www.briellenj.com
A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ


December 8, 2009

January 13 2010

December 8, 2009

BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD

TUESDAY, December 8, 2009

The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, December 8, 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 Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Thomas
Condon, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James Langenberger,
Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, James Stenson

Absent Terre Vitale

Also present were Michael Rubino, Board Attorney, Alan Hilla, Jr., Board Engineer 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 November 10, 2009 meeting were then approved on a motion by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Harman and approved by voice vote, all aye.

CORRESPONDENCE:

The Board members all received the NJ Planner, November 2009 issue. Also received was an application for CAFRA Permit for Block 86, Lots 2-2.01, Bruce Jeffrey, 804 Ashley Avenue, replacement dock & boat lift.

On file in the Board office, Monmouth County Planning Board publication “Monmouth County at a Glance” each Board member was given a copy of the page regarding Brielle statistics.

The Board members also received a copy of a letter from Birdsall Engineering, dated 12/01/09 regarding Omnipoint Tower construction and conditions of approval.

OLD BUSINESS:

The Board turned to the approval of a Resolution for Minor Subdivision for Block 89.01, Lots 7, 8 & 9, 608 and 610 Oceanview Road, owned by 608 Oceanview Road, LLC & Anthony & Sandra Mascia, to create 3 buildable lots form 2 now existing.
Mr. Rubino noted a few changes to the original Resolution, some re-wording and typographical errors corrected and he put in that the restrictive easement would have to be approved by Mr. Hilla and the Governing Body. As there were no further changes or recommendations, the followed amended Resolution was presented 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 Subdivision with Variances for premises known as 608 and 610 Oceanview Road, Block 89.01, Lots 7, 8 & 9, said application being filed on behalf of 608 Oceanview Road, LLC and Anthony and Sandra Mascia, and a minor subdivision plan consisting of two (2) sheets having been prepared by InSite Engineering, LLC dated August 20, 2009 and a survey of the property one (1) sheet having been prepared by Ronald W. Post Surveying, dated August 5, 2009, and the applicant having attended open public hearings on October 13, 2009 and November 10, 2009, and at that time the Board having listened to the testimony offered by the applicant on behalf of the applicant and presentations of its counsel and the comments and objections of the neighbors, and Thomas Hirsch, Esq. having appeared for the applicant; 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 on the northeast side of Oceanview Road between Riverview Drive and Old Bridge Road and lies within the Borough’s R-2 Single Family Residential Zone. The parcel consists of three lots; Lots 7, 8 and 9 in Block 89.01. Lots 7 and 8 are vacant except for an existing asphalt driveway which crosses both lots. It should be noted that at one point there was a house that traversed on Lots 7 and 8 and the Board finds that, as a matter of law, those lots merged and a subdivision is necessary. Lot 9 contains an existing split-level home, driveway and associated improvements. The applicants propose to re-subdivide the property into three lots and part of the subdivision includes conveying a portion of Lot 9 to Lot 8. Proposed Lots 7 and 8 will be fully conforming. Lot 9 will be non-conforming due to existing conditions. Those conditions include lot depth, front yard setback and rear yard setback. These conditions are not in any way being exacerbated by this application caused by a bump out in Oceanview Road which the property fronts, however, a new variance is necessary from Code Section 21-31.11 as that section requires that curb cuts for driveways shall be located at least 5 feet from the abutting property lines. The existing driveway on Lot 9 will be less than 5 feet from the proposed lot line between Lots 8 and 9k, and at the one portion where there is a jut out which will be approximately 1.46 feet form the new property line.
2. It should be noted that it was explained and represented to the Board that during the course of negotiations the Mascias, who own existing lot 9, wanted to make sure that a certain amount of trees and landscaping on the property that they are conveying was maintained. They, therefore, negotiated an easement as part of the transaction to ensure landscaping in the area between the two lots would remain in the future. They subsequently learned that a variance would be necessary for the distance of the driveway to the property line and they contend that the easement will act as a natural buffer to the area in question and will satisfy the intent of the Ordinance in having at least 5 feet between the driveway line and the neighboring property. The parties agreed that the easement area will be 5.92 feet wide and that the side setback of the house to be placed on Lot 8 adjacent to Lot 9 will be no closer than 17.92 feet form the proposed property line and 12 feet form the existing property line easement area. The Board is satisfied that with these restrictions in place, which the applicant agreed to do by Deed, with the Borough named as a beneficiary, said Deed to be approved by the Board Attorney and Borough Attorney, that the intent and purposes of the Zoning Ordinance and the Master Plan will be maintained and that the Board can, in fact, grant the variance needed for driveway distance to property line.
3. The Board finds that the applicant is entitled to the subdivision as a matter or right for proposed Lots 7 and 8 as those lots are fully conforming. The Board further finds that the applicant is entitled to a subdivision of Lot 9 as proposed with the restrictions as mentioned above.
4. It should also be noted that the applicant appeared before the Board at the first hearing on October 13, 2009. At that time, the Board heard the testimony presented by the applicant and listened to the objectors who were present. At the close the public was told that the matter would be returned to the Board for the November 10, 2009 hearing and at that time the applicant was going to advise the Board whether or not they were going to proceed with the request for the driveway variance. In the interim, the applicant requested an opportunity to re-open to further explain its position with regard to the issue regarding the driveway. The applicant re-noticed for the November 10, 2009 meeting; the Board is therefore satisfied that objectors were fairly noticed with regard to the additional testimony and representations made at the November 10, 2009 hearing.

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) As to Lot 9, the Board finds that by reason on an extraordinary and exceptional situation that uniquely affects 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 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, County of Monmouth and State of New Jersey does hereby resolve to hereby grant Minor Subdivision approval for Block 89.01, Lots 7, 8 & 9 and Variance approval for Lot 9, however, that the Minor Subdivision plan and the deed shall not be signed until all of the following conditions are met and until the Board Engineer shall signify to the Board Secretary, in writing, that said conditions have been 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 she receives her 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 deposits for the required engineering and inspection fees, in amounts fixed by the Board and/or Borough Engineers.
6. Subject to the applicant obtaining and complying with the approval of any other reviewing agency having jurisdiction over the improvement of the property as proposed under this 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 CONDTIONS

1. The applicant shall file a Deed of Easement in form satisfactory to the Board Engineer and Board Attorney naming the Borough as a beneficiary of said easement. The easement can only be removed upon notice and consent of the Borough.

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 Minor Subdivision with variance 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 Minor Subdivision 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 final Minor Subdivision and/or preliminary Major Subdivision 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 prior to signature of the final plans, the Board Engineer and Board Planner shall have indicated approval in writing as to the form and content of any and all revisions subsequent to the hearing of December 8, 2009 and as may be required by this Resolution and/or Board Planner and/or Board Engineer and/or Land Use Officer.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in accordance with the Municipal Land Use Law that the Minor Subdivision shall be perfected with 190 days from the date of this Resolution of approval, with the Minor Subdivision map having been executed by the date, together with the conforming deed being recorded with the Monmouth County Clerk’s Office as required, it being understood that this time limit is set by the Municipal Land Use Law, as to the compliance with the terms of this Resolution , and the filing of the deed or the map to perfect this subdivision, it shall be applicant’s obligation and responsibility to do so as it is applicant’s obligation to comply with said law. In the event that the applicant fails to do so, then upon notice to the applicant, the Board Secretary shall list this matter on the Planning Board agenda for dismissal without prejudice unless the applicant offers appropriate reason for the delay.”

A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Harman and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Thomas Condon, James Harman, James
Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Thomas Heavey, Tim
Sigler, James Stenson

The Board then turned to the approval of a Resolution for Variance for Block 59, Lots 16, 16.01, 17 & 17.01, known as 18 Crescent Drive, owned by Doane & Kathie Kelly, to allow demolition of an existing structure & construction of a new single family dwelling.

Mr. Heavey asked for an amendment to the Resolution Mr. Langenberger has asked about curbstone and it was to be put in the Resolution to clarify this issue on Donnelly Place; the applicant’s attorney and architect agreed to this stipulation. Mr. Rubino agreed and added a new paragraph “4” to the Resolution. The following amended Resolution was then presented for approval:

“WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey has before it an application for variance approval for variances set forth below on behalf of Doane & Kathie Kelly for premises known as 18 Crescent Drive, said premises also known as Block 59, Lot 16, 16.01, 17 & 17.01 for permission to erect a new 2 ½ story framed residential dwelling on the premises and the applicant having appeared before the Board on November 10, 2009 and at that time the Board having conducted an open public hearing on the matter and the Board having made the following findings of fact and conclusions; 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 supplements, 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 applicant has submitted architectural plans consisting of four sheets prepared by Christopher Rice Architect, said plans being dated September 2, 2009 and survey of the property prepared by Paul K. Lynch PLS dated January 14, 2009 and a grading plan consisting of the three sheets prepared by Jason Fichter, PE dated September 1, 2009. The application for a building permit was denied by the Zoning Officer. It was established that variances are needed as follows:

(a) Per Code Section 21-13.2(a)1 a minimum front setback for principal structure of 30.00 feet, where the proposed front setback finally placed is 18 feet.
(b) Per Code Section 21-13.2(a)2 a minimum front setback for accessory structure of 30 feet, where the applicant proposes a front setback for mechanical equipment adjacent to Donnelly Place of 16 feet.
(c) Per Code Section 21-31.10 a maximum driveway width of 30 feet, whereas the applicant is requesting a 40 foot wide driveway to access the property from Donnelly Place.
(d) Per Code Section 21-9.16 Establishes all criteria for all development within the Borough the grading plan depicts great changes of greater than 2 feet; therefore, the applicant is requesting Planning Board approval for the proposed land form changes.

2. The Board finds that the applicants are requesting permission to erect a new two story framed dwelling. The dwelling shall be “L” shaped and approximately 8,000 square feet in size. The building will be a maximum 35 feet high and 2 ½ stories. The applicants are proposing a side setback of 18.5 feet, rear setback of 91.1 feet, lot coverage of 15.9%, which all comply. The building lot size is 130 feet by 233 feet and contains square footage of 31,716 feet. The property is a corner lot with frontage on both Crescent Drive and Donnelly Place.
3. The Board does note that the premises as it presently exists is non-conforming, in that there is a guest cottage on the premises. As the applicant is proposing new construction, the Board notes that both the existing house and the guest cottage will be removed as part of this application. It should be noted that this approval is specifically contingent upon the removal of both of the existing structures on the premises. There is also an existing front yard setback on Donnelly Place greater than what is proposed which is being removed.
4. The Board finds that the property is not rectangular and is oddly shaped, which in and of itself makes it somewhat unique. The applicant is requesting a front variance setback from Donnelly Place where 18.5 feet is requested and 30 feet is required. Donnelly Place is a limited thoroughfare in that it functions more or less as a driveway to the subject property and that it provides limited no parking access for the public to the water at the end of Donnelly Place. The configuration and use of Donnelly Place limits the impact of the front yard violation for the subject property and further limits any detriment that the granting of the variance for 18.5 feet setback to it and caused to any other properties in that area and to deviation of the requirements of the Ordinance.
5. The Board finds that there is an improvement to the property by the removal of the existing structures on the premises and the secondary cottage which makes the premises non-conforming and, therefore, finds that it can grant this applicant said relief.
6. The Board further finds that because of the limited access along Donnelly Place the proposed location for the mechanical equipment and driveway with 40 feet where 30 feet is permitted of de minimus nature, therefore, finds that those variances can be granted.

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 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;
(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 form the Zoning Ordinance requirements at issue, and further 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, does hereby grant variance approval to Doane and Kathie Kelly for variances for front yard setback of 18.5 feet, where 30 feet is required; front setback for mechanical equipment of 16 feet where 30 feet is required; and driveway width of 40 feet, where 30 feet is required and relief for the degree of grading change. The maps cannot be signed until conditions 4 through 6 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 deposits for the required engineering and inspection fees, in amounts fixed by the Board and/or Borough Engineer.
6. Subject to the applicant obtaining and complying with the approval of any other reviewing agency having jurisdiction over the improvement o the property as proposed under this 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 Board specifically noted that with regard to the grade change approval granted herein, said approval is expressly conditioned upon all engineering plans and grading plans to be submitted and approved by the Borough and Board Engineer. If in the sole opinion of the Board Engineer it is subsequently determined that the proposed swale is not adequate to safeguard the adjacent property from storm water flow from the new structure then the Board Engineer may require additional measures to prevent same.
2. This approval is expressly conditioned upon the removal of both of the existing structures on the premises.
3. This approval is expressly conditioned upon the proposed residence being a one-family residence.
4. Applicant shall submit revised plans regarding the drainage swale and if determined that the swale does not adequately safeguard the adjacent property then additional measures will be required. These revised plans will be subject to the Board Engineer’s approval.

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 substantial 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.”

Motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Heavey, seconded by Mayor Nicol and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James
Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo, Thomas Condon, Tim
Sigler, James Stenson

The Board then turned to the last Resolution to be approved this evening, for Block 107.04, Lot 3, known as 1101 Aileen Road, owned by John O’Donnell and Sharon Heine Butler-O’Donnell, to allow demolition of an existing structure and construction of a new single family dwelling and detached garage.

As all Board members, as well as the applicant and their attorney, has received a draft copy and there were no changes or recommendation made, the following Resolution was presented for approval:

“WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey has before it an application for variance approval for variances set forth below on behalf of John O’Donnell & Sharon Heine Butler-O’Donnell for premises known as 1101 Aileen Road, Block 107.04, Lot 3 in the Borough of Brielle and the premises being located in the R-2 Zone and the applicant having appeared before the Board on November 10, 2009 and at that time the Board having conducted an open public hearing on the matter and the Board having made the following findings of fact and conclusions; 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 supplements, 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 applicant is requesting permission to demolish the existing structures on the premises and to allow the construction of a new single family home and detached garage at the property. The package submitted to the Board includes architectural plans prepared by Paul Grabowski dated August 17, 2009 and drainage grading plans prepared by Ray Carpenter, PE dated September 8, 2009. The applicant needs variances for the following:

(a) Code Section 21-12(a)1 Front Setbacks Sunset Drive 40 feet required, 35.51 feet proposed;
(b) Front Setback Aileen Road 40 feet required, 30-.61 feet proposed;
(c) Lot Coverage 20% allowed, 21.3% proposed.

2. It should also be noted that there are two existing non-conformities at the premises, those are:

(a) Lot Size corner lot 16,525 square feet required, 14,272 square feet existing;
(b) Lot Width corner lot 125 feet required, 102 feet existing.

3. The Board finds that the current dwelling on the premises was constructed in the late 1950’s and fronts Aileen Road. The proposed dwelling will face Sunset Drive. The current dwelling is in need of updating and the applicants have decided that because of the irregular shape of the lot and the location of the existing house on the premises that it would be difficult to upgrade the house without requiring more variances and the applicants are also concerned about the difficulty with construction if they proceeded to renovate the existing structure. Therefore, the applicants believe that it is more feasible to take down the existing structures on the premises and construct a new house thereon.

The applicants contend and the Board finds that, as a fact that the odd shape of the lot creates a difficulty in location a conforming house, doing so would create a very small and not fully useable backyard. The applicants, therefore, are requesting permission to locate the house at the setbacks proposed.

The Board also finds that the proposed dwelling will align with the adjacent building street front on Sunset. The Board also finds that the 30 feet proposed setback form Aileen Road should not interfere with the neighbor’s views or open space.

The Board also finds that the proposed dwelling is aesthetically pleasing and that it has an open front porch on it which the applicants have agreed to not enclose. The Board finds that it can grant the relief requested for the setbacks because of the odd shape of the lots and because of the fact that the location of the property is on a corner lot and irregular in size and shape to it, plus the lot is undersized, all of which make it difficult to locate the house within the proper setback.

The applicant is also asking for a lot coverage variance of 21.3% where 20% is allowed. The applicant is requesting permission to build a true two-car garage and want to be able to store children’s toys, tools, etc. in the garage. Because of the undersized nature of the lot, the Board finds that it can grant the relief requested as the area in question is small.

4. The Board finds that the proposed dwelling will provide a substantial improvement in the property and will positively impact the neighboring properties. The Board finds that the location of the existing dwelling on the property and the irregular shape/corner lot will make it difficult to build a conforming house on the premises and still have full use of the lot. The Board finds that the proposed improvements provide a desirable environment and that they maintain adequate light, air and open space to the site and to the adjacent properties. The Board further finds that the relief requested will not propose any substantial detriment to the public good nor will it substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.

5. The applicant has agreed that there will be no plumbing in the garage and that the area above the first floor will be for storage only. The applicant has also agreed to provide additional information regarding drainage at the time of the building permit.

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 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.

(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 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, does hereby grant variance approval for variances for Front Yard Setback Sunset Drive 35.51 feet proposed; Setback Aileen Road 30.61 feet proposed, Lot Coverage 21.3% proposed to John O’Donnell and Sharon Heine Butler-O’Donnell for premises known as 1101 Aileen Road. The maps cannot be signed under conditions 4 through 6 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 deposits for the required engineering and inspection fees, in amounts fixed by the Board and/or Borough Engineers.
6. Subject to the applicant obtaining and complying with the approval of any other reviewing agency having jurisdiction over the improvement of the property as proposed under this 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 will submit a drainage and grading plan at the time of the permitting process which shall be done to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer, taking into consideration that the stormwater mitigation is important to the area. It is further conditioned with the approval granted that in any event that any of the proposed measures provided in it are proved inadequate to safeguard adjacent properties, additional measures in the discretion of the Board Engineer will be required.
2. The applicant will use the area above the garage for storage only and there shall be no plumbing permitted in same.

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 substantial 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.”

Motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Heavey and approved by the following roll call vote:

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

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Tim
Sigler, James Stenson

NEW BUSINESS:

The Board then turned to an application for Variance for Block 30.01, Lot 14, 517 Borrie Avenue, owned by Diane Quigley, to allow removal and reconstruction of a single story addition (currently a garage), including anew foundation & basement (currently a non-conforming structure). Side Setback (east) 8 feet required, 6.76 feet existing & proposed, 1.24 foot variance requested. Lot Coverage 20% maximum allowed, 23.9% existing & proposed.

The fee of $300 was paid, taxes are paid to date and property owners as well as the newspaper were properly notified. Diane Quigley came forward and was sworn in; Mr. Rubino then marked the plans, 5 sheets as Exhibit A-1. She explained they want to take the back end of the house which is on slab and raise it to create a basement & footings for a new addition. This will all stay in the same footprint with no additional non-conformity and will be a single story, the same height as the rest of the home. They are also refurbishing the kitchen and replacing the garage with more living space.

Mr. Sigler asked that, if they are replacing the existing footings, why not move away from the property line and increase the side yard setback. Mrs. Quigley felt that the builder, Bob Collinson, could answer that so he came forward and was sworn in; Mr. Collinson said he owns a home improvement company and is working on this project, however, he felt Mr. Sigler’s question may be for the architect. Mr. Sigler noted they are already over on lot coverage and the patio is going to be replaced; Mr. Harman agreed and explained they are only talking about a foot. Mr. Collinson then took a minute to look at the plans and felt this does not seem like a big deal and he can do this. Mr. Condon said this will make the property more conforming.

Mr. Rubino then confirmed that this change will increase the east corner to 8 feet and remove the 1.24 foot variance. Mr. Hilla stated the sump pump cannot discharge at the street and he asked if it can be pumped to a drywell and Mr. Collinson said yes, that was simple enough to do. Mr. Rubino asked about the impervious coverage and Mr. Hilla said it should remain the same. Mr. Sarnasi asked if the driveway is going to be maintained the way it is and Mrs. Quigley said yes.

At this time the hearing was opened to questions and, as there was no response, that portion of the hearing was closed. He again opened the hearing for general comments and again got no response so that portion was closed and the Board went into discussion. Mr. Heavey was in favor of this application with the condition of moving the footings and the sump pump going to a drywell, the rest of the Board members agreed with him. At this time Mayor Nicol made a motion to approve this application with doing away with the non-conformity on the east side and the sump pump issue; this was seconded by Mr. Heavey and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Thomas Condon,
James Harman, Thomas Heavey, James Langenberger, Charles
Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, James Stenson

Noes: None

The Board then turned to an application for Minor Subdivision for Block 35.01, Lot 5, 615 Brielle Avenue, owned by Keith McEligot, to create two lots; single family home on Brielle Avenue lot to remain. Rear Setback (proposed Lot 5.01) 25 feet required, 20-.17 feet proposed, 4.83 foot variance requested. Lot Coverage (proposed Lot 5.01) 20% maximum allowed, 23.4% proposed, 3.4% variance requested. Lot Coverage (proposed Lot 5.01) 20% maximum allowed, 25.6% proposed, 5.6% variance requested. Side Setback, Accessory Building (proposed Lot 5.02) 5 feet required, 1.55 feet existing, 3.45 foot variance requested. Half Story (proposed Lot 5.02) 724 square feet less than 5 feet in height minimum required, 630 square feet proposed, 94 square foot variance requested. Floor Area Ratio (propose Lot 5.02) 50% maximum allowable, 52.4% proposed, 2.4% variance requested. Driveways minimum width of 10 feet and 5 foot setback (proposed Lot 5.02) driveway would be 8 feet wide and located 1 foot from adjacent property. Off-Street Parking Spaces (proposed Lot 5.01) two spaces required, none proposed.

The fee of $1,800 was paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners as well as the newspaper were properly notified. Mr. Keith McEligot came forward and was sworn in; Mr. Rubino also marked as Exhibit A-1 the minor subdivision plan submitted. Mr. McEligot said he had two witnesses, Ray Carpenter, Professional Planner/Engineer and Kevin Lightbody of Evans Enterprises, the builder of the proposed house.

Mr. McEligot said that 615 Brielle Avenue is 50 feet wide and 250 feet deep; the little cottage on this property was built about 120 years ago by the owner, then the larger home was put up and this is what he and his wife purchased in 1976. They now propose to have a minor subdivision to create two conforming lots, demolish the cottage and construct a new modular home in its place. They would have liked to have kept this as one lot with two homes but realize this cannot be done under the Zoning Ordinance. The new home will be matching the setbacks on Cardeza Avenue and he noted there are several variances listed but some of them are already existing.

As there were no Board questions to the applicant, the meeting was opened to the public for questions to Mr. McEligot and, as there was no response, that portion was closed and Ray Carpenter came forward and was sworn in. He is a Licensed Engineer and Planner in New Jersey, became an Engineer in 1976 and a Planner in 1979; he has testified before this Board many times and was accepted by the Board as an expert witness.

He commented on the letter from the Tax Assessor reversing the proposed lot numbers and said that will be done. Also, the letter from the Fire Company approves this application as an old structure will be taken down and replaced with a new one; the Police report said there was no problem with this minor subdivision and the same was stated in a report from Monmouth County Planning Board. He also noted that Mr. Hilla’s report addressed the variances involved.

Mr. Rubino asked why they are putting the lot line where they are and Mr. Carpenter said this is being done this way to make the two conforming lots. He knew this lot line will result in lot 5.01 having a coverage of 23.4% but Mr. McEligot wanted to keep the setback this way; the garage is non-conforming and will remain on the Cardeza Avenue property and they want to keep the driveway where it is for the garage. In regards to off-street parking they could put parking in front of the house but this is not in keeping with the other homes in this neighborhood; also, having to back out onto the street is not a good idea so they plan to just have two spaces on the street; as far as the rest of Mr. Hilla’s report, they agree with it.

He commented that the length and narrowness of the lot creates some of the existing variances and finished by stating they are going to have two single-family homes on two lots and they feel this application should be granted. Mr. Sigler asked why not just divide the lot so the houses conform, they can move the rear lot line back and then the square footage will comply. Mr. Carpenter said Mr. McEligot wanted it here to have one smaller but conforming lot. Mr. Sigler answered by stating the new house can be designed to conform and Mr. Carpenter said that part of this is due to the garage that is going to stay; Mr. Sigler felt they can then build accordingly. Mr. McEligot spoke and said he does not want to remove the garage as it is sound and in good condition; he told the Board they are going to live in the new home to be constructed, his wife has COPD, a bronchial problem and may not be able to climb stairs, thus, the new home.

Mr. Sarnasi asked about the driveway and Mr. Carpenter said there will be enough room with the new house. Mr. McEligot said this is going to be a modular, two modules of 16.5 feet each. Mr. Condon asked if they could purchase a smaller home but was told you can get 12 foot sections or 16 foot sections.

Mr. Langenberger agreed with Mr. Sigler and was concerned about lot coverage of 25.2%; he, too, felt it can be downsized and suggested perhaps making the garage only a one-car garage; Mr. Heavey also commented he agreed with the other Board members.

At this time Mr. Kevin Lightbody came forward and was sworn in. Mr. Rubino explained to Mr. Lightbody that right now the Board is looking at this that if they give you a subdivision, then lot 5.02 will be a vacant lot and yet you want to create variances on this virgin lot. Mr. McEligot spoke again and said the size of the footprint is about 1,579 square feet with the proposed porch and Mr. Heavey noted this is 6% over the maximum allowed; the Board is looking for a reason to allow this.

Mr. Lightbody said they did have a discussion on reducing this and Mr. McEligot stated they can make it smaller by 4.5 feet which would bring it down to 23.5% coverage and, if they replace the current garage with a one-car garage it can cut this down to 21% coverage. Mr. Langenberger said 21% is a lot easier to live with. Mayor Nicol asked about how they would get down to 23.5% coverage without changing the garage and Mr. Lightbody said they also have plans with smaller coverage. Mr. Sarnasi asked, if they did go with the smaller plan, would they still be able to have the master bedroom on the ground floor and Mr. McEligot said yes. As Mr. Lightbody had a plan for the smaller home, Mr. Rubino marked it as Exhibit A-2.

Mr. Condon want back to the rear lot line and said if you look at the lots to the south they are all pretty much the same, some are off but it’s pretty even. Mr. Carpenter said they wanted to keep the larger lot for themselves but they are willing to compromise. Mr. Hilla wanted to address to the ½ story and ratio concerns he had as he did not know if the Board gets the importance of this issue, but this becomes a three-story building as they have more usable floor area than what is permitted by the Zoning laws, they are not complying and the floor area ratio cannot be achieved with these plans. Mr. McEligot said have no plans for the third floor but Mr. Hilla said there will be stairs and windows and it can be made habitable in the future. Mr. Lightbody suggested changing the roof pitch from 9/12 to 8/12 and this will take care of this problem.

Mr. Condon felt that new plans should be submitted so this application can be presented in a proper way, all cleaned up. Mr. Rubino said new plans will have to be submitted so the Engineer can review them, plans with reduced coverage and roof lines. Mr. Lightbody asked if this figuring that was done included the stairs and interior walls and Mr. Hilla said yes.

Mr. Condon then opened the hearing for questions to the Planner so he does not have to come back next month and Sue Ann Bilella came forward and was sworn in, she wanted to know if the chain link fence stays or goes and Mr. McEligot said it will be removed. She then asked about the timing and was told as soon as they get approval they will proceed with the subdivision work. Ms. Bilella noted that the last time bushes were cleared on this property all kinds of critters came out and Mr. Langenberger said Mr. McEligot can have an exterminator come in before the house is taken down. She then asked if the new home will need new waste and water lines and it was noted they are already there, they may have to be upgraded; Mr. Hilla said is was in his report on opening the street for this. Mr. Bilella then asked if the garage will remain as it is and Mr. Carpenter said yes, that is the plan right now.

As there were no further questions, that portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Hilla told Mr. Lightbody needs the new plans within the next 10 days so he has time for a review and Mr. Lightbody said he will have them for him by next week. Mr. Rubino then asked for a motion to carry this hearing until the January 12, 2010 meeting of the Board with no further notice to property owners or newspaper and this was done by Councilman Garruzzo, seconded by Mr. Condon and unanimously approved by the Board, all aye.

The Board then turned to an application for Site Plan for Block 63.01, Lot 2.02, Brielle First Aid Squad, 710 Old Bridge Road, to allow construction of a 913 square foot addition to the principal structure. Site Plan approval required.

All fees for this application have been waived by Board approval at the November 2009 meeting. Before this hearing started, Mr. Langenberger and Mr. Stenson stepped off the dais as they are both members of the First Aid Squad.

Mr. Kevin Callahan, Esq. came forward and apologized for noticing that this hearing would be held at 8:00 pm instead of 7:30 pm and thanked the Board for hearing them after 8:00 pm. The First Aid Squad wants to construction an addition to the existing First Aid Building, a one-story addition which will house a bathroom and storage; the storage shed located by the building will be removed. He had two witnesses to testify, Tim Shaak, President of the First Aid Squad and Daniel Lynch, Architect.

Mr. Shaak came forward and was sworn in; at this time Mr. Rubino marked the architectural plans as Exhibit A-1, plans dated 10/5/09 and done by BLDG Architecture. The survey done by Acres Survey Co., dated 12/08/08 was marked Exhibit A-2. Mr. Shaak said he has been on the squad for 12 years and has been President for 4 years. The 910 square foot addition will be on the left side of the building, looking from the street. There will be handicap restrooms and a decontamination area to clean equipment and an area for storage. There will be no effect on landscaping and no change to the existing building or parking. He stated that, in addition to being the First Aid Squad building, it is also an emergency evacuation shelter.

Mr. Callahan said the parking lot currently allows one to drive around the building and this will be eliminated by this addition. Mr. Shaak said they have had issues with strange cars parked in the rear of the building and they want to remove this problem. There will be lighting around the doors and this lighting will be directed to the doors so it will not annoy the neighbors. Mr. Callahan noted that Mr. Hilla’s report calls for a re-striping of the lot and Mr. Shaak agreed; the striping has worn away and they will put in a new traffic flow as well as handicapped spaces. The current utilities will serve them but they may have to apply to the County as they are on a County road, however, there is a moratorium for work on Old Bridge Road as it was re-paved 2 years ago; Mr. Hilla said they may be able to connect without having to go through the road.

Councilman Garruzzo asked about the doors on this new addition and Mr. Shaak said one door will be for emergency egress only and also noted there is a dumpster in this area. Mr. Heavey thought the only time there may be a problem will be on Election Day as this building is a polling place and Mr. Shaak agreed. Mr. Sarnasi wondered if someone drives to the back of the building will they get stuck with the new parking arrangement, this may be especially true on Election Day. Mr. Shaak felt the new striping will help direct the cars; Mr. Condon suggested putting cones up to deter cars from going back there. Mr. Hilla thought there may be enough spaces back there to do a “K” turn to get out but Mr. Sarnasi wanted to know how you get in and out of the First Aid Squad lot. Mr. Hilla said there will be able to do this as there is a concrete apron to allow adequate movement, at the rear of the spaces there will be 25 feet or so and this should be enough.

At this time the hearing was opened to the public for questions and, as there was no response, that portion was closed. Mr. Daniel Lynch then came forward and was sworn in, he is the architect for this project and is a graduate of Drexel University and has been an architect for 15 years in New Jersey and New York; the Board accepted him as an expert witness.

Mr. Lynch testified that all the setbacks conform and the lot coverage increase will be minimal, it will be 10.7% in total; the impervious surface coverage is currently 52.9% and the new addition will cause removal of some of this blacktop so it will go down to 52.7% coverage, this does not include the removal of asphalt behind the building. Mr. Hilla told the Board the Squad already has variance approval for this from a past application so this is not an issue. Mr. Lynch said the floor plan is laid out to be most functional for the Squad, the intention of the design will match the context of the current building, the same height and same materials will be used, the elevations will remain the same

At this time the hearing was opened to the public for questions and, as there was no response, this portion was closed. It was again opened for general comments and again there was no response to that portion was closed and the Board went into discussion. Mr. Sigler has no problem with this and felt it will be a benefit to the town, Councilman Garruzzo agreed and noted the First Aid Squad needs the space; the rest of the Board was in favor also.

At this time a motion for approval of this application, as presented, as made by Mr. Heavey, seconded by Mr. Harman and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo, Thomas Condon,
James Harman, Thomas Heavey, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler

Noes: None

As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Heavey, seconded by Mayor Nicol and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 8:50 pm.




________________________________
Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary


Approved:






 

RELATED LINKS