www.briellenj.com
A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ


October 14, 2008

December 05 2008

October 14, 2008

The Brielle Planning Board Meeting was held in the Borough Hall, 601 Union Lane, at 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday, October 14th, 2008. After a silent prayer and salute to the flag, roll call was taken.

On roll call: Present - Susan S. Brady, Thomas Condon, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, Jim Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler & John Visceglia.

Absent: - Terre Vitale, Mayor Thomas Nicol & Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo

Mayor Nicol and Councilman Garruzzo are not in attendance as they cannot vote on the Use Variance application for Omr►ipoint.

Also present was Assistant Secretary to the Board Sherri E. Hopkins who recorded the Minutes, Board Attorney Ken Fitzsimmons and Board Engineer Alan Hilla, Jr. There were 28 people in the audience.

Chairwoman Sue Brady asked for a motion to accept the Minutes of the September 9, 2008. Tim Sigler made the motion and Jim Langenberger second. All ayes.

CORRESPONDENCE:

The Board members all received Notices of Certifications classes for Planning Board members, Receipt of two issues of the NJ Planner, a copy of a letter from Board Attorney Ken Fitzsimmons re: Walter & Elizabeth Wall Subdivision and a letter from Board Engineer Alan Hilla, Jr. re: Omnipoint Communications - Lighting Plan Review additional project plans.

OLD BUSINESS:

Approval of Resolution for Variance relief for Block 32.01, lot 24.02, 510 Woodland Avenue, owned by David Wojton, to allow lot coverage of 20.86%.

Chairwoman Sue Brady asked if there were any questions. There were no questions. Chairwoman Sue Brady asked for a motion which was made by Tom Condon, Seconded by James Harman, to approve the following Resolution:

WHEREAS, David J. Wojton (the "applicant"), having a mailing address of 2908 Grant Street, Wall, NJ 07719, has applied to the Brielle Planning Board (the "Board") for a bulk variance 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 September 9, 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 32.01, Lot 24.02 on the municipal tax map.

2. The property is located in the R-3 zone.

3. A two-story single-family residential dwelling is now under construction. Applicant proposes to construct a 12' x 17.25' detached garage at the rear of the property.

4. The following variance has been applied for;

Item Required Provided
Lot coverage 20% maximum 20.86%

5. Zoning Officer Allan P. Hilla, Jr. prepared a report to the applicant dated April 7, 2008. The Board adopts the findings in that report and incorporates that document in this resolution by reference.

6. In February 2007, the Board adopted a resolution granting minor subdivision approval and variances to Douglas E. Moore and Candace F. Moore. As a condition of that resolution, applicants were required to comply with all bulk requirements of the zoning ordinance, except for variances granted relating to lot width and lot area.

7. John J. Wojton, Jr., testified on behalf of the applicant. He stated that he is a builder, and purchased this property from Mr. and Mrs. Douglas Moore. The witness testified that two single-family residential dwellings are being constructed on the two lots purchased from the Moores. When Mr. Wojton applied for a construction permit, plans for the residential dwelling on this lot were completed; however, plans for the detached garage were still being prepared by his architect. The witness stated that it was his belief that the dwelling and detached garage would provide lot coverage of 20% or less. Mr. Wojton explained that he made an error in calculating lot coverage by not including the area of the

covered front porch and the area under a second-story balcony at the rear of the structure. He stated that the detached garage was originally planned to be 12 feet wide and 22 feet deep. When the plans for the original garage were presented to the zoning officer, Mr. Wojton was informed of his error by Mr. Hilla. After learning of this error, the plans for the garage were revised so that the structure would be 12 feet wide and 17.25 feet deep. Although this reduced the size of the original proposed structure by 57 square feet, lot coverage of the dwelling under construction and the proposed 12' x 17.25' garage would be 20.86% (1,565 square feet), which is 0.86% (65 square feet) more than the permitted lot coverage. The witness stated that the depth of the garage was reduced to an absolute minimum to accommodate a motor vehicle.

8. During the presentation of this case, the Board discussed several alternatives to the proposed variance relief, which included: completion of the existing home without the construction of the garage; removing a portion of the opened covered porch at the front of the dwelling; removing the second-story deck at the rear of the dwelling; or restricting further additions or enclosures to the structure if the 12' x 17.25' garage was permitted to be erected.

9. No objectors appeared in opposition to this development application.

10. The Board finds and determines that:

(a) the open covered front porch is an attractive aesthetic feature of the dwelling, and its removal would impair the aesthetics of the structure.
(b) the area below the roofed open front porch is pervious because it has not been constructed on a foundation.
(c) the area below the second-story rear balcony is open, although presence of the balcony requires this area to be included as part of lot coverage.
(d) variance relief can be granted if substantial conditions are
imposed to limit the future development of the property.
(e) the proposed improvements 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 14th day of October, 2008, that the decision of the Board at its meeting of September 9, 2008 be memorialized, and 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. The following conditions are imposed in order to justify the grant of a variance for this property:

(a) The roofed porch at the front of the dwelling cannot be screened or enclosed.
(b) The open area beneath the second floor balcony at the rear of the dwelling cannot be screened or enclosed.
(c) There shall be no further increase in lot coverage.
(d) There shall be no expansion of the floor area of the
existing house and/or the proposed 12' x 17.25' garage.
(e) The maximum height of the detached garage shall be 17
feet.
(f) The second level area of the garage shall be used for storage purposes only. No living space shall be contained within the second level of the detached garage.

In order to establish these conditions as a matter of public record, applicant is required to record a Deed of Restriction in the Monmouth County Clerk's office. The restrictions 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 review and approval of the Board Attorney. No construction permit or certificate of occupancy shall be issued until the applicant complies with this condition.

4. Applicant shall file all required performance bonds, maintenance guarantees and post all applicable engineering and inspection fees.

5. This 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.

VOTE ON APPLICATION

Ayes: Susan Brady, Tom Condon, James Harman, Charles Sarnasi, John Visceglia

Noes: None

NEW BUSINESS:

Application for Minor Site Plan for Block 100, Lots 9.02-9.03, 405 Osprey Point Drive, owned by Marianne Zipf, to allow more than two feet change in elevation.

Prior to the start of the hearing Planning Board Member Thomas Heavey recused himself from the dais and sitting for this application. Attorney Keith Henderson came before the Board on behalf of the applicants. This is a simple application for a dugout driveway for a garage. The application is to fill in that area and bring it back to the original grade and to build a garage on top. Mr. Henderson asked for the Engineer William F. Voeltz who was sworn in, credentials accepted, to give a brief testimony on the project and to answer questions. Two exhibits A-1 Site Plan & A-2 double photograph were marked for evidence. Mr. Henderson asked if a CAFRA application was submitted and approved for the site. Mr. Voeltz was met with a surprise when he went to pick up the permits. I was frankly surprised, it had to do with when we went for construction of building permits; on the side Osprey Pt. Drive on the bottom of my plans this is the existing driveway going towards the garage under which is shown on the photograph B. We are proposing to build an F grade garage instead of a garage under from the old house fill the driveway in by 3 or 4 feet in front of the old driveway and this is basically a retaining wall that is located on the east side of this driveway and on the other side just slightly mounds up. So we would be matching the existing grade on either side of that depress driveway filling it in when we applied for building permits it-exceeds the two feet. We are here to seek relief from you. That is the major application this evening. Al Hilla still has to review the drainage plans.

Mr. Fitzsimmons asked Mr. Voeltz, you indicated on the application grade changes are up to 4 feet in elevation. That impacts about how much of the total area. It just impacts the area inside the driveway which is roughly 18 to 20 feet wide in front of the garage. As far as the lot goes it probably is 200 feet over the entire lot which is 25,000 sq ft about two to four percent. Four percent being the maximum. The existing impervious area is approximately how much in square feet. The Stormwater management report shows the existing house is about 2208 sq ft & the new house 3504 sq ft, the driveway 2572 and going up to 2851, net increase about 1575 sq ft .04 sq acreage.

Engineer Al Hilla asked about the recharge system. Mr. Voeltz replied it's not intended to be a total recharge system. This property and entire project was approved by Cafra it is not a major development, the entire site is under the 1 acre threshold. It's in a tidal influence area so we're not required to run detention or Stormwater basin. Water quality from the roof area is not treatable & can be discharged directly. Cafra requires nowadays when you build a new driveway you crown the driveway so it can run off on the grass surface to receive treatment. Some of the water will infiltrate but you don't want water to sit in the pipes. To take the water from the gutters and the leaders away from the side yard property line so it doesn't flow to the side yard property but directly towards the street area. There will be a paved driveway an increased of over 300 sq ft over the existing driveway.

Engineer Hilla was asked, is this a case where we would want this? The downspouts that drain directly into the ground? Recharge is fine and bringing it out towards the streets in which Mr. Voeltz found a combination of those two ideas and not towards adjacent properties which this system seems to eliminate.

Attorney Keith Henderson replied that there are no variances required. It's a minor site plan. It's putting something back that should not have been removed in the first place.

The hearing was opened to the public and Scott Pilling of Block 100, Lot 5 & 5.0, 407 Osprey point Drive came forward and was sworn in. He was concerned if the area is filled and crowned, he wanted to make sure it was not going to run onto his property. As it is now, it's sloped towards his property. He added that he didn't have a chance to review the plans.

Mr. Voeltz answered that the grading on the plan intends to continue the slope in the driveway towards the street. It just runs off to the side and directly towards the street. There's no intent to run onto the other property. Scott replied, off the side of the driveway directly into the street. The driveway is crowned and runs up the hill so if it's crowned it's going to go downhill inside. Isn't it? It will but we're trying to grade it such as it all will be directed towards the street like a small swale.

The public portion was closed and Planning Boards members were given a chance to voice their concerns. No one was opposed to the plans as long as the water was not going to run onto the other properties and the issue was addressed.

Jim Langenberger made a motion in the affirmative, Thomas Condon Second. All Aye, No Nays.

Attorney Ken Fitzsimmons made a request that he prepare a Resolution in advanced because of some restrictions upon construction in the oncoming frost months. He had a Resolution prepared and he could incorporate the Planning Board findings. Mrs. Brady had no problems with a Resolution as long as it was discussed with Engineer Alan Hilla. Attorney Fitzsimmons than proceeded to read only the conditions of the Resolution:

1. Applicant shall apply for and receive permission 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 & including the calendar quarter of the date of this Resolution.

3. Applicant shall file all required Performance Bands, maintenance guarantees and post all applicable engineering inspection fees.

4. Applicant shall be completely revisal architectural plans in keeping with revised Sheet 7 & applicable provisions of the municipal Land use ordinance. The Plan should be subjected to the review & approval of the Board engineer.

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 will be going forth to the applicant, construction official, zoning officers and all other parties in question.

Mr. Fitzsimmons went on to say that basically the citing is the standard recitation in facts that can be found in the proposed grading and or Stormwater mitigation measures will insured that no stormwater will discharged onto adjacent properties if the proposed amount of fill will allow the existing driveway be brought to the existing grade of the property without adversely impacting this site or adjoining properties and the proposed infiltration trench will have the capacity to store the minimal additional runoff resulting from proposed improvements to the property and lastly the relief requested can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial incurring the intent and purposes of the zoning and Master Plan of the municipality.

Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, John Visceglia, Tim Sigler Sue Brady

Noes: None

Not eligible to vote: Thomas Heavey, James Harman OLD BUSINESS:

Continuation of Application for Minor Site Plan/Use Variance for Block 110, Lot 2, owned by Alpha Property Management, LLC (Applicant - Omnipoint Communications, Inc.) to allow the construction of a 100 foot telecommunications monopole, disguised as a flagpole, and ground level equipment on a 4'x20' concrete pad on property known as 1023 Hwy. 70.

The Chair recognized Attorney Michael C. Learn who addressed the issue of parking. That matter had been carried to permit Engineer Villa to review the proposed plan and to ensure that the property owners were amenable to the proposal.

There was also a need to respond to a question raised by Board Member Visceglia relative to lowering the height of the proposed antenna.

Mr. Learn would address those issues this evening and he called Mr. Dominic Villecco as his expert witness. Mr. Villecco.

Mr. Villecco referred to exhibit A-12 that related to a Drive-test conducted in June 2007. In essence exhibits A-10 through A-12 had been based on a proposed height of 100 feet.

Mr. Visceglia had suggested lowering the height to 80 feet, but this raised concerns over the "tree height" and potential interference with the signal. Since the model only addressed "average tree heights" and not "actual" height, the applicant had conducted a "crane test" that became exhibit A-13.

The applicant also conducted a test at 90 feet that became exhibits A-14 and A-15. These height tests which were accompanied by color coded maps indicated the extent of the signal in either direction i.e Brielle & Wall, but the ultimate conclusion was that the optimum height for the pole would be 110 feet. The proposed 100 feet height was the absolute minimum.

Mr. Visceglia asked if there was a more accurate means of testing insofar as the more recent exhibits appeared to indicate greater coverage, but there was also the issue of improving the signal by the use of multiple towers.

Mr. Villecco was uncertain as to the percent increase in coverage based on multiple towers, but his opinion was that the proposed tower, in conjunction with the sites on the Ocean County side of the Manasquan River would enhance coverage. In point of fact if the proposal was approved it would make Omni-Point Communications the dominant service provider in the area.

Board Member Samasi asked if the same goal could be achieved by raising the height of the existing towers? Mr. Villecco said that the "physics" would not work and an increase in height could ultimately interfere with other frequencies.

Chairman Brady asked if the sound barrier on Route #70 impacted on the height. The answer was "no".

Mr. Learn then introduced Mr. Colagrande who had been previously sworn. He testified on the parking issue. Exhibits A-16 and A-17 were introduced. The existing parking plan indicated a degree of non-compliance. The site had 42 non-compliant spaces and 35 conforming. The site requires 64 compliant spots. The Omni-Point application would seek to reduce the number of non-compliant spots.

The proposed plan intended to direct all parking toward the large lot and reduce parking along Old Bridge Road. The existing perpendicular spaces along Old Bridge Road would become parallel spaces. The number of spaces would be reduced, but they would be compliant. On the eastern corner of the property along Old Bridge Road the curbing and islands would be relocated to move the current five spaces within the property line. There would be a loss of one space, but a net gain of five compliant spaces.

The center island in the large parking lot would be adjusted to add six additional spaces. The plan did not calculate the three loading/unloading spaces by the dance school as they are not permanent spots. The plan would maintain 30 parking spots of and add 24 that equated to 54 spots that were in compliance with the Borough Ordinance. This leaves the plan 10 spots short of the ordinance requirement, but the 54 spots would be conform to

the ordinance. A variance would be required.

Mr. Colagrande also noted that 35 non-conforming spots along Old Bridge Road would be reduced to 12 conforming. However, it was conceded that the required 5 foot buffer could not be provided if the plan was to work. It was also noted that a guardrail and lawn space existed along Route #70, but that was in the NJDOT right-of-way. The proposed Omni-Point compound would be buffered.

Exhibit A-18 was introduced along with A-19 that indicated a revised lighting plan. All existing lights would be removed and the applicant would start from scratch with a proposal of 11 fixtures at a height of 16 feet above grade.

There would also be two double and on single light poles within the parking lot that complied with ordinance. The lighting would not impact adjacent properties.

Mr. Visceglia asked if additional parking spots could be obtained in front of the building off Route #705 but the applicant advised that this was the entrance from Route #70 and the spots could interfere. Mr. Hilla reminded the Board that there was a need for a deceleration area as cars came off Route #70 at 40-50 m.p.h. The applicant also noted that the lighting would be placed on a timer.

Chairman Brady wondered how many cars actually used the parking lot? No study had been conducted, but it was conceded that there was very little parking at night and the lighting could be adjusted accordingly.

The session was opened to the public; Mr. Michael Ping asked if the 12 spaces in the rear along Old Bridge Road could be for employees only? The applicant said it was possible.

Mr. Ping asked about lighting in the rear of the building and stated that the employees worked 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Why lights that shined into his home? The applicant noted that the Dance School was opened later than 6:00 p.m. and reminded Mr. Ping that the proposed lighting plan would start from scratch. Mr. Ping also took exception to the proposed poles.
Mr. Dan Healey raised issues as to the suitability of the site and asked if the Plumbers' Trucks currently parked on-site had been considered. Mr. Colagrande said that they would have to conform to the new parking plan.

Both Mr. Healey and Board Member Visceglia were concerned about parallel parking and the lack of a buffer. Mr. Visceglia urged striping to assist parkers. Mr. Colagrande offered to move the spaces back a foot or two.

Board Member Sigler noted that while there was a 64 space requirement there were only 12 employees

Chris Voll asked what was being done to address illegal U-Turns? Mr. Colagarnde stated that was a police matter and advised that if the applicant blocked Ramshorn Drive it

would eliminate an entire traffic pattern.

Mr. Guy Barbagelata asked the source of the original parking plan. The reply was a "professional surveyor". Mr. Barbagelata raised questions over an alleged "State Plan" with curbing blocking the northern entrance along Old Bridge Road, but the applicant had no knowledge of it.

Mr. Barbagelata asked if it were true that no buffer could be provided along Old Bridge Road and was advised that the statement was correct. The applicant was also asked if he could address ingress and egress off the state right-of-way and was told "no". Mr. Barbagelata said that there was no way to access the property from Ramshorn Drive without making an illegal U-Turn and he hoped to eliminate that. The consensus was that it was a state issue.

Further discussion by Attorney Fitzsimmons and Engineer Hilla revealed that it was not a "conventional U-Turn" but accessing the site without making a 90 degree movement.

Mr. Ping asked if the parking plan would be made available to the public? The answer was "yes" the plan was available for inspection, but if Mr. Ping wanted a copy he would have to pay for it as the Borough would have to send it out for reproduction.

The public portion on parking was closed and Mr. Hilla had a question concerning maintaining the existing curb line to foster the edge of the pavement. Mr. Colagrande said "okay".

Mr. Hilla then read through his report. The applicant acknowledged that the loading docks had not been part of the plan. Mr. Hilla thought that they should have been considered and this could require a variance.

Turning to lighting, Mr. Hilla asked if the 16 foot height was necessary? Mr. Colagrande said he revisit the issue and also the use of shielding to minimize any adverse impact on residents.

Mr. Learn asked if the Board wanted to re-open the drive test issue while Mr. Villecco was available?

Mr. Barbagelata asked about interference and signal strength. Mr. Villecco gave a detailed technical answer that basically said that the erection of the cell tower would enhance the quality of service to T-Mobile customers.

Mr. Villecco also explained that the "crane test" was conducted at 110 feet to ascertain if the signal was improved by going a bit higher. Mr. Voll asked why the test was not conducted at 100 feet and the answer was that the applicant was responding to the Board's question as to the viability of an 80 foot antenna.

this by Mr. Healey, but Mr. Villecco remained adamant that 100 feet was the required height to ensure quality of service.

A Ms. Clayton was recognized and she stated that she currently was a T-Mobile customer and she had no problem with her service. Mr. Villecco responded that Omni-Point and TMobile sought to come up to "industry accepted standards".

Chairman Brady noted that the hearing would be continued on Veteran's Day. The hearing concluded at 9:47 p.m.
OTHER BUSINESS:

Discussion with Board Engineer on Notice of Violation for Block 104, Lot 15, 20 South Tamarack Drive, owned by Howard & Linda McKeon in regards to tree removal.

Mrs. Brady asked Engineer Allan Hilla to come forward and speak on the violation.

Mr. Hilla said complaints were received from various adjoining property owners on the clearing that took place on the property at the Brielle Shores Subdivision on South Tamarack Drive. For those of you who weren't on the Board Mr. Rathjen had imposed a Tree Save easement through out the course of the subdivision. The property in question that had been recently cleared had a large tree save area. Mr. Hilla & visited the property along with Code Enforcement Officer Mr. Langenberger. Mr. Hilla stated two choices available for enforcement either mitigate what was destroyed or seek relief from this board of the tree save easement or suffer the wrath of enforcement.

Mrs. Brady commented that there is no question that obviously we have to do something. We just cannot ignore this. Every owner in that area knows this. Mr. Hilla added that the adjoining properties owners know this. There have been complaints received of trees removed but they were not necessary taken down in the save tree easement.

Mrs. Brady replied if it was one tree you wouldn't be happy about it & was more than shock when she saw what was done. Mr. Rathjen will not be a happy person since that has always been his goal. She was not quite sure on what could be done.

Mr. Hilla responded one of the weaknesses he found was the Board's or applicant's good intentions of putting these in place but the enforcement, whether they were filed as covenant of the deeds or so forth to the follow intent is proper, but the follow through is not necessary the greatest. We don't have in the ordinance what we can or cannot do. How do you seek relief as ifs not defined. It may be something the Board may wish to consider tightening up our own ordinance. As least we have a clear path on the enforcement act. Mr. Hilla said that there has been no response from the property owners to a letter that was mailed to them on September 15th. Mr. Langenberger added that they were given 90 days which will make it Dec. 15th. Mr. Hilla replied they are actually

violating the condition of the approval. One of the conditions of the Board subdivision site plan approval is that this easement was in place and they violated that.

Mr. Visceglia asked whether this was on the deed. Mr. Fitzsimmons replied no it was on the final map which is part of the chain of title. There was no condition that a tree save easement deed be filed. When it comes to these conditions it should be put on the deed. It should be more apparent to the new owner. Mr. Hilla added, not just a reference to the file map. People don't get a copy of a file map. They don't know.

As the discussion came to an end Mr. Fitzsimmons rehashed a few salient points on enforcing the tree save easement & possible relief for the owners.

1. It is enforceable. In order to create a subdivision you have to file a map. A tree save easement is shown on the map which is a part of it.
2. Avoid going to court & give the owners options. The owners were given options
in a letter written to them by Mr. Hilla. So far the owners are not complying.
3. The owners can proposition that the save tree easement is over extended and
here's why, which can be shown graphically.
4. It's going to be difficult. The Borough Attorney may have to go to Superior Court and enforced the conditions.
5. Suggest adopting an ordinance comparable to the one in Manasquan. If there are conditions to develop an application you give 30 days notice that they are being violated. If people fail to cure you can write a summons against that ordinance. You can enforce the conditions. Judges don't normally like to deal with zoning ordinances. This is a better way to deal with it. You're not interpreting the zoning ordinance you're looking at the plans and saying what are the conditions and now I have this particular section in the ordinance for enforcing.

Mr. Langenberger made the point and others that this will be a major decision. The owners now have other potential use of this property, which has been enhanced because he violated the agreement with the developer. If he's looking for forgiveness he would come to the board and ask for forgiveness.

Mrs. Brady ended the hearing by the board should look into what Mr. Fitzsimmons suggested considering adopting a similar ordinance as Manasquan's.
Discussion with Board Engineer on proposed Ordinance change for limiting accessory structures in residential zones.

Originally there have been discussions about accessory structures, whether they're in good taste with the neighborhood. One of the weaknesses I noticed as the Zoning Officer position is there is not much in the way of limitation on required yard or building height & accessory structures. My research showed that the original ordinance in 1960 established the maximum accessory building height of 15 ft. Some time between 1960 & now the height was deleted from the ordinance the setbacks remain the same. Mr.

Langenberger interjected that it occurred in 1974 due to some complication. Mr. Hilla met with the Community Development committee and they discussed some of these parameters and he came to a number of 17 ft before he knew of the 1960 15 ft maximum accessory height structure. What we're thying to do is get away from garage apartments. We developed some criteria, no plumbing on the second floor and other various things that can be implemented. That was not good enough and they looked at other options which would have to be easily applicable to applications & clear to the average person.

I looked at and kept the 15 ft in most cases. The 1960 baseline was used; Yard 5 ft x5 ft rear and side for a 15 ft height structure. 15 ft and less 5 ft x 5 ft side and rear except for the RI zone 10 ft x 10 ft in the R1 zone which is the golf course, the second item was for the R5 & R6 zone, the garden apartments and your townhouse development. I kept them at 15 ft because they're accessory structures they store lawn mowers & don't need to have lofts or anything. Now you're left with the R2, R3 & R4 zones again keeping 15 ft, 5 ft x 5 ft. I looked at the combinations of the rear and side yard requirements for those zones and established as you approach the required yards for the principle structure how high could you possibly get with the accessory structures. There is a common denominator for how high accessory structure would be before you reach in most cases the side yard requirements. So in all I kept 1/3rd of the height of the accessory structure is the side yard requirement. At 15 ft its 5 ft, 18 ft its 6 ft, 21 ft its 7 ft and in those different zones the principle structures have varying side yards from 12 ft to 18 ft. For instance in the R2 zone you have a maximum building height of 27 ft accessory structure. You really could get a second story. We will have limitations - no plumbing fixtures above the ground floor, no physical effects of the principle structure & not meant for dwelling & habitation in those areas. We are going to have minimally separation of the accessory and the principal structure of 10 ft. In the R2 you will have the 27 ft high requirement. The rear yard will have 213rd of the height because if you look at the principle structure there is a greater premium put on rear yards than side yards. So we want to reflect that going above 15 ft. you start getting enhanced rear yards for those large structures. Realistically people should not have to endure 25 or 35 ft buildings five feet of the property line. In essence I propose the maximum building height R2-27 ft, R3-24 ft & R4-18 ft maximum accessory building height allowed and with those heights you will have 1/3rd of the building height measure from the adjacent grade not from the street would be your side yard 2/3rds of the building height will be your rear yard. So you're starting to approach the kind of setbacks that the building speed principle structure again with these accessory structures. You really can get away with the 5x5 if you want to stay with 15 ft. but then you'll start chopping up your yards in some of these zones by having to have those enhanced yards the more you go up. This is before the council now in ordinance form.
Request for extension of filing time for Minor Subdivision for 110 South Street, owned by Liam Boland.

Mr. Hilla offered that the Bolands' might have thought they were resolution compliance and would be able to file and when they realized that that was not going to happen they requested an extension. Mr. Hilla will include in his letter that whatever the condition is

in the resolution & in the testimony that the structure is going to be reasonable. Mr. Fitzsimmons asked if they filed an application for extension or sent a letter. A letter was sent. We could send him a letter if we chose to grant him an extension I'm just not certain if the letter will work or the county clerk will require a resolution I think it would be easier to do a resolution and adopt it next month and give him 60 days. I will check the statute.

Motion to adjourn by Mr. Langenberger seconded by Mr. Visceglia and unanimously approved, all aye.
Meeting Adjourned: 10:18p.m.


Sherri Hopkins, Assistant Recording Secretary

 

RELATED LINKS