www.briellenj.com
A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ


November 8, 2011

January 27 2012

November 8, 2011

BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011

The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, November 8, 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 Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, James Stenson, Terre Vitale

Absent - John O'Donnell, Tim Sigler

Also present were Michael Rubino, Board Attorney, Claire Odud, Board Engineer for Alan Hilla, Jr. and Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary. There were 10 people in the audience.

Chairman Condon then called the meeting to order and declared a quorum. He announced that, in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of this Body's meeting had been sent to the official newspapers of the Board fixing the time and place of all hearings.

The Minutes of the October 11, 2011 meeting were approved on a motion by Mayor Nicol, seconded by Mrs. Vitale and approved unanimously by voice vote, all aye.

CORRESPONDENCE:

All Board members received the September issue of the NJ Planner. They also received a report from Monmouth County Planning Board regarding Wastewater Management Plan.

OLD BUSINESS:

The Board then turned to the approval of a Resolution for Block 24.01, Lot 8, 523 Longstreet Avenue, owned by Nicholas Burbelo & Natalie Brick, to allow construction of a second floor addition, deck & roof structure to an existing dwelling.

As all Board members, as well as 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 and State of New Jersey has before it an application for variances set forth below on behalf of Nicholas Burbelo for premises known as 523 Longstreet Avenue in the Borough of Brielle, said premises also being known as Block 24.01, Lot 11,and the applicant asking for variances for side yard setback for second floor dormer and side yard setback for deck addition and the Board having reviewed the plan submitted and prepared by Nicholas Burbelo, PE dated August 20, 2011 and the survey prepared by Hayes A. Hewitt, PLS dated February 24, 2011 depicting the limits of the improvements and the Board having held a hearing on the matter on October 11, 2011, and at that time the Board having listened to the testimony offered on behalf of the applicant and 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 set forth above, and the Board having made the following findings of fact:

1. The Board finds that the house in question, as per the above captioned survey, has been on the lot for a substantial period of time. The applicant proposes to add a second floor expansion to the premises which will serve as a master suite. The new construction will not extend past the existing setback lines of the first floor of the house,. which encroaches on the two side setbacks. The Board finds that the addition for the second floor dormer requires a setback of 10 feet and the applicant is requesting to set it at 8 feet. This is a 2 foot deviation and lines up with the existing house. The applicant is also asking for a side yard setback for a second floor deck addition whereas 10 feet is required and the applicant is asking for 8.5 feet. This again is an extension of the first floor and will not extend past the lines that exist at the house.
2. The Board finds that a hardship exists in that the existing house violates the side yard setback of the Ordinance and it would be difficult to add a meaningful addition without creating these additional violations.
3. The Board also finds that the addition proposed will be an enhancement aesthetically to the area, and that the violations that exist and the intrusions are minor, that there will be no detriment to the area by the granting of the relief requested.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board that it adopts the aforesaid findings of fact, and based upon the aforesaid finding 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 affected 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. It should be noted that the Board finds that the building predates 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 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.
d. 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.

WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle does hereby grant variance approval to Nicholas Burbelo for side yard setback for second floor dormer and side yard setback for deck addition. 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 througfltthe current quarter and through the quarter in which he receives his-ihitial construction permit.
5. Subject to the applicant paying in full all application fees, renew fees, engineering and consulting fees, and escrows. Subject to the applicant posting deposits for the required engineering and inspection fees, in amounts fixed by the Board and/or Borough Engineers.
6. Subject to the applicant obtaining and complying with the approval of any other reviewing agency having jurisdiction over the improvement of the property as proposed under this project, including but not limited"to the Board of Health, the Borough Engineer, the Borough Fire Official and any County, State or Federal agency; provided, however, that in the event that any other agency or authority shall require any changes in the plans herein approved, then any such changes must be submitted to this Board for review and approval. Further, if another governmental agency grants a waiver or variance of a regulation, which same affects this approval or any condition attached hereto, or otherwise requires any changes in the plans herein approved, then this matter shall be brought back before the Board for review of any such action, and the Board shall have the right to modify this approval andlor the conditions attached hereto.

SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

1. The applicant agrees that the second floor deck will not be enclosed without further permission from the Board.

A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mrs. Vitale, seconded by Councilman Garruzzo and approved by the following roll; call-vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman .Frank Garruzzo, Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, James Stenson, Terre Vitale

Noes - None

The Board then turned to the approval of a Resolution for Block 59, Lots 1617.01, 18 Crescent. Drive, owned by Doane & Kathie Kelly, to allow change in grade.

Mr. Rubino noted a fax received by the Kellys' attorney, Mr; Aikins, asking for a few changes to some typographical errors and the removal of a paragraph that was left in from another Resolution. As Mr. Rubino was in agreement to these. changes, the following was presented for approval:

"WHEREAS, the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth, has before it an application for development for variance approval as set forth below on behalf of Doane & Kathie Kelly for premises known as 18 Crescent Drive, Borough of Brielle, said premises also being known as Block 59, Lot 16;.16.01, 17 & 17.01., said premises lying in the R-3 Zone and the applicants previously been before the Board and having obtained a variance to build on the premise in 2009 and since then the applicant having changed their grading plan and the Borough Engineer having made a determination that the grading plan should be revised by the Board under Section 2-09.16 of the Borough Ordinance, and a new grading plan having been submitted to the Board by Jason L. Ficher, PE revised September 14, 2011 along with corresponding documents and the Board having held an open public hearing on the matter on October 11, 2011 and at that time having listened to the testimony of the applicant along with the applicants' engineer and the Board having reviewed the plans submitted, 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 21-9.16 establishes the maximum soil removal/addition criteria for all development within the Borough. The Planning Board previously approved an increase the grade at this property by a maximum-of 3.2 feet utilizing 10,071-cubic feet of fill. The applicant wishes to increase the depth and amount of fill by an additional maximum of 3.4 feet with an additional 16,983 cubic feet of fill. As the grading plan depicts grade changes of greater than 2 feet and filling in excess of that allowed by Ordinance, Planning Board approval is required for the proposed landform changes.
2. Code Section 21-40 limits the installation of walls and fence to a maximum of 6 feet in height. Nearly all of the proposed fence/wall system proposed along the Donnelly Place property line will exceed that 6 foot limitation (as viewed from Donnelly Place) by up to 2.5 feet. Accordingly, a variance will be required for this proposed non conformity.
3. During the course of the construction process the applicant was requested by the NJDEP to raise the original proposed bulkhead height by approximately 2 feet. As a result of such request by the NJDEP the bulkhead had to be raised along with the necessity of additional grading and fill, which was greater than the original plan proposed by the applicant.
4. The Board is satisfied after listening to the testimony offered by the applicant that the additional grade and the height of the fence are necessary per the instructions of the NJDEP. The Board is also satisfied that there will be no adverse impact as a result of the change of grade and that the change will be done in a safe manner so as not to adverse the impact on the residential neighbor of the property, which is on the south side of the property. The Board finds that their grading plan protects that neighbor's property. The Board finds that the other three sides of the property are surrounded by streets that the grading will not negatively impact the same. The Board also finds that the fence proposal provides enhanced privacy when viewed by Donnelly Place, a public right of way.
5. The Board finds that the property is unique and that it borders the Manasquan River and presents construction problems because of the unusual change in grade at the site and the necessity of providing bulk heading to the satisfaction of the NJDEP. For these reasons, the Board also finds that there will be no negative impact to the surrounding property owners should the application be granted. Further, the Board finds that there will be no negative impact to the intent and purpose neither of the zoning laws nor of the Master Plan of the Borough by granting this application.

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Board that it adopts the aforesaid findings of fact, and based upon the aforesaid finding 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 affected 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 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 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 hereby grants Minor Site Plan approval along with the Use Variance and bulk variances as specified herein. 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 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 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 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 variande of a resolution, 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 CONDITIONS

1. The construction will be built substantially in accordance with the plans referred to herein by InSite Engineering, Jason L. Fichter, PE, PP."

A motion for approval of the above Resolution was made by Councilman Garruzzo, seconded by Mr. Sterison and approved by the following roll call Vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, James Langenberger, James Stenson, Terre Vitale,

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: Thomas Condon, James Harman, Charles Sarnasi

OTHER BUSINESS:
The Board moved the agenda around to allow for an Executive Session to take place before hearing the rest of the applications, and the following Resolution was presented on a motion by Mrs. Vitale:

"WHEREAS, the Open Public Meetings Act permits the exclusion of the public from a meeting in certain circumstances, and

WHEREAS, the Brielle Planning Board is of the opinion that such circumstances presently exist,

NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle on November 8, 2011 as follows:

1. The public shall be excluded from discussion of and action upon the hereinafter specified subject matter.
2. The general nature of the subject matter to be discussed is as follows: Pending Litigation.
3. It is anticipated at this time that the above subject matter will be made public in the near future."

The motion for approval of this Resolution was seconded by Mr. Stenson and unanimously approved by voice vote, all aye. The Board went into Executive Session at 7:35 p.m.

On a motion by Mr. Stenson, seconded by Mr. Harman, the Board closed the Executive Session and went back to the public meeting at 7:55, this approved unanimously by voice vote, all aye.

NEW BUSINESS:

The Board then considered an application for Variance for Block 62.01, Lot 9.02, 810 Rathjen Road, owned by James & Susan Stenson, to allow construction of a screened rear porch addition to the.principal structure. Rear Setback.-4. feet required, 23.5 feet proposed, 16.5 foot variance requested.

The fee of $300 was paid, taxes are paid to,date and property owners within 200 feet as well as the newspaper were properly notified. Mr. Stenson stepped off the dais as this was for his property and his wife, Susan Stenson, came forward and was sworn in. Before the testimony, Mr. Rubino said that Mr. Stenson had called him as he was a Board member; Mr. Rubino did some research and found no problem but suggested his wife testify.

Mrs. Stenson said they are asking for a variance for 16.5 feet in their rear yard as they would like to put in a screened-in porch on the existing deck to keep the mosquitoes out. She said they are. not going out farther than the deck and the screens will be removable; there will be no heat or air conditioning but they will put in electricity.

Councilman Garruzzo asked how big this will be as the deck looks a little irregular in shape. Mrs. Stenson said they are squaring it off the porch area to 15x15 feet. Mr. Harman asked about the roof and was told there will be a new roof put on. He then asked if they will be covering more lot area than they have now and the answer was maybe an additional 4x4 feet. Mr. Condon asked if the roof will cover the whole deck and she said no, just the screened-in porch area, she also stated the screens will be on mahogany removable frames.

Mr. Sarnasi felt this was a good idea to keep bugs out so they could enjoy the outdoors here and the rest of the Board had no comments or questions. At this time the hearing was opened for questions from the public and, as there were none, that portion was closed. It was then opened again for general comments and again there was no response so that portion was closed.

As the Board had no further comments and all were in agreement in granting the variance request, Councilman Garruzzo made a motion to approve this applications this seconded by M.S. Vitale and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi, Terre Vitale

Noes: None

The Board turned to the last item on the agenda, an application for Use Variance for Block 66, Lot 2, 707 Union Avenue, (Site of old Brielle Galleries), owned by Brielle Holdings, LLC - applicant Kelly Ann McEvoy, to allow a dance studio. Not a Permitted Use in the C-1 Zone, Use Variance required. Off-street parking -- variance requested for 8 spaces (estimated).

The fee of $500 was paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners within 200 feet as well as the newspaper- were properly notified. Before this hearing started Mayor Nicol and Councilman Garruzzo stepped off the dale, this is a Use Variance and they are not permitted to sit for this.

Mr. Michael Landis, Esq. came forward to represent Ms. McEvoy & Brielle Holdings, LLC. He started by stating the dancing school will not be using more than one unit, the units in question total 2,514 square feet but the dancing school will be using 1,257 square feet, so with less square footage they only need 4 parking spaces. The dance studio will be used to teach children and will be in one of the back units (in the rear building).

Kelly McEvoy came forward and was sworn in, stating she will be teaching ballet, tap & jazz to the children; she now has 5 to 12 students in her school Which, is located by Mariner's Cove Diner, her largest class is 12 but she might grow to 14 students per class, no more. There are two instructors working that alternate the classes and each class will be between 4 pm and 8 pm Monday and Thursday and maybe one class on Friday. These are one hour classes and she has 4 to 5 classes per day. She also has two pre-school classes in the morning and early afternoon.

Mr. Landis asked how the students arrive & park and she answered the parents usually car pool, the children are just dropped off and the parents pull right out, there is no parking done. Mr. Landis commented that even though there is a parking space shortage there is not parking done, they come in one way and go out the other way. Ms. McEvoy said she has no parking problem now where she is. Mr. Landis said there would be 12 spaces available for her use and she said that was enough and gave the example of one mother who brings 5 kids.

Mr. Harman asked about recitals and Ms. McEvoy said they all are non-profit. Last year they performed at Sea Girt School and this year they are thinking about performing at Brielle Elementary School. Mr. Langenberger asked when the am classes are for the preschoolers and was told 9:30-noon Tuesday. He then asked if the other units are occupied and the. answer was no. Mr. Langenberger wanted to know if there are arrows pointing in for the one way roadway and Ms. McEvoy was not sure but noted it's on the plans. Mr. Langenberger referred to the 2007 Resolution of approval for this site which stated there are to be arrows showing direction of traffic and he did not feel this was done, there are no markings and this driveway is shared with the rental next door so there is nothing noting a one-way in and someone can leave that way. Mr. Rubino told Mr. Langenberger the landlord, who is present, can answer this, not the applicant.

Mr. Stenson felt that moms might want to stay and watch and do they not do this because of the lack of room? Ms. McEvoy said they can but she does not recommend it as it's distracting to the kids; Mr. Stenson felt that if even half stayed if could be a problem. Mr. Landis answered by stating they do have 12 spaces, it's.the Ordinance that says they need 16 spaces. Mr. Sarnasi asked if there are any kind of retail sales here and the answer was no.

As there were no further questions from the Board the hearing was opened to the public for questions to Ms. McEvoy. Hearing none, that portion of the hearing was closed.

Eric Buckman, the Principal of Brielle Holdings,LLC, came forward and was. sworn in. He stated the markings in the driveway and lot were painted and they may have worn off; he was willing to repaint the area. Mr. Langenberger said there should also be signs that say "one way." so there is painting needed as well as signage; he noted this was also a concern of the Police Department as stated in their report>to the Board. Mr. Buckman said this will be done. Ms. Odud spoke and agreed-that there is no signage now, she rode through and found no markings, this should be one-way as it is tight.

Mr. Langenberger did not want to see anyone pulling out on the north side, only the south side and he suggested a "caution" sign for the south side in pulling out as this is a blind spot to Route #71. Mr. Stenson felt an "Enter" and "Exit" sign may work here also, but Mr. Condon felt that would be too many signs and it may cause confusion; he was agreeable to the "one way" signs. Mr. Buckman again agreed to this. Mr. Harman commented that all this should be maintained: when done and Mr. Rubino suggested having this done before a CO is issued but Mr. Langenberger told him there are no COs on commercial establishments. Mr. Rubino then thought this condition could be done by the time of the Resolution in December.

Mr. Langenberger brought up another issue not associated with this application. When snow plowing was done last winter a Borough fence that abuts his property was damaged and still has not been repaired, he would like to see this taken care of, Mr. Rubino asked Mr. Buckman when this can be done and he answered he would look into it but was told it was his fence, not the Borough's; Mr. Langenberger said he would find out if it was a Borough fence or not. Mr. Landis said if it is their responsibility they will fix it; Mr. Rubino said he will word the Resolution "as determined by the Board Engineer".

Mr. Buckman proceeded to state there are three units in the rear building and two of them are empty, right now he is only one-half filled with the two buildings; the total square footage is 16,988 and out of that 8,600 square feet are empty.

Mr. Sarnasi asked about lighting and Mr. Buckman said sodium lamps and they are also on the building by the entrance. Mr. Sarnasi asked if it is head-on parking and Mr. Buckman said it is a little bit of an angle. He then asked about handicapped parking and was told there is an area for this and he will check to make sure it is marked and painted. Mr. Sarnasi said he wa's just thinking of safety with kids coming out onto the lot and he also agreed Highway # 71 is busy; he suggested perhaps passing dutflyers when the classes start here explaining the ingress and egress issue; Mr. Condon wanted to know if a professional did the painting back in 2007 and the answer was yes.

As there were no further Board questions, the hearing was opened to the public for questions to Mr. Buckman: and, as there were none, that portion was closed and Mr. Landis did a summary. He felt the positive and negative criteria had been satisfied and the approval of this application will enhance the commercial district; there is no detriment to the public good and Zoning Plan or Ordinance. As far as the parking, they are short spaces but it will not have an impact here as there will not be meaningful parking and the rear building is set back off Route 71. The Borough allowed a Dancing School in the created C1-A Zone which is right next door so this use will also work here.

The hearing was again opened to the public, this time for general comments and, as there were none, that portion was closed. Mr. Condon asked Ms. McEvoy if she was keeping the other dancing school as well or just moving it to this location and she said she is moving-and will have just one school. Mrs. Vitale was in favor of this application as long as the signage was addressed and Mr. Stenson agreed with her. Mr. Langenberger said he would be the last person to be against a business in town but he has seen the traffic flow with another dance studio at the other end of town and there has been a problem there. He was concerned with all 12 moms coming in and out at the same time and felt it was a wrong business for this property, he would have a hard time with this.

Mr. Harman agreed it was not an ideal spot but the town is looking for commerce here and he did not want to be negative about growth and he asked Ms. McEvoy about the class size. Ms. McEvoy said she has small classes now and does not have room for more than 14 kids. She understands the problems with Dance for Joy but they have hundreds of students, she had a business that was larger and does not want that any more, they will be small classes. Mr. Langenberger then commented that if all,the safety issues are addressed, he would be for it. Mr. Landis said they will have all the work done before the Resolution approval at the December 13th meeting of the Board.

At this time Mr. Condon made a motion to approve this application with the conditions on signage, maximum of 14 students per class, no expansion without coming back before this Board, having the fence repaired and all striping done. This motion was seconded by Mrs. Vitale and approved by the following roll. call vote:

Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Charles Sarnasi; James Stenson, Terre Vitale

Noes: None

As there was no further business to come before the Board, a motion Was Made by Mrs. Vitale to adjourn, this seconded by Mr. Stenson and approved unanimously by the Board, all aye. Thee meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm.

Katen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary

Approved:

 

RELATED LINKS