Borough of Brielle, NJ
| September 9, 2008
September 9, 2008
|The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, September 9, 2008 at 7:30 pm in the Brielle Borough Hall, 601 Union Lane. After°a moment of silent prayer and a salute to the flag, roll call was taken:
Present -- Susan S. Brady, Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langerberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, John Visceglia, Terre Vitale
Absent - Mayor Thomas B. Nicol, Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo (Note: The Recording Secretary told the audience that the Mayor and Councilman were not present tonight due to the nature of the main hearing - they are not eligible to hear a Use Variance application)
Also present were Ken Fitzsimmons, Board Attorney, Alan Hilla, Jr. of Birdsall Engineering and Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary. There were approximately 13 people in the audience.
Chairwoman Brady then called the meeting to order and declared a quorum. She announced that, in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of this Body's meeting had been sent to the official newspapers of the Board fixing the time and place of all hearings.
Mrs. Brady had one correction to the distributed Minutes, which had Mrs. Vitale giving a vote and she was absent. The corrected Minutes of the August 12, 2008 meeting were then approved on a motion by Mr. Condon, seconded by Mr. Langenberger; all aye, no nays.
A notice was received from the NJ D.E.P. for Block 126, Lot 17, 619 Valley Road, owned by Charles Pettineo, to allow piping 120 feet of a man made ditch; and for Block 78.01, Lots 5-5.01, 405 Riverview Lane, owned by Manasquan River Yacht Club, to allow maintenance dredging.
Also received was a notice of a "Rain Garden Workshop" seminar, 9/23/08 in Freehold, a letter from Daniel Healey, dated 8/21/08, regarding Omnipoint Cell Phone Tower, .and a letter from Ken Fitzsimmons, Esq. regarding the Brielle Board of Education parking lot alteration/facilities improvement plan. Mr. Fitzsimmons noted that no answer had been received in response to his letter stating the Planning Board findings at the August meeting, but this is normal and was only an advisement letter.
On file in the Board office: Monmouth County Planning Board Technical Assistance Outreach Brochure.
The Board then turned to the continuation of the hearing for Omnipoint Communications, Route 70 Cell Phone Tower, Mr. Warren Stillwell, Esq. came forward and explained that he had called both Mrs: Brisben and Mr. Fitzsimmons this afternoon, stating they just worked out an acceptable parking configuration with the landowners yesterday. It made sense to ask for a continuation to the October meeting for more testimony; he said it was their lateness that caused this and asked the Board to consider continuing this to October. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked for another waiver of the time period for approval and Mr. Stillwell gave a waiver to October 31; Mr. Fitzsimmons asked for November 15 instead and Mr. Stillwell agreed to this.
A motion was made to carry this hearing to Tuesday, October 14, this done by Mr. Sigler, seconded by Mrs. Vitale and approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Susan S. Brady, Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, John Visceglia, Terre Vitale
The Board then turned to the approval of a variance relief Resolution for Block 105, Lot 7, 1020 Riverview Drive, owned by Gary Pstrak. As there were no corrections or comments on this, the following was presented for approval:
"WHEREAS, Gary Pstrak (the "Applicant"), having a mailing address of 1020 Riverview Drive, Brielle, N.J.08730, has applied to the Brielle Planning Board (the "Board") for bulk variances pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c); and
WHEREAS, proof of service as required by law upon appropriate property owners and governmental bodies has been furnished and determined to be in proper order; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on August 12, 2008 in the Borough Hall, at which time testimony and exhibits were presented on behalf of the applicant and all interested parties having been heard; and
WHEREAS, the Board makes the following factual findings and findings of law:
1. This property is designated as Block 105, Lot 7 on the municipal tax map.
2. The property is located in the R-2 zone.
3. Applicant proposes to construct a detached garage and expand an existing driveway.
4. The following variances had been applied for:
ITEM REQUIRED PROVIDED
grade changes up to 3 feet in elevation impacting approximately 3% of the total lot area
existing driveway curb cut at the southeast corner of the property is located over the dividing line
5. Zoning Officer Alan P. Hilla, Jr. prepared a report to the applicant dated May 21, 2008. The Board adopts the findings in that report and incorporates that document in this Resolution by reference.
6. The applicant testified that he proposed to construct a frame garage having a width of 32.5 feet and a depth of 26 feet to the rear of an existing one-story single-family residential dwelling. Mr. Pstrak stated the upper level of the garage will be used for storage purposes only. He explained that, due to the topography of his rear yard, the garage must be cut into a berm. The following plans were submitted as part of this application:
a. Survey dated April 4, 2005 prepared by Charles O'Malley, P.L.S.
b. Grading and drainage plan prepared by James R. McCumsey, P.E., dated May 3, 2008 and revised as of June 12, 2008.
c. Architectural plans prepared by Lucy Eichenwald, Architect, dated March 19, 2007.
d. Nine photographs of the subject property.
7. No objectors appeared in opposition to this development application.
8. The Board finds and determines that:
a. The variances relating to the location of the curb cut at the northeast corner of the property is an existing condition.
b. The rear yard of the property has a substantial slope. From the point of the front of the proposed garage to the rear lot fine, the slope exceeds 13 feet.
c. In order to construct the garage, it is necessary to remove a substantial amount of soil to set the proposed structure into a berm.
d. During the course of the application, the applicant agreed to several conditions to lessen the impact of stormwater run-off from the rear of the property towards Riverview Drive.
e. The proposed improvements will provide a desirable visual environment and maintain adequate light, air and open space to this site and adjacent properties.
f. The relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan of the municipality.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Brielle Planning Board on this 9th day of September, 2008, that this application be approved subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant shall apply for and receive approvals from all other municipal, county, state and federal agencies having regulatory jurisdiction over this development application.
2. Applicant shall pay all real property taxes through and including the calendar quarter of the date of this Resolution.
3. Applicant shall file all required performance bonds, maintenance guarantees and post all applicable engineering and inspection fees.
4. Applicant shall comply with the following conditions:
a. Drywells shall be installed at corners of the garage in accordance with specifications to be approved by the Board Engineer.
b. A letter of consent, from the adjoining property owner, permitting the existing encroachment of the driveway to continue shall be submitted to the Board Attorney for his review and approval.
c. There shall be no living space on the second level of the garage. The second level shall be restricted to use as a storage area,
d. No plumbing fixtures are allowed on the second level of the garage.
In order to establish conditions "c" and "d" above as a matter of public record, applicant is required to record a deed of restriction in the Monmouth County Clerk's Office. This restriction shall inure to the benefit of the Borough of Brielle, and cannot be modified without the written approval of the Governing Body or the Municipal Planning Board. The proposed deed shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board Attorney. No construction permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the applicant complies with this condition.
5. This development approval shall be null and void unless applicant commences construction of the proposed improvements within three years of the date of this Resolution.
6. Certified copies of this Resolution shall be forwarded to the applicant, Borough Construction Official, Zoning Officer and all other parties in interest."
A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Visceglia and approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, John Visceglia,
Ineligible to Vote: Susan Brady, Terre Vitale NEW BUSINESS:
The Board then turned to the application for variance relief for Block 32.01, Lot 24.02, 510 Woodland Avenue, owned by David J. Wojton, to allow construction of a new single-family dwelling. Lot Coverage - 20% maximum allowed, 20.9% requested.
The fee of $300 was paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners as well as the newspaper were properly notified.
At this time John J. Wojton, the father, came forward and was sworn in. Before he could proceed, Mr. Langenberger noted that this property was part of a minor subdivision last year and the stipulation on that Resolution stated that any new construction on the lots created would be in complete compliance with all Zoning Ordinances; Mr. Fitzsimmons agreed. Mr. Langenberger then asked "why are we here?" if that was in the Resolution. Mr. Fitzsimmons said the applicant has a right to come before the Board to seek relief and the Board can grant this if there is a compelling reason. The subdivision was created to make two undersized lots and the owner did stipulate that any new construction would comply with all restrictions.
Mr. Wojton asked if all the paperwork he submitted was in order and Mrs. Brisben told him yes, all notices done properly. He then said he is asking for a "C" variance for his son and his wife. His family is in the building business and they bought this property to build two new homes; his son then decided he wanted one of the lots and they were aware of the restrictions on the Resolution.
They did not have the plans done for the garage when they started construction on the house and did not realize porches were included in building coverage; they thought they compensated for this but were in error. There is a small balcony of 65 square feet on the second floor which counts in the coverage and they did not know this
until the framing was done and the Zoning Officer pointed this out to them: at that time it was too late to change it. The allowable square footage is 1,500 and they have 1358 for the home which would leave them 142 feet for the garage; they had a 12x22 foot garage and trimmed it to 12x17 so they could get a car inside and have a loft for storage. He again said he realized they were the ones at fault regarding the second floor porch, but this comes out to only .85% over on lot coverage. They are allowed 50% impervious coverage and will have 31% which will comply.
Mrs. Brady asked what the driveway will be made of, crushed stone or pavers? Mr. Wojton said they want to put in pavers but are waiting for the cement truck to finish.
Mr. Langenberger asked if the balcony were removed would there be room for the garage and Mr. Wojton said yes, but they have built French doors on the home and, if the balcony was removed the doors would go nowhere. The balcony will have no environmental impact and the downspouts will run to drywells. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if there could be a stipulation that the balcony will never be enclosed and Mr. Wojton said okay. He added that if they had submitted a garage plan on time this would have been caught and corrected.
Mr. Sarnasi asked how much area there is between the property line and the driveway and was told 10 feet; Mr. Wojton passed around a picture that he had in his camera that shows what is existing now.
Mr. Condon asked when he found the defects and Mr. Wojton said when they applied for the garage, the home was framed and sided, the balcony was constructed and fiberglass put in. Mr. Visceglia asked about the delay from the building of the home to the application for the garage and Mr. Wojton said he had been asking for the garage plan for a long time before he got one.
Mr. Hilla had no further comments to add, he thought all the issues were covered.
Mrs. Brady noted that she was probably the one here tonight that was on the Planning Board when this was approved. Mr. Langenberger felt the subdivision was granted because it was across from the R-4 zone and certain rules had to be adhered to. He told Mr. Wojton that, as he was in the business, he knew what had to be done. He complemented him on the homes he built, they are very well done, but the Board had put in the 20% stipulation.
Mr. Fitzsimmons said it was not intentional and the Board has to ask what the impact will be to the neighborhood and weigh that against no off street parking. Mr. Langenberger asked if the other home constructed on the other new lot had a garage and the answer was yes.
Mr. Visceglia questioned if the corner of the wrap around porch could be removed and Mr. Wojton said it would not be enough as it would only remove 20 square feet.
At this time the hearing was opened to the public for questions and there were none so that portion was closed.
Mr. Sigler noted that it appeared that the side porch is 4x10 feet and Mr. Wojton said it is 4x9 feet. Mr. Fitzsimmons gave a suggestion that the area under the 2nd floor balcony will not be enclosed as well as the wrap-around porch. Mr. Wojton agreed to this and noted that the wood on these is pervious but is considered by code to be impervious. Mr. Fitzsimmons said he will make it a deed restriction on not having the porch or balcony enclosed and this may help alleviate concerns and will keep the open space in front and back. Mr. Wojton offered that he has been told by the neighbors that this home is an improvement to what was there.
Mr. Visceglia agreed that he did not think it was intentional. He understood Mr. Langenberger's point but, with the stipulations, he saw fit to see this go forward and he did not think it will hurt the neighborhood. Mr. Fitzsimmons offered to add to the restriction that no further coverage.will be granted.
Mr. Langenberger saw rear sliders in the back and could envision a porch being put on; Mr. Wojton said they may put in a deck or patio in the future. Mr. Harman felt this will enhance the property and would be in favor of it. Mr. Condon agreed as it was demonstrated they took every avenue not to come here. Normally he would not agree to this but he felt, in this case, he would vote favorably. Mr. Langenberger was not in favor of this as he felt they knew what they had in lot coverage and Mr. Sigler agreed with Mr. Langenberger. Mrs. Vitale also agreed, even with the stipulations offered, that this should not be granted. Mr. Sarnasi did not think they were asking for too much and it was not intentional; the second floor balcony will have soil under it and he would be in favor of this application. Mrs. Brady said she voted for this subdivision with the restrictions of compliance, however, she drove the neighborhood today and did see the need for the garage; also, there is no one here protesting this and she would vote in favor.
The meeting was again opened to the public, this time for comments and there was no response so that portion was closed. Mr. Fitzsimmons then reviewed the stipulations: 1) front porch not enclosed or screened, 2) area under balcony never screened or closed, 3) no further development on the property. Mr. Visceglia asked about putting a second story on the garage and Mr. Fitzsimmons offered to write "no expansion of any floor area should be permitted". Mr. Langenberger asked about a shed in the future if it is not larger than 10x10 and Mr. Hills answered that any structure counts as lot coverage and this was clarified by the Borough Attorney. Mr. Wojton commented that other towns allow this but not Brielle.
At this time Mr. Visceglia made a motion to approve this application, with the stipulations as outlined by Mr. Fitzsimmons, this seconded by Mr. Condon and approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Susan S. Brady, Thomas Condon, James Harman, Charles Sarnasi, John Visceglia
Noes: James Langenberger, Tim Sigler, Terre Vitale OTHER BUSINESS:
Before adjourning for the evening, Mrs. Brisben wanted to speak to the Board. She had retired last September from full time work in Brielle and was now only working part time with the Planning Board Secretary being one of her duties she kept. However, she has realized that it takes more time to do this work then she realized and she was going split her duties with Colleen Castronova, who would become the Administrative Secretary (processing applications for Board review) and Mrs. Brisben would still come to the meetings as Recording Secretary. She realized this is a Board appointment but asked that this be allowed and, if it works out, they can officially appoint Mrs. Castronova in January. Mr. Fitzsimmons felt a Resolution should be written up for the next meeting and Mrs. Brisben will do this; the Board had no problem with this change at this time.
As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mrs. Vitale, seconded by Mr. Visceglia and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 8:22 pm.
Ka en S. Brisben, Recording Secretary Approved: