A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ

January 11, 2011

March 10 2011

January 11, 2011


The Reorganizational meeting of the Brielle Planning/Zoning Board was held on Tuesday, January 11, 2011 at 7:30 pm in the Brielle Borough Hail, 601 Union Lane. After a moment of silent prayer and a salute to the flag, roll call was taken:

Present - Mayor Thomas B. Nicol, Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, James Stenson
Absent - Councilman Frank A. Garruzzo, Thomas Heavey, Terre Vitale

Also present were Dennis Cantoli & Michael Rubino, Board Attorneys, Alan Hilla, Jr. of Birdsall Engineering and Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary. There were approximately 16 people in the audience.
Mr. Condon called the meeting to order and declared a quorum. He announced that, in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of this Body meeting had been given to both the Asbury Park Press and the Coast Star newspapers. -

The following appointments were then made:

Class I - Mayor Thomas B. Nicol through 12/31/11 Class II - James Langenberger through 12131/11 Class III - Frank A. Garruzzo through 12131/11 Class IV -- Thomas Condon through 12/31/14
Mr. Rubino swore in all the members (other than Councilman Garruzzo who was absent) and congratulated them on their new terms.
Before going on, Mr. Condon announced that the hearing for Mark Gatanis that was continued from December was being carried to the February 8, 2011 meeting of this Board without further notice.
It was then time for the election of officers for the year 2011. Mr. Langenberger nominated Thomas Condon to the position of Chairperson, this seconded by Mr. Sigler. Mr. Langenberger then nominated Thomas Heavey to the position of Vice-Chairperson, this seconded by Mr. Sigler. Mayor Nicol then nominated Terre Vitale to the position of Secretary of the Board, this seconded by Mr. Sigler. As there were no other .
nominations they were closed and the above members were approved by unanimous vote, all aye.

As all Board members, as well as the attorney for the applicant, had received a draft copy and there were no changes or recommendations, the following was presented for approval:
"WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth, has before it an application by and behalf of C. G. Mass, Inc. t/a Sand Bar for premises known as 201 Union Lane, Block 85, Lot 9, for a request to the Planning Board to allow the waiver for condition #4 of a Planning Board Resolution of Approval dated May 9,
1995 which limited the use of the west deck on the premises. In support thereof, the applicant submitted a package including a proposed outdoor seating plan for the Sand Bar Restaurant dated May 4, 2010 along with a copy of a Planning Board Resolution dated May 9, 1995. In addition thereto, the applicant submitted various items of evidence along with testimony before the Board at hearings on September 14, 2010, November 9, 2010 and December 14, 2010. At that time the Board listened to the testimony offered on behalf of the applicants and the Board having also listened to testimony offered on behalf of objectors and neighbors in support of 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 supplemented, and the Board having considered the matter at a public hearing as set forth above, and this Board having made the following findings of fact:
1. In 1995 a predecessor in title to the applicant, Chesapeake, Inc., applied to the Board requesting permission to convert a portion of the existing second floor of a commercial building on the premises from office space to a restaurant area. In order to facilitate required parking, and for other reasons, it voluntarily stipulated that the-then-present use of the exterior ground level deck located to the west of the structure (the west deck) would be abandoned and no longer used for the business purposes of the applicant (i.e., there will be no service of food or drink on the deck). At that time, per the Resolution of Approval which is incorporated by reference herein, the applicant testified that the square footage of the area of the second floor of the building, which was to be converted from office space to a restaurant area. Accordingly, the Board concluded that no additional parking-spaces would be required based upon the abandonment of the business use of the west deck and the conversion from office space to restaurant area within the building. At that time the applicant emphasized that there would be no physical expansion of the building and that there would be a benefit to the adjoining residential condominium units by limiting the restaurant use to the interior of the building and elimination the exterior service on the west deck. The conversion of the west deck to the second floor was done on basically a one on one for parking spaces, therefore, no additional parking was needed.

2. The Board in that Resolution Paragraph 5 found that the Ordinance did not require additional parking spaces based upon elimination of the business use

on the west deck and that the transfer of that use to the second floor of the building required no additional parking.

3. The Board, in the aforementioned Resolution, went on to find that "the Board notes that the use of the west deck has caused inconvenience and annoyance to the residential condominium unit owners approximate to this business use. Based upon the transfer of business activity from the exterior to the interior of the commercial building, the Board finds that there is an enhancement to the residential condominium units. In order to eliminate several prior objections of the neighboring property owners and municipal officials, the applicant. suggested and voluntarily agreed to be bounded by conditions limiting:: the business operation. The Board finds that the conditions and limitations to be posted on the applicant will have a positive impact upon the inter-relationship of the existing residential and business uses". In adopting the Resolution of Approval dated May 9, 1995, the Board, in Paragraph 4 of the condition section of the Resolution, stated the following: "The applicant shall abandon the use of the west deck for the service and/or consumption of food and alcoholic beverages and all other business purposes. Further, the applicant shall not place any tables, chairs or similar devices on the west deck."

4. C.G. Mass, Inc. tla The Sand Bar is a successor in title to Chesapeake, Inc. and has appeared before the Board requesting permission to waive condition for other Resolution of Approval of May 9, 1995 and has requested permission to maintain the Sand Bar Restaurant as currently configured but requests permission to re-introduce table service on the west deck, which consist of seven (7) tables and up to twenty-eight (28) chairs serving those tables. By Ordinance the proposed seating of 855 square feet, as set forth on the outdoor seating plan, additional parking burden of seven off-street parking spaces would be required. The Board and its Engineer, Al Hilla, through Mr. Hilla's letter of June 22, 2010, concluded that the re-introduction of service on the west deck would drive a variance condition requiring a parking variance.

5. In support of the application, the applicant agreed to make the deck a nonsmoking area, through closing, and further agreed that there would be no speakers on the outside and that the hours of operation would be limited during weekdays during the season from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. and on weekends from 11:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. The applicant contended that the additional tables would not increase trip generation as that area of Brielle has a number of restaurants and that persons going to the site would either be going to the Sand Bar or other restaurants in the area. The applicant, therefore, contended that the additional parking spots would not generate any additional traffic or parking problems. The applicant presented no Traffic Engineer to support the assertion. The Board, however, does find additional parking requirement would add to an already problematic parking problem in

the area and at the site. The Board finds that the site is already insufficient in parking and that additional spaces would make it more so.

6. A number of neighbors appeared both in support of and against the application. It should be noted that those neighbors that lived in the condominium units immediately adjacent to or close to the proposed deck all lived in the Brielle Landing Condominiums. Many of those persons voiced their concerns for the operation at the Sand Bar including parking problems, pedestrian problems and noise coming from conversations and other sounds from the restaurant. Those persons who lived most close to the proposed west deck expressed-concerns over enjoyment over the use of their premises as they contended that outdoor dining would lead to unwanted noise through the hours of operation. There were also concerns about use of the premises after 11:00 p.m. and how long the patrons=would remain on the deck and how early service would be terminated.
7. The Board, after listening to the testimony on behalf of the applicant and of the objectors, were not satisfied that the applicant carried its burden to allow the Board to amend the condition of the 1995 Resolution of Approval. The Board finds that the removal of that condition, allowing service at the deck, would add to noise pollution leading in the area, traffic problems, parking problems and would impair the peace and quiet to the neighbors.

8. In addition thereto, the Board in reviewing the 1995 Resolution of Approval, specifically notes that the Board at that time in allowing the conversion of the existing second floor of the commercial building from office space to restaurant area, allowed that in good part, because the applicant at that time agreed to give up the use of the west deck for restaurant purposes. That Board, as previously stated, specifically noted that the use of the west deck caused inconvenience and annoyance to the residential condominium unit owners approximate to the business use and that based upon the transfer of that activity from the exterior to the interior of the commercial building, the Board finds that there was an enhancement to the residential condominium units by said transfer. The Board, at present, therefore, can only conclude that the increase in use of the building in 1995 was granted by the Board, in large part, because of the relinquishment of the use of the west deck.

9. This Board is therefore not satisfied that there has been any substantial change in conditions at the site to warrant removal of condition 4 of the 1995 Resolution. in fact, the Board found that if anything, the area is more congested and more heavily used in 2010, than it was in 1995, and therefore believes that the use of the west deck would cause additional problems to the area. The Board, therefore, does not believe that the removal of the condition is warranted. In addition thereto, the Board believes the testimony of the immediate neighbors concerning noise problems and parking problems at the site, and that at present their enjoyment of the area during peak use hours is

somewhat impaired.
10. The Board believes that lifting the Paragraph 4 of the Resolution of Approval of 1995 would only increase that impairment of use.
WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the.Brielle Planning Board of Brielle does hereby resolve to DENY permission to C.G. Mass, Inc. tla The Sand Bar, to remove the Paragraph 4 of the condition set forth in PlanningBoard Resolution dated May 9, 1995 with respect to the west deck. Said Resolution granted Site Plan approval to ' Chesapeake, Inc. for the subject premises allowing use of the second floor of the premises without parking variances."
A motion was made by Mr. Sigler to approve this Denial Resolution, this seconded by Mayor Nicol and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Tim Sigler, James Stenson

Noes: None

:_.. Not Eligible to vote: James Harman, Charles Sarnasi

The Board then turned to the approval of a Resolution for a Minor Subdivision for Block 43.01, Lot 6, 304 Union Lane, owned by Robert and Angie Cardin. Mr. Rubino noted that the attorney for that matter, Mr. Rupp, was present and had asked for some changes to the Resolution before the meeting started. Mr. Rubino went over these minor changes with Mr. Hilla who was agreeable to this being done: original paragraph 3 to be stricken, paragraph 7 changed to state the drainage system approval can be done at time of building permits instead of this Resolution; Mayor Nicol asked why and Mr. Rubino said it is due to costs. The Engineering costs to have this done to have the subdivision perfected is cost prohibitive and can be changed anyway after the subdivision, if desired by the applicant. Mr. Hilla agreed and explained the drainage is reviewed to protect the property and must be properly designed; in this instance there is not a building to be built as yet so to put this stipulation in now is a little rough and the final approval has to go through his office anyway.
As there were no further changes to the draft Resolution that was sent to all Board members, as well as the applicant and his attorney, the following Resolution was then presented for approval:
"WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth and State of New Jersey has before it an application for Minor Subdivision Approval for Robert & Angie Cardin with variances for front yard, must face on a 50' right-of-way at least 40' along the right-of-way, frontage along Homestead Road is 28.13 feet proposed, and variances for garage height for premises known as 304 Union Lane, Block 43.01, Lot 15, and the Borough having held an open public hearing on the matter

on December 14, 2010 and the applicant having been represented in its case by Francis Rodman Rupp, Esq., and at that time the Board having listened to the testimony offered on behalf of the applicant and objectors 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 at set forth above, and the, Board having made the following findings.of fact: .. ,,,'

1. In support of its application the applicant submitted a Minor Subdivision plan and survey consisting of four (4) sheets prepared by Charles W. Gilligan, PE, dated July 12, 2010 and revised August 12, 2010.

2. The property in question Lot 16, Block 43.01 is located on the north side of Union Lane between Cedarcrest Drive and Green Avenue, and lies within the Borough's R-4 Single Family Residential Zone. The lot presently sits at 130'x230' and is irregularly shaped and currently contains a 2 /2 story nonconforming multi-family dwelling, a 1 1/2 story garage and separate asphalt and stone driveways. The applicant proposes to subdivide the property into two (2) lots that will dimensionally conform with the Zone requirements with the construction of a single family house on proposed Lot 16.02 and in consideration, therefore, the applicant.has agreed to give up the use of the building as a multi-family use.

3. It should be noted that the property lies-in the R-4Zone ;which requires 5,000 square feet for interior lots and 7,500 square feet for corner lots. The subject property will contain 21,446 square feet for proposed Lot 16.01 and 9,209 square feet for proposed Lot 16.02. As noted, as both lots substantially exceed the area requirements for the Zone, the applicant represented that the house to be built on proposed Lot 16.02 will conform to the bulk requirements of the R-4 Zone and that no variances will be necessary to build a house on Lot 16.02. The house on Lot 16.01, which is to remain, will conform with the bulk requirements of the Zone. As noted above, technical variances are needed because the lot, technically a through lot, has insufficient frontage on Homestead Road. As a result a variance is needed for that condition. It should also be noted that in addition thereto, Ordinance #21-9.13 requires all front yards must face on a 50' right-of-way or at least 40' where 28.13' is proposed. The Board finds that the variances are justified.

4. There is a variance also needed for height of garage, where 16' is allowed,
19.6' proposed. In support thereof, because of the variance for height, the
applicant agreed to remove the "wings" of the garage to reduce it in size so
that the garage would conform with the setback requirements of the
Ordinance. However, the applicant stated that it would like to be able to keep

the garage as it exists, and the garage presently sits a little over one (1) foot over on the height requirements set forth by the Borough.

5. The Board finds that it can grant the relief requested and finds that the testimony offered on behalf of the applicant and by its engineer, Chick Gilligan, and its Planner, Cheryl Bergailo, persuasive. The Board finds that setting the lots as proposed create a better visual environment than taking down the house and creating two new homes at the site. The Board finds that by keeping the present structures on the premises, that the proposed subdivision will not only be a better alternative than removing the house, but would be a more sufficient use of the land as to both the existing house and garage.

6. The Board further finds that as both lots are substantially oversized for the Zone requirements and that as the existing lot is even more so, a subdivision helps promote appropriate population densities in the area. The Board finds that the removal of the multi-family residence at the premises will be an improvement to the area and as the house itself is a large old beautiful house on the property, and part of it goes back to the 1800s, it would be a loss to the Borough to remove it to develop the property along another street. For all these reasons, the Board finds that there is a sufficient positive aspect to this application to warrant the granting of the Minor Subdivision.

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 of 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 exceptional and undue hardship, upon the applicant. It should be noted that the Board finds that the building pre-dates the Site Plan Ordinances of the Borough and that the building and structures at the site exist there lawfully.
(b) The applicant has demonstrated that the purposed 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 granting of the application.
(c) The Board finds that the relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and that the relief will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinances of the Borough.

WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth and State of New Jersey, does hereby resolve to grant

Minor Subdivision approval to Robert Cardin and Angie Cardin for premises known as 304 Union Lane, Block 43.01, Lot 16. Said premises lying in the R-4 Zone along with a variance from Code Section 21-9.13 to allow the subdivision on a 40 foot right-of-way whereas the Ordinance requires a 50 foot right-of-way, and the deed perfecting the Minor Subdivision shall not be signed until all of the following conditions are met and until the Board Engineer shall signify to the Board Secretary, in writing, that said conditions have been met:

1. Payment of taxes and other applicable assessments, costs and fees to date including payment of all escrow fees.
2. Monmouth County Planning Board Approval or receipt of communication indicating no interest in the subject application or passage of the appropriate time period pursuant to law.
3. The Applicant shall post the appropriate performance guarantees and inspection fees in an amount to be determined by the Board Engineer's Office.
4. The Applicant shall comply with the letter of the Board Engineer Alan P. Hilla, Jr., PE, PP, CME, dated November 15, 2010.
5. In connection with the drainage aspects of Mr. Hilla's letter of November 15, 2010, compliance shall be done at the time of permitting process.
6. The Applicant shall revise its plan consistent with Mr. Hilla's comments on the basin system .to,the=satisfaction of the Board.
7. The Applicant shall remove the "wings" of the garage prior to the execution of the subdivision plat.
.8. The-Applicant shall obtain any outside. approvals deemed necessary by the
Board Engineer prior tothe plans beingexecuted by the Board Secretary. 9. The proposed lots and lot numbers shall be approved by the Borough Tax

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, or within any time frame allowed under the permit extension act, with the Minor Subdivision map having been executed by the date, together with the conforming deed being recorded with the Monmouth County Clerk's Office as required, it being understood that this.time limit is set by the Municipal land Use Law, as to the compliance with the terms of this Resolution, and the filing of the deed or the map to perfect this subdivision, it shall be applicant's obligation and responsibility to do so as it is applicant's obligation to comply with-saidlaw., 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 withoutsprejudice unless the applicant offers appropriate reason for the delay.

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/or requirements of the Borough Committee) by way of conditional preliminary concerning this Subdivision and land and that steps also be taken as may be deemed necessary by the Borough Committee to place the responsibility of same financially and otherwise upon the applicant and the principals involved as well as his heirs, successors and assigns."
A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Stenson and approved by the following roll call vote:

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

Noes: None
Note Eligible to Vote: Tim Sigler
The Board then turned to the continued hearing for Minor Subdivision for Block 48.01, Lots 9, 9.01, 10 & 10.01, 314 /2 & 316 % Fisk Avenue, owned by Michael Vesuvio.
Mr. Tim Middleton, Esq. came forward as the objecting attorney who spoke last at the December hearing and said he was finished with his testimony and was ready for closing arguments; Mr. Lou Felicetta, who was the attorney for the applicant], was also ready for closing arguments.
The hearing was then open for general comments from members of the audience and, hearing none, that portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Felicetta then approached the Board and commented it has been a long road and there were reasons for this, they had to build a case in order-to go to Superior Court if necessary. The applicant presented several witnesses, a Planning Expert, an Engineering Expert and an Architect; when looking at the totality of all that evidence there are reasons for granting the subdivision and.variances.
From the planning perspective, this is sound planning and that was testified to at length as well as the Engineer putting forth the best plan for this land which was substantiated by the Architect. The home designed for the lot was done from a safety point as well as aesthetics. He went on to say that, when looking at the Planner's testimony, they feel they have met the criteria of the Municipal Land Use Law, the hardship or C-1 criteria met that as well as the criteria for the riparian lots impact for that lot. They have to go to the DEP and feel confident they will meet their requirements. The C-2 criteria is clearly supported with this application and the Land Use Law if furthered by this application as far as light, air, open space, density issues, etc. and this was backed up by the Architect, Mr. Graham.
The negative criteria backed this up as well as there is no negative impact, the testimony by all the experts stated that this will be in keeping with the area as many lots

are undersized and this subdivision will be consistent with the zone plan here. Mr. Graham stated what could go on this lot and the Board should look at this as this directs what goes on these lots, they were split in the past and then got merged; all they ask if that the lot line be re-enforced. Case law says the Board has to look at how the application affects the surrounding areas and a lot of testimony was given on this.

The opponent to this application is on one of those undersized lots and the opposition's Planner admitted that lots are undersized in this area of Brielle and, on the fire safety issue, the opponent's Planner admitted to not reading the Fire Code. In regards to the easement, it has been there a long time and will continue to be there and has been adequate for access so the Board can consider this as presented.

The Board also heard from Mr. Vesuvio himself who wants to have his family here and testified that when he purchased this property they were two separate lots; he is still receiving two tax bills for two properties. Mr. Felicetta then thanked the Board for their patience and he asked for approval of this Minor Subdivision.

Mr. Middleton then came forward and stated the applicant is proposing to subdivide the property and is asking for 11 separate variances and these are a significant deviation such as 33% and 18% over on the building coverage. He said the Board has to determine the positive criteria have been met and are there legitimate reasons to grant these variances. The Board has to look at the negative criteria and see if this will affect this area of town, case law is clear that evidence of an undersized property is negative criteria; he did not see the positive criteria because other lots are undersized.
Then there is hardship which always relates to the land, such as a very long narrow lot; it does not relate to individuals,-so the fact that Mr. Vesuvio thought he had purchased two lots instead of one does not apply here as a hardship. Also, there is no proof that the Board should approve this application with 11 variances and Mr. Middleton asked what is unusual on this lot that would constitute a hardship; it's flat and not odd sized, it just has a riparian grant which a lot of Brielle homes have and said the land under the water does not relate to the land.

He went on to say the properties will be overbuilt and cited a similar argument with Dalton vs. Ocean Township Board of Adjustment where an undersized lot was illegally subdivided and the purchaser did not know this; the Court said innocence is not justified in granting a variance. Mr. Vesuvio could have obtained a Certificate of Subdivision and that would have barred this argument now but his closing attorney did not do what is required and get this.

The Board also has to consider the second part of the positive criteria, the C-2 requirements created in 1984. The Legislature realized there was a problem if hardship could not be proved so the Municipal Land Use Law was amended to show positive criteria; if granting a variance would benefit the community and is the variance a better alternative that the Ordinance requirements. The applicant raised two or three

arguments on this saying that one monster home would be less preferable than two smaller homes on two separate lots; however, this fails as there could never be a monster home on this lot as only 635 more square feet can be added to the existing home which takes up 15.41% coverage now. The house is fairly large and can have 2,700 square feet in total and Mr. Middleton felt this was a scare tactic because a huge brick home was shown by the Architect and the volume of the square footage that would be produced is much greater if the subdivision were granted;
The other argument was that somehow the view from Fisk Avenue to the Glimmer Glass was some scenic vista that should be protected. Mr. Middleton said he has been up and down Fisk Avenue for the past 25 years and has never stopped to see the vista here. If the applicant-adds-another 635 square feet to the existing home one would still see the vista of the Glimmer Glass, so this argument makes no sense.

Another argument raised was that the community would benefit because it would promote the proper population densities and there is case law on this also, Kauffman vs. Warren. The population density is usually raised on a vastly oversized lot, perhaps an odd shaped lot such as a pie shaped, etc. In the Kauffman lot the property was 65,000 square feet, as shown on Exhibit 0-3. This ended up with two lots, one over 40,000 square feet and one over 20,000 square feet, but narrow; what the Court said was this area of the community is one that the town saw a density issue, if this was not granted the lot would be 325% over. So this applied to the large lot and the town brought population density into play. The applicant took this case and applied it to Brielle but it doesn't work as this lot is over 13,000 square feet and that is all; Mr. Middleton said he has never seen the Kauffmann case applied to such a small lot. The applicant's Planner studied 9.9 acres and the density was 2.93 units per acre and the Brielle Master Plan permits 3.87 per acre and the applicant is requesting 6.24 units per acre along with the variances, this is not the Kauffmann Case.
Mr. Middleton went on to say another significant fact is his Planner compared the old tax map and the new tax map which showed that some lots had merged and the map went from 50 properties to 29 larger lots, this has been the trend in this area. He also added the applicant did not establish lot frontage and then Mr. Middleton spoke of the discussion on the Fire Lane. He provided testimony on the concern of the width of the easement and the maintenance of it, the Fire Code recommends an 18 foot easement; the Municipal Land Use Law talks about the health, safety and welfare and the Board has to consider these standards. The Fire Code speaks of 18 feet for emergency vehicles and Mr. Middleton noted Southern Monmouth County just had a 33 inch snowstorm and wondered how emergency vehicles would have responded to this property.
He finished by stating this applicant has not proved the positive criteria, just because are small lots in the neighborhood does not mean this should be approved. He thanked the Board for their time and considerations.

The Board then went into discussion starting with Mr. Harman who agreed this was a long case; he felt more due diligence should have been done here and that there will be too much structure on two small lots and he would not be in favor of the subdivision. Mr. Langenberger said, even if he puts aside the fire safety, he keeps seeing two things; two undersized lots with two oversized houses -- he would not be in favor. Mr. Sarnasi had given this case a lot of thought, more than any one that has come before the Board since he came on; this is in an R-3 zone and he sees a density issue and felt the Master Plan should be followed. Mr. Stenson could not see 11 different variances; one being three feet over in height; he agreed they were asking for too much. Mr. Sigler-felt there will be a burden of the homeowner in the front and was not in favor; Mayor Nicol thought there,_were_too_.many variances, he was worried about the safety equipment and was not in.;favor. Mr. Condon commented that both attorneys were very informative and the Board appreciates this, but the properties are too small and he would not be in favor of this subdivision.

Mr. Felicetta said he has heard the Board comments and may want to withdraw this application, however, Mr. Cantoli told the Board they do not have to do this. Mr. Sigler then made a motion to deny this application, this seconded by Mr. Langenberger and the denial was approved by the following roll call vote:

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


The Board then turned to an Informal Hearing for property located at 417 Union Lane for a possible Minor Subdivision, the fee of $150.00 was paid for this hearing. Ms. Colleen Panzini came forward for her mother to explain this request. This property is right up the street at 417 Union Lane and there is a modest home on this lot which is 50-some years old; to the east of this property is an undersized lot with a 50 foot frontage and 75 feet is required in this zone, R-3.

They are looking at a possible subdivision to create two 50 foot wide lots and they feel this will fit in this neighborhood due to the fact that across the street the Zone becomes an R-4 which allows 50x100 foot lots - their property will create two 50x125 foot lots. They plan to have two smaller homes here which will meet all setback requirements, so they will only need two variances for lot width. Mr. Sarnasi asked if they could purchase any more land and the answer was no, everything around them is developed. They are here due to the fact that the R-4 zone is right across the street.

Mr. Langenberger noted that her mother had come in to speak to him as Code Enforcement and she said the lot was 125' x 100', not 100' x 125' and Ms. Panzini thought she just had gotten mixed up on the numbers. Mr. Langenberger said he did some research and there are roughly 60 lots here with only 2 lots on the R-4 side that

have 50 feet and he found 2 lots on the R-3 side that were 60 feet wide. He would be against 50 foot wide lots in this Zone. Mr. Sarnasi said he had a problem with it also, as well as other members of the Board.

Ms. Panzini thanked the Board for allowing her to come in informally before spending all the money on a formal subdivision plan.

As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Sigler and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 8:35 pm.

Ka'ren S. Brisben, Recording Secretary