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, Joyce Dargel, Robert Kurtz, Mark Crowley, Sebastian D’Amato, Peter Giardina, Edward Date, John Wetzel.

 

ABSENT:  Barbara Kinback.

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener, Russell Stern, Paul Ferriero.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

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

 

In the matter of Sebastiano Andreana & Carla Beneduce

Case No. BA-60-06

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION OF DENIAL

 

Denial: January 8, 2007

Memorialized: February 12, 2007

                                                             

                WHEREAS, Sebastiano Andreana & Carla Beneduce have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to maintain an apartment (second residential use) requiring a “d” variance for premises located at 49 Mountain Road and known as Block 6001, Lot 8 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 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. Edward F. Dunne, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  3. The subject premises are depicted on a plot plan attached to the application.  Same depicted a home (1 ½ story frame dwelling – the residents occupied by the applicants) and a detached 2-½ story garage.
  4. It is this detached garage that is the subject matter of the instant application.  The garage has been used as a second residence (garage downstairs and an apartment upstairs).  The Township Ordinance does not permit utilization of two principal residences on one lot.
  5. This site and this structure have previously been the subject of relief before the Board of Adjustment.  Attached to this resolution are copies of the June 6, 1987 resolution approving a height variance for the garage structure.  That variance contained two conditions of approval:
    1. Garage may remain as built with second story “hobby room”.
    2. Second story may not be used for habitation purposes.
  6. The 1987 application was filed by the applicant’s predecessor in title, Huguenin.  In 1987 the Huguenin’s came before the Board of Adjustment asking for an ex post facto variance.  The garage had been constructed (as it remains today) in violation of the Zoning Ordinance.  The garage was 22’ high as constructed and not at the permitted height of 15’.  The Huguenin’s blamed the contractor for this mistake and came to the Board for relief.  The Board granted the relief with the two stipulations noted above.  In addition, the Huguenin’s submitted an interior plan for the garage which the applicant submitted with the application which specifically noted the upper area was to be a hobby room, storage, and an exercise room.  In keeping with both the conditions set forth in the resolution of approval as well as the spirit of the resolution.
  7. Procedural history, as noted above, is to give some context to the present application.
  8. The applicant’s testified that when they went to purchase the property it was listed and advertised as a single family home with a detached garage and separate apartment.  During the course of the public hearing, the applicant’s presented 14 exhibits:
    1. A-1 – listing information from 7/2/05
    2. A-2 – correspondence
    3. A-3 – A-5 – aerial photos
    4. A-6 & A-7 – two - six photo photo boards
    5. A-8 – A-12 – interior lot photographs
    6. A-13 & A-14 – photos of other large homes and/or structures in the area
  9. Exhibits A-3 through A-14 were utilized by the applicant’s planner, John McDonough.
  10. The applicant testified that they had been misled by the statements and actions of the prior owner.  They assumed, based on that information, that the apartment use above the garage was a legal use.
  11. The applicant stated they were looking for two alternative variances:
    1. A “d” or use variance so as to permit a second principal residence (apartment over the garage) to be utilized or, if same were not granted,
    2.  Expanding the 1987 variance so as to permit the second floor of the garage to be used as what the applicant described as a “guest house”.
  12. The applicant stated the guesthouse would serve as sleeping quarters for members of the applicant’s extended family who would visit from Italy from time to time.
  13. The applicant presented planning testimony of John McDonough, a professional planner.  Mr. McDonough had issued a written report, which was presented to the Board dated October 26, 2006.
  14. Mr. McDonough noted the instant applicant was an attempt to legitimize a use not permitted by Ordinance.  He noted the Township Ordinance did permit guesthouses as an accessory use within a residential zone.  He also noted that subsidized accessory apartments were also a permitted use.
  15. Both Mr. McDonough and applicant’s counsel relied on the case of Randolph Tp. v. Lamprecht 225 NJ Super 236 (app.div.1988) as standing for the proposition that apartments are permitted as of right above an accessory structure as long as the apartment was inhabited by someone such as a caretaker, a chauffeur, grounds keeper, etc.
  16. Several neighbors testified at the public hearing.  They testified they objected to a rental apartment being maintained on site and felt same was incompatible with the R-1 Zoning.  They further opined that the mass of the second structure was already intrusive and any intensity in use would be a detriment to the community.  In fact, one neighbor who testified in favor the 1987 application testified against the instant application.  This neighbor, Theodore Alonzo of 55 Mountain Road, stated that the premises were never to be used for habitation and wanted to see that it was not morphed into a residence.
  17.  

                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 Board notes there are two separate forms of relief relating to the present application.  In the one instance, the applicant was asking for a traditional use variance.  As noted by the applicant’s planner, the Medici would apply.  The applicant would have to show by an enhanced burden of proof the site is particularly suited for the use proposed by the applicant.
  2. The alternative is essentially a request to remove and/or modify the conditions of the 1987 variance.  Same would remove the limitation and habitation and would permit the accessory structure to be utilized both as a garage and as a “guest house” for occasional overnight guests.
  3. The Board finds that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of relief under either request. 
  4. As previously noted, there is a context to this particular relief.  The context of this relief is founded in the 1987 variance.  As it has always been noted, the variances run with the land.  In 1987, the applicant’s predecessor essentially was said to the Board “oops – my contractor made a mistake and lo and behold the mistake resulted in a much larger and a much higher garage than would be permitted under the Ordinance”.  The Board noted that the “height mistake”, did not merely result in a violation of the height restriction, it also created a large volume of space in an accessory structure.  The 1987 application characterized this space as storage and hobby room space.  At one point, the applicant suggested the limitation on habitation might have been an afterthought by the Board.  Clearly, the Board was confronted with an applicant seeking sympathy for a mistake the applicant claimed was perpetrated by a malfeasant contractor and the 1987 Board struggled (noting the 4-3 vote on the application) to find an alternative to making the applicant reduce the structure to a conforming height.
  5. It also appears from the pictures, from the testimony from the neighbors, and the advertising material and testimony of the applicants that the premises probably were used as a traditional apartment for much of the time after the grant of the 1987 variance. 
  6. The applicant’s planner in attempting to justify the affirmative basis of the grant of the variance to permit the rental apartment noted the lot was oversized for the zone and that the lot was in a relatively low-density area of the Township.  This type of argument actually “cuts both ways”.  The fact that this is a low-density area could just as easily be a basis to note that the Zoning Ordinance intended for this to be a low-density area and that the intrusion of an additional living unit of any kind would have an impact on the density of the zone and a negative impact on the neighborhood.  The housing that was proposed was not inherently beneficial nor would it be providing different and unique and varied housing in any meaningful way.  None of the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law would be advanced.
  7. It is clear that the owners of this property (the applicant and the applicant’s predecessors) developed the property and constructed a structure that violated the Zoning Ordinance.  The 1987 Zoning Board only by the narrowest of margins saved the applicant from tearing down this non-conforming structure.  The Board’s two conditions were clearly in response to concerns that the property would be overly utilized.  The 1987 applicant accepted those conditions notwithstanding the fact that they were apparently not honored.  The layout of the infrastructure (principal home and detached garage) does not really lend themselves to the second residential use.
  8. The applicant’s planner and counsel in advancing the idea that an accessory guest house would be permitted as a matter of right ignores the reality that this structure exists at the 22’ height only as a result of the grant of a variance which expressly prohibited the use of the structure for habitation.  The applicant’s predecessors created an unlawful condition and seemingly want to benefit from something they created.  The applicant would have a much different burden if dealing with a conforming structure.
  9. The Board has some sympathy for the applicant, but notes that any level of due diligence would have revealed the permitted use and the situation the applicant alleges that they bought into.  A letter to the Zoning Officer and/or inspection of municipal records would have revealed the limitations on the use of the accessory structure.  In any event, applicant’s counsel has stated the applicant is pursuing civil remedies against the former owners of the subject premises.  
  10.      

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of January, 2007 that the within application is denied.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In the matter of 109 Main, LLC

Case No. BA-64-06

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

 

                WHEREAS, 109 Main, LLC has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to develop residential property into a professional office use requiring a use variance for premises located at 109 Main Street and known as Block 3801, Lot 3 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301(D)(7)(b), 13-7.1301(A) 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. Thomas Buonocore, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is a limited liability company and the owner and developer of the instant premises.
  3. The existing property is approximately 1.25 acres located at the intersection of Hillside Avenue North and Main Street in the Succasunna section of the Township.  The site presently contains a 2½-story dwelling and a 2-story barn.  The site is presently accessed through a gravel driveway connected to both Hillside Avenue North and Main Street.  The site is served by the Roxbury Water Company and the Township sanitary sewer system.
  4. The applicant proposes to convert the existing dwelling and barn to office and storage space.  The applicant is proposing that the property be accessed through a new 25’ wide entry/exit driveway along Main Street.  The applicant was proposing 25 parking spaces and two handicapped spaces to serve the proposed offices.
  5. The application proposes to control all roof runoff and stormwater created by new impervious areas through an underground storage/infiltration system.  Same would ultimately access the Township storm sewer system via an overflow pipe.
  6. The property is designated as a historic site and is located within the boundaries of the Succasunna historic district.  Hillside Avenue is designated by the Township as a secondary arterial road. 
  7. The Roxbury Township Public Library adjoins the applicant’s property to the southeast and east and is zoned GU Government Use.  To the north is a residential property zoned R-3.  Across Hillside Avenue is an R-3 zoned residential property also located within the Township Historic District and designed a historic site.  Diagonally across the intersection to the west is the Merry Heart Health Care Center, which is zoned PO/R.  Across Main Street to the southwest are residential properties zoned R-3.
  8. The main thrust of the instant application is to seek a use variance and preliminary major site plan approval with related dimensional variances and design waivers so as to renovate the existing home and barn and convert them to office use. 
  9. Among the improvements proposed by the applicant is a 2½-story 14’x16.16’ stairwell addition and covered porch on the northeasterly side of the building.  In addition, a small portion of the barn will be utilized for storage.  As noted, the applicant was proposing a parking lot with 25 parking spaces between the dwelling and the library parking lot.  A grass paver driveway will provide access to the barn storage area.  A 4-foot wide walk would connect the main building to the barn.  The result in building coverage is 6.4% (15% permitted – 6% existing) and the lot coverage is 24% (25% permitted – 11.2% existing).
  10. As noted, the property is in the historic zone, and in addition, is designated in the Township’s Main Street Pedestrian Improvement Plan.  As such, the types of improvements envisioned within this area include paver sidewalks, decorative lighting, curbing, landscaping, and paver crosswalks.
  11. As presented, the applicant requires the following relief:
    1. A “d” (1) use variance is necessary from Section 13-7.1301 as an office use is prohibited within the R-3 Residence District.  The R-3 District permits only single-family detached dwellings and essential services.  Single-family lots in this zone require a minimum area of 15,000 square feet and the lot frontage of 120 feet for corner lots and 90 feet for interior lots.  As noted by the Township Planner, the current zoning would permit the property to be subdivided into two oversized conforming single-family dwellings.
    2. The applicant is also seeking a variance for the barn.  Same is 22’ high and, if deemed an accessory structure, exceeds the maximum building height of 15’.  Thus, a variance is necessary.
  1. Any signage on-site requires a variance from 13-8.915 as non-residential freestanding signs are not permitted in the R-3 District.  At the time of the 1/8/07 public hearing, the applicant indicated it would re-configure the proposed sign and reduce same as recommended by the Township Planner.  The revised plan was to be presented at the 2/12/08 public hearing.  If deemed appropriate by the Board, a sign rendering will be attached to and made part of this resolution of approval.
  2. The following design waivers are noted:
    1. A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.602A, as a 40-foot wide pavement width is not provided along Hillside Avenue.
    2. A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.703B, as an area has not been designated for parcel delivery and pick-up.
    3. A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.707D, as the light lens shall be flush with the fixture housing and parallel to the ground (similar to a “shoebox” fixture).
    4. A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.804A, as street trees are located outside of the right-of-way and not between the curb and sidewalk.
    5. A landscape buffer, generally following the parameters of Section 13-8.806.2 shall be provided along the adjoining residential lot.  A design waiver is necessary for deviation from the planting standards and not providing a 25-foot width.
    6. A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.702I, as a curbed pedestrian walk is required along the length of any building wall which contains a public entrance.
  1. Prior to the public hearing, the Board received the following drawings:

Prepared by Stewart Surveying & Engineering, LLC – revised 9/22/06 & 12/22/06

Sheet 1, Title Sheet

Sheet 2, Existing Conditions Plan

Sheet 3, Site & Utility Plan

Sheet 4, Grading, Soil Erosion & Sediment Control Plan

Sheet 5, Lighting Plan

Sheet 6, Landscaping Plan

Sheet 7, Construction Details

 

Prepared by Stephen N. Bias

 

Main Building – dated 7/13/06

Sheet A-1, Building Elevations

Sheet A-2, Floor Plans

Sheet A-3, Floor Plans

Sheet A-4, Elevations

 

Barn – dated 8/8/06

Sheet A-1, Floor Plans

Sheet A-2, Elevations

 

  1. The Board received the following reports:
    1. Russell Stern, Township Planner, dated 10/31/06, 12/1/06 revised 1/3/07
    2. Michael A. Kobylarz, Township Engineer, dated 11/2/06 and 1/4/07
    3. Richard D. Cramond, Chairman, Historic Advisory Committee, dated 12/29/06
  1. The applicant presented three witnesses at the public hearing.  Its first witness was Donald Dyrness, a principal of 109 Main, LLC.  Mr. Dyrness testified as to his company’s vision of the development of the property.  He noted that  “as of right” the applicant had the option of a two lot minor subdivision keeping both lots residential.  He also noted there was a potential with the need for what was characterized as a minor dimensional variance to wind up with three residential building lots.  Mr. Dyrness testified that his company was committed to developing the property adhering to the intent and purpose of the historic designation of this particular site and its location in the Township.  Mr. Dyrness also gave the Board an overview of the proposed development of the subject premises.
  2. The applicant’s second witness was its professional engineer, Alfred A. Stewart, Jr.   Mr. Stewart gave an overview of the engineering details of the application.  He outlined the proposed parking areas and described the on-site stormwater detention system.  Mr. Stewart further commented that the applicant would address and comply with the recommendations of the Township Engineer.
  3. The applicant’s final witness was its professional planner, William Denzler.  Mr. Denzler reviewed the existing land use and development pattern in the area and gave an overview of the inventory of nearby uses.  Mr. Denzler testified that this site was peculiarly and particularly suited for the proposed use.  He noted the site was a corner intersection and that the intersection itself is controlled by a traffic light.  He noted the existing structures were worthy of retention and re-adaptation.  He contrasted the proposal with what would ultimately occur should the property be developed in a residential manner.  From a planning standpoint, Mr. Denzler opined the proposed use was consistent with the attention paid to this particular district by the Township and its designation as part of the historic area of the Township.  He also noted the favorably comments from the Historic Advisory Committee as well as favorable comments within the Township Planner’s own analysis of the use of the site.  Mr. Denzler further noted the following:
    1. The proposed professional office use is compatible with the neighborhood and established pattern of development along Main Street and Hillside Avenue;
    2. Meets several of the Township Master Plan Goals and Objectives as it pertains to commercial development along major transportation corridors;
    3. Meets several objectives of the Circulation Plan in terms of quality of roadside environment, reduction in driveway cuts and discouraging non residential traffic between residential neighborhoods;
    4. Proposed office use is consistent with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan in terms of type and intensity of development;
    5. Proposed professional office use advances several purposes of planning (special reasons) including but not limited to:

                                                               i.      To provide adequate light, air and open space;

                                                              ii.      To provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial and industrial uses and open space, both public and private, according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens;

                                                            iii.      To encourage the location and design of transportation route which will promote the free flow of traffic while discouraging locations of such facilities and routes which result in congestion or blight;

                                                            iv.      To promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangements;

                                                             v.      To encourage coordination of the various public and private procedures and activities shaping land development with a view of lessening the cost of such development and to the more efficient use of land.

  1. Mr. Denzler further noted and opined that the proposal would not have a significant detrimental affect on the zone plan and zone scheme.  He felt the location, being on a busy intersection adjacent to the municipal library, is better suited to a commercial use than a residential use and reiterated the positive criteria as an underpinning for addressing any negative impact.  In particular, he noted this application afforded a new planning opportunity to capture the intent and purpose of the historic nature of the site.
  2. The final witness at the public hearing was Richard Cramond of the Historic Advisory Committee.  Mr. Cramond generally spoke in favor of the application, but noted the Historic Advisory Committee was concerned about the absence of access to and from Hillside Avenue.  He did concede this determination was not within the purview of his committee and, on the whole, was generally favorable to the application.
  3. The applicant also reviewed the reports issued by the Township Engineer and Township Planner and indicated that there were no areas of conflict and would agree to the conditions and recommendations of both professionals.  In addition, the applicant agreed to re-configure the proposed signage as noted above.  

                  

                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, William Denzler, to be credible, compelling, and persuasive.  The Board finds the site to be particularly and uniquely suited for the proposed use.  Saving and re-adaptation of the existing structure is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan.  Preserving the historic and unique character of this neighborhood is a critical element in the Township’s Land Use Plan.  Developing this site in the manner suggested by the applicant is an effective way to realize that goal.  While there is a viable alternative to develop the site, a two or possibly three lot residential subdivision, this type of development would be inconsistent with the spirit of the types of use and character contemplated for this area of the Township.
  2. The North Hillside Main Street intersection is one of the Township’s core interior roadways.  The use of the site, as contemplated, will serve as a lynchpin and encourages similar types of site development consistent with the intent and purpose of this area of the Township, which the governing body has deemed an area worthy of special characteristics.
  3. The Board agrees with the applicant’s planner that the proposed structures are not out of character with the existing pattern of development.  It is true that there are conforming residential uses, but it is also true that there are commercial and governmental uses near and around the site as well.
  4. The Board notes the favorable comments of the Township Planner as well as the endorsement of the Historic Advisory Committee.
  5. The Board finds the applicant has met the negative criteria.  The applicant has provided adequate stormwater management and landscape buffering.  The applicant, during the course of this project, has downsized and moved the parking lot as recommended by the professional staff.
  6. The issue of traffic is a legitimate issue.  However, any development on this intersection is going to have pretty much the same type of affect.  Residential housing would generate trips and be less compatible with an intersection that frequently backs up during peak hours of traffic.  The overall consensus of the professionals in reviewing this application was to limit access to Main Street and take advantage of the gaps provided by the signalized intersection was the best manner in which to deal with this problematic aspect of the application.  The Board does not find that this application will materially worsen this intersection.

 

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of  January,  2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

 

      1.   Payment of all fees, sureties, and escrows required by Ordinance.

  1. Subject to the review and/or approval of all other governmental bodies and/or subdivisions thereof with joint and/or current jurisdiction over the within application.  Approval is also required from the Morris County Soil Conservation District.
  2. Applicant shall pay their pro-rata share of off-tract and off-site improvements as determined by the Township Engineer (Sections 13-4.6 and 13-4.7).
  3. Applicant shall pay a mandatory development fee in accordance with Section 13-7.829.
  4. Applicant has re-designed and re-configured freestanding signage.  A copy of the re-configured signage is attached to the within resolution.
  5. The approved major preliminary site plan is the Alfred A. Stewart, Jr. plan, seven sheets with a revision dates to 12/22/06.
  6. The following are specific additional conditions of approval:
    1. Outdoor storage is prohibited on-site.
    2. There shall be no overnight parking of commercial vehicles.
    3. Any temporary construction structures or outdoor storage area used in connection with the property during the development and construction shall be in accordance with Roxbury Ordinance Section 13-7.36.
    4. Applicant shall provide additional details for the proposed grass paver system.  Same shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer.
    5. Any exposed gravel surface noted on the 120-foot long drainage storage system adjoining the parking lot shall be identified and replaced with a grass surface.
    6. All on-site utilities including the overhead utilities from Hillside Avenue shall be underground in accordance with Section 13-8.500 of the Township Ordinance.
  7. Applicant shall obtain appropriate capacity allocation from the Township Engineer and authorization by the Governing Body as to water and sewer.
  8. Applicant shall provide a four-way street sign addressing the Main Street Pedestrian Improvement Plan design criteria for the intersection of Main Street and Hillside Avenue.  All details shall be provided to the Township Planner who shall review and approve same.
  9. All curbing shall be consistent with the Main Street Pedestrian Improvement Plan.  (Interior site curb shall be Belgian block). Details for same shall be provided and approved by the Township Planner.  Curbing along Hillside Avenue shall be repaired/replaced and infilled as directed by the Township Engineer. 
  10. Sidewalk along Hillside Avenue shall be set back 5.5 feet from the edge of the curb.  Sidewalk design and setback along Main Street shall be consistent with the Main Street Improvement Plan.  Design details shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
  11. Grass paver area in front of office unit 102 shall be reduced, as the southeasterly elevation provides no pedestrian or vehicle access.
  12. The applicant may reduce the traffic aisle from 25 to 24 feet so as to reduce impervious coverage. 
  13. Applicant shall depict the handicap ramp on the architectural elevations and details.  The design for said ramp shall be compatible with the building architecture.
  14. The lumber dimensions (2’x4”) specified on the Board on Board Fence Detail shall be corrected.  Applicant shall provide a third rail to create a more durable enclosure.
  15. Any proposal for wall or directional signs shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
  16. Applicant shall provide original color catalog cuts for the pole lights for the review and approval of the Township Planner.
  17. Applicant shall provide details for interior lights so as to ensure compatibility with the Main Street Pedestrian Improvement Plan.  All interior fixtures matching the Township recommendation will be deemed appropriate.
  18. Specifically understood that since no illumination was provided for the grass paver drive leading to the storage area that this area will only be used during daylight hours.
  19. Applicant shall obtain a Tree Removal Permit in accordance with Township Ordinance. 
  20. Applicant shall also obtain a performance guarantee in an amount not to exceed 120% of the cost of replacement trees prior to the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit.
  21. Applicant shall provide an inventory and analysis of the condition of existing street trees so that the Township Planner can make a final determination as to the number and replacement of new street trees.  Said street tree plan shall follow the recommendations and be compatible with the Main Street Pedestrian Improvement Plan.
  22. Applicant shall provide typar biobarrier or approved equivalent to be located along the future sidewalk face to prevent sidewalk upheaval by tree roots.  Same is to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.  In addition, the shade trees shall be increased to a 2 ½ to 3-inch caliper with a corresponding height of 13 to 15 feet.
  23. Applicant shall provide appropriate landscaping to accent driveway openings and heavy landscaping along the residential lot.  Same will be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
  24. Applicant will comply with Section 13-8.807D Municipal Ordinance in terms of providing one shade tree for every four parking spaces.  A landscape hedge shall be provided in accordance with Section 13-8.807. 
  25. In addition, the applicant shall revise the landscaping plans to note existing trees will be pruned of deadwood. 
  26. Applicant shall provide low growing evergreens or similar plant treatment for the parking lot end islands.  Applicant shall also provide details of how the plants will be watered and maintained in accordance with Section 13-8.805C of the Zoning Ordinance.
  27. As noted and in summary, the applicant shall incorporate the landscaping comments in a revised plan, which will be subject to the review and approval of the Township Planner.  It is noted that during the public hearing, the applicant stipulated that it would comply with the Township Planner’s recommendations.
  28. In accordance with the recommendations of the Township Engineer, the following additional conditions are noted:
    1. A note shall be added to the plan that the depressed curb along the existing driveway entrance on Hillside Avenue shall be removed and replaced with Belgian block curb to match the existing curb reveal.
    2. A note shall be added to the plan indicating that an Application for Right-of-Way Excavation Permit shall be obtained for all work to be performed in the municipal right-of-ways.
    3. Applicant shall provide sidewalk detail for the review and approval of the Township Engineer.
    4. The plans shall be revised to specify Belgian block curb in lieu of “granite block”.
    5. The site plan shall specify the location of concrete brick pavers.  Same to be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer. 
    6. Applicant shall provide a 4’ wide concrete sidewalk along the entire property’s frontage on North Hillside Avenue and Main Street to connect with the existing sidewalk at the library consistent with the Main Street Improvement Plan.  Curbing consistent with the Main Street Improvement Plan is required along the property’s Main Street frontage to the existing “B” inlet located at the south corner of the property.  Face of curb shall be set at the existing edge of pavement.  The details and approval shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer.
    7. The radius of the driveway curb return shall be increased to a 15’.
    8. Applicant shall provide hairpin striping to delineate the parking spaces.  Applicant shall provide detail in accordance with Township standards.
    9. Applicant shall demonstrate to the Township Engineer the viability of delivery vehicles entering and maneuvering on-site. 
    10. Applicant shall provide an inlet structure for the connection of the 12” HDPE pipe to the 36” HDPE drainage storage system.  Details of same shall be provided to the Township Engineer for his review and approval.
    11. The installation of the 15” HDPE storm sewer to the existing “B” inlet in Main Street may conflict with existing 8” and 18” maple trees.  The applicant shall note on the landscaping plan provisions for replacing these trees should they not survive during the maintenance period. 
    12. Applicant shall provide a silt fence around the topsoil stockpile per municipal standards during construction.
  29. The following shall be added to construction details:
    1. Site plan is to specifically specify the location of all concrete brick pavers.
    2. Curb details shall be revised to specify curbs consistent with the Main Street Improvement Plan. (interior site curb shall be Belgian block) The concrete footings shall be specified as Class “B” concrete and maximum joint spacing shall be no more than ½”. 
    3. Applicant shall provide detail for the handicap access ramp from the sidewalk to the porch and shall meet the Barrier Free Subcode requirements, as noted in the Township Engineer’s report.  Applicant shall obtain the required construction permit.
    4. Applicant shall confirm and provide the details for the dumpster enclosure.
    5. Applicant shall note filter fabric shall be specified to be placed across the top of the stone filled sumps in all inlets for containing sediment.
  30. The following is noted relative to lighting:
    1. Freestanding lights on the west side of the parking lot shall be aligned   with the parking stall striping and located 2 ½ feet from the edge of curb.  In addition, a light shall be provided near the grass paver driveway at the southeasterly corner of the barn to illuminate that area.  It is further noted the final lighting details shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer and shall be subject to field adjustment to confirm that same complies with all Township standards and shall not pose a hazard or nuisance to vehicular or pedestrian traffic.
  31. The following is noted relative to drainage/stormwater management:
    1. The drainage area contributing to the drainage system shall be delineated on the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. 
    2. Applicant shall provide soil logs and permeability tests to confirm the soil types, permeability rate of the soil, and the depth to ground water.  The soil logs shall extend at least 5 feet below the system.  Same shall be in compliance with Chapter 9.5 of the NJDEP’s Stormwater BMP Manual.
    3. Applicant shall re-calculate the equivalent pipe size for the drainage storage system.  Same to be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer.
    4. The invert elevation referred to in the Pond Report section of the Drainage Report (709.81) is not consistent with the site plan (711.4) and shall be confirmed.
    5. Applicant shall provide the rate of discharge for the infiltration system.  The assumed rate must be confirmed with the permeability tests. 
    6. The top of the 36” HDPE pipe/infiltration trench shall not be higher than the invert of the 15” HDPE pipes in order to fully utilize the available storage within the infiltration system as contemplated by the applicant’s plan.
    7. Applicant shall provide a drainage structure where the 12” pipe from Inlet #2 connects to the 36” pipe storage system.
    8. An Operation and Maintenance Manual for the on-site stormwater management system shall be prepared and filed with the Township.  The manual shall include the inspection and cleaning frequency of the inlets and the 36” HDPE pipe drainage storage system.
  32. The following is noted relative to the soil relocation:
    1. Applicant to obtain soil movement permit.
    2. Applicant shall provide backup calculations for the earthwork figures shown on the plan.    
    3. Soil movement permit shall include all earthwork, not just the net fill as indicated on the plan notes.
  33. The following is noted relative to architectural plans:
    1. Applicant shall revise the Entry Elevation shown on Sheet A-1 to illustrate the handicap access ramp consistent with the current site plan.
  34. The following is noted relative to Utilities:
    1. Applicant to comply with Section 12-5.4 of the Township Sewer and Water Ordinance which requires a separate building sewer to be provided for every building except where one building stands at the rear of another on an interior lot under the same ownership.

 

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

 

Mr. Stern said the application is before the Board because it is a residential area on Main Street.  The applicant is seeking to change the residential use to office use.  The use variance was approved.  They are now seeking a sign.  Comparable sign regulations on Main Street allow a 32 square foot sign and the applicant proposes 22 square feet.  The commercial standards permit a sign setback of 10 feet, and 11.8 feet are proposed here.  The maximum height permitted is 8 feet, and 7 feet is proposed.  A recent sign constructed at 52 Main Street is about 7 feet high and is about 32 square feet in area.  I believe this is within the realm of signs that have been approved.  It will internally illuminated and will be lit from the ground.  It will have a white background and dark blue letters.

 

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

 

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

 

In the matter of Michael Hunkele

Case No. BA-2-07

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: January 8, 2007

Memorialized: February 12, 2007

 

                WHEREAS, Michael Hunkele has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury to obtain certification of the legality of a non-conforming use for premises located at 23 Pine Street and known as Block 7101, Lot 3 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “LI/OR” Zone; said proposal required relief from NJSA 40:55D68 et. seq. 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. Paul Nussbaum, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The subject site was formerly located in the I-10 Limited Industrial District.  The site is presently located in the LI/OR Zone.
  3. The applicant received final site plan approval from the Planning Board on 3/9/94.  A copy of that approval is attached to this resolution.
  4. The approval permitted the applicant to operate a garage with indoor storage of trucks and outdoor storage of empty dumpsters.  The exact details of the permitted use are set forth in the aforementioned resolution which is attached as exhibit A.
  5. In addition, the applicant received site plan approval - the final site plan being prepared by Morris Engineers bearing a final revision date of 2/4/94.
  6. The applicant appears in front of the Board in order to confirm the validity of the approved use notwithstanding a change in the Zoning Ordinance.
  7. It should be noted there is a companion application (John Miller BA-06-07) in which a new proposed user of the site is seeking a variance from the specific limitations imposed on the 1994 Hunkele approval.

                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 that but for the change in the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant’s use is a permitted use, which was approved by the Planning Board approximately 13 years ago.  The applicant’s proof is clear and persuasive and the applicant has established that the use of the premises is a valid non-conforming use as set forth in exhibit A attached hereto.

 

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of January, 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. As noted, the Board finds this is a valid non-conforming use.  As part of this application, the Board reiterates and notes that the applicant is bound by the terms and conditions of the resolution of approval (exhibit A attached hereto as well as the approved final site plan).

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Data, 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

 

In the matter of Heather & Adam Simon

Case No. BA-1-07

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: January 8, 2007

Memorialized: February 12, 2007

 

                WHEREAS, Heather & Adam Simon have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a second story addition requiring dimensional variances for premises located at 12 Singac Avenue and known as Block 12106, Lot 1 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D4, 13-7.1301D6a 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 present home is a single story home.  The applicant’s were proposing to construct a second story addition over the existing footprint.  The proposed addition was depicted on a three-sheet submission prepared by Brian Murphy, architect, dated 11/21/06.  It is noted the existing footprint is non-conforming.
  3. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 10/12/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  4. The applicant stated and the Board noted several unique features of the subject property:
    1. The property is a long narrow lot (40’x200’)
    2. The property has three front yards – to the north there is 40’ of frontage on Mochican Avenue, to the west there is 200’ of frontage on Singac Avenue, and to the south 40’ of frontage on Cayuga Avenue
  1. As noted, the premises have an almost non-existent conforming building envelope.  The applicant’s proposal would add a second story and re-adapt the existing home consistent with the re-development of other homes in this area of the Township.
  2. As presented, the applicant was seeking relief for front yard setback to Singac Avenue noting the existing is 10’, what is proposed to be new, appears to be 12’ and 35’ is required.  In addition, side yard relief is required as 10’ is permitted, the existing and proposed will be 4’7’.

 

                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. As noted, previously the subject premises have several unique hardships, lots widths, three front yards, and the location of existing infrastructure.
  2. The applicant’s proposal will have little, if any, impact on any other property.

 

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of January, 2007 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 Brian Murphy architectural plans submitted with the application dated 11/21/06. 
  2. As noted during the public hearing, it was somewhat unclear as to the exact dimensional relief cited by the Zoning Code Enforcement Officer.  The Board specifically grants the applicant the right to construct the addition in accordance with the aforementioned plans with the proposed setbacks noted and depicted on said plans; i.e., 4.7’ side yard and 9.2’ to Singac front yard not including the existing non-conforming setback for the steps and/or chimney may remain as depicted.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

In the matter of John Miller

Case No. BA-6-07

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: January 8, 2007

Memorialized: February 12, 2007

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, John Miller has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to modify the conditions of approval of a prior site plan/resolution requiring a “d” variance for premises located at 23 Pine Street and known as Block 7101, Lots 3 & 5 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “LI/OR” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.3507 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. Paul Nussbaum, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The instant application was heard in conjunction with the Michael Hunkele matter (Case No. BA-2-07), a copy with the resolution of approval of the Hunkele certification of a non-conforming use is attached to this application as exhibit A.
  3. The applicant was a prospective tenant of the property owner, Michael Hunkele.
  4. The application was seeking to expand a valid non-conforming use.  Same requires relief pursuant to NJSA 40:55D-70d(2).
  5. The applicant’s proposed use of the premises would be for the repair of trucks on-site.  That use was proposed to take place between the hours of 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Friday and 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays.   The approval obtained by Mr. Hunkele in 1994 limited the hours of operation on-site from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM Monday through Friday and on Saturdays from 6:00 AM until 12:00 PM.
  6. The applicant was also seeking a further expansion in that the applicant also operates an emergency towing service.  The applicant entered a 1/5/07 letter from Mark J. Noll, the Roxbury Chief of Police.  Chief Noll noted the applicant’s business entity “Miller Diesel” is one of the Township’s on-call towing services and provided round the clock emergency services for the Township and was the only tow company that had the capacity to deal with large truck type emergencies.
  7. In essence, the applicant was seeking two deviations/expansion from the parameters of the prior approval:
    1. Hours of operation as noted above (8:00 to 8:00 Monday through Friday and 8:00 to 5:00 on Saturdays) for the truck repair operation; and 
    2. The applicant was seeking to expand the use by its towing service, which would operate on a 24 hour/7day a week basis noting that the towing service would essentially only be an emergency service after normal business hours.  
  1. The applicant noted that it would only be respondent after hours to emergency calls.

                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 proposed use of the premises to be essentially consistent with the use and operation of Mr. Hunkele as set forth in the 1994 resolution.  The basic hours of operation have essentially been reconfigured and materially expanded.  It is noted there was one notified property owner who attended the public hearing and spoke out in favor of the application. 
  2. The request for the towing service is also another insubstantial intensification of the non-conforming use.  The towing service provides a needed service to the municipality and this location appears to be uniquely suited for said service.
  3. The grant of this relief will have no adverse impact on the zone plan and zone scheme.

 

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 8th day of January, 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

 

  1. The hours of operation for the core truck/repair business shall be 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday through Friday as requested by the applicant and the hours of operation shall be 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on Saturdays.  There shall be no operation on Sundays.
  2. The towing service shall be on an emergent basis and shall be permitted to operate 7 days a week 24 hours a day.
  3. All other conditions of the prior approvals, which are attached hereto not specifically modified herein shall remain in full force and affect.

 

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

 

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

 

AGENDA

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced that Application BA-7-07, Woodmont Realty, will not be heard and is carried to 3/12/07.

 

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

 

Ms. Dargel stated she listened to the tape of the previous hearing.

 

Ms. DeMasi said several of the other Board members also listened to the tape.

 

Ron & Donna Caras were present.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if the front yard setback is 15 or 16 feet.

 

Mr. Caras stated it is 14’7”  The initial proposal had a larger garage as on the resubmittal for 1/07. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked about building coverage.

 

Mr. Caras stated 24.95%is the proposal.  The existing building coverage is 14.49%.  The lake buffer exists at 30’6”, and the proposed is 28’9”.  Right side yard is 8’11” proposed, and the left side yard is 6’6”.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked about impervious coverage.

 

Mr. Stern said the code states that pavers are counted as 75% coverage.  The applicant proposes to tear out a mass of concrete by the bulkhead, and put in pavers.  The pavers proposed are permeable pavers with specific gaps and construction techniques so that water flows through it.  It is actually superior to the standard pavers.  The calculations count them as though they were gravel, but he will just get credit for 25%. 

 

Mr. Caras said the real number for zoning purposes is 63.15%.

 

Mr. Stern said the applicant is also proposing a drywall-type system.

 

Mr. Caras stated we propose two drywells that will mitigate the 100-year rain and will capture all the rainfall on the rear dining room/kitchen addition and existing house.  They don’t affect the actual percentage.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said basically, the impervious coverage is going from 56.39% to 63.15% as shown on submittal #1.

 

Mr. Stern said if this is approved, it should be conditioned on verification of calculations, and also a detailed grading and drainage plan approved by the Township Engineer.

 

Mr. Data asked if there was thought given to putting permeable pavers for the asphalt driveway.

 

Mr. Caras said we substituted the bulkhead for the asphalt driveway.  We reduced the asphalt driveway by 8 feet along the top and put in decorative stone there.  Because of the slope, we can’t use the permeable pavers.  Also, the present driveway is in good condition.  We would agree to do pavers from the front building elevation to where the gravel is at a future date.  With the mitigation using the permeable pavers, it would have a net effect of reducing the coverage to 45.96%, even though the actual coverage is calculated at 63.15%.

 

Mr. Stern said there was discussion at the last meeting about taking the rear portion and putting it into grass.  There are practical problems parking on that very steep area.


Ms. Robortaccio asked why you wouldn’t put in the permeable walk if you are putting in the new walkway.

 

Mr. Caras stated his research has not shown where these have been used for tiered walkways with steps.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Stern suggested a condition in any approval that the rear portion of the driveway cannot be repaved, and can only be replaced with pavers; there should be verification of the calculations; grading and drainage plan to be approved by the Township Engineer.

 

Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the application subject to the items agreed to, based on the February Submittal #1.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, no; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, no.

 

Application approved.

 

BA-3-07 – CHRISTIAN PINSONAULT – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON SUNSET LANE, BLOCK 11904, LOT 7 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Attorney Bernd Hefele represented the applicant.  He stated this application is to rebuild a home on a lakefront property.  The application was before the Board previously in May of 2006.  This is a new application and I have sent a letter to the Board showing how this is a new application.  This application represents about a 1/3 less intense use of the property.  The prior application had a 4-car garage, 5,000 sq. ft. addition; and had impervious coverage of 57%, building coverage of 48%.  The garage was located in such a way that it was obstructing the neighbor’s views.  All of those items have been addressed.  The impervious coverage has been brought down to below the existing impervious coverage, and the house has been redesigned so that it no longer impacts the neighbor’s views.  The list of variances has been reduced to one for building coverage.  17% is permitted, and it will go up to about 23%.  This application is very different from the previous one.

 

Mr. Wiener said res judicata does not apply as it is clear this is a different application.

 

Mr. Hefele referred to Sheet 1 of 2 dated 11/10/06 (A-1).  He stated on the site now is a 3500 sq. ft. house.  There is a garage, sheds, brick pavers, paved drive.  The house is older and not in good condition.  The proposal is to build a new structure essentially within the lines of the existing structure and to remove the sheds.  There is basically no front yard setback because the garage is virtually up to the road.  The current side yard is nonconforming and we will maintain it exactly the same.  It is still a variance.  There will be a second story over the garage.  As to impervious coverage, currently there is 34.9% coverage and it will be 34.6% after the site is cleaned up.  The height of the house will be reduced by 1 ½ feet from the existing.  The distance to the lake is currently 14 feet, and will now be 34 feet from the lake.  Variances are required for side yard setback, front yard setback and building coverage.

 

Eileen Pinsonault was sworn in.  She stated they have owned the property and house for about 3 years and it is presently vacant.  We intend to rebuild the house and make it suitable for the neighborhood.  We have four children, and this will be a 4 bedroom home.  We have asked the architect to design a home to fit the 6 of us.  We have reduced the size from the previous submission.  There are 4 bedrooms.  The first floor will have a kitchen, dining room, great room, half bath. The second floor will have the 4 bedrooms and 3 full baths.  The proposed home is the smallest we can go and still accommodate the family.  This home will fit in with the neighborhood.  I believe the other homes surrounding this are between 3 and 4 bedroom homes.  I feel this home would work well and would suit the neighborhood from both the road side and the lake side.  I don’t think there will be any negative impacts, and will add to the neighborhood.

 

Mr. Hefele asked if the lake view for the neighboring homes has been taken into consideration.

 

Ms. Pinsonault stated with this plan, we have relocated the garage so that it won’t take away the view.  It will also help with the off street parking.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said according to the plan, it looks like the building goes out far enough so that it would block the side picture window on the adjoining property.

 

Mr. Hefele referred to the plan prepared by Fred Stewart dated 10/28/05 from the original application(marked A-2).  He said the concern was for the neighbors next to the garage.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said looking at the new drawing and the adjacent dwelling, it looks like it comes almost ¾ of the way up, for the property on the left.

 

Mr. Hefele stated the concern at the last hearing was more for the property on the right.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the concern was for the owners on both sides.

 

Mr. Hefele stated the property has changed hands, and the applicant has spoke to them.  I know I cannot speak for them.  As a practical matter, this garage location is the least intrusive place to put it.

 

Ms. Robortaccio stated the dormer and garage may be blocking the view from the picture window.  It is very close to that property line.

 

Stephen Bias, Architect for the applicant, was sworn in.  He stated at the last submittal, there was a large projecting garage on this side of the house.  That was blocking the view from the street.  This is the first time in my experience where I have had to worry about a side view over someone else’s property.  The adjacent property has a view to the lake as well.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said we are talking about air and space.  There is a large picture window that will be blocked by this construction.

 

Mr. Bias said right now at the site is a two story deck and staircase that connects the house to the garage.  We brought the bedroom back four feet to try to minimize the scale of this bedroom on top of that garage.  It is a standard architectural maneuver. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if the garage level is lower than the picture window.

 

Mr. Bias said he believes it is.  That window is on the second floor.

 

Mr. Stern said the zone requires a 10 foot sideyard setback.  Is that second floor bedroom set back 10 feet from the side property line?

 

Mr. Bias said it is at 7.83’.

 

Ms. Dargel said she doesn’t believe the second floor dormer currently exists.  That is the section that I think will impact that picture window.

 

Mr. Bias said we did try to minimize it.  This is substantially better to the entire community to have the garage where it is now proposed.  We need the floor area to accommodate the family’s needs.  We are only adding about 350 square feet of living space to the house.  We have eliminated many of the negative conditions with regard to the height, and the boat storage area; we have reduced the size of the porches; we have decreased the size of the room over the garage.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if this house will be built on the existing foundation.

 

Mr. Bias said we are going to try to build on the existing foundation.  The only thing that would deter us would be if the capacity of the blocks is not sufficient.  If not, we would rebuild the foundation.  We are actually decreasing the footprint of the majority of the house.

 

Mr. Hefele said the lot is nonconforming as it exists, and we are improving on that.  We are making it more compliant with the ordinance.

 

Mr. Stern said regarding the setback variance, I don’t consider it a hardship when they are saying they may have to tear down the wall because it may not be sound.  I would consider this a C-2 variance.  They are presenting benefits of the application.  They are updating the appearance of the structure.  They are opening up the view to the lake, not to the adjoining property owner, but to the public that would be on the roadway going towards the lake. 

 

Mr. Crowley asked, if you were to rebuild this, would there be a way to place the house that would not be directly on the sideyard, and would not block the picture window?

 

Mr. Bias said the house would have to go in the general area because of the topography and the lakefront.  We relocated the garage because the Board had concerns with where it was before.  We reduced the size of it, and we made the conditions safer so that they can pull their cars in and so that children can play in the driveway without being at the street level.  This is where the house should go.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if the house were moved a little bit closer to the lake, could you get more of a side yard setback?

 

Mr. Hefele said the house would end up closer to the lake.  The ordinance requires a 50 foot buffer.  I don’t think that we would want that, from an environmental standpoint.

 

Mr. Wetzel asked if the neighbor saw the plans.

 

Ms. Hefele said Mr. Pinsonault spoke to the neighbor.  They have seen the plans and are aware of the application.  They are ecstatic about the improvements of the lot.  They were noticed.

 

Mr. D’Amato asked if the whole garage/bedroom area could be dropped down a few feet.

 

Mr. Bias stated we are already going down 2 feet from the point where the driveway hits the road.  Also, it is very unusual for a person with a lakefront property to put a picture window on the side.  We did try to address it by pushing the room back four feet.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the plans say the proposal is for 2 ½ stories.  The plans also call it 3 ½ stories.

 

Mr. Hefele said the house already has a basement and two stories, as does this house.  The plan is mislabeled.  It is 3 ½ stories.   The overall height of the structure is being reduced by 1 ½ feet.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the application based on the fact it is an improvement over the condition of the existing house; they took into effect the view of the neighbors across the street; it is less intrusive than the previous plan, subject to a lot development plan to be reviewed by the Township Engineer.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

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

 

There was a 5 minute recess.

 

BA-4-07 – TOWNE TOYOTA – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR CAR DEALERSHIP LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 8602, LOTS 12, 49 & 50 IN B-2/LI-OR ZONE

 

Mr. Wiener stated Mr. Giardina was employed by Towne Toyota several years ago.  He has no problem sitting in on the case, and the applicant’s attorney does not object.

 

Attorney Richard Sweeney represented the applicant.  He stated we have received reports from Ferriero Engineering and Russell Stern.

 

The applicant addressed the report dated 2/7/07 from Paul Ferriero:

 

Item 1 – adequately addressed

Item 2 – addressed

Item 3 – agreed – if adjustments needed, applicant agrees to make the adjustments.

Item 4 -  agreed

 

The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report dated 12/29/06, updated 2/8/07:

 

Item 1 – agreed

Item 2 – agreed

Item 3 – addressed

 

Mr. D’Amato said he went by the property, and there were several vehicles parked in the area.

 

Mr. Stern said it is an operational issue.  How can this be addressed?

 

Mr. Sweeney said if there are vehicles parked in an area marked “No Parking”, the applicant should be aware that they are subject to summonses for violating that condition.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said it can be easily solved by designating a different place on the lot for the dealer to come out and demonstrate the vehicles.

 

Solomon Faizi was sworn in.  He said we will have a designate delivery area on the other side of the lot.

 

Ms. Dargel said there are new pickup trucks parked in the back lot in the aisle against the building and along the wall.

 

Mr. Faizi stated most of the deliveries come at night and are delivered to the service area.  We also put them in the garage bays.  There is no outdoor designated delivery area.

 

Discussion.

 

Mr. Sweeney said the applicant will agree that vehicles will be delivered to customers from either a marked space or from inside the shop.

 

Item 4 – Discussion.  There is one unit on the roof in the rear.

 

Susan Mackoff was sworn in.  She stated the air conditioning units are 4 20-ton units, and all go inside.  The condensers will go outside.  There is a parapet wall.

 

Mr. Stern said when they go in, they have to be screened.

 

The applicant agreed to screen the units.  The Board determined a waiver will be granted for the existing unit.

 

Item 5 – agreed

Item 6 – addressed

Item 7 – addressed

Item 8 – addressed

Item 9 – agreed

Item 10 – addressed

Item 11 – will be done on southwest building corner

Item 12 – addressed

Item 13 – addressed

Item 14 – addressed

Item 15 – addressed

Item 16 – addressed

Item 17 – addressed

Item 18 – agreed, weather permitting

Item 19 - addressed

Item 20 – addressed

Item 21 – addressed

Item 22 – Discussion.

 

Adam Remick was sworn in.  He stated the adjustable fixture will be done in a fixed position in accordance with the ordinance.  The wallpack lights were shown on an amended plan which was signed off on by Mr. Bodolsky.

Items 23 thru 29 - addressed

Item 30 – done

Item 31 – done

Item 32 – done

Item 33 – done

Item 34 – agreed

Items 35, 36 – continuing condition of approval

Item 37 – addressed

Item 38 – informational

Item 39 – continuing condition of approval

 

Mr. Wiener asked Mr. Stern if he would recommend Title 39.

 

Mr. Stern said it would be a mechanism that would require penalty fees if there is parking in the areas not designated for parking.  The applicant would have to apply to the Governing Body for Title 39.

 

The Board determined it will be a condition of approval.

 

Mr. Ferriero said the items that need bonding are the landscaping, the modification of the light with a bracket, topsoiling and seeding of the gravel area, and concrete pavers to replace the broken grass pavers, Belgian block, and stone, etc.  I would suggest the applicant send me an estimate, and I will discuss it with the Township Engineer.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Giardina made a motion to approve conditioned on all items agreed to.  Mr. Data seconded.

 

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

 

BA-5-07 – BLANCHE VALENTINO – USE AND SITE PLAN FOR OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ON ORBEN DR. BLOCK 8602, LOT 16 IN LI/OR ZONE

 

Attorney Richard Keiling represented the applicant.  He stated the property is L-shaped, and the proposal is to build a 2,400 square foot structure.  This is a use variance application because we propose 480 square feet of office space and 1,980 square feet of warehouse space.  There are also a variety of bulk variance requested.  We propose 11 parking spaces.  There are two entrances and exits on the property.

 

Blanche Valentino was sworn in.  She stated there were three separate parcels.  One parcel was owned by the township, and I purchased it from them.  All three lots were consolidated into one building lot.

 

Mr. Keiling stated there is a concern in Mr. Hansen’s report about what type of tenants will use the property.

 

Ms. Valentino stated they would conform to the zoning in the area.

 

In answer to further questions, Ms. Valentino submitted a copy of an approval from Morris County Soil Conservation & Morris County Planning Board.  There was a water moratorium that was lifted.  The Township Engineer said when approval is granted I will receive water allocation. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked about hours of operation.

 

Mr. Keiling stated the hours would be in accordance with the ordinance.  The applicant has no intention to have anyone there who would operate 7 days a week, 24 hours a day.  The typical hours would probably be similar to that of a small office, probably Monday through Friday and ½ day on Saturday.  It is possible though that will not be the case.

 

Mr. Stern said there is no restriction on the hours in this zone. 

 

George Gloede, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He described the site for the Board.  The 2,400 square foot building will have 480 sq. ft. of office space to the rear.  There are two garage doors, and a side entrance to the building.  We propose 11 parking spaces, one of which is a handicap space.  There is also a dumpster location.  The site has seepage pits, and a septic system that has been approved by the Health Department.  We are providing trench drains at the two entrances tied into an underground detention basin.

 

He addressed Mr. Hansen’s report dated 2/6/07:

 

Mr. Kieling stated the engineer’s report had questions about sidewalks, etc.

 

 

 

Mr. Gloede submitted a marked up copy of Sheet 1 of the site plan he had done in response to the comments from Mr.  Stern and Mr. Hansen(marked A-1) that shows a reduced number of parking spaces.  We would have 6 parking spaces instead of 11.  If we were to go with a one-way loop system and eliminate one of the entrances, we could reduce the isle width to 13 feet, and we could fit in the sidewalk.  We could reduce the percent of grade in the parking lot, we could pull the curb line away from the right-of-way, we would eliminate an entrance, and would allow us to increase the size of the dumpster pad.  If we were to go with this configuration, we would need to eliminate the sidewalk in the back.  I would like the Board to consider that idea.

 

Mr. Stern stated this is the direction we were pointing the applicant to.  The configuration of the property is odd and there is not depth in the area of the parking lot.  These measures give you the opportunity to provide the hedge.  I don’t think the sidewalk is necessary.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said for the next Board meeting we would require a set of revised plans showing this configuration.

 

Ms. Dargel asked how you rationalize 6 parking spaces.

 

Mr. Gloede said the ordinance for flex space requires 1 space for 225 square feet. The office space would probably not be used anyway.

 

Ms. Dargel said you are cutting it in half.  I wouldn’t want to see anyone parking on the street there.

 

Mr. Gloede said another issue is in item 11 under Sheet 1 comments Mr. Hansen’s report.  Sight distance was never an issue at the intersection.  I don’t think the profiles need be added to the site plan drawings.

 

Mr. Ferriero said the concern relates to the fact that it doesn’t appear that the topography in the road is correct.  With the right topo, it might be more clear.

 

Mr. Gloede said that will be revised.  Regarding Item 18, regarding aligning the driveways with the driveways across the street,  with the configuration of the lots, it would be difficult to do that.

 

Mr. Ferriero stated with this new configuration, I don’t think it is as critical and is o.k. the way it is shown.

 

Mr. Gloede said he believes we can work out the remaining items in both reports.

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Gloede showed a copy of a rendering of the proposed building (marked A-2).

 

Eric Snyder, planner for the applicant, was sworn in.  He stated we are seeking a use variance as the zone permits office/warehouse use and that 51% of the space is to bereserved for office use.  We are proposing 20% office. 

 

Mr. Snyder submitted photos of the property and surrounding properties (marked A-3).  In the Master Plan, it indicates the reason for the limits on warehouse/office space was to eliminate the amount of truck traffic where it went through or was adjacent to residential areas.  Both Hillcrest and Orben are occupied entirely by commercial/industrial uses.  The building we propose is consistent in scale with the other buildings in the area.  The lot area in the zone requires 5 acres, and we require bulk variances as well.  This relatively small building won’t have any significant impact on a residential area.  I need to provide the Board with standard proofs and the enhanced proofs.  The proofs are to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for various uses; encourage location and design of transportation routes; emphasize free flow of traffic that would not result in congestion or blight; provide desirable visual environment through creative development techniques; promote conservation of historic districts and desirable natural resources. The proposal is a building that fits well within the FAR requirements at about half of what is permitted.  This is a residual lot and is an area that was zoned with attention paid to the larger properties in the area.  This lot is consistent with the uses in the neighborhood.  As to negative criteria, this use is consistent in type of use, scale, and works to minimize the impact on the site through property design.  This application would have no significant impact on the neighborhood and would fit in very nicely.  The bulk variances are all because of the size and shape of the property.  Some of those may be mitigated by the redesign that will be submitted to the Board. 

 

Mr. Data asked if the 6 spaces will be sufficient.

 

Mr. Stern stated it is possible they can go with the 7 spaces.  The 11 spaces was higher, but may have brought in more activity than you want there.

 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

The application was carried to 5/14/07.

 

BA-11-07 – CHARLES NAPOLI – CERTIFICATION OF NON-CONFORMING USE AT PROPERTY LOCATED ON 848 RT. 46, KENVIL, BLOCK 5301, LOT 22 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant.  He stated this application is for certification of a nonconforming use for continued use of the premises for a body shop, two residents, and a used car business that is solely related to the body shop.  The property is located at 860, 862 and 868 Rt. 46 and currently houses Automotive Specialties. 

 

Mr. Kron referred to a survey dated 6/18/07 and said what is designated as Lot 22.1 on the survey is now Lot 11, and that lot now contains two residences.  Lot 22 on the survey is now Lot 12 and that contains gravel and a paved parking area.  Lot 22.2 is not Lot 13 and contains two frame garages and block garage.  The two residences are nonconforming uses in a commercial zone, and we want to continue that use.  We also want to continue the use for the repair shop and the body shop and the garages.

 

Charles Napoli was sworn in.  He said the small frame garage on Lot 13 is in disrepair.  We would like to rebuild it and use it for storage.

 

Mr. Kron said these premises are not going to stay they way they are.  We will be filing a site plan application.  The only thing we are asking for today is the certification to continue the uses that are there.

 

Mr. Kron referred to a letter dated 9/25/84 from Jere Baker to the Building Department requesting certification that the business on the property is within the required zoning for Roxbury Township.  He also referred to a letter dated 10/4/84 to the State Department of Insurance from Tom Mahoney, who was the zoning officer, indicating the auto body repair facility is a permitted use.  There is a 10/28/87 letter from Mr. Mahoney to Martin Liberman, Esq,, outlining the uses on the property – that on Lot 22 there is a singly family dwelling which is an existing nonconforming use and is permitted to remain; on Lot 22.1 there are two single family dwellings that are also existing nonconforming and are permitted to remain; and on Lot 22.2 there is an auto body shop and junk yard and that the uses predate the zoning ordinance and are nonconforming, however it is his opinion that a junk yard would not be permitted.

 

Mr. Kron also referred to an agreement dated 2/15/91 from William B. Harrison to Township of Roxbury Zoning Officer regarding 848, 862, 868 Rt. 46 that in exchange for approval of his application to the state for licensing of a used motor vehicle dealer, neither he or his company will ever place or allow any sign or vehicle or whatever that indicates a used vehicle for sale business or in any way other than verbal give indication that used vehicles are for sale on the property.

 

Mr. Kron said the property has a used car license and the only purpose of it is to dispose of vehicles that are being repaired or need to be disposed of.

 

Mr. Wiener asked that Mr. Kron go over the uses that are being requested to be certified.

 

Mr. Kron said the uses are two single-family residences on Lot 11; two buildings for auto repair and smaller frame garage on Lot 13; we want to keep the license for sale of the automobiles that we work on.  We want the certification for the purposes of the closing, to continue the use.  We will come back before the Board with a site plan. 

 

Mr. Stern said we would only be dealing with the two dwellings, not the existing shape of the property or the driveway, etc.  We are only dealing with the use.

 

Mr. Kron said on Lot 13, we want to continue the use of the two building in the rear - the auto repair and auto maintenance, as well as the shed that will be used for storage.

 

Mr. Napoli agreed there will be no vehicle storage on Lot 12.  The cars that are being worked on will all be parked in the fenced in area on Lot 13.

 

Ms. Robortaccio reiterated that what would be certified if this application is approved is the following:  Lot 11 is for two houses; Lot 12 is an empty gravel area; Lot 13 is auto repair, auto maintenance, and storage shed.  Also being certified would be the limited license subject to the Harrison agreement of 1991, related to Lot 13.

 

Ms. Dargel stated when she visited the site she saw that there are 3 signs there – Automotive Specialties Collision Repair, C & L Auto Body and Geico Auto Repair Express.

 

Mr. Napoli stated Automotive Specialties sign is illuminated.  Under that where it says C & L Auto Body was an existing box sign that just said Auto Body.  The Geico sign was put there by Geico.

 

Mr. Wiener said this certification of nonconforming use does not approve that sign.

 

Ms. DeMasi said a zoning permit is required for any change in the sign.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the certification of nonconforming use as discussed.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

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

 

BA-47-06 – ALTO SIGN/PETCO – VARIANCE FOR SIGN LOCATED IN ROXBURY MALL, BLOCK 5004, LOT 7 IN B-3 ZONE

 

Ms. Dargel said there was a report on this from Mr. Potere on 7/12/06; it was carried to 10/16/06, carried to 12/11/06, carried to 1/8/07, and then to tonight with no action.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to deny the application without prejudice.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

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

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:45 p.m.

 

                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

 

LM/