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 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, Mark Crowley, Peter Giardina, Robert Kurtz, Edward Data, John Wetzel.

 

ABSENT:  Barbara Kinback, Sebastian D’Amato.

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Larry Wiener, Russell Stern, John Hansen.

 

Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary

 

Minutes of 9/10/07

 

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

 

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

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

BA-07-46 – RICHARD KEMMERER – SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON CENTER ST. BLOCK 10403, LOT 8 IN R-4 ZONE

 

In the matter of Laura & Richard Kemmerer

Case No. BA-07-46

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: September 10, 2007

Memorialized: October 15, 2007

 

                WHEREAS, Laura & Richard Kemmerer has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring a side yard setback variance for premises located at Center Street and known as Block 10403, Lot 8 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-4” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1401D6a of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

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

  1. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicants were proposing to add an addition to the second story.
  3. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 7/10/07 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  4. The applicants were in need of a side yard setback variance.  The R-4 Zone requires a 10’ side yard setback, existing is 9’6”, and proposed is 9’6”.  The applicants testified they would be continuing a non-conforming side yard setback.
  5. The applicants submitted elevations drawings as well as a plot plan prepared by Nicholas Wunner on which the applicants have “colored in” the addition to their home.  The proposed addition would have the effect of squaring off the existing home. 

                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 applicant’s relief is de minimis.   This is a long, narrow lot and the relief requested will be virtually unperceivable.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 10th day of September, 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 plot plan.  Existing non-conforming 9’6” side yard to be maintained.

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA-07-41 – ENVISION MANAGEMENT – VARIANCE TO BUILD HOME IN AN OB ZONE, LOCATED ON MARY LOUISE AVE., BLOCK 6101, LOT 5 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Envision Management

Case No. ZBA-07-41

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

Approved: September 10, 2007

Memorialized: October 15, 2007

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, Envision Management has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a home requiring a use variance for premises located at Mary Louise Avenue and known as Block 6101, Lot 5 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “OB” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.27 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.        Larry I. Kron, Esquire represented the applicant.

2.        The applicant is the owner of the subject premises, which is an unimproved lot located in the “OB” Zone.

3.        The applicant was proposing to construct a single-family home on the subject premises.

4.        The applicant presented the following plans as part of its application:

Prepared by Dykstra Walker Design Group, PA 

Sheet 1 – Title Sheet & Layout, revised 7/30/07, 8/31/07

Sheet 2 – Boundary and Topographic Survey Plan, dated 4/19/07

Sheet 3 – Tree Removal Plan Landscaping Plan, revised 8/31/07

Sheet 4 – Grading, Utility & Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, revised 7/30/07, 8/31/07

Sheet 5 – Environmental Permitting Plan, revised 7/30/07, 8/31/07

Sheet 6 – Construction Notes & Details, dated 8/31/07

 

                Prepared by Marjorie B. Roller, Architect

                Sheet A-1 – Building Elevations and Floor Plans, dated 7/24/07

5.        The Board received the following memorandums:

    1. Russell Stern, the Township Planner, dated 8/7/07, revised 9/4/07
    2. Michael Kobylarz, Township Engineer, dated 8/6/07
    3. John Hansen, Consulting Engineer, dated 8/6/07
    4. Rick Blood, Assistant Director of Public Works, dated 7/28/07
    5. Michael A. Pellek, Fire Official, dated 7/12/07

6.        The applicant’s first witness at the initial public hearing was Marc Walker, its professional engineer.  Mr. Walker gave an overview of the zoning and the site.  He noted that this was an OB lot that was located between adjoining R-3 residential property and the affordable AH Housing Zone located to the east of the subject property.  Mr. Walker stated this was the only lot in the OB Zone. 

7.        Mr. Walker commented on several of the existing non-conformities for OB use, and in particular, noted that the lot was 2.84 acres whereas 5 acres was required and the lot was deficient as to lot width and lot frontage.  He stated that the lot would essentially conform to the R-3 standards with the exception of front yard relief.  Mr. Walker presented exhibit A-1 which was a colorized rendering of the area as well as the proposed home.  Mr. Walker further noted that the property was encumbered with wetlands, Category 1 water quality regulations, and a wetlands buffer.  Much of the property, other than the small corner proposed to be developed by the applicant, could not be developed without waivers from NJDEP. 

8.        Mr. Walker was also providing access to the site via Raritan Avenue, an unimproved road. 

9.        During the course of the initial public hearing, based upon questions raised by Board members as well as some property owners, the applicant agreed to carry the matter so that the applicant could further refine its proposed building location and elevations as well as provide more details as to improvements to Raritan Avenue and the proposed driveway to the home.

10.     The matter was continued to the 9/10/07 public hearing.  The applicant presented revised plans – the key changes being:

    1. Access via Mary Louise Avenue
    2. House size

11.     The details for the revisions were provided on the 8/31/07 revisions by Mr. Walker together with an 8/31/07 narrative by Mr. Walker.

12.     The Township Planner, Mr. Stern, responded with an updated report (8/7/07 revised to 9/4/07).

13.     The applicant’s architect, Marjorie Roller, testified and presented exhibits A-1 and A-2 showing the design of the home and the various elevations.  She noted the home would have a stucco/stone front elevation and siding on the three other elevations.

                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. Clearly, the environmental encumbrances on this property will limit the use of the property.  A residential use will have much less of an environmental footprint on this lot and will adhere to those environmental encumbrances.  The Board notes all of the surrounding and adjoining properties are residential in nature and the introduction of a commercial use into this site would probably not be as compatible as the applicant’s proposal. 
  2. The requested “d” variance is clearly appropriate for the unique situation of the subject premises.  The utilization of Mary Louise Avenue, as a means of ingress and egress, clearly is the most appropriate means of accessing the subject property and the revised (8/31/07) plan clearly is a better plan than is originally proposed.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 10th day of September, 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Premises are to be constructed and located as depicted on the 8/31/07 Dykstra Walker Design Group plans and as set forth on the Marjorie Roller architectural plans dated 7/24/07.
  2. Applicant shall provide natural landscaping in the manner of evergreen trees along the elevation of the house opposite the adjacent residence in the Raritan Avenue area.  The design and detail of said landscaping shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner. 
  3. The total landscaping plan for the site shall be prepared by a certified landscape architect, which will be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
  4. Application is subject to all other governmental agencies and/or subdivisions thereof with joint and/or concurrent jurisdiction over the within application including but not limited to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
  5. The proposed attic for the house shall only be used for storage.  In addition, the home will be built without a basement.
  6. Existing trees between the home and Mary Louise Avenue shall be preserved to the extent feasible.
  7. All electric, telephone, and cable lines will be installed underground.
  8. Applicant will provide sidewalks along Mary Louise Avenue.
  9. Applicant shall pay its pro-rata share of off-tract and off-site improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.
  10. As applicable, the applicant shall pay a Mandatory Development Fee in accordance with Municipal Ordinance.
  11. Applicant shall obtain a Stream Encroachment Permit from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP).
  12. Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Section 13-7.8 of the Zoning Ordinance as it relates to construction in a flood hazard zone.  Details of same shall be noted on the plans.
  13. Applicant shall provide the Board with A Letter of Interpretation (LOI) and Transition Area Averaging Permit from NJDEP regarding freshwater wetlands.
  14. Applicant shall provide permanent markers to be installed on the undisturbed portion of the property, which shall be placed in a conservation easement.
  15. Applicant shall provide existing topographic information on adjacent Lot 2, Block 6404 so as to confirm that the project can be graded as designed.
  16. Prior to construction, applicant shall stake the common property line with Lot 2, Block 6404.  Details of same shall be noted on the plans.
  17. Applicant shall modify the existing concrete curb cut to conform to the Township residential driveway standards and shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer.
  18.  Applicant shall pave residential driveways in accordance with Section 13-8.612C.  Details of same shall be provided on the plans.
  19. All water and sewer details and methods of construction shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer.
  20. An HDPE storm collection system shall be installed across the front of the site with class V concrete pipe and appropriate stone bedding.  Same to be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer.
  21. A stormwater management system shall be installed with a shallow manufactured infiltration system sized for 3” of runoff from the proposed roof area.  Same shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer.
  22. The limit of disturbance shall be staked with orange tree protection fencing and inspected prior to any tree removal.
  23. The area of disturbance must be consistent on each set of plans.  Applicant shall provide said detail for the review and approval of the Board’s Engineering Consultant.
  24. Applicant shall comply with the Soil Movement Ordinance and provide calculations of how much fill will be exported from the site.
  25. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, applicant shall obtain all NJDEP permit compliance documents and shall submit same to the Township Engineer.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

BA-07-49 – DAVID REINKNECHT – VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR PORCH AND 1ND FLOOR ADDITION, LOCATED ON PAUL DR. BLOCK 1606, LOT 5 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of David Reinknecht

Case No. BA-07-49

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: September 10, 2007

Memorialized: October 15, 2007

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, David Reinknecht has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring a front yard setback variance for premises located at Paul Drive and known as Block 1606, Lot 5 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 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 applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.

2.        The applicant was proposing to construct a major addition to the premises.

3.        Applicant received a letter of denial dated 6/7/07 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.

4.        As noted, the applicant will require a front yard setback variance.  The R-3 Zone requires a 35’ front yard setback, existing non-conforming setback is 29.53’, and 26.08’ is proposed.

5.        The applicant was proposing a major renovation to the premises.  The renovation was set forth on architectural plans prepared by Michael R. Moschella, architect, Design One Architecture, with revisions to 6/12/07.  Mr. Moschella also testified at the public hearing.

6.        The applicant noted the purpose of providing the proposed porch would be to make the premises true to the “Craftsman Bungalow” design popular between the two world wars.  Mr. Moschella introduced exhibits A-1 and A-2, which were colorized renderings of the proposed addition.  

7.        A property owner on the opposite side of the street from the applicant testified in favor of the application.

                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 benefits to granting this application clearly outweigh any negatives.  The subject premises will have an architectural and aesthetic enhancement.  This is a creative and readaptative means of preserving existing housing stock.  This will have both a positive impact on the applicant’s premises and on adjoining premises.
  2. The proposed setback relief is de minimis as applied to the subject premises and in keeping with existing patterns in the neighborhood. 
  3. There will be no negative impact on any property.  

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 10th day of September, 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 architectural renderings submitted with the application.  Front yard setback to be no less than 26 feet as requested.

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

 

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

 

BA-07-48 – FRANK CASEY – IMPERVIOUS AND BUILDING COVERAGE FOR GARAGE LOCATD ON MEKEEL DRIVE, BLOCK 3704, LOT 20 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Frank Casey

Case No. BA-07-48

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: September 10, 2007

Memorialized: October 15, 2007

 

                WHEREAS, Frank Casey has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a detached two car garage requiring lot coverage and building coverage variances for premises located at Mekeel Drive and known as Block 3704, Lot 20 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D8 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 applicant is the owner and occupant of the single-family home on site.

2.        The applicant was proposing to construct a detached two-car garage in the rear of the existing home.

3.        Applicant received a letter of denial dated 6/27/07 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.

4.        The proposed garage was depicted on a plan submitted with the application.  Same would be 22 feet wide by 24 feet deep.  This would provide off-street parking for two automobiles. 

5.        The applicant stated that purpose of the garage would be to promote off-street indoor parking consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.

6.        As presented, the applicant’s request results in the need for total impervious coverage variance – 35% proposed, 25% permitted, 22.33% existing and total building coverage – 19.7% proposed, 15% permitted, 14.37% existing,

                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 “pie-like” shape of the premises to be somewhat of a hardship.  This is a very narrow lot especially as one moves towards the rear.
  2. Promoting and providing for indoor garage parking is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.
  3. The garage will have the benefit of providing additional storage space for the applicant and eliminate the potential (see conditions below) of numerous accessory structures.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 10th day of September, 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. There will be no further additional structures.
  2. Applicant is to taper the driveway to the rear of the home.  The applicant will provide a curve in the area of the driveway that will eliminate the northernmost corner of the driveway opposite the rear of the house.  By doing this, the applicant will reduce the total impervious coverage.
  3. Prior to construction, the applicant shall provide a design for a drywell to capture the runoff from the roof of the accessory garage.  Same is to be reviewed and approved by the Municipal Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.
  4. Total impervious coverage shall not exceed 35% as requested. 

 

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

 

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

 

AGENDA

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced that Application ZBA-07-33, Mountain Landscaping, will not be heard and is carried to 11/8/07.

 

BA-07-48 - RICHARD & DONNA MC CURDY- VARIANCE FOR SHED IN FRONT YARD AND SETBACK TO HOUSE AND POOL, LOCATED ON WEST ST. BLOCK 3707, LOT 2 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Donna and Richard McCurdy were sworn in.  Ms. McCurdy stated she started building the shed in her backyard.  She has a corner lot and she was informed that a permit was required and she was informed of the setback requirements.  There is no other place to put the shed. 

 

Ms. McCurdy passed around 3 sheets of photos (marked A-1) showing the property.

 

Mr. McCurdy said the corner at South Street has a stand of arborvitaes.  The shed is not visible unless you are at the gas station.  It is not visible from South Street or West Street. 

 

Ms. McCurdy said the shed has the same siding as the house, and it will have the same roof shingles.  She needs a shed for storage.  The shed will have electric for lighting, but no water.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the canopy will come down if the shed is approved.

 

Ms. McCurdy said yes.  The shed will also screen the cars from South Street. 

 

Mr. Stern suggested the existing pool be referenced in the resolution.

 

Ms. Dargel said the driveway is very long.  Was that counted in the impervious coverage?

 

Mr. Stern said yes.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED.

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Wiener said the only relief we are giving here is setbacks.  We are not addressing the construction codes.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application.  The property is on two streets and it backs up to a gas station.  There is a pool that is also preexisting but nonconforming.  With the landscaping on the property, it is screened from the road.  This location for the shed makes sense.  The canopy will be taken down. The zoning variance for the shed should be granted.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

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

 

ZBA-07-55 - CHERYL FREEMAN – FRONT YARD, REAR YARD, AND IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON ALWOOD STREET, BLOCK 3401, LOT 18 IN R-2 ZONE

 

Cheryl Freeman was sworn in.  She stated she wants to put on a small addition for a living room, bedroom and bathroom to accommodate her mother.  She would also like to finish off the front of the house with a porch and a small patio.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if there is any reason there will be a separate entrance.

 

Ms. Freeman said for her mother’s privacy.  There will be an entrance into a hallway and into the sitting room.

 

Mr. Data asked if there will be one kitchen.

 

Ms. Freeman said the home will have one kitchen.

 

Mr. Stern said the kitchen is fully integrated into the home. 

 

Ms. Freeman said there are 4 existing bedrooms upstairs.  I would like to change that to make it 3 upstairs and one downstairs.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there were any land constraints.

 

Ms. Freeman said there is a slope in the backyard. 

 

Mr. Data asked if the outside façade will be redone

 

Ms. Freeman said yes.

 

Ms. Dargel asked about the proximity to the well.

 

Mr. Stern suggested the Health Department review the well as a condition of approval.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Robortaccio said her concern is the porch.  The current structure is very close to the road, and this would come another 4 feet closer.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if any of the other houses have porches that close to the road.

 

Ms. Freeman said all the houses are pretty close.  I would probably be the closest, but it wouldn’t be way out of line. 

 

Mr. Giardina suggested putting a porch on the side of the house in an L-shape

 

Ms. Freeman said it is something to consider

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application, as is.  The reality is the front yard setback will be 14.2’; approval is contingent upon location of the well and having the well at the proper setback from the addition.  Mr. Data seconded. 

 

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

 

 

 

BA-07-05 – BLANCHE VALENTINO – USE AND SITE PLAN FOR WAREHOUSE/OFFICE LOCATED ON ORBEN DR./HILLCREST AVE., BLOCK 9602, LOT 16 IN OR-5 ZONE

 

Attorney Richard Kiley represented the applicant.  He stated we have met with the Board professionals, and the applicant had previously agreed to comply with Mr. Stern’s report, and with Mr. Hansen’s recent email of this month.  I would defer to the Board experts as to the status.

 

Mr. Hansen said all of the major engineering issues have been addressed.  If the Board chooses to approve the application, I would ask that those items be conditions of the resolution.

 

Mr. Stern said his last memo was updated 5/4/07, and at the 5/14/07 Zoning Board hearing they addressed the majority of them and agreed to take care of the outstanding ones.  I have reviewed the revised drawings.  The decorative block along the base of the building should be increased 2 feet in height.

 

Mr. Kiley said the applicant agrees.

 

Mr. Stern said the Board should make condition that if they can’t accommodate all the trees on site they would contribute to the tree fund. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions in the reports from Mr. Hansen and Mr. Stern.  Mr. Wetzel seconded.

 

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

 

ZBA-07-53 - STAVRAKIS/COOPER – SUBDIVISION FOR 2 LOTS LOCATED ON EYLAND AVE., BLOCK 1091, LOT 20 IN R-4 ZONE

 

Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant.  He stated the property is 19,869 sq. ft. in the R-4 zone.  There is a two family house on the lot presently and it is preexisting,  nonconforming.  The property will be divided into 2 lots, one of which will be 10,553 sq. ft. and the other one at 9,116 sq. ft on which would be constructed a new single family residence.  Both lots conform to lot size.  The reason we are here is that we are reducing the size of a nonconforming use on the lot, and therefore are intensifying the use of that lot and are required to obtain a use variance, as per Razbery vs. Kingswood County. 

 

Mr. Kron said in the case Razbery vs. Kingswood County, there was an 8 acre tract on which was a preexisting nonconforming residential house in a commercial zone.  He was going to subdivide that lot and create a 3-acre lot containing the house, and a 5 acre lot for the commercial use.  The zone required 5 acres.  He was creating a nonconforming lot to go with the preexisting nonconforming use in the commercial zone.  We are not doing that.  Both of the lots we are creating conform with the lot size requirements, and we are not asking for any dimensional variances.  Secondly, the use there was commercial and residential.  That is significant because the court said the very reason there was an intensification of the use was the buffer issue with the two competing uses.  We are creating 2 conforming lots in the zone and they are both residential uses, which is permitted there.

 

Mr. Wiener said he believes it does belong before this Board.  Once you reduce the size of the lot, you are intensifying the nonconforming use.

 

Michael Byrne, architect for the applicant, was sworn in.  He described the project, stating the property is at the corner of Eyland Avenue and Eyland Place, consisting of a two family home.  The proposal is to subdivide off about 9,116 sq. ft. to the eastern side of the property on which the applicant proposes a new one-family residence.  The existing two-family residence will remain on the northwestern portion of the property.  The proposed dwelling will be a two-story steeply pitched roof structure which is consistent with the character of the homes in the area (front rendering marked A-1). 

 

Mr. Data asked about the two large trees.

 

Mr. Byrne said they would both have to be removed in order to construct the home. 

 

Mr. Byrne said he reviewed the letter from the Historic Advisory Committee and agrees to meet with them.  It was our intention when we selected this house that we picked a house that was with the historic character. 

 

Mr. Wetzel asked what aspects comply with the historic area.

 

Mr. Byrne said the pitch of the roof, the windows, architectural trim, and the general look of the front of the house.  We would agree to meet with the Historic Committee.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the Board would be ruling on this particular house design.

 

Mr. Wiener said the design may have to be looked at between now and any subsequent hearing.

 

Mr. Kron said we are willing to make the design subject to our meeting with the  Historic Committee.

 

Ms. Dargel stated if you put a drywell in the back yard, you would negate any future pool for the property.

 

Mr. Hansen said his report suggested putting the drywell in the front.

 

The applicant agreed with Mr. Hansen’s suggestion.

 

Mr. Stern said the driveway doesn’t meet the 5-foot setback requirement.  Would you be willing to reduce the width of the home or shift the property line over for the additional 2 feet?

 

Mr. Byrne said yes.  The applicant may decide to shrink the house a little bit, but we will be sure the house is placed according to ordinance.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if the applicant would consider converting the two-family home to a single family home.

 

Mr. Kron said that is not our intention.  That is why we are here to obtain the variance.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if there is enough parking for the two-family house.

 

Michael Cooper was sworn in.  He stated he is one of the applicants and is familiar with what is there.  There are a total of 4 bedrooms in the two family house.  There are 3 on one side, and 2 on the other side.  There is currently a family on each side.  There are 4 parking spaces there.  There will still be 4 parking spaces after the subdivision.  The new home will have a two-car garage and room to park 4 cars in the driveway.   We would agree to move the line to get the 5 foot setback.  We would also agree to move the infiltration system.  We will remove the existing swimming pool.

 

The applicant addressed Mr. Hansen’s report dated 10/11/07:

1 – addressed – parking requirements satisfied

2 – discussion – shed and concrete pad will be removed

3 – discussion – applicant agreed to payment in lieu of sidewalks and curbs

4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 – agreed

10 – ASHTO line to be determined

11 – agreed

12 – agreed

13 – to be addressed

14 – informational

15 – agreed

 

Mr. Wiener asked if the applicant is willing as part of this, to bring in two separate sewer lines and two separate water lines.

 

Mr. Stern said there will need to be two hookups for both.

 

Mr. Kron said the applicant will comply with the Township requirements.

 

The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report:

 

1 – addressed

2 – to be addressed

3 – addressed

4 – addressed

5 – to be addressed

6 – to be addressed – applicant agreed to shift the property line so that the driveway meets setback requirement

7 – agreed to remove pool

8 – to be addressed – agreed to landscaping along Eyland Place

9 – agreed

10 -  agreed

11 - agreed

12 – agreed

13 no objection to waiver

14 – agreed

15 -  street trees will be installed along Eyland Place

16 – agreed

17 – agreed

18 – agree

19 – agreed

20 – agreed

       21, 22 – agreed

 

Mr. Stern said regarding item 18 in his report, in this instance, the underground utilities would  not be necessary as there are overhead lines along this roadway.

 

Ms. Dargel said she feels it is very important that the house fits in with the historic district.

 

The application was carried to 11/8/07.  The applicant granted an extension of time to 12/15/07.

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 9:05 p.m.

 

                                                            Dolores DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm