www.briellenj.com
A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ


June 9, 2009

July 29 2009

June 9, 2009

BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD

TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 2009

The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, June 9, 2009 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 Mayor Thomas B. Nicol, Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo, Thomas
Condon, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, James Stenson

Absent Terre Vitale

Also present were Michael Rubino, Board Attorney and Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary. There were approximately 15 people in the audience.

Chairman Condon then called the meeting to order and declared a quorum. He 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.

The Minutes of the May 12, 2009 meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Harman and approved by voice vote, all aye.

As one Resolution and New Business were all for Use Variances and on the second Resolution both Mayor Nicol & Councilman Garruzzo abstained from voting for the application, they both had to step off the dais and excuse themselves for the rest of the evening. Mayor Nicol commented that they had attended to do their civic duty but had to step down due to State law.

OLD BUSINESS:

As there was no correspondence, the Board then turned to the approval of a Resolution for Change of Use for Block 25.01, Lot 3, 606 Union Avenue, owned by 606 Union Avenue, LLC, change from real estate office to nail salon.

All Board members, as well as the applicant, had received the draft Resolution and, as there were no changes for recommendations to be made, the following was offered for approval:

“WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth, has before it an application for Minor Site Plan approval on behalf of 606 Union Avenue, LLC, for premises known as 606 Union Avenue, Brielle, said premises also being known as Block 25.01, Lot 3 and the property containing approximately 10,614 square feet and the applicant having owned the property for a number of years and the property having been fully developed and previously occupied by a Sotheby’s Real Estate Agency and Sotheby’s having vacated the premises and a new use, to wit, a nail salon being proposed to enter and lease the premises and the change of use necessitating a Site Plan approval with a Use Variance as the upstairs of the premises is an existing residential use which is not permitted in the zone and engineering plans having been submitted by Charles Gilligan, P.E., last revised April 16, 2009, a survey having been prepared by Paul K. Lynch, LS, dated March 25, 2009 having been submitted and C. Keith Henderson, Esq. having represented the applicant, and the Board having listened to the testimony offered by the applicant on behalf of the application and of the objectors; and the Board having held a hearing on May 12, 2009; and

WHEREAS, the Board has jurisdiction of the matter as a result of the applicable Ordinances of the Borough, adopted pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law, Chapter 291, Law of 1975, as amended and supplemented, and the Board having considered the matter at a public hearing as set forth above, and the Board having made the following findings of fact:

1. The property in question contains 10,614 square feet and is located on the southwest corner of Union Avenue and Bradley Avenue. The property is located in the Borough’s C-1 (Central Commercial Zone). The property currently contains an existing two-story building. The first floor of the building has been used for commercial use and recently was used by a real estate agency. The second floor of the building has always been used for residential purposes. The applicant proposes to change the first floor use from a real estate office to a nail salon. The nail salon is permitted in the zone, however, the existing residential use is not permitted within the C-1 zone.
2. Code Section 23-1.5C requires site plan approval for a change of use where there has been no previously approved site plan governing a site in question. It appears that the building in question was constructed prior to the Site Plan Ordinance and, therefore a site plan is required. As a pre-existing non-conforming use with a residential premise on the second floor of the building a Use Variance is required for this non-conformity.
3. Bulk variances are also needed as follows: (a) Front Setback Bradley Avenue 30 feet required, 19.8 feet existing; (b) Front Setback Union Avenue (Route 71) 30 feet required, 24.7 feet existing; (c) Side Setback 10 feet required, 9.85 feet existing.
4. Variances will also be needed as follows:
(a) Code Section 21-31.4 establishes a minimum aisle space for 45 degree parking of 13 feet. The aisle serving front two diagonal spaces is only 7 feet wide. A variance will be required for this existing non-conformity.
(b) Code Section 21-31.22 requires that (1) paving for parking not located any nearer than 5 feet to any property line, and (2) no parking space shall be closer than 20 feet to any ROW line. All paving and parking, both existing and proposed, violate this requirement (as 7 of the 9 spaces are partially within the Bradley Avenue ROW).
(c) Code Section 21-33 requires a 14 foot by 55 foot loading space for any commercial use in this space. No loading space is existing or proposed. Accordingly, a variance will be required for this existing and proposed non-conformity.
(d) Code Section 21-36.1 requires a minimum landscaped area five feet wide be provided along all property lines. The front and both sides of the property, both existing and proposed, do not conform with this requirement.
5. Parking variances are also needed as follows:
(e) Code Section 21-31.4 requires a minimum aisle space for 45 degree parking of 13 feet, whereas the aisle provided for the two front diagonal spaces is only 7 feet. A variance will be required for this existing non-conformity.
(f) Code Section 21-31.21 requires all parking areas be set back five feet (5’) from front property. The existing front spaces are 2 feet from the Union Avenue right-of-way.
(g) Code Section 21-31.22 requires all paving for parking and loading areas be set back five feet (5’) from all adjacent property lines and not be closer than 20 feet to any right-of-way line. The existing parking is located closer than 20 feet to both the Union Avenue and Bradley Avenue right-of-ways and the spaces along Bradley Avenue encroach into the right-of-way.
(h) Code Section 21-36.1 requires a minimum landscaped area five feet (5’) wide be provided along all property lines, including street lines. The site does not provide any landscaping.
6. The applicant, as part of the site plan application, has agreed to pave Bradley Avenue to a point as shown on the aforementioned site plan. The paving of Bradley Avenue will allow cars to enter the rear of the site more easily than the existing conditions.
7. During the course of the hearing, Ken McKeon, one of the owners of the site, testified that, to his knowledge, the building was built in 1958 and that the upstairs of the building has been used for residential purposes since that time. In fact, the premises were occupied by his grandmother for a number of years. The Board finds his testimony believable and, therefore, find that the residential use on the second floor of the premises is a pre-existing non-conforming use of the premises and can remain on the premises and the Board further finds that the premises is particularly suitable for said use as the residence has been on the premises for over 50 years. The Board finds that the granting of the Use Variance, therefore, has no adverse impact on the Ordinances of the Municipality nor the intent of the Master Plan nor of any of the properties surrounding the subject property. The Board finds that the premises are particularly suited for the use in question.
8. With regard to the bulk variances, the Board finds the front setbacks from Bradley and Union Avenue and the side setbacks are existing conditions non-exacerbated by the application. The Board also finds that the Union Avenue condition was created by the widening of Route 71 in the 1970s. The Board finds, with reference to Code Section 21-31.4 and 21-31.21 these are existing conditions not exacerbated by this application. The Board finds that, with regard to the Code Section 21-31.22, said conditions are existing conditions not exacerbated by this application and that the variances can be granted. With regard to the no loading zone, the Board finds that the type of use proposed, to wit, a hair salon, does not need a loading zone; therefore, the Board can grant said variance. With regard to Code Section 21-36.1 the Board finds that this is an existing condition non-exacerbated by this application. The Board also finds that the premises in question has adequate landscaping and, therefore, will require no further landscaping of the site.
9. With regard to trash enclosure, the applicant has agreed to provide detail for all existing and proposed trash enclosure, which shall be subject to approval by the Board Engineer. The applicant has agreed to provide same, which would cause no further variance relief. It also should be noted that the existing and proposed trash enclosures are located partially on adjacent Lot 2. The applicant has agreed to obtain an easement from the owner of Lot 2 for access to the trash enclosure. Stipulation of the same is included in this Resolution of Approval.
10. The Board finds that the positive criteria and negative criteria necessary to support the granting of both the D Variance and C Variance have been satisfied. With regard to the Use Variance, the positive criteria were satisfied both as to the particularly suited use and as to the prior use of the premises. The negative criteria were satisfied and the Board finds that there was no adverse impact as a result of the prior use of the premises. Further, as to the negative criteria, the Board finds that this application can be granted without substantial detriment and without substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinances. The premises pre-existing the Ordinances in the Borough. As a result therefore, the premises had been developed along Route 71 without any undue problems. The Board finds that the site plan submitted will help alleviate any existing problems on the premises. Therefore, the Board finds that if there are any negative impacts that the positive impact not only substantially outweighs the negatives but that there would be no significant adverse impact from the granting of this application.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board that it adopts the aforesaid findings of fact, and based upon the aforesaid finding, the Board concludes that the applicant has satisfied both the positive criteria for granting a “D” Variance and along with the necessary criteria for granting the “C” Variances. The Board also finds and concludes that with respect to the “C” Variances:
(i) The Board finds that by reason of an extraordinary and exceptional situation that uniquely affected the subject property and the structure which exists lawfully thereon, the strict application of the aforementioned regulation would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exception and undue hardship upon the applicant.
(j) The applicant has demonstrated that the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law and the Land Use Ordinances of the Borough of Brielle would be advanced by a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance requirements at issue, and further that the benefits of any such deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment resulting fro a granting of the application.

WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle hereby grants Minor Site Plan approval along with the Use Variance and bulk variances as specified herein. The maps can not be signed until the following conditions are met:

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. Subject to the development here at issue being undertaken in accordance with the testimony presented to the Board and the plans submitted to/approved by the Board.
2. Subject to the testimony of all witnesses called on behalf of the applicant being true and accurate.
3. Subject to the application, all attachments thereto, and all exhibits offered by the applicant being accurate depictions of that which they purport to represent.
4. The applicant shall furnish proof that taxes have been paid through the current quarter and through the quarter in which he receives his initial construction permit.
5. Subject to the applicant paying in full all application fees, review fees, engineering and consulting fees, and escrows. Subject to the applicant posting required performance bonds and/or guarantees, as well as engineering and inspection fees, in amounts fixed by the Board and/or
Borough Engineer, and in such form as shall be acceptable to the Borough Attorney and Governing Body.
6. Subject to the applicant obtaining and complying with the approval of any other reviewing agency having jurisdiction over the property and/or the project, including but not limited to the Board of Health, the Borough Engineer, the Borough Fire Official, and any County, State or Federal agency; provided, however, that in the event that any other agency or authority shall require any changes in the plans herein approved, then any such changes must be submitted to this Board for review and approval. Further, if another governmental agency grants a waiver or variance of a regulation, which same affects this approval or any condition attached hereto, or otherwise requires any changes in the plans herein approved then this matter shall be brought back before the Board for review of any such action, and the Board shall have the right to modify this approval and/or the conditions attached hereto.





SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

1. The applicant shall obtain an easement from the owner of Lot 2 for access to the trash enclosure, copy of said easement shall be provided to the Board Secretary prior to the issuance of CO.
2. The applicant shall construct a 10’x32’ rip-rap apron to dissipate the runoff created by the new pavement surface as per paragraph 8 of the letter of May 4, 2009 of Alan Hilla, Jr., Board Engineer.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as this application for development proceeds, the Land Use Office of the Borough may, upon the request of the applicant and with the written advice of the Board Engineer, grant such changes as are necessary with respect to the approved site plan and improvements related thereto that are not substantial and the Board does hereby authorize the Land Use Officer with the advice of the Board Engineer to take such steps as are appropriate to protect the integrity of the site plan approval being herein conditionally granted and to insure compliance with the Borough of Brielle Land Use and Development Ordinances and the Mt. Laurel requirements as well as compliance with the Township Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Any substantial deviation in the opinion of the Engineer and/or Land Use Officer shall require a revised site plan application and plat to be submitted to this Board for its review and approval. Any non-substantial and/or minor changes permitted shall be placed upon a revised Preliminary Plat with same being signed and dated by the applicant and the applicant’s Engineer, as well as the Board Engineer and Land Use Officer indicating the changes made with the original being filed with the Land Use Office and a copy filed with the Land Use Office and the Planning Board Secretary and the Borough/Board Engineer. It is to be understood that with respect to any minor changes and/or deviations approved by this procedure herein set forth that same not in any way extend any applicable time limits with respect to final major subdivision approval that may exist according to law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, in the event the conditions set forth in this Site Plan Approval are not met by June 9, 2011, with the Site Plan having been executed by said date, then this application shall be listed on the Planning Board Agenda for the meeting of the following month for dismissal without prejudice unless the Applicant offers appropriate reasons for the delay, all of which may be considered at the discretion of the Board. It should be understood that this time limit, of an administrative nature herein, is not a representation or guaranty by the Planning Board as existing State Law may affect same and it continues to be the Applicant’s sole responsibility and obligation to comply with applicable law.

Further, this Board directs that the Land Use Office take whatever steps it may deem necessary to insure that restoration of this site to its original condition occurs if the developer is deemed by the Land Use Office to be in substandard non-compliance with the standards of performance and the conditions set forth in this Resolution of the Planning Board (and/or Borough Ordinances) and that steps also be taken as may be deemed necessary by the Borough to place the responsibility of same financially and otherwise upon the Applicant and the principal involved as well as his heirs, successors and assigns.”

Mr. Stenson then made a motion to accept the above Resolution, as presented, this motion seconded by Mr. Langenberger and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Charles
Sarnasi, James Stenson

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: Thomas Heavey, Tim Sigler

Abstaining: James Harman

The next item for approval was a Resolution for Change of Use for Block 17.01, Lot 9, 501 Union Avenue, owned by R.D. Brkal, LLC, change from real estate office to ice cream shop.

Mr. Langenberger asked Mr. Landis if the lighting had been changed to comply with the discussions held last month and Mr. Landis said it had.

As all Board members as well as the applicant and his attorney had received a draft copy of the Resolution and there were no changes or recommendations to be made the Board considered the following for approval:

“WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey, has before it an application for minor site plan approval on behalf of R.D. Brkal, LLC, for premises known as 501 Union Avenue, Block 17.01, Lot 9, and the engineering plans consisting of two sheets having been prepared by Charles Gilligan, P.E., last revised March 24, 2009 along with an architectural plan consisting of one sheet prepared by Paul S. Moore Architect, dated March 19, 2009, and for variances being necessary as hereinafter discussed and the applicant being represented by Michael Landis, Esq., and objectors being represented by Brian W. Fehey, Esq., and the Board having held hearings on the matter on April 14, 2009 and May 12, 2009, and

WHEREAS, the Board has jurisdiction of the matter as a result of the applicable Ordinances of the Borough, adopted pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law, Chapter 291, Law of 1975, as amended and supplemented, and the Board having considered the matter at a public hearing as set forth above, and the Board having made the following findings of fact:

1. The property in question is located at 501 Union Avenue in the Borough and is located on Lot 9, Block 17.01. It contains 9,424 square feet and is located on the northwest corner of Union Avenue and Harris Avenue. The property is located in the Borough’s C-1(Central Commercial Zone). The parcel currently contains an existing one-story office building, shed, parking area and associated improvements. It is obvious that the building has been on the property in its present state for a substantial period of time. The applicant proposed to change a portion of the building from an office use to a retail use, to wit, an ice cream shop. Borough Code Section 21-18.1 allows ice cream parlors within the C-1 Zone.
2. The Borough’s Ordinance requires site plan approval where there is a change in use on premises that have not received site plan approval. As a result a number of variances are necessary as part of this application.
3. Bulk variances are needed as follows:
(a) Front Setback (principal) 30 feet required, 9.6 feet existing (Union Avenue);
(b) Front Setback (principal) 30 feet required, 9.6 feet existing (Union Avenue/Harris Avenue);
(c) Front Setback (accessory) 30 feet required, 25 feet existing (Harris Avenue);
(d) Side Setback 10 feet required, 4.8 feet existing;
(e) Lot Coverage 25% maximum allowable, 31% existing.
4. The Board finds that these bulk variances conditions are existing conditions and not in any way exacerbated by this application. The Board finds that the relief can be granted for said bulk variances.
5. The further variances are also needed as follows:
(f) Code Sections 21-17.2 and 21-31.10 limit individual curb cuts for driveways to 30 feet in width in all commercial zones. The existing curb cut (along the Harris Avenue frontage) is 163 feet. The Board finds that this is an existing condition. The Board further finds that any additional curbing will eliminate a number of parking spots at the site. The Board believes that it would be better to have the parking as proposed than to close the curb cut. The Board, therefore, finds that relief can be granted from this Ordinance.
(g) Code Section 21.17.5 requires that all trash storage areas should be enclosed, screened and located on a paved surface. The Board finds that this relief can be granted and sets forth as a condition of this Resolution of Approval that the trash enclosure may be left on the gravel but that the applicant shall ensure that the trash is picked up and disposed of in daytime regular working hours. The applicant shall also ensure that all measures are taken to guarantee that the handling of the garbage is done in a clean manner with the least amount of noise possible.
(h) There is an existing condition on Harris Avenue with regard to parking which violates Code Section 21-31.4 which requires all street parking spaces have dimensions of 9’x18’ in length. While the parking spaces achieve these dimensions physically, all spaces encroach the Harris Avenue right-of-way by approximately 4.5 feet. The Board heard testimony of both the applicants, engineer and objector’s expert with regard to this condition. The Board finds that the condition is existing and is satisfied that, although the parking spaces go into the right-of-way, they do not actually encroach into the street line itself. The alternative would be to change the parking to parallel parking which would greatly reduce the amount of spaces available at the site. The Board would rather, therefore, keep the parking condition as it has been. The Board finds that the variances can be granted for this condition both for Code Section 21-31.4 and Code Section 21-31.21.
(i) With regard to Code Section 21-31.7 the applicant has agreed to re-landscape the site to have a 4-foot walkway around both the front and side of the site. Therefore, no variance would be necessary for said condition. The applicant has also agreed to construct improvements at the head of the parking facilities to minimize pedestrian circulation towards the rear of the parked vehicles. The changes shall be made to the plan and submitted to the Board Engineer prior to execution of the plan.
(j) With regard to Code Section 21-31.11 which requires curb cuts be located at least 5 feet from adjacent property lines, the Board finds that this is an existing condition not exacerbated by this application and, therefore, the variance can be granted for same.
(k) Code Section 21-31.22 requires paving for parking and loading areas be set back 5 feet from the property line. As the paving in the parking area presently exist on the side, the Board finds that it would be impossible to change the condition as proposed and, therefore, that hardship exists. The Board, therefore, finds that the variance can be granted for this non-conformity.
(l) With regard to Code Section 21-33.2 the existing and proposed loading zone achieves the length of 44 feet where 55 feet is necessary. The Board finds that this is not only an existing condition but would be difficult to change the area of the loading zone at the site. The Board also finds that the nature of the use does not require loading zone greater than 44 feet. The Board is, therefore, satisfied with this condition and finds that a variance can be granted for it.
(m) Code Section 21-33.5 requires all loading zones be screened from public view via landscaping or solid fencing. The Board finds that the premises are existing and the buildings thereon existing would be also to maintain the site and satisfy the requirements of the Ordinance. Therefore, the variance will be granted for this non-conformity.
(n) Code Section 21-36.1 requires a minimum landscaped area 5 feet wide be provided along property lines including street lines. The bulk of the site does not or cannot provide for this requirement. The Board finds that the variance is nece3ssary but that because of the existing conditions at the site, it would be impossible to comply with the requirements of the Ordinance and, therefore, the variance can be granted.
(o) Code Section 21-36.9 requires a 50 feet buffer where a commercial zone abuts a residential zone. There is no buffer between the commercial and residential zones. The Board finds that this is an existing condition non-exacerbated by this application which has existed for a number of years and pre-dates the Zoning Ordinance. The Board, therefore, finds that the variance can be granted for this requirement.
(p) Code Se3ction 21-37.1 requires a minimum of 20% of lot area be devoted to landscaping, a condition that requires buffers. The applicant has provided the landscaping of 15% on the site. The Board finds that this is sufficient and that, in fact, this is an existing condition and that the proposed use is not exacerbating the conditions at the site.
(q) The height and details of the proposed signs shall be provided and the same shall comply with Code Section 21-30.2 so that no variances would be necessary. All future proposed uses will go through the Zoning Office to insure that parking requirements at the site are met.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board that it adopts the aforesaid findings of fact and, based upon the aforesaid findings, the Board concludes that the applicant has satisfied the necessary criteria for granting the “C” Variances. The Board also finds and concludes that with respect to the “C” Variances:

(a) The Board finds that by reason on an extraordinary and exceptional situation that uniquely affected the subject property and the structure which exists lawfully thereon, the strict application of the aforementioned regulations would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exception and undue hardship upon the applicant. It should be noted that the Board finds that the building pre-dates the Site Plan Ordinances of the Borough and that the building and structures at the site exist there lawfully.
(b) The applicant has demonstrated that the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law and the Land Use Ordinances of the Borough of Brielle would be advanced by a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance requirements at issue and further finds that the benefits of any such deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment resulting from a grant of the application.
(c) The Board finds that the relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and that the relief will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinances of the Borough.

WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle hereby grants minor site plan approval along with the bulk variances as specified herein. The maps cannot be signed until the following conditions are met:

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. Subject to the development here at issue being undertaken in accordance with the testimony presented to the Board and the plans submitted to/approved by the Board.
2. Subject to the testimony of all witnesses called on behalf of the applicant being true and accurate.
3. Subject to the application, all attachments thereto, and all exhibits offered by the applicant being accurate depictions of that which they purport to represent.
4. The applicant shall furnish proof that taxes have been paid through the current quarter and through the quarter in which he receives his initial construction permit.
5. Subject to the applicant paying in full all application fees, review fees, engineering and consulting fees, and escrows. Subject to the applicant posting required performance bonds and/or guarantees, as well as engineering and inspection fees, in amounts fixed by the Board and/or Borough Engineers, and in such form as shall be acceptable to the Borough Attorney and Governing Body.
6. Subject to the applicant obtaining and complying with the approval of any other reviewing agency having jurisdiction over the property and/or the project, including but not limited to the Board of Health, the Borough Engineer, the Borough Fire Official and any County, State or Federal agency; provided, however, that in the event that any other agency or authority shall require any changes in the plans herein approved, then any such changes must be submitted to this Board for review and approval. Further, if another governmental agency grants a waiver or variance of a regulation, which same affects this approval or any condition attached hereto, or otherwise requires any changes in the plans herein approved, then this matter shall be brought back before the Board for review of any such action and the Board shall have the right to modify this approval and/or the conditions attached hereto.

SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

1. The applicant shall provide exterior lighting that conforms with the Borough Ordinance.
2. There will be no food preparation done in the premises per the representations of the applicant. The tables will be limited to 3 tables with a maximum of 12 seats.
3. The parking spot nearest Route 71 will have a bike rack installed in it.
4. The applicant shall add goose neck lamps for lighting.
5. The applicant shall revise the plans to build a 4 foot walkway around the site.
6. The applicant shall ensure that the trash is kept in a clean manner and that it shall be picked up in regular daytime hours.
7. The applicant shall ensure that the trash enclosure shall have a gate.
8. The applicant shall ensure that no dumpsters will be on the premises and that all trash shall be collected in cans.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as this application for development proceeds, the Land Use Office of the Borough may, upon the requires of the applicant and with the written advice of the Board Engineer, grant such changes as are necessary with respect to the approved site plan and improvements related thereto that are not substantial and the Board does hereby authorize the Land Use Officer with the advice of the Board Engineer to take such steps as are appropriate to protect the integrity of the site plan approval being herein conditionally granted and to insure compliance with the Borough of Brielle Land Use and Development Ordinances. Any substantial deviation in the opinion of the Engineer and/or Land Use Officer shall require a revised site plan application and plat to be submitted to this Board for its review and approval. Any non-substantial and/or minor changes permitted shall be placed upon a revised Preliminary Plat with same being signed and dated by the applicant and the applicant’s Engineer, as well as the Board Engineer and Land Use Officer indicating the changes made with the original being filed with the Land Use Office and a copy filed with the Land Use Office and the Planning Board Secretary and the Borough/Board Engineer. It is to be understood that with respect to any minor changes and/or deviations approved by this procedure herein set forth that same not in any way extend any applicable time limits with respect to final major subdivision approval that may exist according to law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the event the conditions set forth in this Site Plan Approval are not met by June 9, 2011, with the Site Plan having been executed by said date, then this application shall be listed on the Planning Board Agenda for the meeting of the following month for dismissal without prejudice unless the Applicant offers appropriate reasons for the delay, all of which may be considered at the discretion of the Board. It should be understood that this time limit, of an administrative nature herein, is not a representation or guaranty by the Planning Board as existing State Law may affect same and it continues to be the Applicant’s sole responsibility and obligation to comply with applicable law.”

Mr. Langenberger made a motion to approve the above Resolution, this seconded by Mr. Stenson and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles
Sarnasi, James Stenson

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: Thomas Heavey, Tim Sigler

NEW BUSINESS:

The Board then turned to an application for Site Plan/Use Variance for Block 93.01, Lot 9 and Block 94, Lot 1, 402 Osborn Avenue and 400 Osborn Avenue, owned by Bruce & Mary Lee Stamos, to allow construction of a new single-family home and accessory structures. Minimum Lot Size (Bl. 93.01, Lot 9), 15,000 square feet required, 3,147 square feet existing & proposed, 11,853 square foot variance existing. Lot Width (Bl. 93.01, Lot 9) 125 feet required, 31.3 feet existing & proposed, 93.7 foot variance existing. Lot Depth- (Bl. 93.01, Lot 9), 125 feet required, 100.4 feet existing, 24.65 foot variance existing. Front Setback (Bl. 93,01, Lot 9), 40 feet required, 2.3 feet proposed (to roadway), 37.7 foot variance requested; (Bl. 94, Lot 1), 30 feet proposed, 10 foot variance requested. Rear Setback (Bl. 93.01, Lot 9), 40 feet required, 5 feet proposed, 35 foot variance requested. Lot Coverage (Bl. 93.01, Lot 9), 20% maximum allowed, 22.9% requested. Impervious Coverage (Bl. 93.01, Lot 9), 50% maximum allowable, 53.8% proposed. Front Yards to face a 50 foot right-of-way: all frontages of both lots front on right-of-ways that are less than 50 feet in length. Change in Elevation of ore than 2 feet Bl. 93.01, Lot 9 change up to 5 feet, Bl. 94, Lot 1 change up to 3 feet. Proposed garage is on a separate lot requiring a Use Variance. Curb Cuts setback 5 feet from adjacent property lines, proposed curb cut for Bl. 93.01, Lot 9 is set back only 3 feet, 2 foot variance requested.

The proper fees were paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners within 200 feet as well as the newspaper were properly notified. Mr. Michael Vitello, Esq. came forward to represent the Stamos family. He said they are here tonight to request variances to build a new house with a new garage. One lot is undersized and has been for years, the lots were split when a new roadway was put in. The Use Variance relates to the garage as that is now on a separate lot which makes it a principal structure; the new garage will be on this lot also. They will also make sure these two lots stay in the same owner’s name and that can be a condition of approval.

The Architect for this plan was then sworn in, Mr. Paul Grabowski of Virtuoso Architectural firm in Sea Girt. Mr. Grabowski has a degree from Pratt Institute and has been licensed in New Jersey for 15 years; he has testified before Boards across the State. The Board accepted him as an expert witness.

Mr. Grabowski said he had brought elevations of the proposed home and garage and Mr. Rubino felt this was a good time to mark the exhibits. Exhibit A-1 were the front & side elevations, A-2 the side elevations of the garage, A-3 the garage elevation, A-4 color rendering of the proposed home, and A-5 the site plan itself. Mr. Grabowski told the Board this will be a shingle-style Nantucket type home which will utilize maximum views with common area spaces; there will be a pool and large grassy area. The home will be 2 ½ stories, approximately 6,300 square feet and across the street will be the detached garage which will be built using similar materials and will have matching roof lines. He referred to Exhibit A-3 which shows elevations that coincide with the house and garage and he felt this will help vehicular movements. Mr. Langenberger asked the height of the proposed garage and was told it will measure out at 28 feet, 35 inches and noted that the street is at 10 feet. Mr. Langenberger then asked about the second floor of the garage and Mr. Grabowski said they will keep off-season tackle equipment up there along with a powder room. There will be no cooking facilities but there will be heat.

Mr. Vitello said it will not be for residential use and will be an accessory use only. Mr. Langenberger said he has seen these types of areas turned into sleep-over rooms and Mr. Rubino offered a deed restriction prohibiting this; Mr. Vitello was agreeable to this restriction that will run with the land and said that all restrictions imposed will not be removed without permission from this Board. He also commented that this is where the Use Variance comes in, this lot with the garage is zoned residential but it will not be used for residential as it is just a garage.

At this time the meeting was opened to the public for questions to Mr. Grabowski and there was no response so that portion was closed.

Next to be sworn in was Joseph Hanrahan, a Civil Engineer. He has been a Licensed in New Jersey since 1997 and has been with CMX for 15 years; he noted he has been working in this field for 17 years and has been before many Boards in New Jersey. The Board accepted him as an expert witness.

He referenced Exhibit A-5, the rendered depiction of the site plan and again noted that Block 93.01, Lot 9 is the garage lot, the property at Block 94, Lot 1 is to the south and backs up to the Manasquan River. At one time these two lots were one but a right-of-way was put in and split the lots. The property is in the R-2 zone and Block 93.01, Lot 9 has 3,147 square feet whereas Block 94, Lot 1 has 19,865 square feet with 200 feet to the Mean High Water Line.

He noted that the new garage will be shifted to the west and will be centered in the property; there will be a driveway to the garage. By centering the garage it helps with the variance and is improving the area to the street line by adding 2.3 feet which is 2 feet more than is there now. The garage property is only 32 feet deep so there can’t be a rear yard setback due to the right-of-way being put in. He felt these new structures will enhance the area and all utilities will be available through the alleyway. Also, the height of the garage will be 6 inches lower than the existing one and will have 71 square feet less or 2.2% less percentage of lot coverage; he said sheathing can be put in if the Board feels it is needed. Mr. Vitello commented that the garage lot is adjacent to lot 8 owned by a Mr. Dimon who, even though he is not present, is in support of this application.

Mr. Heavey noted 6 squares in the corner, possibly pavers and asked about that; Mr. Hanrahan said that is the neighbor’s property and Mr. Vitello agreed, adding that the neighbor’s garage is right next to this by the lot’s end and that is why it looks like it is part of this lot.

As there were no further questions from the Board, the hearing was opened to the public for questions to Mr. Hanrahan; as there was no response that portion was closed.

The next person to come forward was Sam Melillo, a Professional Planner and Landscape Architect. He is a graduate of Rutgers and the University of Massachusetts with an office in Wall Township; he has been a principal with his firm for 35 years. The Board approved him as an Expert Witness. He presented an aerial photo rendering of this area and this was marked as Exhibit A-6. Exhibit A-7 was a photo of the proposed structure and A-8 was a photo of the proposed garage. He noted there will now be an apron for the garage and the house property will have terraces, an open lawn area down to the beach and the vegetation on the north side of the property will remain.

He referenced Exhibit A-6, the aerial photo which showed the 20 foot right-of-way turning into Osborn Avenue. This right-of-way going through the property will not change and nothing can be done about it; it is not detrimental to the Zone Plan. He said the retaining wall is needed as the road drops 6-7 by the garage area. This is an existing condition they are trying to work with and he told the Board that some trees will not be touched.

Mr. Vitello wanted further explanation of Exhibit A-8 and noted it is a photo also of the gap between the garages on this property and the one next door. He then spoke on the variances referred in Mr. Hilla’s report of 3/30/09 and said they can remove the last two as they changed the curb cut and the can meet the 50% coverage.

Mr. Melillo said he walked the site and reviewed the Ordinance. Lot 9, as shown on Exhibit A-5, is a very narrow lot so there will be no detriment to the Zone Plan for this lot or for the project in total. Mr. Langenberger asked about the tree on the corner of the garage lot, Mr. Melillo said it is an evergreen tree. Mr. Langenberger said he was concerned about the site triangle. Mr. Melillo said they can talk to the Engineer about this and can prune it up if needed, they can prune it up to 6-7 feet; Mr. Vitello felt it could go to 7-8 feet. Mr. Melillo thought it will look better that way, too. Mr. Langenberger said he brought this up as there will be more traffic and activity on this site and he would like to see this for safety reasons.

Mr. Sarnasi asked if there was an existing retaining wall by the river now and Mr. Melillo said yes, but it is deteriorated and needs to be replaced; they are going to put in two. Mr. Heavey asked about the letter from the Fire Company regarding leaving the hydrant where it is and Mr. Vitello said it will stay there and not be touched. Mr. Sarnasi asked if there is a catch basin for the driveway runoff and Mr. Hilla said there was one on the south side of Osborn Avenue. The drainage plan they propose will go into a recharge system to the river, the catch basins will collect less than they are now.

At this time the hearing was opened to the public for questions to Mr. Melillo; as there was no response, that portion was closed. The meeting was then opened to the public for general comments and there again was no response so that portion was also closed. The Board then went into discussion and Mr. Langenberger said he liked the plan and felt this will be an asset, the garage is ready to be taken down. Mr. Sarnasi felt the new structures will be beautiful; Mr. Sigler would have liked to see the house a little more up the road but was okay with the application as presented. As the rest of the Board was also in agreement with approval, a motion was made by Mr. Langenberger to approve this application, as presented, with the condition that these two lots remain in the same owners’ names, a deed restriction on the use of the garage for living quarters and the recommendations of the Fire Company be adhered to, this motion seconded by Mr. Stenson and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Thomas Condon, Thomas Heavey, James Harman, James Langenberger,
Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, James Stenson

Noes: None

After the vote Mr. Langenberger told the applicant that, before the house comes down, they can donate it to the Fire Company for practice and, if this is done, the demolition fees are waived.

As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Heavey and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 pm.


________________________________
Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary


Approved:






 

RELATED LINKS