as a dining room.  On the second floor, there is an opening in the hallway going into the sitting area. 

 

Mr. Kocoski showed pictures and stated they show the house will now be facing the opposite of the proposed building.  There will be no deck area.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the Board had requested that there not be a separate entrance to the area on the second floor.  Why is there still a separate stairway and separate entrance?

 

Mr. Kocoski said it is an existing stairway, and they want to use it until their parents leave.

 

Ms. DeFillippo said in the dining room, what is there?  A window or a doorway?

 

Mr. Kocoski said it is a window.  Outside is the existing stairs and the existing deck which will be removed.  The door will also be removed.

 

Mr. Crowley asked where the stairs on the right hand side go. 

 

Mr. Kocoski said the stairs go into the sitting room.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if this constitutes a two-family home

 

Mr. Wiener said the space is integrated.

 

Mr. Stern said there are two laundry areas.

 

Mr. Kocoski said he will be removing the second laundry area.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked why there is a bathroom off the dining room.

 

Mr. Kocoski said that bathroom is existing.  He is leaving it as it is accessible for his parents. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Wiener said the most recent submission will be marked A-2, and sealed plans will have to be submitted for building plans.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resubmitted plan (A-2) and it is not a two-family house.  The applicant has stated his parents will live there for 5 years.  If any interior changes are made, they are subject to building and zoning permits; single family use-resolution to be recorded in the chain of title; conditioned on road improvements as directed by the Township Engineer, and street trees to be included.  Mr. Meyer seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Crowley, no; Ms. DeFillippo, no.  Ms. DeFillippo said it looks like a 2-family house.  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, no.

 

The application was approved by a vote of 4-3.

 

BA-1-05 – SUCCASUNNA SERVICE CENTER – USE VARIANCE FOR FOOD MART LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 4002, LOT 23 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant.

 

Ms. Dargel said she has utilized the service station.   

 

Mr. Nusbaum had no objection to Ms. Dargel hearing the case.

 

Ms. Meyer said she has know Mr. Poissant as a member of the Roxbury Fire Department, but not socially.  There was no objection to Mr. Meyer hearing the case.

 

Ms. Darling said she also had repairs done to tires at the station.

 

There was no objection from the applicant

 

Mr. Nusbaum stated Mr. Poissant is a principal of the service station and has leased the property since 2004.  It is a Gulf service station and repair shop.  At the time he leased the property a small portion had been utilized as a convenience store and he continued the use.  Subsequently, he was informed by the Zoning Officer that a variance would be required to continue the convenience store.  This is a B-2 business zone, and the gas station is permitted as a conditional use, and would be a conditional use before the Planning Board for the convenience store, except that the gas station itself doesn’t meet all of the side yard setback provisions.

 

Mr. Stern asked the size of the area of the convenience store.

 

Jeff Poissant was sworn in.  He stated the survey reflects the condition of the property at the present time. 

 

The survey was marked A-1.

 

Mr. Poissant said he has had a service station in town for 10 years and leased this property in November of 2004.  It was being used for a repair shop and convenience store, and he continued to use it for that purpose.  The convenience store portion is 20’ x 20’.  We sell soda, gum, snacks, water, cigarettes, and tobacco.  The people who use the store are mostly landscapers who come in between 6:00 and 8:00 a.m.  I see it as a necessary addition to the business.  The service station sells fuel oil, and diesel fuel, and there is a repair shop.  The tires that were on the site have been removed, and all used tires are taken away about every 2 weeks to another facility. 

 

Mr. Poissant said since he took possession of the property, he has cleaned the site of trash  ranging from tires to garbage to expired merchandise from the store.  The dumpster in front of the building will be relocated to the rear of the building.  The vehicles there for repairs are kept along the right side and around the back of the building.  The hours of operation are Monday thru Saturday from 6 am to 10 p.m. and Sunday from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m.  That is also the hours for the convenience store.  There are two full time employees in for service and myself.  There are 4 full time employees pumping gas.

 

Mr. Kurtz said Dean Oil was in for site plan approval a few years ago.  What happened to that?

 

Mr. Stern said they abandoned that approval.

 

Mr. Poissant said about two months ago, the owner said because of the price of the proposed canopy, it wasn’t feasible for him at this time.

 

Mr. Stern said in terms of site improvements, the only thing would be to relocate the dumpster area.  With the convenience mart, outdoor vending machines are prohibited.  Will that go inside?

 

Mr. Poissant said he would agree to put it inside.

 

Mr. Meyer said the store is small, and is appropriate. 

 

Mr. Stern said the applicant testified to a 400 sq. ft. area.  The code allows up to 750 sq. ft.  This would be what is envisioned by that ordinance.  It is truly ancillary to the service station use.

 

Mr. Meyer said the site has been greatly improved.   The Township is endeavoring to improve that section of Route 46.   There are cars in the rear of the building that are for sale and some on the side.

 

Mr. Poissant said there are 3 cars there now.  I very rarely have that many.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if vehicle sales is permitted.

 

Mr. Stern said site plan approvals would be required.

 

Discussion.

 

The Board determined they would allow the applicant to have a maximum of two vehicles for sale at any one time.  They would be parked on the paved area on the side of the building.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said there are a lot of vehicles in the back.

 

Mr. Poissant said three of them he owns and about 6 are customer’s cars.   

 

Ms. Dargel asked about the number of spaces.

 

Mr. Poissant said there are two bays and three garage doors.  There is customer parking for 5 – 12 customers per day.  Parking runs from the marina side down the pavement to where the shed is and on the other side of the shed it runs down around the gravel around the back. I could fit probably 50 cars there.  I would prefer to have the customers cars there, work on them, and have them leave.

 

Ms. Dargel said typically the number of cars is based on the number of bays.

 

Mr. Poissant said the Zoning Officer said there are 6 cars a day allowed to be there parked overnight.  I told him that would be difficult as I work on 7 – 10 cars a day.  There might be a few left over.  He said that would not be a problem as long as it didn’t happen every day.  

 

Mr. Stern said the township has recently passed an ordinance stipulating hours of operation not being permitted from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. within 200 feet of a residential district.  This property is within 200 feet. 

 

Mr. Poissant said he is not open from 11 p.m. to 6 a.m. 

 

Mr. Poissant agreed there will be no outside vending machines, no outside radios or speakers.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Meyer made a motion to approve the application with the stipulations discussed tonight.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Meyer, Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 11:00 p.m.

 

                                                                        Dolores A. DeMasi

 

/lm