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

A regular and reorganizational meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m.

 

REORGANIZATION

 

Ms. DeMasi announced that Joyce Dargel and Barbara Kinback have been reappointed to a 4 year term; Peter Giardina was appointed as a regular member until 2007.  She welcomed new Board members Edward Data as Alternate #1 and John Wetzel as Alternate #2.

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Gail Robortaccio, Mark Crowley, Barbara Kinback, Sebastian D’Amato, Peter Giardina, Edward Data, John Wetzel

 

ABSENT:  Joyce Dargel, Robert Kurtz.

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener, Russell Stern.

 

Ms. DeMasi asked for nominations for Chairperson.

 

Mr. Crowley nominated Gail Robortaccio.  Ms. Kinback seconded.

 

There were no other nominations.

 

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

 

Ms. Robortaccio assumed the Chair.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked for nominations for Vice Chairperson.

 

Mr. Giardina nominated Mark Crowley.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

There were no other nominations.

 

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

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked for nominations for Board Secretary.

 

Ms. Kinback nominated Dolores DeMasi.  Mr. Giardina seconded.

 

There were no other nominations.

 

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

 

Ms. Robortaccio read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.

 

Resolution #1

 

                                                RESOLUTION

                TO PROVIDE ANNUAL NOTICE OF MEETINGS

 

                WHEREAS, the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury, Morris County, New Jersey, must provide annual notice to all regular meetings to be held by said Board during the calendar year 2007.

               

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the schedule of regular meeting dates annexed hereto as Exhibit A, be and hereby declared to be the official list of dates of regular meetings to be held by the Board for the calendar year 2007 being the second Monday of each month.

 

                BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said meetings shall commence at 7:30p.m.; unless otherwise called by the Municipal Building, 1715 Route 46, Ledgewood, New Jersey

 

EXHIBIT A

 

January 8, 2007                                     July 9, 2007

 

February 12, 2007                 August 13, 2007

 

March 12, 2007                                     September 10, 2007

 

April 9, 2007                                    October 15, 2007

 

May  14, 2007                                        November  8, 2007

 

June 11, 2007                                    December 10, 2007

 

 

Discussion.  Corrections noted and made.

 

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

 

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

 

Resolution #2

 

 

                        REVISED RESOLUTION FOR NOTICES AND

          DESIGNATING  NEWSPAPERS

 

            WHEREAS,  the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury, Morris County, New Jersey, is required to select a public place for the posting of notices all regular and special meetings; and

 

            WHEREAS,  said Board must provide notice of all regular and special meetings to at least two(2) newspapers, one of which must be the official municipal newspaper.

 

            NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the public place for the posting of notices of all regular and special meetings of said Board be the bulletin board for the calendar year 2007, located within the Municipal Building of the municipality located at 1715 Route 46, Ledgewood, New Jersey, and

 

            BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all notices of the meeting of this board be furnished to the following two newspapers as designated by the Township Council.

 

Daily Record

Star Ledger

 

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

 

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

 

Resolution #3

 

RESOLUTION FIXING “FEES” FOR NOTICE OF MEETINGS

 

            WHEREAS, N.J.S. 10:4-6 et. Seq. Known as the “Open Public Meetings Act”, provides for the fixing of a reasonable charge to be paid by any person requesting notification of meetings of the Board of Adjustment.

 

            NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury that the sum of $40.00 is hereby fixed as a fee to be paid by anyone requesting that notices of meetings of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury for the 2007calendar year to be mailed to such person; but, as provided in N.J.S. 40:4-19, no charge shall be made to any newspaper requesting the mail of such notices to its business office.

 

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

 

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

 

Resolution #4

 

                RESOLUTION OF RETAINING AN ATTORNEY AND CONSULTING

                                                ENGINEER

 

            WHEREAS, there exists a need for the retention of an attorney and engineer by the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury, and

 

            WHEREAS, the funds are available for this purpose; and

 

            WHEREAS, Section 40:55D-71b, Article 9 of the Municipal Land Use Laws states that the Board of Adjustment may employ, or contract form and fix the compensation of legal counsel, other than the municipal attorney and experts, and other staff and services as it may deem necessary, of exceeding the amount appropriated by the governing body for its use; and

 

            WHEREAS, the Local Public Contracts Law (N.J.S.A. 40A:11-1 et. seq.) requires that the “Professional Services”; without competitive bids must be publicly advertised.

 

            NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury as follows:

 

            1. Wiener & McMahon is retained to serve as Counsel to the Board during the year of 2007.

 

            2. Ferriero Engineering is retained to serve as Engineer to the Board during the year of 2007.

 

            3.  These contracts are awarded without competitive bidding as a “Professional Service” under the provisions of the Local Contracts Law because legal services and engineering services are rendered by persons authorized by law to practice their recognized professions and because such services are a qualitative nature as will not reasonably permit the drawing of specifications or the receipt of competitive bids.

 

            4.  A copy of this resolution shall be published in the official newspaper as designated by the Township Committee as required by law within ten (10) days of its passage.

 

5.  This resolution shall take effect immediately.

 

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the resolution, nominating Wiener and McMahon as Counsel to the Board and Ferriero Engineering as Engineer to the Board.   Ms. Kinback seconded.

 

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

 

AGENDA

 

Minutes of 12/11/06

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

BA-63-06 – OMNIPOINT COMMUNICATIONS – USE AND SITE PLAN FOR ANTENNA LOCATED IN THE ROXBURY MALL, BLOCK 5004, LOT 8 IN B-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Omnipoint Communications, Inc.

Case No. BA-63-06

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

                WHEREAS, Omnipoint Communications, Inc. have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a wireless communication facility for premises located at the Roxbury Mall (Route 10/Sunset Strip) and known as Block 5004, Lot 8 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.2602D 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. David Soloway, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is a licensed wireless communication carrier.
  3. Prior to the public hearing, the Board received the following documents:

Prepared by Innovative Engineering, Inc. – revised 10/16/06

Sheet T01, Cover Sheet

Sheet T01A, 200-Foot Property Owners List

Sheet Z01, Site Plan

Sheet Z02, Roof Plan and Elevation

Sheet Z03, Equipment Plan, Antenna & Cabinet Specs

Sheet Z04, Cable & Conduit Routing Details

Structural Letter, dated 5/26/06

 

Prepared by T.K. Design Associates

 

Visual Analysis for Omnipoint Communications, dated 5/31/06

 

Prepared by Pinnacle Telecom Group

 

Antenna Site FCC RF Compliance Assessment and Report, dated 5/19/06

 

Prepared by Archie Dickson

 

Locating Report, dated 6/26/06

 

  1. The Board received the following reports:
    1. Russell Stern, Township Planner, dated 10/25/06
    2. John Hansen, Township Engineer, dated 10/25/06
  2. The following relief is necessary:
    1. A “d” variance is necessary from Section 13-7.26 as wireless telecommunication technology is not a permitted or conditional use in the B-3 District.  In addition, the proposed height, at 64’, may be a technical violation of the height Ordinance of the zone noting the existing building is at 65’.
  3. A public hearing was conducted on 12/12/06. 
  4. The applicant’s first witness was its RF Engineer, Archie Dickson.  Mr. Dickson stated that he had a lengthy career in wireless communications – first in the United Kingdom and for the last five years in the United States of America.
  5. Mr. Dickson presented an exhibit A-1 which was composed of a base map and three colored overlays.
  6. Mr. Dickson noted that there was a gap in coverage, that the proposed site would fill the gap in coverage, and that the proposed site would fit within the build out of the T Mobile Network.  He further noted that there were no conforming zoning locations within the area of the gap that would address the gap and thus, the reutilization of this site was the best zoning alternative for accomplishing the needs of the applicant as a provider of wireless telecommunication service.  Mr. Dickson also referred to the exhibits and photographs attached to the application.
  7. The applicant’s second witness was Daniel J. Collins.  Mr. Collins was a consultant to the applicant and was employed by the Pinnacle Telecom Group.  His area of specialization was radio frequency admission standards.  Mr. Collins stated that he had tested and analyzed the proposed array of antennas and stated that same would unequivocally comply by a standard of 98 times the level of radio frequency emissions adopted by the Federal Communications Commission.  He noted same complied with the standards of New Jersey, which was somewhat less than those required by the federal government.
  8. Ron Igneri, the applicant’s civil and professional engineer, was the next witness.  Mr. Igneri was part of Innovative Engineering which firm was the author of the site plan presented to the Board.  He reviewed the two sheets of the site plan and analyzed the engineering impact of reusing the instant site.  He stated same was entirely suitable from an engineering and structural standpoint.
  9. Christopher Neville, the applicant’s professional planner, was the applicant’s final witness.  Mr. Neville presented exhibits A-3, A-4, and A-5.  These exhibits were renderings of the site with and without the additional antennas.  He noted that the applicant was merely seeking to co-locate on an existing site and that, while a use variance was required, he opined that the intent and purpose of the Ordinance was clearly met in that this was a least intrusive way of providing a vital service to Township residences.  He noted the site was already a wireless communication facility and the modest addition of six antennas would be virtually imperceptible to anyone looking at the building.

                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 instant site is no stranger to the Board of Adjustment.  The Board of Adjustment has already approved the site for the use as a wireless communication facility in conjunction with its main use as a commercial office building.  Clearly, the modest intensification proposed by this applicant is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance; acknowledging the need for wireless service but attempting to minimize its intrusive nature.  Clearly, the six co-located antennas are a better alternative than a freestanding monopole.
  2. The Board finds the testimony of the applicant’s professionals to be credible.  This is clearly the most suitable site to cover the “gap” identified by the applicant. 
  3. The Board agrees that the additional antennas are de minimis intensity under the circumstances of the within application and will have little, if any, impact on the zone plan and zone scheme.  The Board further notes the testimony of the radio frequency emissions expert and finds same to be credible.  There will be no health or safety aspect from the use of this site as proposed. 

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the  11th  day of    December  2006 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Bulk Requirements Table on sheet Z01 shall be revised to specify a 28-foot maximum height.
  2. The antennas shall be horizontally aligned with the top of the existing antennas.  The plans shall be modified accordingly.
  3. Any equipment that would be exposed to the rest of the site and surrounding properties shall be painted to match the building.
  4. All wire/cable shall be routed within the building.
  5. The height and location of the GPS antenna shall be noted and depicted on the elevation drawing.  Same is not to exceed the height of the parapet roof.
  6. Applicant shall comply with Section 13-7.829 requiring mandatory Mount Laurel Development Impact fees.

 

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

 

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

 

BA-62-06 – BLANCHE VALENTINO/LILLY SPATZ – USE VARIANCE FOR HOME LOCATED ON MAIN ST. BLOCK 8602, LOT 16 IN LI/OR ZONE

 

In the matter of Lilly Spatz & Blanche Valentino

Case No. BA-62-05

 

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

 

Approved: December 11, 2006

Memorialized: January 8, 2007

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, Lilly Spatz & Blanche Valentino have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a single-family home requiring a use variance for premises located at 183 Main Street and known as Block 6501, Lot 6.02 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “PO/R” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.22 and 13-7.2202D3 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. Bernard Berkowitz, Esquire represented the applicants.
  2. The applicants are the owners of the subject premises – an unimproved lot.
  3. The applicant submitted the following exhibits:

Prepared by Benchmark Land Surveyors, Inc.

-Sheet 1 of 1, Site Plan, revised September 1, 2006

Prepared by Joel E. Jenkins, A.I.A. – Building Plans Proposed Home

-Sheet 1, Elevations, dated September 6, 2006

-Sheet 2, Lower Level Plan, dated September 6, 2006

-Sheet 3, Upper Level Plan, dated September 6, 2006

  1. The subject property encompasses 15,450 square feet and is located in the PO/R Professional Office/Residential District.  The adjoining property to the west contains a 1-½ story single-family dwelling and the parcel to the east is also developed with a single-family dwelling.  Both of these adjoining lots are located in the PO/R Zone.
  2. Located to the north is the Drakesville condominium complex, which is in the Multi-Family Residential District. 
  3. The subject property was created by virtue of a minor subdivision granted by the Planning Board in 2004.  It was contemplated that the site would be developed with a business use, however, the applicant appeared before the Zoning Board in 2005 seeking a “d” variance to develop the property with a single-family dwelling.  On 5/9/05, the Zoning Board denied the variance as the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof to justify the grant of a use variance.
  4. Subsequent to that application, the applicant appeared before the Planning Board Master Plan Committee.  The Planning Board has indicated its approval to rezone the area to the R-3 Single Family Residential Zone.  It is contemplated that this will take place sometime in 2007.
  5. As a result of the Planning Board action, it is clear that there has been a substantial change of circumstances and that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to the instant application.  In addition, the present home is a smaller home that is more compatible with the modest homes in the area.
  6. The following relief is noted:

Variance – A “d” variance is necessary from Section 13-7.22 as a single-family dwelling is prohibited in the PO/R Professional Office/Residential District.  The Township Planner opined that the subject parcel is particularly suited for the proposed use and that the variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good land will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.

Variance – A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.2202D3, as a minimum 40-foot setback is required from Main Street while the applicant proposes a 26-foot setback.  It should be noted that the PO/R district encourages setbacks that are compatible with the established character of the surrounding area.  The R-3 district allows a setback reduction to 25 feet, if it is consistent with the character of surrounding properties.

  1. The applicant introduced the testimony of Eric Snyder, its professional planner.  Mr. Snyder presented testimony along the lines of the rezoning proposal that had been submitted to the Planning Board.  Mr. Snyder reviewed the zoning of the property versus the actual use in the immediate neighborhood and came to the conclusion that the only appropriate zoning for the property would be residential and that clearly the dimensional requirements of the R-3 Zone would be in character with the proposed home.
  2. The applicant also presented the testimony of its architect, Joel Jenkins.  Mr. Jenkins described the proposed 46’x32’ bi-level which would be constructed on a cement slab (there would be no basement).  

                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 testimony of the applicant’s planner, Eric Snyder, to be credible.  The Board further notes that the Township Planner, Mr. Stern, in his own reports and analysis of the instant matter, is essentially in agreement with the findings of Mr. Snyder.  Clearly, this parcel needs to be part of the R-3 Zone which is a conclusion that the Planning Board has already made, but has not yet been made a formal change to the Ordinance.
  2. The proposal will result in anchoring the residential character of the immediate area.  The R-3 Zone will help protect Drakesville in the residential standing of the subject property.  It is noted R-3 Zoning has less impervious coverage and building coverage than comparable commercial districts. 
  3. The alternative of constructing a conforming use would have a much more significant negative impact on the surrounding properties.  By allowing this home to be constructed, the Board would be encouraging types and intensities of development which would not cause significant environmental degradation or be at an inappropriate density.  Further, this particular site is clearly suitable for residential development in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 11th day of December, 2006 that the approval of the within application be granted, however, to the following conditions:

1.        Applicant shall comply with the August 2004 Minor Subdivision Resolution and Deed.

2.        Improvements along the Main Street frontage of both Lots 6.01 and 6.02, including widening of the cartway and installation of curbs and sidewalks, shall be reviewed and approved by the Municipal Engineer.

3.        Applicant shall install street trees in accordance with the Minor Subdivision Resolution and Deed.  Same shall be 1-½ to 3” in caliper and shall provide 40 feet on center along the frontage of Lots 6.01 and 6.02.

4.        Applicant shall pay the full pro-rata contribution of off-tract and off-site improvements in accordance with Township regulations as determined by the Township Engineer prior to development approval for the subject parcel.

5.        Applicant shall provide a grading and drainage plan satisfactory to the Township Engineer prior to the issuance of construction permits.

6.        The driveway for the residence shall be paved in accordance with Township Ordinance.

7.        Applicant shall provide a conservation easement for the 50-foot wide wetlands buffer.

8.        Applicant shall comply with the Tree Conservation Code and obtain a tree removal permit prior to the removal of any tree with a caliper of six inches or greater.

 

 

9.        Home is to be constructed and located in accordance with the plans submitted with the application. The home is to be 46’x32’ and comply with all other dimensional requirements other than front yard setback

 

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

 

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

 

BA-56-06 – GINGER STILLMAN – EFIGENI CARRERO & LUZ SANCHEZ – VARIANCE TO PARK SCHOOL BUS ON PROPERTY LOCATED ON FERROMONTE AVE., BLOCK 2606, LOT 3.02 IN R-4 ZONE

 

In the matter of Luz Sanchez & Efigenio Carrero

Case No. BA-56-06

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION OF DENIAL

 

Denied: December 11, 2006

Memorialized: January 8, 2007

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, Luz Sanchez & Efigenio Carrero have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to park a commercial vehicle in violation of the Zoning Ordinance for premises located at Ferro Monte Avenue and known as Block 2606, Lot 3.02 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-4” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-8.704.2(3) 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. Ginger H. Stilman, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicants purchased the subject premises in April 2006.
  3. Subsequent to their purchase of the premises, the applicants began to park a school bus in the right-of-way in front of their home, which drew the attention of several neighbors and ultimately, the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer.
  4. Mr. Potere, the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer, issued a notice of abatement on 7/21/06.
  5. The instant application is a response to the notice of abatement and an attempt by the applicant to obtain approval from the Board so as to permit the parking of a school bus in the R-4 Zone.  Section 13-8.704.2(3) expressly prohibits the storage of school buses within residential zones.
  6. The applicant presented a plot plan and a series of photographs depicting the area within which the applicant was parking the school vehicle.  There were six photographs attached to the application.  Upon cross-examination, the applicant conceded that the school bus, depicted in the photographs attached to the application, was a school bus the applicant no longer owned.  (It should be noted the applicants are the owners of LMS Transportation, which, in fact, was the owner of the school bus.)  The applicant conceded that he had purchased a larger school bus than the one depicted on the pictures attached to the application. 
  7. The applicant testified that they only owned one school bus; it was approximately 20’ long and was parked in the area depicted on the pictures.
  8. The applicants testified that they were close to a non-residential zone and that the bus left the site from approximately 7:00 AM until 5:00 PM each school day.  The bus was utilized in the nearby community of Dover for the purpose of providing busing in a community where the school board did not ordinarily provide busing.
  9. The applicant stated it was very difficult to find an alternative location for the bus that would not involve a personal hardship or security concern upon the applicant.
  10. A notified property owner, Russ Vanderbush, testified in opposition to the application.  His testimony contradicted many of the statements made by the applicant.  It was unclear as to whether the applicant’s company, LMS Transportation, in fact, owned more than one school vehicle.  The Board notes there was never any allegation that more than one school vehicle was ever parked on-site.  In any event, Mr. Vanderbush testified that the school bus was visually intrusive. The proposed outdoor storage was incompatible with the zone plan and the residential character of this neighborhood. 

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant cannot be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

1.  The applicant’s relief is clearly a request for a “D1” variance.  As such, the   standards of the Medici case apply to the within application.  The applicant must show the particular suitability of the within site for the proposed use with an enhanced burden of proof.  Although the applicant attempted to use the proximity of non-residential zones as a basis for the requested relief, same does not give rise to the special burden of proof that the applicant must demonstrate in this case.  The applicant’s personal hardships and inconvenience to operating a school bus business clearly are not valid affirmative reasons for the grant of a use variance.

2.        The Board notes the applicant purchased the subject premises in April 2006 and far from being some hidden “nugget” deep into the Zoning Ordinance; there is a specific prohibition on the storage of school buses in a residential zone.  Clearly, the Zoning Ordinance has spoken loud and clear on this particular issue. 

3.        The Board notes that even where home business uses are permitted, there is a caveat in that the use of those businesses not be disharmonious with the zone plan and zone scheme and would give a commercial flavor to the home business.  Clearly, the applicant’s school bus business conducted out the subject premises with the outdoor storage of the school bus flies in the face of the Zoning Ordinance and would have a substantial negative impact on the zone plan and zone scheme.

4.        The Board finds the testimony of the objector, insofar as the impact on the neighborhood, to be credible.  This is a large school bus that cannot be hidden away.  It is clearly a large commercial vehicle, which is not compatible with a residential neighborhood.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 11th day of December, 2007 that the within application be denied.

 

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

 

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

 

AGENDA

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced that Application BA-5-07, Blanche Valentino, will not be heard and is carried to 2/12/07; BA-4-07, Towne Toyota will not be heard and is carried to 2/12/07; and BA-47-06, Alto Sign, is carried to 2/12/07.

 

BA-60-06 – SEBASTIANO ANDREANA/CARLA BENEDUCE – VARIANCE FOR APARTMENT ABOVE GARAGE LOCATED ON MOUNTAIN RD. BLOCK 6001, LOT 8 IN R-1 ZONE

 

Attorney Edward Dunne represented the applicant.  He stated our clients acquired the property in August of 2005 under the belief it was a single family home and residential apartment above the garage.  The property is in an R-1 zone which does not permit apartments.  The zone does permit apartments for subsidized housing and also accessory apartments.  We will establish this property was acquired as a result of fraud.  There will be litigation.  As part of our application we are trying to see if the Board will approve what was represented to us at the time the property was purchased.   We also applied for permission to use this as a non-rental habitable unit for purposes of a nanny suite or gardener type suite.  If we can’t get the use variance, we would apply for an accessory apartment.

 

Sebastian Andreano, one of the owners of the property, was sworn in.  He said during our preliminary investigation before purchasing the property, it was advertised as a house and an apartment. 

 

The multiple listing sheet was submitted as exhibit A-1 – which states the property  featured  a detached garage with an apartment.

 

Mr. Andreano stated he looked at the apartment and found there was a dining room and kitchen, two bedrooms and a full bathroom.  Attached to the application is a survey showing the configuration of the structures on the site and a floor plan of the apartment.  Behind the property is woods.  There are neighbors on either side.  Across the street is woods and another house.  We were represented by an attorney and a realtor when we purchased the house.  We were never told there was an unlawful apartment.  There were no tenants there when we looked at the house, but we still receive mail for a person who was a tenant.

 

The mail was marked A-2. 

 

Mr. Wiener asked why the mail delivered was addressed to 42 Mountain Road.

 

Mr. Dunne said the owner of the house was Huguenin.

 

Mr. Wiener said you cannot infer too much from the mail exhibit.

 

Mr. Dunne asked how it came to Mr. Beneduce’s attention that the apartment was not legal.

 

Mr. Beneduece said we found after we were living in the house that habitation was prohibited in that apartment.  We found out that there was a Board of Adjustment hearing on this garage several years ago.

 

Mr. Dunne said there is a record in the town of a Board of Adjustment resolution regarding this property memorialized June 6, 1987.    The resolution was submitted as part of the application.  He asked Mr. Benedeuce if this is where he learned the second story on the garage was permitted, but could not be inhabited?

 

Mr. Benedeuce said yes.  If we can’t obtain permission to use the apartment, we would like to use the place to have either a nanny or a visitor stay in that apartment.

 

Mr. Wetzel asked if Mr. Benedeuce looked into the Zoning background when you did the due diligence on the property.

 

Mr. Benedeuce said we just went from what the website said.

 

Mr. Wetzel said the document says the information is not guaranteed.

 

Mr. Benedeuce said we had a realtor and an attorney saying it was legal.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said that is a matter for a court of law to decide regarding the liability.

 

Mr. Stern said in the 1987 resolution that allowed the height variance, it is very clear that the second story was not to be used for habitation purposed.  There are no permits for the bathroom or the kitchen area.

 

Mr. Dunne said the bathroom is hooked up to the sewer through the house.

 

Mr. Data said the application says the garage itself is barely visible from the street.  I visited the property and it is very visible.

 

Mr. Dunne said the structure itself is legal.

 

Mr. Stern stated the story above the garage has been altered, and there are questions regarding the structure that need to be addressed with the Building Department.

 

Mr. Dunne stated we are seeking the approval, and then we will go to the town to obtain the proper permits.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Benedeuce.

 

D.. J. Redmond, 47 Mountain Road stepped forward.  He said Carla told his wife that Huguenin’s wife told her that the apartment was not available for renting and that it was  an illegal rental.

 

Mr. Benedeuce said no one told me the apartment was not legal.  We remember very clearly that Ms. Huguenin walked upstairs with me to show me the apartment and at that time she had offered to have me stay in the apartment. 

 

Sue Redmond stepped forward.  She asked whose name is on the mail envelope that as submitted.

 

Mr. Wiener said Cindy L. Smith.

 

Ms. Redmond said she had mail with that name on it delivered to her as well.

 

John McDonough, professional planner for the applicant, was sworn in.  He gave his qualifications as a professional planner and was accepted by the Board.   He stated for a use variance we must establish the positive and negative criteria.  The variance is for two principal uses on the property.

 

Mr. McDonough referred to Exhibit A-3, broad aerial photo; A-4 closer aerial photo; A-5 – close up view.  A-6 – series of 6 ground photographs; A-7 series of 6 additional ground photographs.

 

Referring to A-3, Mr. McDonough stated the broad aerial photo shows the surrounding area including Route 10 and Main Street.  The property is on Mountain Road, and there is a big difference in density on Mountain Road.  This is a place where accessory apartments make good planning sense as the density is less intense.  A-4 shows a closer view of the surrounding property.  Immediately behind the property is an open space detention basin.  There are very large lots here that are spacious.  A-4 shows the property in question.  It is an oversized lot in the R-1 zone.  This lot is 48,000 square feet and is a deep lot.  The lot is 300 feet deep.  There are no wetlands or other environmental constraints.  The primary residence is set back farther than other houses on the street.  Even farther back is the accessory structure in question.  You also see the pool in the back of the property.  The structure in question was there since 1982.  The structures to one side are over 300 feet away from this structure and on the other side they are over 150 feet away from the structure. There is also buffering on the western and eastern portions of the property. 

 

Mr. McDonough referred to Exhibit A-6 showing photos of the site. 

 

Mr. McDonough referred to Exhibit A-7 showing the surrounding properties, giving a sense of the buffering between properties and the distances from other dwellings. 

 

Mr. Dunne asked if anything would change in any way what appears to be on the property at this time.

 

Mr. McDonough said no.  The automobiles that use the garage now would still use it.  If it were to be occupied as an apartment, there would be very low daily traffic.  The average trips per day for a single residence are 10 movements per day.

 

Mr. McDonough passed around photos of the interior of the structure (marked A-8 thru A-12)showing the bathroom, kitchen and bedrooms).A-13 and A-14 show another dwelling on Lookout Drive which has a 3 – car garage with a second story above.  I don’t know whether there is an apartment there or not, but it is rather inconspicuous from a use standpoint.

 

Mr. Dunne asked Mr. McDonough to address the suitability of the site for the use.

 

Mr. McDonough said this broadly promotes the general welfare and the need for housing.  The structure has been there for a long time.  By purpose of that, there is the provision of housing; promotes a desirable visual environment; provides sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses; provides for efficient use of land.  As to suitability, the aerial photos show the site is particularly suited for the use due to the large lot and   by virtue of its location and physical conditions and building orientation.  In my opinion, this is the best area in town for this type of use because the lots are so large.  This property is distinct and unique in comparison to other properties in the R-1 zone.  As to negative criteria, there will be no substantial detriment to the public good.  I don’t believe it will cause impairment of the zone plan and ordinance.  By definition the R-1 zoning permits accessory uses that are customary and related to the principal use.  The ordinance indicates guesthouses are incidental and customary to residences.  Additionally, case law establishes that caretaker’s quarters could occur on the second story as well.  In the Cox book he states it would also be true for gatekeepers, maids, etc.  We might compare that to a nanny or aux pare as a contemporary use. I believe all four prongs of the use variance are met and the granting of the variance is warranted.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if Mr. McDonough is implying that anyone in Roxbury could build an accessory apartment. 

 

Mr. McDonough said no.  It is clearly not appropriate for all sections of the town.  At this particular location, I think it is warranted and I don’t think it sets a precedent.

 

Mr. Crowley said it was also said that if this were not a rental, it would be a permitted use.

 

Mr. Stern said that has not been the interpretation.  This is a second dwelling unit on the property.  As to the reference that a subsidized accessory apartment was for Mt. Laurel units, to date there have been no subsidized accessory apartments created. Also in the regulations it states it is supposed to be a part of the principal building.  In this instance, you would be putting in a second use on the property.  Apparently the lots on either side are similar in size and lot depth?  This is not unique in area or lot depth.

 

Mr. McDonough said yes, that is true in the immediate neighborhood, but it is oversized and excessively deep, and in my opinion could support the accessory use.

 

Mr. Stern said it is not that unique.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said this wouldn’t qualify for a subsidized apartment.

 

Mr. McDonough said the definition for accessory building, structure or use includes “guest houses”.  If this were a guest house, it would not require a variance. 

 

Mr. Wiener said this is not a separate structure.  It is on top of a garage that serves the principal residence.


Mr. Dunne said the Randolph case deals with a similar ordinance where it dealt with customary uses incidental to the principal use and building.  That case had a chauffeur’s apartment above a garage. 

 

Mr. Wiener said that isn’t what is being proposed.  This isn’t a case where the caretaker or gatekeeper would live there.

 

Mr. Dunne stated I am not suggesting it would be.  I am suggesting it is an incidental customary use to the primary use.  It would be the same as having a full time maid or guard or handyman living here.  No profit would come to the property owner as a result of its being used for this purpose. We feel this ordinance permits that to occur in this situation.  The second part of this application is that we would like the right to use this as a rental apartment.

 

Mr. Wiener said given the fact that the structure already received a bulk variance for height, and if you interpret the ordinance the way you are interpreting it, you would be looking at a building by height alone, that would be in excess of what is permitted.

 

Mr. McDonough stated the variance was granted for a height 7 feet above the zone requirement. 

 

Mr. Wiener said in the prior resolution there was a specific prohibition of habitation.  The board did that with the specific understanding that it was to be only a garage.

 

Mr. Dunne said based on my review of the minutes, the issue of whether it was to be inhabited was never put before the Board.  It was simply a condition that was added.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the Board put in the restriction for a reason.

 

Mr. Dunne stated no one ever came to the Board to request that it be used as an apartment.  We are before you now to request that.  This is a whole new application.

 

Mr. Stern said at a 15 foot height, this apartment could not be accommodated with this structure.  Is that correct?

 

Mr. Dunne said that is correct.

 

Mr. Crowley asked Mr. Dunne if anyone ever lived in that apartment.

 

Mr. Dunne said it was advertised as an apartment. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED  for questions of Mr. McDonough.

 

Theodore Alonzo, 55 Mountain Rd., stepped forward and was sworn in.  He said there were rentals there from 1998 to 2003.  I also got mail for Smith.  Zoning knew about it because I had problems with the prior owners and I advised Zoning.  The parking area for the apartment is 75 feet from my back deck.  It was supposed to be an office with no plumbing and no trucking.  Suppose they want to sell?

 

Mr. Wiener said the variance would go with the land.

 

Mr. Dunne said the entire parking area is available to primary residents of the house.

 

Mr. Alonzo said yes, but they don’t.

 

Sue Redmond stepped forward.  It was said that the distance from our house to the apartment is adequate.  Do you honestly believe that the apartment is hidden by foliage?

 

Mr. McDonough said I believe it is optimally placed on the property.  It is not completely obscured.  The distance between the structures is 300 feet.

 

Mr. Redmond said with regard to renting, you say if anyone goes in there, and as part of their salary they get an apartment included, is that a benefit to the owner?

 

Mr. McDonough said yes.

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION closed.

 

PUBLIC PORTION opened for comments.

 

Donald Redmond was sworn in.  He said we do not object to the structure the way it stands.  We do object to having it rented to people we have no control over and the owner has no control over.  I don’t think you know what you are getting into if you rent that property.

 

Susan Redmond was sworn in.  She stated the prior owners rented the apartment.  I know it was rented because of the traffic in and out and the people going in and out.  There was loud music coming out of the area.  I feel that an apartment there is not good for the neighborhood.  There are too many detrimental things that come from renting it out.

 

Mr. Dunne said even the owners could have a party there and make a lot of noise.

 

Ms. Redmond said it wouldn’t be 24 hours a day.

 

Beth Visconti, 45 Mountain Road, was sworn in.  She said she doesn’t approve of this.  It was approved and it was said no one could live there.  Now, because illegal things took place, they are now asking for another variance.  I don’t think a rental unit at a single family residence would do anyone any good. 

 

Donald Redmond stepped forward.  He asked why the owner wants to rent the apartment. 

 

Mr. Benedeuce said we thought if it were rentable, it could help pay the mortgage.

 

Mr. Redmond said we don’t want strangers to rent there.  We don’t object to family staying there.

 

Ms. Robortaccio explained that the Board can’t dictate who can stay there and who can’t.  We have to make a decision on whether or not to allow the apartment.  If we allow this, the approval goes with the property.

 

David Elbaum, 45 Mountain Road was sworn in.  He stated there is a lot of nature in the area. By allowing renters here, other people in the area are going to want to do it too.  This is the best part of New Jersey I have been to.  Also, to have plumbing and electricity that may be illegal, I am set against it. 

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Dunne said the applicants could have teenage children with cars.  The traffic will have no impact.  The structure won’t change.  The only issue is whether or not they can rent it or if they can use it as an accessory unit.

 

Mr. Wiener stated the applicant has asked the Board to consider this in two parts.  They are asking for a second principal residence on the site.  You would have to weigh that on the testimony and the history of the site.   The applicant has the right to ask the Board to consider this.  The Board first has to examine the classic use variance.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked for Mr. Stern’s input.

 

Mr. Stern said regarding the lots in the area, there are three lots to the west that are slightly larger in size and have greater lot depth.  There are other lots that are greater in size.  This is a single family district.  As far as a subsidized accessory apartment, in that case it’s attached to the principal dwelling and appears as one single family dwelling.  It’s not included in the Third Round COAH Housing Element.  No units were constructed, and it hasn’t got funding.  The zone allows an accessory building of only 15 feet high.  This is 22 feet.  It seems as though this is a self-created situation and it runs contrary to the code and requires a variance.

 

Ms. Kinback asked what his opinion is for using it as a guest house.

 

Mr. Stern said there is a question as to the extent of a guest house.  There is no definition in the ordinance.  What does it constitute?  The primary intended use in the zone is single family.  The distinction here is the way this structure was created.

 

Mr. Crowley made a motion to deny the use variance for a rental unit based on the fact that the house is in a single family residential zone, and the fact that there was a resolution in 1987 that specifically prohibits this use.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

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

 

There was discussion on whether or not to permit the use of the apartment as a guest house and on the interpretation of the ordinance.

 

Mr. Crowley made a motion to deny the guest house as it is an infringement on the single family residential zone and there was an approval in 1987 that prohibits the use.  Mr. Data seconded. 

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Data, yes; Mr. Wetzel, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, no; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Application denied.

 

There was a 5 minute recess at 9:30 p.m.

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced Application BA-3-07, Christian Pinsonault, will not be heard and is carried to 2/12/07.

 

BA-64-06 – 109 MAIN ST. – USE AND SITE PLAN FOR OFFICE LOCATED ON MAIN ST. BLOCK 3801, LOT 3 IN R-3 ZONE

 

 

Mike Kobylarz, Township Engineer, was present to represent the Board.

 

Attorney Tom Buonocore represented the applicant.  He stated this application is for site plan and a use variance, with some bulk variances.  We are seeking approval to renovate the existing primary residence and a barn to accommodate 6 professional offices.  The improvements will be consistent with the Main Street Streetscape plan and the historical nature of the area.

 

Donald Dyrness, a member of 109 Main Street LLC, was sworn in.  He stated we purchased the property 13 months ago.  The main house has 9 bedrooms (shown on photo Exhibit A-1).  We are going to do a total renovation of the house and main house to accommodate 6 professional offices.  The main house will have 4 professional offices, and the barn will have 2 professional offices. There will be 2 bathrooms in the house and 2 bathrooms in the barn.  There are presently 36 nonresidential uses on Main Street.  We plan to keep the historical nature of the buildings and will use energy efficient and low maintenance materials.

 

Mr. Dyrness stated we will add a stairwell on the back of the building for a second means of egress.  We will build a new parking lot adjacent to the library’s parking lot.  We have been able to meet with Mr. Kobylarz and Mr. Stern and have revised the site plans to address their concerns.  We are proposing curbing along Main Street and will fill in the curbing on Hillside Avenue, sidewalk along Main Street and Hillside, will landscape the property as shown on the plans, and will be consistent with the Main Street improvement plan.  We will be donating the outhouse to the historic advisory committee.

 

Mr. Data asked about the surrounding properties.

 

Mr. Dyrness said the library is next door, and there is one residence next to us on Hillside Avenue.  The impact to them won’t change.  Diagonally across the intersection is the Merry Heart Nursing Home facility.

 

Mr. Data asked what the volume of the business will be.

 

Mr. Dyrness said they will be professional and business offices.  We don’t plan to do major changes to the outside. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Dyrness

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Alfred Stewart, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He gave his educational and professional background for the board and was accepted.  He stated he prepared the site plan for the application.  He described the existing conditions and said the proposal is to convert the barn and dwelling to office.  The barn will have a storage area in the rear on the first floor and offices on the second floor.  The parking area will have 25 spaces, including two handicap spaces.  There will be a grass paver driveway to the rear for access to the storage area in the rear portion of the barn.  It will be used approximately once a week.  We propose walkways between the buildings and handicap access.  We propose an underground drainage system.  We propose a sidewalk that will be relocated in accordance with the planner’s report, along Hillside Avenue, down Main Street to meet the existing sidewalk.  We propose concrete curbing along Main Street, but we will put in the same type of sidewalk and curbing once the Main Street pedestrian plan is done. 

 

Mr. Stern asked if there will be handrails for the handicap ramp.

 

Mr. Stewart said there will be no handrails, except possibly in the porch area.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Stewart.

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Kobylarz stated the engineering department did a report dated 1-4-07.  A majority of the items have been addressed. 

 

Mr. Buonocore said we will address or agree to all items in the report from Mr. Kobylarz.

 

William Denzler, planner for the applicant, was sworn in.  He gave his educational and professional background for the Board and was accepted.  He stated he visited the site and reviewed the ordinances and Master Plan.  A use variance is required for the professional office as it is not a permitted use in the R-3 zone.  Variances are required for rear yard setback and for the freestanding sign.  The application provides sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of uses; promotes a desirable visual environment; promotes the conservation of historic sites and districts; encourages coordination of public and private procedures and activities into a more efficient use of land. 

 

Mr. Denzler referred to Exhibit A-2, aerial photo of Main Street area and photos of the site from various locations. 

 

In answer to questions from Mr. Buonocore, Mr. Denzler said if the existing dwelling were to remain, two lots could come out of it and an additional house could be built.  If the house were to be demolished, you could get 3 lots with minor bulk variances.  As to negative criteria, there will be no substantial detriment.  The professional office use is compatible with the uses along Main Street.  The property is at a signaled intersection and there will be no intrusion into the existing roadway, and the historic nature of the area will be maintained.  Additional landscaping will be provided between this use and the residential adjacent use and along Hillside and Main Street.  The proposed use is consistent with the objective under commercial development in the master plan, in that it provides adequate landscaping and setback to adjacent roadways, and the scale of the development doesn’t result in traffic that exceeds the capacity of the adjoining roadway.  There would not appear to be any substantial impairment to traffic along Main Street and Hillside Avenue.  The reexamination report looks for further consistency with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan and this property is located in the PA1 area which is the focus of growth and higher density.  The site isn’t specifically identified as commercial, but from a planning perspective it is a logical extension of the PO/R and B1A zones in the area and is compatible with this portion of Main Street.  As to bulk variances, the rear yard setback is an existing condition.  The ordinance permits multiple structures on a lot provided that it is an office complex and they are related in functionality.  The site is being developed based on the PO/R district criteria.  This would meet the PO/R setback requirements.  The ordinance doesn’t permit a freestanding sign in a residential district.  The sign is 9 feet tall with a 12 foot width.  The actual sign area is 8’X 4’ and is consistent with permitted signage in the PO/R and B1A zones with the exception of the height.   There is a planning advantage to providing a directory sign as it provides identification to the interior tenants at a busy intersection. 

 

Mr. Crowley asked for additional comments on traffic.

 

Mr. Denzler said there is a single access to Main Street.  Since this is an office use, based on the size of the structure, the volume of additional traffic will be di minimus.

 

Mr. Crowley said traffic is backed up there daily.

 

Mr. Denzler said he is aware of that, but this use won’t significantly add to the volume.

 

Mr. Buonocore stated Mr. Kobylarz’s report supports that opinion. 

 

Mr. Data said he feels it is a good use for the building.  I question if there are enough parking spaces.  I am concerned that any overload may go to the library or onto the street.

 

Mr. Buonocore said the number of spaces proposed are consistent with the requirements for the square footage.

 

Mr. Dyrness said one of the comments from the planner was to reduce the amount of parking, which we did.

 

Mr. Stern said they meet the ordinance requirements.  I believe there is off street parking permitted along Main Street.

 

Mr. D’Amato asked if there was any thought to keeping the Hillside Avenue access open during high traffic times.

Mr. Stewart stated we did think of that, and we felt it wasn’t necessary because the  signalized intersection is so close.  People will have to sit a little longer.  It might also take away some of the parking on site, and would also increase impervious coverage.

 

Mr. Crowley asked for information on the size of the sign and how close the sign is to the corner and whether it will impair the view of motorists and pedestrians.

 

Mr. Stewart stated the sign is set back 11’8” from the right-of-way.  The sign will identify the tenants in the office building which is important to do.

 

Mr. Denzler stated looking at sheet 3 of the plans, the library sign appears to be approximately set back the same distance.  The sign structure is larger than the library sign.  The library sign is a post with a center sign façade.  The proposed freestanding sign is designed to mimic the historic nature of the property and the Main Street district.  It will have a stone base with colonial pillars and cornice.  Other than the total height, it is conforming to both the PO/R and B-1A zone requirements.

 

Mr. Stern stated there are residential properties to the west and east.  This sign is a lot larger than the library sign.

 

Ms. Kinback asked if there will be any outdoor storage for overnight parking.

 

Mr. Dyrness said no.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Denzler.

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Wiener stated what we are looking for between now and the next hearing is to address Mr. Stern’s report and to see a new sign.

 

A poll of the Board determined the sign should be smaller and should show only have a street number.

 

Mr. Buonocore stated the applicant agrees to the original submission, a 6 foot sign face width, 4 feet high, and posts to be lowered to 6 feet.

 

Mr. Dyrness stated he would want to list the names of the tenants in the building on the sign, subject to Mr. Stern’s approval.

 

Mr. Wiener said another solution would be that he prepare a draft resolution for the next hearing.

 

Mr. Stern said if there is anything that the applicant does not agree to, they should bring it up now.

 

Mr. Buonocore said Mr. Wiener’s recommendation is reasonable.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if Mr. Stern is in agreement with the lighting.

 

Mr. Stern stated he has no objection to what is now proposed.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

Richard Cramond, chairman of the Historic Advisory Committee, was sworn in and said they are in full agreement with the project and endorse the recommendation that the variance be granted.  In our report we discussed the parking and access/egress from Main Street.  It is still a dangerous situation.  What happens when someone wants to make a left hand turn out at rush hour?

 

Mr. Dyrness said they would rely on common courtesy.

 

Mr. Stern said he sees the concern, but ranks it lower in context to the other community goals that are achieved with this application.

 

Mr. Cramond stated regarding the sign, this is a residential area, and the height of the sign is too high.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said they have agreed to lower the sign and will be consistent with the historic area.

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to authorize Mr. Wiener to draft a resolution to incorporate all items in Mr. Stern’s report and Mr. Kobylarz’s report,  and to come to an agreement on the sign to be presented at the next hearing before a vote is taken on the resolution Mr. Crowley seconded. 

 

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

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced that Application BA-3-07, Christian Pinsonault, will not be heard and is carried to 2/12/07, with no further notice.

 

BA-58-06 – RON & DONNA CARAS – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON KINGSLAND RD. BLOCK 11002, LOT 30 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Mr. Caras said they have made revisions to the submittal since the last meeting.  Our main lake view is from the front and there is a small cove to the rear.  At the last submittal we requested variances to build off the rear of the house over an existing abandoned concrete patio for a dining room and eating area.  We also wanted to add a garage.  Above the garage, we are requesting a first floor master bedroom.  The comments at the last hearing were about the building and impervious coverage.  I submitted a letter outlining the changes we have made to reduce the coverage.  We reduced the size of the structure, eliminated the shed, and the shed-type roof over the existing concrete porch, eliminating the concrete porch and making it a deck, removed the existing concrete bulkhead, walkways, and new driveway and put in pavers. We will dormer out the second floor to the edge of the house on the front half and create two bedrooms. We propose two retainage areas to capture the water coming off the house and addition.  Even though we are not actually reducing the coverage, the net effect of impervious coverage will go from an existing 56.39% to 48.72%, when you take into consideration the remediation by using the retainage area.  It will technically be 66.94%.

 

Mr. Stern stated the existing coverage is 56.39%, and you are proposing, technically, impervious coverage of 66.94%.  But, in that particular area you are draining into drywells, which in your opinion decreases it to 48.72%.  Technically, it is 66.94%.  It is still a variance, but you are proposing mitigation.

 

Mr. Caras said that is correct.

 

Ms. Caras showed a 3-dimensional model she had made of the existing and proposed house and described the changes that will occur.

 

Mr. Data said the house at 217 Kingsland Road is about 12 feet in front of this house.  The house at #221 is set pretty far back.  This could obstruct his view.

 

Mr. Caras said that is true, but the person at the end of the road has let his shrubs grow high, and no one can see the lake now.  Other homes have also obstructed the view.  We have tried to do this with as little impact as possible.

 

Mr. Data asked if they had considered changing the asphalt driveway to pavers.

 

Mr. Caras said building a paver driveway at a 15 to 18% slope is not practical.

 

Mr. Stern said they will be able to park 3 cars in front of this.  The driveway is 64 feet long.  Why can’t you remove some of the existing paved driveway?

 

Mr. Caras said the access door to the dwelling and the kitchen is at the top of the driveway.   We don’t want to take out any of the driveway.

 

Mr. Stern said if the Board were to grant the variance, I would require a detailed grading plan to be reviewed by the Township Engineer.  There is a wider driveway proposed in front of the garage, there are steep slope conditions, and the Board typically looks at reducing coverage.  That is an area that you key in on.  You also key in on the patio to the rear.  It is a very large area, and the Board has voiced concerns regarding the extent of coverage.

 

Mr. Caras said we could put pavers on the level part of the driveway. 

 

Mr. Crowley said I think you are too far over impervious coverage, and you could take out the driveway and make it grass.

 

Mr. D’Amato asked if grass pavers would be an option.

 

Mr. Crowley said the testimony was that it is very steep, and that would be a concern.  I would prefer it not be used as a driveway at all.

 

Mr. Caras suggested taking out two thirds of the driveway and making it grass, and putting in pavers for a portion of it.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the applicant will have to return with a proposal and with exact figures.

 

The application was carried to 2/12/07.

 

BA-2-07 – MIKE HUNKELE – CERTIFICATION OF NONCONFORMING USE LOCATED ON PINE ST. BLOCK 7101, LOT 3 IN LI/OR ZONE

 

BA-6-07 – JOHN MILLER – USE VARIANCE TO CHANGE HOURS OF OPERATION LOCATED ON PINE ST. BLOCK 7101, LOT 3 IN LI/0R ZONE

 

Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant. 

 

Michael Hunkele was sworn in.

 

John Miller was sworn in.

 

Mr. Nusbaum stated there are two applications.  Mr. Hunkele is requesting a certification of nonconforming use.  Mr. Hunkele received site plan approval for the site when it was zoned I-10, and he used the site for garage purposes and for the waste management business and outdoor storage.  There is a preliminary site plan and final site plan resolution.  He operated the business. Subsequently, the zoning then changed to LI/OR making the use nonconforming.  He wants the certificate allowing him to use the premises for which he had the approval.

 

Mr. Hunkele sold the waste management business.  Mr. Miller wants to rent the property.  He will use the garage for the same purpose, which is to repair diesel vehicles and to store his trucks.  The surrounding area is entirely devoted to industrial type uses.  There is a junk yard, a solid waste business, dog pound, Department of Public Works.  In the resolution of approval, Mr. Hunkele had the ability to work from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., and 6 a.m. to 12 noon on Saturday.  The only change Mr. Miller is asking for is to have the hours 8 a.m. to 8 p.m., 5 days a week and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday.  We are also here as Mr. Miller also has a towing business.  We applied for a zoning permit and were approved, but we were told we had to go to the Board to allow the change in hours of operation and to come in on off hours for Roxbury Township to get the tow vehicles, because that was not provided for in the original resolution.

 

Mr. Nusbaum submitted a copy of a letter from Mark Noll, Chief of Police, and the Zoning Permit signed by Mr. Potere.

 

Mr. D’Amato asked how many times the after hour calls occur.

 

Mr. Miller said we are on for 7 days straight, every 6 weeks. 

 

Mr. Stern asked if customers come to the site.

 

Mr. Miller said yes, they bring trucks to the site and pick them up at night.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

John Selby, 4 Pine Street, was sworn in.  He stated the Hunkele's are good neighbors and are respectful to others.  There has never been a problem with that property or any of their other properties.  This business won’t affect the neighborhood.

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve application BA-2-07, Mike Hunkele.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

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

 

Mr. Data made a motion to approve Application BA-6-07, John Miller, to permit 24-hour delivery of towed vehicles and to change the hours of operation to 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. for 5 days a week and on Saturdays 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

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

 

BA-1-07 – ADAM & HEATHER SIMON – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON SINGAC AVE. BLOCK 12106, LOT 1 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Adam and Heather Simon were sworn in.

 

Mr. Simon said we are putting on a second floor addition.  We are expecting a child and need the additional room. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said you will be coming out an additional 2 feet in the front yard.

 

Mr. Simon said that is correct.

 

Mr. Stern stated along Singac they are following the existing line, and the other is staying the same. They are just going straight up.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION

 

Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the application as depicted on the architectural drawing.  Ms. Kinback seconded.

 

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

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 11:45 p.m.

 

                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/