Borough of Brielle, NJ
| May 10, 2011
May 10, 2011
|BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, MAY 10th, 2011
The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, May 10, 2011 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 B. Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Terre Vitale, Charles Sarnasi and James Stenson
Absent - Tim Sigler
Michael Rubino, Board Attorney was present. Also present was Francis Accisano, Alternate Board Attorney. Sherri E. Hopkins recorded the minutes.
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 April 12th, 2011 meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Harman and approved by voice vote, all aye.
The Board then turned to the Approval of Resolution for Variance for Block 89.01, Lot 7.01, 608 Oceanview Road, owned by Michael and Lynn Mastrocola to allow grading that exceeds 2% of the lot area expressed in cubic feet.
Resolution of Approval for Mr. and Mrs. Michael Mastrocola,
608 Oceanview Road Block 89.01, Lot 7.01
WHEREAS as the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth and State of New Jersey has an application before it on behalf of Mr. and Mrs, Michael Mastrocola for premises known as 608 Oceanview Road, Block 89.01, Lot 7.01, Brielle, New Jersey and said premises also being known as Block 89.01, Lot 7.01 in the Borough, to allow a change of grade that exceeds 2% of the lot area expressed in cubic feet and the Board having held an open public hearing on April 12, 2011 and at that time having listened to the testimony of the applicants and objectors, if any, and the applicants having appeared pro se; 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 set forth above, and the Board having made the following findings of fact:
1. Applicants seek permission to allow construction of a new in ground pool, fence and retaining wall in conjunction with the two story single family dwelling currently under construction at the property. An application package included a plot plan/grading plan set prepared by Ray Carpenter, PE revised December 14, 2010 depicting the proposed improvements.
2. The request for the zoning permit was denied because Code Section 21-9.6 states that in the event that the quantity of fill or cut associated with development exceeds 2% of the lot area expressed in cubic feet exclusive of the volume associated with the structure construction, planning board approval is required. The board considers this a variance request.
3. The proposed land form to accommodate the construction of the in ground pool and retaining wall calls for a net tot filling of 844 cubic feet where 300 cubic feet is the maximum allowed.
4. The applicant offered expert testimony at the April 12, 2011 hearing by its Engineer Ray Carpenter who testified that the applicant wants to build in the rear yard of the premises so as to put a patio and pool there. There is presently approximately a 7 foot change in grade in the rear property yard now. The applicant proposes to change the grade to make it less severe.
5. The Board finds that the applicant will be putting in a drainage recharge system in three sections of the yard which will be picking up drainage making a great improvement to the drainage system at the property. The Board finds that the construction proposed is in keeping with the safe standard required by RSIS Stormwater Management standards,
6. The Board finds that not only will there be a significant improvement to the drainage/stormwater management at the premises, there will also be an improvement as to how the same affects the property neighbors.
7. The Board therefore finds that a hardship exists at the property and that the proposed construction will improve the existing conditions at the property and will therefore not negatively impact the Borough or the properties surrounding the subject property. Therefore the Board finds that it can grant the application.
WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth and State of New Jersey does hereby resolve to grant variance Approval to Mr. and Mrs. Michael Mastrocola for premises known as 608 Oceanview Road, Brielle, New Jersey, said premises also being known as Block 89.01, Lot 7.01 for variance approval to allow the proposed construction. The granting of this relief is subject to the following:
1. Payment of taxes and other costs and fees to date.
2. The applicant shall comply with requirements of the letter of Alan Hilla, Jr. the Board Engineer.
Adopted: 10th, May 2011
Moved: James Langenberger
Seconded: Councilman Frank Garruzzo
Not eligible to vote: Charles Sarnasi, James Stenson, Terre Vitale
Absent: Tim Sigler
Application for Mariner's Bend, Block 120 Lot 9.17 C0017, 9.18 C0018, 9,14 C0014, #17, #18, and #14 Mariner's Bend owned by Greentree Investment Group, LLC appealing the zoning officer's determination and stop work order due to changes on units.
Due to a conflict of interest Attorney Francis Accisano was presiding over this juncture of the meeting, for Board Attorney Rubino. Attorney Accisano swore in Alan Hilla Jr., Zoning Officer, Thomas Hirsch Attorney for Greentree Investment Group, Edwin Hale and Stuart Challoner, Engineer and Planner.
Thomas J, Hirsch, Attorney, at Law, represented Greentree Investment group; LLC. Mr. Hirsh cited three appellate cases that he felt had similarities to the Mariner's Bend application. All three cases determined that a decision cannot be made on what MIGHT happen.
Mr. Hirsch then introduced Mr. Hale managing member from Greentree Investment Group, LLC and member of the Mariner's Bend Association Board.
Mr. Hale introduced into evidence A1-the original floor plans of condo #14, #17 and #18. Also A2- the new floor plans of condo #14, A3- the new floor plans of condo #17 and A4- the new floor plans of condo #18. Mr. Hale was asked by Mr. Hirsch when Greentree became the owners of said property. Mr. Hale responded around October 2010.
Mr. Hale proceeded to give details on the old and new floor plans of all three condos.
Condo #14 Old Floor Plans:
Ground level: 2-car garage, rec room with wet bar and fireplace
2nd level: Dining room, living room, den, kitchen and full bath
3rd level: Master bedroom, 2nd bedroom, master bath, full bath and loft New Floor Plans:
Ground level: 2-car garage, rec room, utility room, and full bath
2nd: Dining room, living room atrium, enlarged kitchen wlisland, butler's pantry, laundry and full bath
3rd level: Master bedroom, 2nd bedroom, master bath, full bath, den and attic w/pull down stairs
Condo #17 Old Floor Plans:
Ground level: 2-car garage, rec room wlwet bar
2nd level: Dining room, living room, den, kitchen, laundry room, powder room, one bedroom wlfull bath
3rd level: Owner's suite w/master bath, den and 2-story loft overlooking suite
New Floor Plans:
Ground level: 2-car garage, rec room w/wet bar, laundry room and full bathroom -
2nd level: Dining room, living room, powder room, one bedroom w/full bath and enlarged kitchen
3rd level: Master bedroom w/ master bath, office, laundry room and attic w/pull-down stairs
Condo #18 Old Floor Plans:
Ground level: 2-car garage, rec room wlwet bar, utility room and small room
2nd level: Dining room, living room, den, kitchen, one bedroom wl full bath 3rd level: Owner's suite, master bath and 2-story loft
New Floor Plans:
Ground level: 2-car garage, rec room w/wet bar and full bath
2nd level: Dining room, family room, laundry room, full bath, and kitchen
3rd level: master bedroom w/master bath, 2nd bedroom wlfull bath, den and
attic w/pull-down stairs
A bevy of questions was asked by members of the Planning Board during Hale's floor plan presentation.
Mayor Nicol asked if you could access the loft without going through the master bedroom. Mr. Hale responded no. Councilman Garruzzo asked the size of the condos and if the three condos were all the same size. Mr. Hale stated the condos were between 3000 and 4500 sq. ft. and with different floor plans. Mr. Hirsch asked the size of the attic space. Mr. Hale responded approximately 15ft. X 15ft. with pull down stairs. Mr. Hirsch stated "We are not here to ask to change deed restrictions".
Mr. Hale added the project changes were to make the condos more marketable. He noted the Condo Association by-laws firmly stated two bedrooms. Mr. Hirsh continued by saying clearly the board wanted to limit the number of bedrooms. With ten basements already being finished, the town doesn't seem to have taken the position that you couldn't finish the basement, as the original plans showed some of the units with wet bars and fireplaces on the approved plans and applications.
The concerns seem to be with the number of bedrooms because of the density variance. The variance brought into the bedroom count because 15.5 units were allowed by the ordinance and the applicant proposed 18 units. Mr. Langenberger "The two bedrooms were very restricted because of the parking." Mr. Hirsch responded 41 .parking spaces were required and the applicant supplied 66 spaces according to the resolution. There by supplying 25 extra.
Mr. Hale stated that he has become familiar with several units and their owners because of his on-going involvement with the project. He continued by saying he has been in one unit with a full finished bathroom in the basement and one unit with a second kitchen in the basement. Some units were finished after the fact and-some were finished by the original builder as extras.
Al Hilla spoke of the situation with the patio. He went into details of how they have resolved that issue.
Chairman Condon opened the floor to the public for questions. No questions were asked and public portion was closed.
Chairman Condon opened the floor to the Board's questions. Mr. Sarnasi asked if they were not planning to change the number of bedrooms, why were they there? Mr. Hirsch responded, he was unsure except for Mr. Hilla's concern about the dens being used as a bedroom there by violating the deed restrictions. He continued so our argument is there was a den already approved on the plans, it is not what might happen. We agree that we should not be here and that we are asking for interpretation that we are not in violation and should be allowed to continue.
Mr. Langenberger reiterated his concern about the rec room being used as a third bedroom and marketed as such. He added that the board would stop it if marketed as such because it would be illegal. Mr. Hirsch agreed. Mr. Langenberger stated that perhaps there are several units in violation of the variance. The Board should look at this. Mr. Hirsh said they have no intention of changing the resolution....just playing around with the floor plans.
Mrs. Vitale added that while revisiting the issue, we should look into possible site violations. Mr. Garruzzo replied did these 10 units get permits or are they in violation? Mr. Hirsch responded Mr. Hilla has been out there to see the units and doesn't have an issue with the basement being finished but the introduction of full bathroom in basement.
Mayor Nicol was concerned about a full bath in basement. Mr. Condon would like to get a history. Mr. Hale stated that he was a member of the condo association. He continued that the association's position was "2 bedrooms" and if finishing the basement the unit owner must obtain the required permits.
Mr. Stenson questioned will the attic be an attic and nothing else? Mr. Hirsch responded yes & they will have pull-down stairs.
Mr. Condon announced that they were out of time this evening so they will have to come back next month. He finished by saying he would like them to provide a copy of the old and new floor plans to each member.
Mr. Accisano,- referring to the board, said the question to ask yourself, as you consider the application, is whether the Board of Adjustment at the time approved a floor plan and whether in fact that is what you are tied to. If you find that you are, I believe the applicant has given notice that they would request a modification of those and those resolutions going back to `98-'99.
Mr. Hilla was asked if he had any further comments. He showed concern for the introduction of the full bath in the basement which could change the use of the basement.
Mr. Hale responded to the concerns by saying they would be willing to change full bath to half bath if that is what the board would require.
Mr. Condon carried the application over to June 14th.
Application for minor subdivision Block 48.01 Lot 6, 327-331 Magnolia Avenue and Block 49.01 Lot 3, 326-330 Magnolia Avenue owned by George M. & George B. Schnugg.
Attorney Keith Henderson of Keith Henderson and Associates spoke and said the proper paperwork and utilities was submitted to the Borough. Mr. Henderson gave background information on the lots in question.
He proceeded to say that this was a unique application in Brielle with Perrine Blvd. in Manasquan, having a similar pattern of development. Two lots as noted in the upper corner subdivision map; the lots in question were originally six 50 foot lots with three on the north side and three on the south side. A dwelling was built with zoning changes to a 75 foot lot with lots merging, a single house in the middle. Mr. Schnugg would like to create two fully conforming lots on the south side close to Magnolia Ave. and to have ancillary waterfront lots which would provide more waterfront access, docks if permitted by DEP perhaps with ancillary uses and a shed but not seeking any variances.
If we had not involved these lots this would be a subdivision of rights. These lots create the complication because each of them in subdividing state is deficient as to lot area and depth. We believe the most efficient use of the property is to accentually pretend that street doesn't exist.
He then introduce property owner Bruce Schnugg, Bruce Schnugg, Trustee, was sworn in by Attorney Michael Rubino. He was then question by his attorney on the property. The property has been in his family for five generations, 100 yrs. or so. The existing dwelling was built by his family. The waterfront lots were three lots on the waterfront which were tapered down & the same thing on the other side of the street, the three lots. There was a shack, a boathouse & dock on the Glimmer Glass. There was an earthen bulkhead that was filled in. Bruce added there are old pictures of the dock showing existing structures.
Keith Henderson asked him if the two conforming lots on the south side of the property, the existing dwelling would have to be demolished as a condition of the subdivision. Would you be willing to do this prior to the subdivision? Yes, we-could get a bond. You could create two conforming lots but no structures at this time and no structures on the waterfront lots at this time but treated as ancillaries to these properties? Bruce answered yes to both questions,
No further questions Tom Condon opened the floor to the public for questions
Mr. Hilla asked would there be any development on the waterfront lots? Keith said under current laws there probably could put waterfront type use, a dock with DEP approval. A 10 x 12 shed for tackle use & not a boat. Mr. Henderson replied said if something is done down the road approval from the board is necessary. If we didn't include these lots we would be totally conformant and we could create easements across there for access and avoid this entirely but it's not the proper way.
Board Attorney Rubino interjected there would be some type of deed restrictions marrying the lots and agreeing to no future development. We could fine tune the word development. The intent is not to limit putting up a tackle shed but the waterside lot is not to be used to develop a separate home on an undersized lot.
Keith replied the word development bothers me. I don't want to be prohibited from doing something I can do by just leaving this out of the application. If I eliminate those I would subdivide those lots and worry about this with private easement. I could do those things. We're paying fees on a minor subdivision. I don't want to end up with property on the Glimmer Glass that I can't put any water depending uses as long as they are permitted. If someone has to come back to the board for that they should be able to come back.
Al said that was not my intent. I'm trying to think of whoever owns the property to apply criteria for future development. Keith said the answer is to comply with the accessory use.
Tom Condon opened the floor to the members of the board. No questions.
Keith remarked this is a simple application. Unusual for Brielle and it's common in Manasquan.
Tom opened the floor to the public no questions and a vote was taken for approval.
A motion to accept the application by Frank Garruzzo had been made and seconded by Terre Vitale; the following roll call vote was taken.
Ayes: Mayor Nicol, Councilman Garruzzo, Mr, Condon, Mr. Harman, Mr. Langenberger Charles Sarnasi, James. Stenson & Terre Vitale
Absent: Tim Sigler
As there was no other business to come before the board, a motion to adjourn was made by James Stenson, seconded by Terre Vitale and unanimously approved, all aye and the meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm.
Approved. Sherri E. Hopkins Board Secretary