Borough of Brielle, NJ
| October 12, 2010
October 12, 2010
|BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2010
The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was -held on. Tuesday, October 12, 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, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler,, James Stenson
Absent -- Thomas Condon, Thomas Heavey,. Terri Vitale
Also present were Michael Rubino, Board Attorney; Alan Hilla 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.
Mayor Nicol chaired this meeting; he called it 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 September 14, 2010 meeting were then approved on a
- motion by Mr.,Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Harman and approved by voice vote, all aye.
All Board members received a copy of a notice to the DEP regarding Block 86, Lots 2 & 2.01 804 Ashley Avenue, owned by Bruce & Deborah: Jeffrey, Trust, for a proposed non-pofluting replacement dock & relocation of a boat lift.
Also distributed was the September/October issue of the NJ Planner, as well as a copy of a notice from Freehold Soil' Conservation District regarding 407 Bel-Aire Road, land disturbance over 5,000 square feet; also received was a letter from Dennis Cantoli, Esq. regarding the flag at the O.mnipoint Site.
On file in the 'Board Office - "Technical Assistance Outreach. Brochure on Municipal Planning'',, from Monmouth County: Planning Board, Volume 5- Noticing Procedures.
The Board had received a letter requesting postponement of the continued hearing for The Sand Bar Restaurant to November 9, 2010: Before addressing this, Mayor Nicol said that all Board members-had received a letter, dated 10/5110, inviting them to meet on the west patio to see how the proposed table arrangement will be set up. He had a problem with this invitation and Mr. Rubino agreed, he said the Board members individually can :go but they all can't be together unless there is public notice given. He suggested writing to the Sand Bar and telling them the Board cannot attend due to a possible violation of the Sunshine Law.
Mr. Langenberger questioned whether or not they have to re-notice for the November 9, 2010 hearing but Mr. Rubino said they did not have to, this was announced at the September meeting that this was to be carried without further notice; however; if they go beyond the November 9th meeting then they will have to re-notice.
The Board then turned to the approval of a Resolution for a Variance for Block 33.01, Lot 1, 110 Union Avenue, owned by Towne, House, LLC, to allow a variance for installation of an electronic reader board sign on the existing.. sign structure.
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 Towne House, LLC, for variance approval to allow the installation of an electronic reader board sign on the existing sign structure at the premises known as Block 33.01, Lot 1, 110 Union Avenue, and plans having been submitted and renderings of the signs having been submitted to the Board including a concept sketch prepared by Jason Fichter, PE, dated February 25, 2009, and the sign package having been submitted by Effective Sign Works which was marked into evidence as A=1 dated September 4, 2010 and the Board having-listened to the hearing on September 14, 2010 and the applicant having been represented by Keith Henderson, Esq., and the Board having listened to the testimony offered on behalf of the applicant and the testimony offered on behalf of 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. Code Section 21-23.5 states that no sign or any part thereof shall be located more than 15 feet to any property line. Further, Code Section 21-26 states no portion of the sign may exist within a State right-of-way. The proposed sign is an existing sign which highlights there requirements. It should be noted that the site received site plan approval by Resolution of Approval in 2009, the
Board is satisfied that this issue was addressed at that time, therefore,, the. sign can remain where it is.
2. Code Section 21-23.7 prohibits flashing, fluttering,. animated signs and those of such form character shapes, as to, confuse or dangerously distract the attention of dangerous motorists. If further provides specifics of types of messages and timing for those messages must be approved by the Planning Board.
3. Variances also needed for the size of the sign, per paragraph 4 of Mr. Hilla's letter dated July 30, 2010 from Code Section 21-30.28. At the hearing the applicant presented a representative of the sign manufacturer who is also an expert in the use of the signs. He testified that there are a number of these signs throughout the country and, that, in his opinion,.the.re has not been any danger or distraction to the public if the sign is properly used. He testified that there would be a 4 to 8 second cycle for, use of the sign and that the sign will only be used for purposes with regard to the restaurant on the site. He further stated that the only exception to this would be for public service announcements on behalf of the Borough and public service announcements, and that there will be no outside use of this sign, or outside commercials. He also testified that there will not be flashing of the sign.
4. The. Board is satisfied after listening to testimony on behalf of the applicant that the size of the sign is appropriate for the location of it and that the sign will not be such that will confuse or dangerously attract the attention of the passing motorists. The Board also finds that as the use .of the sign will be limited for the 4 to 8 second cycles that the sign will not be flashing, fluttering or animated. The Board also finds that the sign fits in with the character of the neighborhood and, therefore, the. use of the sign. is allowed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board that it adopts the aforesaid findings of fact, and based upon the aforesaid findings the Board concludes that the applicant has satisfied the necessary criteria for granting the "C" Variances. The Board also finds and concludes that with respect to the "C" Variances:
(a) The Board finds that by reason on an extraordinary and ,exceptional situation that uniquely 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 to Borough. of.` Brielle, for Thomas Whelan, does hereby allow such variances necessary for the applicant to use the electronic. sign as set forth herein, for premises known as 110 Union Avenue, Block 33.01, Lot 1. 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 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 Engineers.
6. Subject to the applicant obtaining and conripiying 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's sign shale have 4.to 8 second cycles.
2. The sign, shall be at such location and size as set forth in the evidence submitted.
3. The-sign shall not be any flashing of the sign, nor will anything be sold off of the sign.
4. The sign shall only be used for the purpose of Reila's Restaurant and its successors and for community service announcements.
5. The applicant shaft install a fence on Fisk Avenue as set forth on the previous Resolution of Approval of May, 2010."
A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Stenson, seconded by Mr. Harman and approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, James Harman, James Langeriberger, James Stenson
Not Eligible to Vote: Councilman Frank: Garruzzo, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler
The Board then turned to a Resolution for approval for a Use, Variance for Block 17.01, Lot 9, 501 Union Avenue, owned by R.D. Brkal, LLC, to allow a residential use in a commercial zone.
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, Bulk Variance and Site Plan approval. for and on behalf of R. D. Brkal; LLC, to. allow a residential use in a C-1 Zone and minor site plan application for R.D Brkai, LLC; property consisting of two sheets dated May 27, 2010 having_been prepared by Gilligan .Engineering and a architectural plan consisting of one sheet last revised May 10; 2010, having been prepared by Paul S. Moore, having been submitted to the Board and the applicant being represented by Michael Landis, 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 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 northwest corner of Union Avenue and Harris Avenue and it contains 9,424 square feet. It is located in the Borough's C-1 Central Commercial Zone. The parcel presently consists of a one story commercial building, shed, parking area and associated improvements. The applicant has appeared before the Board within. the past year for approval to change a portion of the building from office use to. retail use for an ice cream shop and received approval at that time. The applicant now proposes to change the rear portion of the building which. contains 1,348 square feet from commercial to residential use. The remaining portion of the
building:1,250 square feet,- is to be continued to be used for the ice cream; parlor previously mentioned. The applicant proposes to construct a gable roof over the entire, existing roof area. Code Section 21-8.1 provides that it is a commercial zone which does not permit residential use, therefore, a. Use Variance will be required. There are also bulk variances needed.
2. As this is a site plan approval the following bulk variances are needed:
a) Front Setback (principal) - 30 feet required, 15.1 feet existing and proposed (Route 71), 9.6 feet existing and proposed (Route 71/Harris Avenue), 19.8 feet existing and proposed (Harris Avenue),
b) Rear Setback - 30 feet required, 4.8 feet existing and proposed.
c) Rear Setback (accessory) - 25 feet required, 10 feet proposed.
d) Side Setback (accessory) - 25 feet required, 10 feet proposed.
e) Lot Coverage - 25% maximum allowable, 31 % existing.
3. A variance is also needed from Code Section 21-9.22 for storage of recreational vehicles.
4. It should be noted that the Board, at a hearing, approved site plan of property for the existing and proposed variances with regard to the parking, loading, buffering, signage, lighting, landscaping and trash. It also should be noted that the proposed shed on the property will be used for residential purposes. The trash enclosure will be both used for both residential and commercial use and the applicant will provide signage indicating parking for the residential use only for 2 spaces. The applicant will,provide details as requested in Mr. Hiila's letter of June 25, 2010.
-5. The applicant testified at the hearing that the roof on the premise is more than 20 years old and the building is'in need of a new roof. The applicant believes that the proposed gable roof is more attractive than the existing roof on the premises and: the Board notes that the entire roof line will be done. The Board finds that this roof is more aesthetic than the existing roof and, therefore, approves any variances necessary to install the roof.
6. The applicant also testified that it is his intent to move to the area and that he would like to be able to use the rear of the existing building at the premises for living purposes. He believes that as he owns the building that it is both to his advantage from a commercial sense and to the Borough's advantage to allow him to live on the site and monitor the commercial use. The Board finds the building is particularly suited for the proposed residential use and that the Board can allow the applicant to live there through the necessary Use Variance. The Board finds that the building's property immediately to the west of the subject property area residential uses and that the proposed residential use will provide for a transition between the zones. The Board also finds there are also a number of other residential uses in the zone on Route 71, and that the granting of the variances will not be detrimental to the surrounding properties in the area, not repugnant to the intent of the Zoning Ordinances.
7. The Board also finds that the RV may be stored on the property provided that it is stored at least 10 feet off the property.
8. At the hearing the applicant agreed to put in an alarm system and the Fire Marshall will be notified per the Fire Marshall's letter.
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 following:
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 "C" Variances, the Board finds the following:
(i) The Board finds that by reason of an extraordinary and exceptional situation that uniquely affected the subject property and the structure which exists lawfully thereon, the strict application of the aforementioned regulation would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to or exception .and undue hardship, upon the applicant.
(ii) The applicant has demonstrated that the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law and the Land Use Ordinances of the'Borough.of Bridle 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) 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 Use Variance approval to allow the premises to be used for residential purposes as set forth- in the plans submitted by Paul Moore for the rear portion of the building, not to exceed 1,348 square feet along with bulk variances for Front Setback (principal) - 30 feet required; 15.1 feet existing and proposed (Route 71), 9.6 feet existing and proposed (Route 711Harris Avenue), 19.8 feet existing'and proposed (Harris Avenue); Rear Setback - 30 feet required, 4.8 feet'existing and proposed; Side Setback (accessory) - 25 feet required, 10 feet proposed;: Lot Coverage - 25% maximum allowable, 31% existing, variance from Code Section 21-9.22 for storage of recreational vehicle and minor site plan approval. 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 trueand 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 Borough Engineer, the Borough Fire Official, the County of Monmouth inasmuch. as OId;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 and/or the conditions attached hereto.
1. Subject to the compliance of the letter of al Hiila, Jr. dated August 14, 2010.
2. The applicant shall provide signage indicating residential, parking only for two residential spaces.
3. The applicant shall amend the plans to show the details as requested of Alan, Hilla's, letter dated August 14, 2010.
4. The applicant shall put in an alarm system per the Fire Marshall's letter, per his paragraph 5.
5. The applicant, its successors and assigns shall not park the RV within 10 feet of the property line.
6. The shed shall be moved to an area consistent with the representations made.
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. Harman and approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles Samasi, James Stenson
Not Eligible to Vote: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo, Tim Sigler
Before continuing on with the agenda, Mayor Nicol asked that the applicants for the variance request of 404 South Street please come forward and Mrs. Rene Paturzo came up to speak to the Board. Mr. Rubino explained that he had reviewed the notice that was sent to the property owners within 200 feet and it was a deficient notice as well as giving the wrong date for the meeting, stating it would be heard on October 13, not October 12. He said if the Board heard this application tonight and it was appealed there may be a problem; the form that was included in the application package was the one to be followed and the Paterzos just wrote a letter to their neighbors. Mrs. Paturzo said the notice in the newspaper was in proper order and Mrs. Brisben agreed.
After a brief discussion among Board members it was decided to carry this hearing to November 9th and that the applicants re-notice using the proper format. Mrs. Brisben did tell the Board there was already a full agenda for November, however, the Board felt this should be included; Mr. Rubino then stated that he had heard from Keith Henderson, Esq. on the notice and that there may be objectors so it may be,lorger than a 10 minute hearing. Councilman Garruzzo felt it should still be put on the November agenda and he did not see a problem with this application and Mrs. Paturzo said she lives right next to the Park so this should not affect neighbors. She-was then told to renotice for the November 9th meeting.
The Board then turned to the continued hearing for a Minor Subdivision for Block 48.01, Lots 9,.9.01, 10 & 10.01, 314 1/2 & 316 1/2 Fisk Avenue, owned by Michael Vesuvio. It is to be noted in the record that Tim Sigler, who was absent at last month's meeting, had listened to a tape of the proceedings and, therefore, was eligible to vote in this matter.
Mr. Louis Felicetta, Esq. came forward..to continue this hearing. At the last hearing questions were raised over the easement and he wanted to address those concerns. Also received was a letter from Tim Middleton, attorney for an objector, stating this should be dismissed and he totally disagreed With this letter as the Board can hear this subdivision application and has the authority to grant this. Going back to the driveway easement, this is a long standing driveway easement; at this point Mr. Middleton spoke up and said that, according to N.J.S.A. 45:D-35 & 36, any time an applicant is seeking to secure a permit for a structure not on the lot with the driveway this statute comes into play. If they were building one structure it would be grandfathered in due to case law. But the statute calls for access for fire equipment and Brielle uses the International Fire Code which stipulates a 20 foot fire lane for apparatus and this lot has a 16 foot area for a fire lane. He said the Board is required to follow the mandate of its own Ordinance of 20 feet and further stated that the applicant did not notice for violation of this Statute. Mr. Felicetta said the notice was done properly, he then read the notice where he specifically cited the Borough Ordinance which is the same as the International Fire Code.
Mayor Nicol asked Mr. Cantoli for his opinion as Planning Board Attorney and Mr. Cantoli felt the notice was done correctly and felt this Board was the authority to approve this with the easement of less than 20 feet. Mr. Langenberger said that in previous variances granted by the Board they always have said a minimum of 18 feet, the Fire Code requires a turning radius of 20 feet if the access is longer than 150 feet. Mr. Cantoli again emphasized that the Board has the right to grant a deviation from the 20 feet and, has done so in the past.
Councilman Garruzzo noted there are other locations that do not front on a roadway and they have been approved but Mr. Cantoli said that this action does not set a precedence and each application stands on its own merit. He also said he felt the Board should listen to the recommendations of the Fire Chief but has the right to make its own decision. Mr. Middleton wanted the Fire. Code copy to be marked as an exhibit; Mr. Cantoli did not feel this was necessary but marked it as Exhibit 0-1.
At this time Mr. Glenn Lines, a Licensed Professional Engineer, came forward and .was sworn in. He has been a Professional Engineer since 1988 and was a graduate of Drexel University and has appeared before this Board and other Boards before. The Board accepted him as an expert witness.
He asked that Sheet 1 of 1 of the Site Plan be marked as Exhibit A-17, showing the two rear lots and the access driveway. Mr. Felicetta reminded the Board they have these plans, these are the ones that had the wrong date on them, this was revised 115110 and some plans were marked as 1/5109 in error., Mr. Middleton asked the Board members if they had this "revision 4" and Mr. Stenson said he had "revision 3". Mr. Cantoli spoke to Mr. Felicetta and said this was addressed at past meetings and plans were to be submitted with the right date, but Mr. Felicetta said it was just a dating error and the plans are the same. Mayor Nicol asked Mr. Hilla if this was acceptable and he
said his review fetter recognized the subdivision plan revised 115109; he agreed this was discussed previously and it was decided it was just an error in the date.
Mr. Lines then testified that this plan shows the existing home and the proposed home as well as the mean high water line. Starting at Fisk Avenue the easement is 16 feet wide, the property at the back of the driveway is to be reconfigured parking so one leg will go to a garage and this widens. to 25 feet; he noted this is a paved easement.
On the east side it'is all grass with another 25 foot utility easement that has to stay clear. Mr. Middleton spoke up and asked if Mr. Lines had read the utility easement and Mr. Lines said no, but in general the easement should be left: open for maintenance, so no one can build on it. Mr. Felicetta asked if this is wide enough for a fire vehicle and Mr. Lines said yes and it widens to even more than 25 feet.
The new structure to be built on lot 10 will have a deck and inground pool and will be back 25 feet from the mean high water fine. The structure starts at 51.91 from this line and the requirement is 50 feet by the State of NJ so that conforms. Mr. Felicetta asked Mr. Lines if these were riparian lots but Mr. Middleton objected and said'this is irrelevant; Mr. Felicitta felt it was as it takes away footage from the actual land-lot. Mr. Lines was allowed to continue and said the two lots are approximately 5,000 square feet and both have an existing dock, they have to follow the guidelines for the mean high water line setbacks.
He then read the variances asked for and said that if one house were built here is could be up to 80 feet wide with 20% lot coverage and it would be substantially larger. than the existing home. He said he did a review of the Fire Company letter of 3123110 but Mr. Middleton said there is an updated letter, however, Mr. Canton said Mr. Lines can refer to the March letter, he has the right to. Mr. Lines said there was a comment of concern of ability to get more than one fire vehicle in, but once you get past the front house and garage there is room. He understood the concern about the front part but there is a lot more pavement in the rear; there also is a water supply from a hydrant within 300 feet on Fisk Avenue. Also the letter talks about an 8 foot wide driveway but it is 14 feet at least. He also noted that, while the Fire Company was concerned about - the closeness of the two homes, there is a total of 18.91 feet between them and 20 feet is required so they are not that close. Mr. Felicetta reminded the Board they did meet with the Fire Chief after this letter.
Mr. Langenberger asked him how close is the front house to+the driveway and the answer was close, a foot or so. Mr. Sarnasi asked when they are putting in the new water and sewer laterals can they widen this area to meet the utility easement, right now there is about 4-5 feet between the easements. Mr. Felicetta felt this was a good point and said if they can do it they will.
As there were no more Board questions, Mayor Nicol opened the hearing to the public for questions to Mr. Lines and Mr. Middleton came forward. He noted that Mr. Lines testified that the access way was adequate -- he asked if Mr.Lines had a Fire Code License-or taken classes and Mr. Lines said no, he was net that familiar with the
Fire Code. Mr. Middleton said the Fire Code says 20 feet and asked Mr. Lines if he felt 16 feet was okay;. at this point Mr. Felicetta objected and said this already has been. gone over through testimony - they are asking for relief of the 20 foot requirement. Mr. Cantoli felt that Mr.' Lines should answer the question-and Mr. Lines said, on his opinion, a fire truck can fit. Mr. Middleton then referenced. the comment that no building could be done on the utility easement but he had a copy of this easement and said there is no wording on not building or planting trees, etc. Mr. Cantoli objected to this questioning as it was a legal one, but Mr. Middleton said he testified to this and it is not stated in the easement. Mr. Felicetta said that Mr. Lines said the easement should be kept clear for maintenance. At this point Mr. Lines looked at the easement and said the last two pages of it are illegible and then Mr. Middleton withdrew his question.
Mr. Middleton then asked if they received CAFRA approval for the two houses and the answer was no. Mr. Middleton then asked the coverage of the existing building on lots 9 & 10 and Mr. Lines said 15.41%; Mr. Middleton then asked how many more square feet could the applicant add on to this home to make if 20%. coverage and Mr. Felicetta objected but Mr. Cantoli felt the question was okay to answer. Mr. Lines said there can be 2,792 square feet of coverage on this lot; he did not have the exact figures but would say less than 2,100 square feet is on there now. Mr. Middleton then said that an additional 691 square feet can be added to make the total coverage.
It was at this time that Mayor Nicol announced that, once again, time had run out for this hearing and it would be continued at the November 9t' meeting of the Planning Board. Mr. Cantoli reminded the Board there are two witnesses that are not finished with 'their testimony, Ms. Cofone and Mr. Graham. Mr. Middleton told the Board he also has his own Planner and, Engineer to testify as well. Mr. Felicetta said he hoped to have this next hearing be the last. one and they would be finished.
While the room was clearing, Mr. Langenberger went back to the
correspondence on the flag issue at the Omn.ipoint pole and has some issues with lighting and that the flag does not go up to the top of the pole as well as the flag size; he and the Board had a brief discussion. on this.
The last item on the agenda this evening was an application for a variance for Block 96.01, Lot 2, 404 Sycamore Lane, owned by Jeffrey Beyer and Karen Jordan, to allow construction of a 10.33'x4.33' front porch/portico addition to an existing dwelling, Lot Depth - 125 feet required, 121.5 feet existing, 3.5 foot variance 'existing & proposed. Front Setback (Kingston Road) - 40 feet required, 36.50 feet proposed, .3.5 foot variance requested. Side Setback (accessory) - 5 feet required, 1.54 feet existing, 3.46 foot variance existing and proposed. Before starting this hearing, Mr- Harman recused himself from the dais due to a conflict as a family member owns a home within 200 feet.
The fee of $600 was paid, taxes are paid to date and property owners within 200 feet as well as the newspaper were properly notified. Jeffrey Beyer & Karen Jordan
came forward and were sworn. Their application and plans were marked as Exhibit A-1 and a picture submitted was marked as Exhibit A-2. Mr. Beyer said they want to' construct a portico in front of their home to improve its look. They have lived here since 2002 and plan to stay; they need to replace the siding, put in new windows, etc. and felt this was the time to do this as the front of the home looks outdated from the 60s. The foyer is cramped, small and dark; the front door almost hits the stairs and it is also dark inside and they have no room to add a window, but with this new design they.can add windows which will give them light and will be an upgrade to the neighborhood. He added that it will be 59 feet from the Portico to the street due to the large right-of-way on Sycamore Lane.
The hardship is that they are sandwiched between Sycamore Lane and Kingston Road and the corner. Mr. Hilla commented that the only thing they are seeking new is a 45 square foot addition which goes 3 feet into the setback. Mayor Nicol asked if they were changing the footprint of the home and the answer was no.
As the Board had no further questions, the hearing was opened to the public for questions. As there was no response, that portion was closed and the Board went into discussion. Councilman Garruzzo had no problem with the application and felt the variance request was minor. Mr. Sigler agreed and did not see any damage to the zoning, the rest of the Board agreed.
The hearing was again opened to the public, this time for any comments and Charles O'Malley, a neighbor, spoke and said he was in full support as this will make their home values better; he said they were great neighbors and he wants them to stay.
As there were no further comments to be made, that portion of the hearing was closed and Councilman Garruzzo made a motion to accept the application, as presented, this seconded by Mr. Sigler and approved by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, James Stenson
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 8:43 pm.
Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary Approved: