Borough of Brielle, NJ
| March 9, 2010
March 9, 2010
|BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2010
The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, March 9, 2010 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 10 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 February 9, 2010 meeting were then approved on a motion by Councilman Garruzzo, seconded by Mr. Stenson and approved by voice vote, all aye.
Board members received a copy of a letter of 2124110 from Zoning Officer to Alpha Omega Tech., Inc. regarding Notice of Violation for parking arrangement at rear of property. Also received was a notice form the NJ Planning Officials for the WinterlSpring certification classes for Board members.
On file in the Board office, latest edition of Monmouth County Demographic & Economic Statistics.
A Legislative Alert was received this afternoon and distributed to the Board, it was regarding the Time of Decision vote in the Senate. This legislation would stop a Governing Body from changing the use in a zone after an application is filed; the use allowed would stand as soon as the application is accepted. Mr. Rubino explained that if an application comes in with a permitted use but is one that the town does not want in that area, they can change the zoning to stop this application; if this law goes into effect, they will not be able to do that anymore. He suggested the Governing Body write to the legislators. As the Board was in agreement with this suggestion, a motion was made by Mr. Heavey to recommend the Governing Body writing a letter, this was seconded by
Mr. Stenson and approved by voice vote, all aye. Both Councilman Garruzzo and Mayor Nicol were present and said they will see that this is done.
The Board turned to the approval of a Resolution fora Variance for Block 64.03, Lot 3, 630 Susan Lane, owned by Frederick and Elizabeth Popovitch, Jr., allow construction of a detached garage, driveway, in-ground pool & retaining wails.
Mr. Rubino noted a few typographical errors that were corrected which is why the Board members had a revised Resolution in front of them. As these were minor and all Board members, as well as the applicant, had received a draft copy and there were no other changes to be made the following 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 Variances approval as set forth below for Frederick & Elizabeth Popovitch, Jr. for premises known as 630 Susan Lane, Block 64.03, 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 February 9, 2010 and at that time the Board having listened to the testimony submitted on behalf of the applicant and of the objectors, if any; 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 applicant has made an application to the Zoning Officer to permit construction of a detached garage, driveway, in-ground pool, retaining walls on the above referenced property. The application for the garage/retaining wall was denied because Code Section 21-19.16 requires Planning Board approval (variance approval for any grading plan that depicts changes in grade of more than 2 feet). The plot plan submitted indicates grading change in the rear of the property up to 3 feet and grade changes of up to 5.5 feet within the proposed driveway area. Therefore, variances are needed by the Board for said change in grade. The applicant also needs variances pursuant to Section 21-12.2 as the application proposes a minimum
principal/accessory building setback, whereas 10 feet is required, 0 feet is proposed. It should be noted that this is in part generated by the entry exceeding 3 feet in height. Variances are also needed for rear setback whereas 14.23 feet is required and 1.5 feet is proposed.
2. Due to existing site conditions and lot configurations, this property maintains a single front yard which is curved along Susan Lane, and a side yard adjacent to Lot 4 to the West, and a rear yard adjacent to Lots 2 and 30 to the North.
The property is, therefore, triangular in shape and creates difficulty in , developing.
3. The house has been on the premises in excess of 30 years. The applicant bought the premises a number of years ago, and has recently been in the process of fixing the home up. When the applicant purchased the premises, there was an existing attached garage in the rear of the house. The applicant has altered that garage and made it part of the premises and that area is now the kitchen area of the premises.
4. The applicant proposes to add a garage on the premises as depicted in the plans of Lindstrom, Diessner & Carr, PC for Lot 3, Block 64.03 dated October 2, 2009. It should be noted that William Voeltz, PE, PP did appear at the hearing and testified on behalf of the applicant. The Board finds that the proposed garage itself will be approximately 5 feet off the property line. The Board also finds that although that property line is being called a rear line to persons going by the premises, it appears as a side yard and not a rear yard. The Board is satisfied that, although the steps to the proposed building encroach close to a foot from the property line, the actual building itself is approximately 5 feet from the property line. The Board did explore, with the applicant, the possibility of other places on the property to locate the garage and finds that the proposed location is the best location and if the applicant pulls the garage off of the rear yard, it will then encroach into the front yard.
5. The Board is satisfied from a review of the site that although the applicant is required to ask for a rear yard variance, for all practical purposes the appearance of the garage is that of a side yard and not a rear yard, If considered a side yard, the relief required would be de minimus. In addition thereto, the Board finds that the steps to the premises are not overly intrusive.
6. The Board also finds that they can grant the variance needed for a grade change because of the slope of the property and that section of the roadway is severe and the change is needed. The Board in conjunction therewith requires both engineering and architectural plans to be submitted to the building department as part of the final Zoning and Permitting process, and the applicant shall be required to construct any improvements only on approval of the Zoning Officer and Building Department and Borough Engineer.
7. The Board also recognizes that there are a number of pre-existing nonconformities at the premises:
216 Lot Width - 125 feet required, 0 feet existing.
217 Lot Depth - 125 feet required, 0 feet existing.
218 Rear Setback (principal) - 40 feet required, 26 feet existing.
219 Side Setback (playhouse) - 5 feet required, 3.2 feet existing.
220 Rear Setback (playhouse) - 5 feet required, 3.0 feet existing.
8. In summary, the Board finds that they can grant the relief requested for the rear yard setback of 1.5 feet, whereas 14.23 feet is required, and minimal principal accessory, separation of 10 feet, whereas 0 feet is existing, and also relief from Code Section 21-9-16, the Board grading change, the Board finds that this depicts changes in grade of more than 2 feet. The Plot Plan depicts
grade changes in the rear of up to 3 feet, and grade changes of up to 5.5 feet within the proposed driveway area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it adopts the aforesaid findings of fact, and based upon the aforesaid findings ..the_Board_.conclu.des.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 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.
(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 pursuant to Section 21-12.2 as the application proposes a minimum principal/accessory building setback, whereas 10 feet is required, 0 feet is proposed, as well as variances needed for rear setback whereas 14.23 feet is required and 1.5 feet is proposed and the grade change as depicted in the aforesaid plans, to Frederick & Elizabeth Popovitch, Jr. for premises known as 630 Susan Lane, Block 64.03, Lot 3 in the Borough of Brielle. The maps cannot be signed until conditions 4 through 6 are met.
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.
1. The applicant shall submit an engineering plot plan to the satisfaction of the Borough Engineer prior to the issuance of any building permit on the premises to ensure that the items in Alan P. Hilla, Jr., Zoning Officer, letter of December 19, 2009 have been addressed.
2. The variances given are for the plans shown. Any additional construction into the setback shall require further variance relief."
A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Heavey, seconded by Councilman Garruzzo and approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Thomas Condon, Thomas Heavey, James Langenberger, James Stenson, Tim Sigler
Not Eligible to Vote: James Harman, Charles Sarnasi
The Board then turned to the approval of a Resolution for a Minor Subdivision for Block 8, Lot 1, known 407 Old Bridge Road, owned by James & Alison Aridas, to allow the creation of two lots. As an amended Resolution was just received at 5:30 this afternoon, Mr. Condon decided to hold off on the adoption of this Resolution until the end of the meeting so Mr. Hilla would have a chance to read it over.
Therefore, the Board then considered the continuation of a hearing for a Minor Subdivision for Block 35.01, Lot 5, 615 Brielle Avenue, owned by Keith McEligot, to create two lots. As this was an amended application, it was noted that property owners within 200 feet as well as the newspaper were properly notified.
Mr. McEligot came forward and apologized to the Board for the delay in getting this amended application before the Board, there was a communication gap and time lags with information between-him and the Borough. He also noted that Ray Carpenter,. Planner, was again present this evening and had been previously sworn in.
Mr. McEligot wanted to correct a statement made at the earlier meeting about one of the homes to be sold; they are not planning on selling and will use both homes within the family. They still plan to demolish one of the homes on this site and build a new modular one and, after the December meeting, they went back to the drawing board and are now proposing a new home that is 10% less than the original and they are cutting the existing garage in half; he noted it would be 23.5% if they could keep the existing garage and lamented that this had to be done as this is a good, sound garage,
They also have eliminated the variance for the accessory setback as the garage will be smaller, but they would still need a variance for the existing home at 615 Brielle Avenue that are existing, but the lot coverage is 23A% now with the subdivision and that, of course, would be a new variance.
As far as the new home they are meeting the half story requirement to insure that the third story will not be habitable; they propose 560 square feet and, as the Ordinance requires that the stairway be considered in this figure, they do need a variance, they cannot meet this requirements with a 9112 roof configuration but feel it is a more pleasing profile. The attic will have the furnace and heatlair conditioning as well as storage.
The last issue if the driveway at Cardeza Avenue and they are requesting a variance for an 8 foot driveway with one foot setback which is the same as the rest of the neighbors around him. As this was the end of his testimony, Mr. McEligot asked Ray Carpenter to come forward.
Before this, however, Mr. Condon opened the hearing to the public for questions to Mr. McEligot. Mr. Heavey noted it looks like lot 5.01 has a greater depth and Mr. McEligot said new lot 5.01 is 100 feet and new lot 5.01 is 150 feet deep. Mr. Rubino commented on a typing error on the zoning chart which should be corrected. Mr. Langenberger asked about an existing septic tank on this property and Mr. McEligot said there is one and it has been filled in. As there were questions from the public, that portion was closed and Mr, Carpenter came forward.
He referred to Exhibit A-1, a subdivision plan revised 12131/09 which shows the subdivision and drainage proposed. He then went over the 212110 report from Mr. Hilla and started with paragraph 2, the proposed variance for the rear yard - the requirement is 25 feet and they are proposing 21 feet due to the existing house on Brielle Avenue; they did this so the other will meet the zoning requirements for lot size. Lot coverage issue was explained by Mr. McEligot, the existing home is over and the new home will be 21.3%. The 1/2 story issue is just a matter of calculations, if they reduce it to conform it will not be usable.
He then addressed the driveway; 10 feet is required and they have 8 feet with a 50 foot wide lot, he felt it was more desirable this way to have the driveway go to the rear of the property as it is existing and has been like this for years. On the parking issue, there is really only parking as it is today, the Brielle Avenue home would have to be paved in front to create parking, the Cardeza Avenue property does have parking offstreet. It has been this way with no problems and they ask this to stay. He felt the benefits of this application outweigh the detriments as they are asking for a couple of bulk variances but feel this will conform to the neighborhood.
Mr. Sigler asked if there are any other homes on Brielle Avenue that do not have parking and Mr. Carpenter thought there are one or two but was not sure which ones. Mr. Sigler then asked if it would be a big deal to put parking in and Mr. Carpenter said they would have to take down hedges and put the parking in the front yard, the existing home has no parking now. Mr. Sigler felt this may be an issue in the future if the house is sold and Mr. Sarnasi agreed, as long as family uses the home there is no problem with parking as they can use the other parking area; if this home sells, that changes. Mr. Rubino said the Board has no control who parks where. Mr. Carpenter said there are two parking spaces in front of the home now, on the street; if they put in parking offstreet they will lose one of those spaces in the front so the end result will be the same with either two spaces on the street or one space off-street and one on the street. If they create a two car driveway they will lost both front yard spaces with, again, the same end result.
At this time the meeting was opened to the public for questions to Mr. Carpenter and George and Bridgette Markuson of 617 Brielle Avenue came forward. Mrs. Markuson said there was a police survey done a few years ago and 4,000 cars came down this street in February or March and asked Mr. Carpenter is this is a problem. Mr. Carpenter said there is 50 feet in front of the home to park and Mrs. Markuson countered that they are public spaces for use by anyone. Mr. Carpenter said if they create a driveway they will lost those two spaces. Mr. Markuson said they live next door and asked Mr. Carpenter is he has seen their parking configuration and he said no. Mr. Markuson said they have two off-street parking spaces and they are "stacked". Their lot is like Mr. McEligot's and he asked if this can be done on this property - Mr. Carpenter did not think it would work as the parking would be right next to the home. Mr. Markuson asked if most homes in this neighborhood have off-street parking and the answer was yes.
Mr. Condon asked for clarification that there is 13.61 feet from the side property line to the home and Mr. Carpenter said this was correct; Mr. Condon then asked why a driveway can't be put in there. Mr. Carpenter said if they did this they would have to stack the cars and take down a substantial hedge as you would not be able to see as you back out to the street. Mr. Langenberger asked if the hedge was in the Borough right-of-way and Mr. Carpenter said it was right on the edge and may overhang into it. Mr. Harman asked if a car were parked on the street would not this be the same and Mr.
Carpenter said this would interfere somewhat with your vision line. He would be concerned with someone walking down the sidewalk as they would not be seen.
As there were no other questions from the public, that portion was closed. Mr. Harman asked the question again - is there a detriment to making this driveway and Mr. Carpenter said the only detriment will be removing the hedges which will take away from the aesthetic appeal. Mr. McEligot spoke up and said they would need another variance if they did this; Mr. Condon agreed but did not feel he was being consistent in not putting in a driveway, but Mr. McEligot felt that aesthetics are important. Mr. Langenberger said he could think of only two homes on Brielle Avenue that do not have parking, everyone else has a driveway.
As this time the hearing was opened to the public for general comments. Sue Ann Bilella of 614 Cardeza Avenue came forward and was sworn in. She was concerned about a fumigation being done prior to demolition, this was discussed at the original hearing; she has two small children. She also wanted to know if there is a maximum number of cars you can put on a property. Councilman Garruzzo said as long as they are not on the front lawn or by a fire hydrant there is no limit: Ms. Melia then asked about the chain link fence and, at this time, Mrs. Mace McEligot spoke up and was sworn in to give a statement. She said that 90% of this fence is on their property. Ms. Bilella said that when she wanted it taken down she was told it was historical and could not be taken down. Mrs. McEligot said she never said that but Ms Bilella said she did. Mrs. McEligot then stated there are no rodents in the house to be demolished and Mr. Rubino noted that is not in the Board's jurisdiction.
Mr. Markuson came forward and commented on the aesthetics statement made by Mr. McEligot. He felt that off-street parking would trump the hedge and would like to see a driveway put in that would allow two cars to be stacked, this will give one more space for this lot area.
As there were no more comments, that portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into discussion. Mr. Heavey asked Mr. Hilla if there are any issues if a driveway is put in and Mr. Hilla said it would create a variance due to the porch, depending on how far in they put the driveway. Mr. Heavey then asked if the Board can approve this subdivision with the addition of the driveway without further notice and Mr. Rubino said yes. Mr. Sigler noted there is a utility pole here as well as a guidewire and Mr. McEligot agreed. Mr. Hilla said this would go parallel with the property line and Mr. McEligot said this is doable with no problem if the Board wants them to put in the driveway.
Mr. McEligot then asked to sum up his application and felt any impact with this subdivision would be positive, they are creating one conforming lot and this is a good use of the land, a 120 year old building will be razed and a new hone built which will improve the neighborhood; they will donate the home to be razed to the Fire Company for demolition exercise. Mrs. Bilella again asked about the chain link fence and Mr.
Condon told her this is between neighbors and the Board cannot get involved with it being removed or not.
The Board then gave their comments, Mr. Sarnasi felt this new application was closer to what they asked for and he would be in favor of it with the driveway on new lot 5.01 providing it had two spaces and needed a variance for setback; Mr. Stenson felt the new plan was okay and he, too, would approve it with the driveway. Mr. Langenberger said that 90% of the time any home is demolished the town asks for a verbal commitment that the house would be treated prior to demolition with a spraying of the interior only for any kind of bugs or rodents, no sticky tapes. Mr. Heavey and Mr. Harman both agreed with Mr. Sarnasi on the approval with the driveway, as well as taking the hedges down. Mr. Sigler felt that, with the changes, this will be a benefit to the neighborhood and Councilman Garruzzo agreed. Mayor Nicol felt it was a shame to have to take down half of a good garage but admitted he was a "garage man". Mr. Condon felt that way, too, but felt it was better for lot coverage.
At this time Mr. Stenson made a motion to approve this application, as amended, with the driveway and all other variances being granted, as well as the home being sprayed before demolition; Mr. Langenberger seconded this motion and it was approved on 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
Mrs. McEligot was concerned about the spraying as she did not want any outside animals to be affected and Mr. Langenberger assured her this was an interior treatment only.
The Board then went back to the Minor Subdivision Resolution for the Aridas property at 407 Old Bridge Road. Mr. Hilla had read over the amended Resolution and noted they will now need a variance for an 18 foot wide driveway; Mr. Langenberger said it will be 18 feet with the rest open. Mr. Rubino agreed with Mr. Hilla on this technical variance and now not adding a second variance for driveway setback. Mr. Langenberger asked about the 6" water pipe and Mr. Hilla said this will be subject to the approval of the Fire Chief and him.
As the Board was satisfied with the amended Resolution, the following was presented for approval:
"WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey has before the development application of James & Allison Aridas for premises known as Lot 1 in Block 8, said premises being located at 407 Old Bridge Road in the Borough, and the applicants having filed an application for Minor
Subdivision approval and variance relief, and the Board having reviewed the matter and listened to testimony of the Applicant, James Aridas and his Professional Engineer and Planner at the Board meeting of February 9, 2010, and the Board having opened the matter to the public and received public comments with respect to the application, 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 applicants have filed a set of engineer drawings consisting of four separate sheets for a project entitled "Minor Subdivision Aridas Brielle, Monmouth County, New Jersey", prepared by Gilligan Engineering, Charles W. Gilligan, P.E. The first sheet is an area map, a list of property owners, R-3 Zone schedule key map and index. The second sheet consists of a plan of survey bearing date of October 27, 2009, prepared by Charles O'Malley, P.L.S. The third sheet is a design grading plan containing detail of water and sewer service connections as well as a site plan. The fourth sheet consists of soil erosion plan. The application package also included architectural plans (six full sheets) prepared by Professional Building Systems, Inc., dated and revised August 19, 2009 and scaled floor plans and building section (three small pages) prepared by Professional Building Systems, Inc., undated. The application was denied by the Zoning Officer by letter dated October 13, 2009. That application provided for the subdivision of the existing lot above referenced, maintaining the existing residential structure on proposed new Lot 1.01 (said premises to be known as 409 Old Bridge Road) and the creation of a new lot (proposed new Lot 1.02) which would be a rear lot and be known as 407 Old Bridge Road. The latter lot is a "flag" lot, having a staff with a width of 18 feet wide for a distance of approximately 150 feet and frontage on Old Bridge Road. Proposed new Lot 1.01 would have a total lot area of 11,250 square feet. Proposed new Lot 1.02 would have a total area of 22,898.91 square feet. The minimum lot area for lots in the R-3 Single Family Residential Zone is 11,250 square feet. The Applicants have appealed the denial of their development application by the Zoning Officer and requested minor subdivision approval and variance relief from the Board.
2. The property forming the subject of the application is located on the northerly side of Old Bridge Road between Lyman Avenue and South Street and is located within the Borough's Residential Zone 3 (R-3). The lot which presently exists contains 34,149.91 square feet and also includes an existing two story frame dwelling which is to become part of proposed new Lot 1.01. A new house is proposed for construction on proposed new Lot 1.02 with parking and other site features.
3. The following variances are required in connection with the subject development application:
Classifications Required Existinq Proposed
Lot Width 75 feet nla (Proposed new Lot 1.02)
Building Height 35 feet maximum n/a (Proposed new Lot 1.02) allowable
Accessory Driveway Side 5 feet n/a Setback (proposed new Lot 1.02 to Lot 1.01 & Lot 2)
4. Other non-conformities for which variance relief is required relate to Brielle Code Section 21-9.13 which requires that all front yards face on a 50 foot wide right-of-way for a distance of at least 40 feet. The right-of-way fronting the property is only 33 feet wide and the minor subdivision plan and design grading plan both identify a 13.5 foot easement to be dedicated to Monmouth County for road widening purposes. Proposed new Lot 1.02 would have a frontage on Old Bridge Road of only 19.75 feet (75 feet required). Additionally, variance approval is required with respect to Code Section 219.16 which provides fore and requires Planning Board approval for any soil removal or addition that changes existing grades by more than two feet. The Board Engineer's written report of December 15, 2009 confirms that a review of the design grading plan show changes of greater than two feet in many locations and some location a change exceeding three feet.
5. The application includes a request for waivers from showing the location and width of all existing and proposed streets within 500 feet of the tract and the location and width and flow of all drainage facilities within 500 feet of the subdivision. A technical use variance is also required inasmuch as the building height for the new residential proposed for new Lot 1.02 exceeds 10% of the maximum allowed in the R-3 Zone.
6. During the course of the public hearing there were several exhibits marked for identification as follows:
a) Exhibit A--1 consisting of a letter from Applicant to Mr. Rodney Thomas, owner of adjoining Lot 25.
b) Exhibit A-2 consisting of three pages of emails between Applicants and Mr. Thomas.
c) Exhibit A-3 consisting of a series of four photographs.
d) Exhibit A-4 consisting of an aerial photograph.
e) Exhibit A-5 consisting of a colorized rendering of the house proposed to be built by Applicants on proposed new Lot 1.02.
7. Francis Rupp, Esq, appeared on behalf of the Applicants. Mr. James Aridas testified that he purchased the property forming the subject of the application approximately one and one-half years ago. However, he and his family have been residents of Brielle since 1991. He purchased the property with a view towards constructing a new home at the rear of the property. That new home
would be occupied by he and his family (wife and three children). He hoped to retain the existing dwelling on proposed new Lot 1.01 and it would be used as a summer home for his in-laws. The Applicant testified that he has an existing business shop in Toms River and would not be utilizing the shop as shown on the design plan for business purposes. Applicant stipulated that it will be utilized strictly for work on his boats since he has a number of boats. Applicant testified that he would try to retain as many significant ornamental trees on the property as practicable and there are a lot of scrub trees on the property that would have to be removed in connection with the construction of the site for the proposed dwelling, pool and pool house with shop (proposed new Lot 1.02).
8. Project Engineer Charles Gilligan also testified with respect to the application. The Board is satisfied that Applicant has made good faith effort to contact other property owners in an effort to acquire additional property that would have obviated or diminished the need for certain of the variance relief requested. However, those efforts (Exhibits A-1 and A-2) to acquire additional property were unsuccessful.
9. The Project Engineer testified that the existing Lot 1 is more than three times the size of the minimum lot required in the R-3 Zone. Mr. Gilligan stipulated that proposed new Lot 1.01, which lot will have the existing house located upon it, requires no variance relief in the context of the subject application. The only variance relief requested is with respect to the newly created Lot 1.01 which lot lacks the minimum lot frontage of 75 feet. Applicant stipulates that all egress from proposed new Lot 1.02 would be effectuated using a "t" turn located upon the flag portion of proposed new Lot 1.01 to avoid vehicles backing out from that property onto Old Bridge Road. The Board takes administrative notice of the fact that Old Bridge Road is an extremely busy arterial road providing access both to the Borough of Brielle and Manasquan.
10. Mr. Gilligan testified that proposed new Lot 1.02 will be more than two times the minimum lot size required for lots in the R-3 Zone. Applicant proposes to construct a new principal dwelling on proposed new Lot 1.02, which will be 32.2 feet in height but that heights is measured from the adjacent property grade. VVhen measured from the center line of the road upon which the lot fronts that height would be 40.1 feet. Applicant requests that the height of the building proposed be measured from the average of the grade (existing as of the date of the application) of the property surrounding the structure and when that is accomplished, and if deemed appropriate, then 32.2 feet would be the height of the dwelling proposed. Mr. Gilligan testified that all drainages would be in an easterly direction. A cistern will pick up all downspouts located upon the structures on new Lot 1.02 and will then be conducted to inground perforated pipe which will effectively provide for a recharge of water runoff to all sub-ground areas. Applicant stipulates that should the Board Engineer require an additional infiltration system or systems beyond the catch basins proposed that Applicant would work with the Board's Professional Engineer to resolve that issue. The goal acknowledged is to reduce runoff from proposed new Lot 1.01 to zero with respect to Old Bridge Road.
Applicant is willing to reduce the overall width of the proposed asphalt. driveway occupying the staff of proposed new Lot 1.01 to a lesser width. It is the Applicant's Engineer's professional opinion that there would be no impact. upon adjacent properties with respect to any stormwater runoff.
11. The Board takes administrative of the Fire Company's written report under date of November 24, 2009, which report indicates that a 12 foot wide paved driveway accessing the proposed new structures on new Lot 1.02 would be inadequate in light of the fact that the width of the firefighting equipment is 8 feet. The Board reviewed the issue with the Applicant's engineer and determined that appropriately paved or hardened surface giving access to proposed new Lot 1.02 should be at leaves 18 feet wide to assure that passing of emergency vehicles would not be impeded. The Applicant stipulates that (subject to approval of the Brielle Fire Chief and Borough Engineer) stone pavers with grass strips can be utilized in the construction of the 18 foot wide fire lane that will be required with respect to accessing the structures on proposed new Lot 1.01 and that, in addition thereto, there will be a water line with appropriate diameter width run from the connection on Old Bridge Road to a fire hydrant that will be placed in close proximity to Applicant's dwelling, all at Applicant's cost and expense and that there shall also be a non-removal monument identifying the Applicant's address located in close proximity and plain view from Old Bridge Road.
12. The Board considered the correspondence received from Robert Houseal, Chairman of the Brielle Environmental Commission, as well as his testimony during the course of the public hearing, all with respect to the height issue for which use variance has been requested.
13. Cheryl Bergailo, Licensed Professional Planner, provided expert testimony in support of the application. Also providing testimony with respect to the development application was Peter Van den Kooy, P.P., A.I.C.P., from the Board Engineer's office. Exhibits A-3 and A-4 confirm that the location of the house is not inconsistent with the developed character of the surrounding neighborhood. Applicant has sought to maintain the natural slope of the property and retain existing grades to the greatest extend practicable and those existing grades and slope pose a hardship, which by reason of topography, is unique to this particular property. Planning testimony was provided that working with existing slopes is a good planning practice. An examination of the surrounding neighborhood confirms that there are homes on Lenape Trail which is the street immediately to the west of Old Bridge Road which homes are actually higher in elevation than the Applicant's property. Accordingly, the elevation of the subject house on the subject property will not create elevation or shading problems for those homes already constructed on Lenape Trail or Old Bridge Road. Exhibit A-6 confirms that the style of the dwelling proposed for new Lot 1.02 will be a colonial style home with a gable roof and dormers making for an extremely attractive visual aesthetic effect. The existing topography of Applicant's property and the desire of Applicant to maintain the property's topography as close as practicable to that which presently exists, even with construction,
compels the need for a variance from a strict application of the height requirements of the.Zoning Ordinance, that is to say, measuring the height of . the proposed dwelling from the center line of the road upon which it will be above the surrounding grade, will not result in the exacerbation of any existing conditions. A hardship is created by the extraordinarily long aid narrow shape of Applicant's lot and the fact that that lot slopes in an upward fashion to the rear of the property, But for the limited frontage on Old Bridge Road, the property has sufficient upland to be subdivided into three (3) conforming (as to the area) lots. The development of the property as two (2) lots decreases the potential density and makes for an average density less than that which is suggested by the Master Plan. Although there are other 50 foot wide lots in the R-3 Zone, the subdivision of the subject property would create extremely limited rear yards for residential development purposes. The setbacks for the principal dwelling proposed will be fully conforming. Those lots resulting from the subdivision will have rear yards that more than comply with the required rear yard setback (41.3 feet and 85.6 feet, respectively).
14.The Board concludes that from the expert testimony received from two different professional planners that the granting of the variances requested will not result in a detriment to the Zone Plan or Master Plan of the Borough. The density resulting from approval of the development proposed is still less than that density deemed desirable in the R-3 Zone by the Master Plan. Applicant's proposed layout and development of the new lot is consistent with the patter of development in the surrounding neighborhood in terms of setbacks. Applicant's proposal will not impact on neighbors or the existing house on new lot 1.01. The proposed 18 foot wide staff with respect to proposed Lot 1.02 is adequate and gives it more of a driveway like appearance and its great length will provide a more desirable visual and buffer element with respect to the development of the rear portion of the present property. The Board concludes that the house will be more architecturally attractive located at the back of a lengthy drive. Applicant stipulates that it will remove the bamboo that exists on the site and that the large trees at the rear of proposed new Lot 1.02 will be retained and maintained wherever practicable and further stipulates that a six foot high privacy fence (6 foot high fence is the maximum permitted fence height) at the rear of proposed new Lot 1.02 will be constructed. There were no contiguous neighbors that appeared for the purpose of objecting to the subject application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it adopts the aforementioned 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 with respect to the subject application and a technical use variance under Section 40:55D-70d(6), which authorizes the grant of relief in particular cases for special reasons to allow departure from the height of a principal structure which
exceeds (as in the case presented) 10% of the maximum height permitted in the R-3 Zone for the principal residential structure.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth and State of New Jersey, does hereby grant Minor Subdivision approval for Lot 1 in Block 8, provided however, that the Minor Subdivision plan and deed perfecting the subdivision should not be signed until each and 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:
1. Subject to revisions to the plot plan to be undertaken in accordance with the testimony presented to the Board and the plans submitted to and 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 and further subject to the applicant posting deposits for the required engineering and inspection fees, in amounts fixed by the Board's 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 Borough Engineer, the Borough Fire Official, the County of Monmouth inasmuch as Old Bridge Road is a County road, 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 approved, then any such changes must be submitted to this Board for review and approval. Further, in the event that another governmental agency grants a waiver or variance of a regulation, which waiver or variance 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 andlor the conditions attached hereto.
1. The Applicants shall provide a landscaping plan in form and content satisfactory to the Board Engineer as well as detail concerning the
surfacing of the staff area of the 18 foot wide access to proposed new Lot 1.02, which surfacing, together with the location of fire hydrant and the width of the water line to that hydrant and hydrant type and design will be subject to review and approval by the Fire Chief and the Borough Engineer.
2. The Applicant shall provide written confirmation of the preparation, sizing and filing of a road widening Deed in the Monmouth County Clerk's Office.
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 advise 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 for revised Final Minor 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 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 originai being filed with the Land Use Office and a copy filed with the Land Use Office and the Planning Board Secretary and the Board Engineer. It is to be understood that with respect to any minor change 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 February 9, 2010, 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 within 190 days from the date of this Resolution of Approval, with the Minor Subdivision map having been executed by that date, together with the conforming deed being recorded with the Monmouth County
Clerk's O Office as it being T hat this iL:_ time limit is is set 1 RAu1 fiuipa1
required, it eing understood by 1 the IVIl
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."
Motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Harman and approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Tim Sigler, James Stenson
Not Eligible to Vote: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo, Thomas Heavey, Charles Sarnasi
Before adjourning, Mr. Langenberger had a question for Mr. Rubino in regards to the site plan approval given to the lot where Rella's Tavern now stands; that approval was given with new fencing to be put in but the restaurant is now open and nothing has been changed, the new construction has not started so he wanted to know if they can start building.
Mr. Hilla answered and said they have to achieve Resolution compliance first which includes the posting of bonds and performance guarantees and getting the plans signed, then they can get a permit to build; they can't be forced to put up new fencing right away. Mr. Rubino agreed and felt all this will be addressed when they want to build. Mr. Sarnasi questioned what happens if they decide not to build the extra building and Mr. Rubino said then all stays the same as it is.
Mr. Langenberger wanted to know how long they have and Mr. Rubino said that, from a statutory standpoint, they have three years, but in theory they could wait '10 years. On a site plan you do not have the right to say you have to build within a set period of time and this is set by the State. However, the Governing Body can change Ordinance requirements during that time if they so desired.
Mr. Langenberger then spoke of a home on Woodland Avenue that was demolished and then all work stopped, this was a Minor Subdivision approval. Mr. Hilla said he was given back the bonding for the demolition work as that was completed, but nothing else as yet.
As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Stenson, seconded by Mr. Sigler and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm.
ren S. Brisben, Recording Secretary Approved: