www.briellenj.com
A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ


August 10, 2010

October 19 2010

August 10, 2010

BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, August 10, 2010

The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board Was held on Tuesday, August 10, 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 - Terri Vitale

Also present were Michael Rubino, Board Attorney, Chas Holloway of Birdsall Engineering and Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary, as well as Dennis Cantoli, Esq., alternate Board Attorney. There were 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 July 13, 2010 meeting were then approved on a motion by Councilman Garruzzo, seconded by Mr. Langenberger and approved by voice vote, all aye.

CORRESPONDENCE:

All Board members received a copy of a notice to the DEP regarding G6 Boat Works (behind old Hoffman's Marina), to allow installation of a gas line, revising boat sizes in existing slips and granting of an easement from adjoining property owner. Also received was a report from the Environmental Commission on pending applications.

On file in the Board Office - "Technical Assistance Outreach Brochure on Municipal Planning", from Monmouth County Planning Board.

OLD BUSINESS:

The Board turned to the approval of a Resolution for a Variance for Block 99.02, Lot 1, 922 Riverview Drive, owned by Jay & Jenna Redden, to, allow construction of an addition to an existing home.

As all Board members, as well as the applicant, had received a draft copy and there were no changes to be 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 Jay & derma Redden for premises known as 922 Riverview Drive, said premises also being known as Block 99.02, Lot 1, in the Borough of Brielle and said premises lying in the R-2 Zone and a variance being needed from Code Section 21-12.2, whereas as a setback of 23.5 feet is proposed and 40 feet is required, and a survey of the premises having been prepared by Albert Morris, PLS dated April 6, 2000, and architectural plans consisting of 7 sheets being prepared by B.W. Engineering, dated May 10, 2010, and the applicants having appeared before the Board at the July 13,2010 hearing 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 testified that he and his family have owned the property for a significant amount of time, and that the proposal is to add a one room screened in porch over the existing deck on the premises. Mr. Hedden testified that they have 4 children and a dog, and that they need the extra space at the site. He opined that as the house presently sits on the site, he did not think that any neighbors would be able to see the addition, as he did not believe that the addition would be in the site of the adjacent homes. Mr. Hedden then submitted photographs of the area and of the area of the house in question. It appears that the area of the house in question is in the rear lot and that it presently consists of a deck, which is hot considered part of the building area, because of its size and height. As the Heddens plan on building over a portion of the deck, that area becomes within the setback area.
2. Mr. Redden represented to the Board that there will be no glass panels to the addition and that the area will just be screened in and not enclosed. The area will also not be heated. Mr. Hedden agreed to make this as a condition of approval and agreed to file a Deed Restriction limiting the use of the deck to a screened in porch with no heat. It should be noted that there was no objection to the proposal. The Board finds that there is a hardship aspect with regard to the building of the proposal in that the house was built approximately 7 years ago, and all setbacks were met at that time. The Board finds that as the porch will be screened in but not permanently enclosed and that there will be no heat, the addition is a hybrid between a deck-and an actual addition to the house. The Board finds that under the circumstances, the proposal is de minimus and that it can grant the relief requested.

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 fads 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 to Jay & Jenna Hedden for rear setback of 23.5 feet, whereas 40 feet is required. 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 tot 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 tq 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 agrees that the porch will be screened in and not enclosed nor heated and that applicant agrees to file a Deed Restriction preventing the porch from ever being permanently enclosed by windows or heated, without returning to the Board for approval of 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."

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

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

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: James Harman, Thomas Heavey

The Board then turned to a Resolution for approval for a Use Variance for Block 70.01, Lot 2, 611 Higgins Avenue, owned by Frank & Beatrice Huber, to allow a Pet Grooming Salon.

As all Board members, as well as the applicant, had received a draft copy and there were no changes or recommendations to be made, the following was presented for approval:

"WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth,
State of New Jersey has before an application for Use Variance approval for Frank
Huber for premises known as 611 Higgins Avenue, Block 70.01, Lot 12, in the Borough of Brielle, and the applicant is asking for a Use Variance to permit a pet grooming

business on the premises, and the applicant having appeared at the July 13, 2010, hearing before the Board and asked for permission to allow a pet grooming salon to operate at the premises in the C-1A Gateway Zone, and the applicant being represented by Sandy Galaccio, Esq., and the Board having listened to the testimony of the applicant and 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 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 owned the subject premises which is a commercial building and which premises is located at 611 Higgins Avenue in the Borough since 1971. The premise is located in the Borough C-1A Gateway Zone. The subject unit has been vacated by a prior tenant and the owner has found a new tenant by the name of Kristy Lee who proposes to operate a pet grooming salon at the subject premises.
2. Mr. Huber stated that he is the owner of the shopping center that has four stores and that the four stores total approximately 6,000 square feet of space. The proposed pet grooming salon is 1,300 square feet and the lot has sufficient parking to operate with the present tenants in the building. The strip mall was built in 1971 with no changes to date. Ms. Lee gave testimony which the Board finds as credible that she has been in the pet grooming business for approximately 10 years and has operated Kristy's Grooming Salon for 4 years. It should be noted that she has operated said salon in the Borough on Route 71 and hopes to move to the subject premises. It appears that no animals are stored overnight and customers drop their pets off during the day, leave them for about 4 hours and then return to pick them up after the services are performed. She estimates that she has about 12 to 15 customers per day with 5 to 6 as the most at any particular time. She testified that the customers are not at the premises for a very long period of time. As she has been in town and has experience in the business she notes that she takes care of the drains and that there have been no problems with her running of the business and that she has never received any noise complaints at her present location in the Borough. She is also confident that the site will work for both her customers and other tenants at the site.
3. Allison Coffin, a Certified Planner in New Jersey who has been before the Board before, testified as an expert witness. She testified and the Board adopts her testimony as credible that the applicant will operate a pet grooming salon on a commercial property where the other businesses are dry cleaner, personal trainer and convenience store. The C-1A Gateway Zone does not permit pet grooming salons but there are similar uses allowed. For example, a barber shop or beauty salon is permitted. She opined that the only difference is that of the species being groomed. Her research of the 2006 Master Plan update showed that this specific use is not allowed and the

answer was no, however, the Ordinance is written in only what is permitted. Ms. Coffin said that she looked at the categories of the Master Plan and personal services are neither allowed nor prohibited. She also did not see any detriment to the public, if the variance was allowed, and she'opined that the use is particularly suited for the site. She feels that there will not be any negative impact as a result of the Board granting this variance as the proposed use is not a kennel or veterinarian's office and that the use is more similar to a beauty salon. She also opined that there will be absolutely no impact on light, air or open space if the Board granted the relief. She further testified that as the Master Plan talks about a main street theme in the Zone she believes that this use is particularly suited to fit in with the intent of the Master Plan and a main street theme.

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 variance. The Board also finds and concludes that with respect to the variance:

a) The Board finds that the positive and negative criteria necessary to support the granting of the "D" Variance has been satisfied. With regard to the "D" Variance, the positive criteria was satisfied as a result of the particularly suited use for the building and because the property in the past was used for the same use. The negative criteria were satisfied as the Board finds no detriment as a result of the granting of the application. The Board also finds that there will be no adverse impact as a result of the granting of the application.
b) With regard to the negative criteria, the Board finds that there will be no substantial detriment and no substantial impairment of intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinances of the Borough by the granting of this application.

WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle does hereby grant variance approval for use of a pet grooming salon to Frank Huber for premises known as 611 Higgins Avenue. 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 tofapproved 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 rep resent.

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 andlor 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 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.

SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

1. The premises will not be used as a kennel or overnight containment of pets.

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. Stenson, seconded by Mr. Sigler and approved by the following roll call vote:

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

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo,
James Harman, Thomas Heavey

NEW BUSINESS:

The Board then turned to an application for a Variance for Block 64.06, Lot 2, 611 Isham Circle., owned by Patrick & Marilyn Kelly, to allow construction of a single story addition to an existing dwelling. Setback - 40 reet required, 33 feet proposed, 7 foot variance requested. Lot Depth - 125 feet required, 86.30 feet existing & proposed. Rear Setback -- 40 feet required, 11.5 feet & 15 feet existing & proposed.

The fee of $300 was paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners within 200 feet as well as the newspaper were properly notified. Mr. Patrick Kelly came forward and was sworn in and he told the Board he had brought his architect, Paul Lawrence to also testify. Mr. Rubino marked the Site Plan as Exhibit A-1, the Floor Elevations as Exhibit A-2 and then swore Mr. Lawrence in for testimony.

Mr. Kelly said his family has lived in the property for 9 years and they now would like to add a new master bedroom which would be 16x18 feet and they need variance relief to do this as the house was built in the 1950s and, therefore, does not conform to the zoning now in effect. He also mentioned that his property abuts the Church in Brielle parking lot. Mr. Rubino asked if this was a one or two story home and the answer was one story, the house is a ranch which had a second bedroom and family room added on in. the 60s or 70s. Mr. Kelly said they want to stay in this home, their existing bedroom is now in the s/e corner and is small; as they are now getting older, they would like a larger bedroom, a new closet & bathroom to accommodate their needs.

Mr. Lawrence then came forward, he has been licensed in N.J. for 17 years and has appeared before this Board before; the Board accepted him as an expert witness. He stated this is in the R-2 zone, they are good on lot area as they have over 18,000 square feet and 15,000 is required. The existing bedroom is too small to function and they need larger facilities; they want to convert the existing master bedroom into a bathroom and the existing bathroom into a walk-in closet. The only relief needed is for rear yard setback and he noted this addition will fit in with the other homes on Isham Circle. Mr. Rubino asked about the church parking lot location and Mr. Lawrence said it is right by their home, the other home is about 150 feet away. Mr. Heavey thought it looked closer than 150 feet away.

Mr. Holloway asked about the gable and Mr. Lawrence said the gable roof runs north to south but there will be no gable adjoining the existing gable wall. Mr. Holloway was satisfied with this and saw no detriment. Mr. Heavey asked about the holly tree that is on the property and Mr. Lawrence said it is suffering now due to its roots going under the house and it will have to be removed but noted the maple tree there should thrive without this holly tree.

As there was no further testimony to be given and the Board members had no other questions, the hearing was opened to the public for questions and, as there were

none, that portion was closed. It was again opened for general comments and again there were none so that portion was also closed and the Board went into discussion.. Mr. Stenson felt it was a good plan and Mr. Sigler commented they were way under in lot coverage; the rest of the Board agreed and Councilman Garruzzo-made a motion to accept the application, as presented, this 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 the addressed an application for an Informal hearing to discuss restructuring lot lines for 409 Laurel Avenue and 410 Osborn Avenue. Mr. David Rodricks came forward and gave surveys of the property out to the Board members. He owns lot 5 which is in the R-2 zone and is 2/3 of an acre; he is currently under contract to buy lot 6 which is also irregular and goes to the back of his property line. They want to remove the house on that lot and move the lot lines, take 50 feet of the side on Osborn Avenue and give it to the Laurel Avenue property, the way the house is now situated there is only 20 feet frontage; there is also bamboo that needs to be removed. All this will allow them to have a more functional lot and give their neighbors a better lot also.

He said they are not doing anything to their existing home, they are just going to take down the house on lot 6 and take a portion of that lot. Mr. Rubino noted there is part of the property that sticks out like a "stem" and he wanted to know if that will removed and Mr. Rod ricks said no, that will be doubled and will make the lot more conforming. A question was asked who owns lots 3 & 4 and the answer was Mrs. Girdner, who got a variance approved for an addition last year. Councilman Garruzzo did not see too many problems with this request and felt this may better suit the neighborhood, the Mayor agreed and the rest of the Board had no comments. Mr. Condon then told Mr. Rodricks the Board seemed agreeable to this and advised him to proceed if he desired.

OLD BUSINESS:

The Board then turned to the continued hearing for Minor Subdivision for Block 48.01, Lots 9, 9.01, 10 & 10.01, 314 1/2 & 316 '/2 Fisk Avenue, owned by Michael Vesuvio. Mr. Louis Felicetta, Esq. came forward to represent Mr. Vesuvio, Mr. Rubino left and alternate Board Attorney Dennis Cantoli came forward to continue hearing this. Mr. Thomas Heavey also left the dais as he had a conflict of interest with this application.

Mr. Felicetta said this is a continuation and, as they were in the midst of the Planner's testimony, he asked Ms. Cofone to again come forward; he noted they were

mostly done with her testimony but he wanted to call her back up. She came forward, and it was noted she was still under oath, and said there was a question on some of the lot sizes at the last meeting and she was going to address this. She had a new exhibit that was marked as Exhibit A-13, an aerial photo with red and yellow lines to show certain lots. Lots 9 and 10 both have riparian areas so there is more property than stated on the plan but this cannot be counted in lot area. This is a unique condition and creates a hardship as this feature encumbers this property. Mr. Cantoli asked for a further explanation as to why riparian area is a hardship and Ms. Cofone said it is because you cannot count it in lot coverage.

Mr. Felicetta asked about the surrounding lots and Ms. Cofone had come up with areas with degrees of non-conformities. Lots 11 and 12 have 50 foot widths, also lots 19 and 20 have 7500 square feet but only 50 feet in width, lot 7 conforms in area but have a 50 foot width. In moving to Block 47.01, lots 4 and 5 are non-conforming as both have 50 foot widths, as well as lots 8, 9 and 10. There are also a number of properties that front Woodland Avenue that are deficient with 50 foot wide lots. So in her review she took in 29 lots and 17 of them have some level of non-conformity which equates to almost 60%. Many of the lots are within 7,500 square feet as their application is and Ms. Cofone said this speaks volumes to the negative criteria; she also talked about a court case that speaks of neighborhood lot size which has to be taken into consideration. Mr. Felicetta asked if this application is in keeping with this neighborhood scheme and the answer was yes as only 12 lots conform.

Mr. Felicetta asked if there are any substantial detriments and the answer was again no, the benefits outweigh the detriments and she did not see where the proposed lots will impair the Zone Plan and commented that there would be more of an impact if one large home were built. Mr. Felicetta then asked about the positive and Ms. Cofone said this application promotes the general welfare with two lots instead of one large one, two lots will have more light, air and open space and this is a better zoning alternative. She was asked to touch on the variances requested and said a number of the bulk variances are in relation to area & lot coverage, as well as the number of stories; she referred to the Board Engineer's letter of April which stated the variances requested.

She said there is an existing home on lot 9 with existing variances and there will be a new home on lot 10, she then went over the variances requested. Mr. Condon asked about one of the variances requested due to a porch being built on the existing home and Mr. Felicetta agreed and did not know if a variance was required back when this was put on. Mr. Middleton spoke up and offered that Mr. Vesuvio used the two lots as one piece of property so, therefore, no variance was needed but Mr. Felicetta was not sure of this statement and said that, either way, it does exist now and said this was done by the previous owner, not Mr. Vesuvio; he purchased the property with the porch already on the home.

There was then a conversation over the subdivision plan of 4/1109, revised 1/5/2010 as submitted as an exhibit. Mr. Holloway said his plan says a revision date of 115109 and felt this was an error, but nevertheless, this is what his plan showed and

wondered if it was the same plan. Mr. Cantoli agreed and said even though this' is a small error he, too, wondered what else was changed? Mr. Felicetta asked for a small recess to check on this and came back and said they can use the plan with the 09 date.

Mr. Holloway then asked Ms. Cofone to walk down the Engineer's April letter and she referred to page 3 of 4, the bold wording is the proposed non-conformity, she went over the chart done by Birdsall Engineering.

Ms. Cofone again stated this is in keeping with the neighborhood and they had made some modifications so they did not have to ask for a "D" variance for proposed lot 10 which will conform to the side yard setbacks and noted this lot backs up to the water so would not be a detriment as it will be in excess of 100 feet from Fisk Avenue. She gave the same answer to the question on impairment to the Zoning Plan or Zoning Ordinance. She again stated that there will be better light, air and open space with two homes and this project will be in keeping with the neighborhood.

Mr. Felicetta asked about the variance needed for a lot not fronting on a street and Ms. Cofone said there is a 16 foot easement to Fisk Avenue which splits into a "Y" shape to go to both lots, it is existing. Mr. Felicetta told the Board this is a long standing easement which has been there for a long time and this is used to get to lot 9. Mr. Condon asked about the home in front, on lot 17 and was told that is owned by Patrick and Shannon Sharpe.

Mr. Stenson asked for clarification on the number of lots studied and was told 12 lots conform, 17 do not, totaling 29 lots, most are about 7,500 square feet with one or two a little less. Two are about 5,000 square feet and one is less than 7,500 square feet but the majority are around 7,000-7,500 square feet.: Mr. Langenberger questioned that, as a Planner, Ms. Cofone was stating that a dozen variances equal a positive criteria and asked her how she can state this. Ms. Cofone said the numbers do not matter, some conditions will not impact the area and to merely count variances is really not consistent with testimony. Mr. Langenberger then asked about the statement made that there will be more light, air and open space with two homes and wanted to know how two homes can be better than one for light, air and open space. Ms. Cofone felt this was a good question and explained that one home may be more of an impact than two homes and to think of a 6,000 square foot structure and what that would do to an area that has small lots. If you take a lot of 14,000 square feet and put a 6,000 square foot home on it, it will make a difference of the kind of impact in the area. She said the architect is here to testify and he will be able to demonstrate this through his testimony. Mr. Felicetta also added that a house of that size can be put up without any variances and Mr. Langenberger commented that having a home like this will eliminate the height variance of 38 feet- Ms. Cofone agreed and again stated this will be covered by the architect's testimony.

Mr. Sigler asked about the 12 lots that do comply with the Ordinance and if they are within the 20% lot coverage. Ms. Cofone said it would be hard to get this information accurately and they could not give an analysis. Ms. Sigler noted that both

homes will be over in lot coverage, the largest home would be a little over 2,000 'square feet; again, it was told that this will be covered by the architect's testimony. Mr. Sigler then said that there is one driveway there now but with adding another home at the end will double that driveway's usage and he thought this was a negative use; Mr. Felicetta said if one large home was built there would be more cars as well.

At this point the meeting was opened to the public for questions to Ms. Cofone and Mr. Middleton came forward and questioned the positive criteria in regards to two homes better than one McMansion. The current home here has 15.5% coverage and Ms. Cofone agreed, it is a two story home; Mr. Middleton said that 641 square feet can be added to this home and Ms. Cofone said she did not testify to that but Mr. Middleton said he did the math; Ms. Cofone said those are his calculations, not hers. She said the existing house is to be razed and this started lot coverage numbers going back and forth between Mr. Middleton and Ms. Cofone.

At this point Mr. Felicetta questioned the nature of all this but Mr. Cantoli felt it was okay to let Mr. Middleton proceed. Mr. Middleton then asked how two homes can be compared to one home which will be less in total lot coverage by the numbers presented, however, Mr. Felicetta said that they cannot agree with the numbers being supplied by Mr. Middleton. Ms. Cofone said it would be the size of the one home and compared this to either having two boxes or one large box; you can see between two boxes but not one large one. Mr. Middleton then asked what you would see with two homes from Fisk Avenue and Ms. Cofone said you would be able to see the Glimmer Glass, with one home you would not see the water.

Mr. Middleton then went back to the. positive criteria and asked if Ms. Cofone believes that two homes, with a total of 10,000 square feet, is better than one home with 6,000 square feet. He said she also spoke of population densities and referred to a court case cited. Mr. Felicetta protested but Mr. Cantoli said she cited the case so she has to defend Ms. Cofone explained that in the court case a C-2 variance was substantiated as it related to the prevailing lots in the area. Mr. Middleton said that case involved a lot of 20,000 square feet. Mr. Felicetta said she cited a case for facts, not legal arguments and he felt this questioning was irrelevant. Mr. Condon agreed with Mr. Cantoli that she raised this so she has to answer. Mr. Middleton proceeded and said the case in question, the Kauffman case, concerned two lots which were a total of 40,000 square feet. Ms. Cofone said the theory was the basis of the prevailing lots and the size of said lots was not germaine. They then went back and forth over "population density" and Mr. Middleton asked if she knew of any case law relating to undersized lots and the answer was no.

Mr. Middleton then asked what hardship was there in the acquisition of the property and Mr. Felicetta again objected. He said Ms. Cofone did not testify on this and Mr. Vesuvio can answer this. Mr. Cantoli remembered Ms. Cofone stating there was a hardship issue here and Mr. Condon remembered this being said as well. Ms. Cofone then went over some of the things she had testified to and stated the real estate listing that Mr. Vesuvio went by said two lots, a title search was done and there is an

opinion from the Borough Attorney, all agreed these are two lots. Mr. Middleton asked if their client, Mr. Vesuvio, was represented by Council at that time and. Ms. Cofone did not look into that.

Mr. Middleton then cited 40:55D-56 where it states a purchaser has the right to request a Certificate of Subdivision and Mr. Vesuvio did not do this; Ms. Cofone did not know and felt Mr. Vesuvio can address this. Mr. Felicetta protested again as Ms. Cofone is testifying as a Planner. Mr. Middleton said the Planner testified that this should be under a C-1 hardship and she opened the door with her testimony. Mr. Felicetta stated the testimony was on the Flexible C Variance. Mr. Cantoli agreed that these answers should be asked to Mr. Vesuvio, but Mr. Middleton felt he had the right to ask these questions due to the testimony on the positive & negative criteria.

At this point in time Mr. Condon noted it was 9:15 pm - he could see the points from both sides, however, this hearing will have to be closed for this evening and resumed at the September 14th meeting of the Planning Board with no further notice. He asked Mr. Felicetta to check his documents with the date discrepancy and Mr. Felicetta said he would and if there are different plans, they will be submitted in a timely manner.

As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Councilman Garruzzo and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 9:18 pm.



Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary
Approved:

 

RELATED LINKS