www.briellenj.com
A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ


June 12, 2012

July 20 2012

June 12, 2012

BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD

TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 2012

The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 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, Thomas Condon, James Harman, James Langenberger, Gina Murdoch, John O’Donnell, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler

Absent Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Nicholas Stango, James Stenson, Terre Vitale

Also present were Michael Rubino, Board Attorney, Claire Odud from Birdsall Engineering Services & Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary. There were 2 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 May 8, 2012 meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mrs. Murdoch and approved unanimously by voice vote, all aye.

Before going any further, Chairman Condon announced to the audience that the hearing for the Brielle Sports Club, scheduled for continuance this evening, was being postponed by the applicant to the July 10th Planning Board meeting; no further notice will be given on this postponement.

OLD BUSINESS:

As there was no correspondence, the Board turned to the approval of a Resolution for Block 73.01, Lot 8-8.01, 405 Riverview Lane, owned by Manasquan River Yacht Club, to allow construction of a two-story Sailing Center.

As all Board members, as well as the applicants and attorneys involved, had received a draft copy of the Resolution 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, State of New Jersey has before it an application for Preliminary and Final Site Plan approval with Use Variance and bulk variances on behalf of Manasquan River Yacht Club for premises known as 405 Riverview Lane, Brielle, New Jersey, said premises also known as Block 73.01, Lot 8 & 8.01 and an architectural plan consisting of one sheet having been prepared by Christopher Rice Architect dated October 31, 2011 and a site plan having been prepared by Charles W. Gilligan, PE, dated October 17, 2011 and the Board having held an open public hearing on January 10, 2012 and on March 13, 2012 and at that time the Board having listened to the testimony and its professionals and 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 as set forth above, and the Board having made the following findings of fact:

1. The property in question is located on the southwesterly side of Riverview Lane and borders the Manasquan River. The property adjoins premises owned by the Yacht Club located at Lots 5 and 5.01, Block 73.01. This location lies within the Borough’s R-2 Zone. The applicant has acquired the subject property and has removed the 2 ½ story framed dwelling on the property and proposes to construct a two-story sailing center in its place, keeping the same garage at the rear of the property. The plan also calls for the formalization of the existing gravel driveway that has served the previous homeowner, the proposed use which is to be used in conjunction with the Yacht Club and expansion thereof is a non-conforming use for the Zone.
2. Code Section 21-12.1 set forth permitted uses in the R-2 Zone. The only permitted use in said zone are one family dwelling structures. The applicant here proposes a two-story structure which would be similar to a house in looks which will serve as a sailing center in conjunction with the existing use of the Yacht Club property adjacent to it. The construction of the structure and its intended use are non-conforming for the Zone and constitutes an expansion of an existing non-conforming use of the Manasquan River Yacht Club. A Use Variance is, therefore, required for the proposed building and the expanded non-conformity of it.
3. It should be noted that the Yacht Club has been on the adjacent property since circa 1906 and has also used the waterfront in front of Lot 8 (Lot 8.01) at least since 1967 for its sailing purposes. Testimony was offered at the hearing that in the past the Yacht Club owned Lot 8 and 8.01 and sold it to persons who used the house for residential purposes but did allow Lot 8.01 for sailing purposes in conjunction with the Yacht Club. Subsequently, the Yacht Club took title to the property back and before this application was heard they removed the house that was on it. They propose a new building on the property.
4. The Board finds that there are approximately 275 members of the Club and that there is no intent by adding the subject building to increase the membership of the Club. The Board further finds that the Club has approximately 115 children in its summer sailing program and that the area in front of the proposed building will be used for sailing purposes for the children. The building itself will be part be used for the Junior Sailing Program and will be used to facilitate that program and will also be used for storage for sailing equipment (rigs, etc.).
5. It should be noted that during the course of the hearing testimony was offered, which the Board finds as true, that underground storage tanks and contamination were fund on the property and that the Yacht Club has taken proper steps to have the contamination removed and to do so, the house had to be taken down.
6. It should also be noted that during the course of the hearing, adjacent property owners, named Jeffrey and Susan Citron who reside at 820 Linden Lane, objected to the application by way of their attorney, Christopher John Stracco. After the first hearing and negotiations between Mr. Stracco and Mr. Keith Henderson, Attorney for the applicant, the applicant agreed to certain conditions/stipulations that were to be placed in this Resolution. Those stipulations are as follows:

(a) The Club would agree as condition of approval that it will not utilize Riverview Lane to access the Sailing Center for the purposes of drop-offs and pick-ups of sailing program students which will be at the Club’s main entrance where it currently occurs. Signs would be posted prohibiting dropping off and picking up of students in the rear of the new sailing center. A chain would be installed at the intersection of Riverview Lane and the driveway of the sailing center, which chain would be locked during all regattas and junior sailing programs.
(b) The Club would agree to a condition of approval that: (a) the new sailing center would not be open to the general public, and (b) would only be open for use by full members and guests of the Club or any hosted regattas.
(c) The Club would agree to a condition of approval that the hours of operation of the sailing center would be from one-half (1/2) hour before dawn to 11:00 p.m. for all activities.
(d) The Club would agree to a condition of approval that the new sailing center would not be used for dinners, parties, catered events or social events, other than the sailing program and educational events related to the sailing program. Nothing shall prohibit the outdoor barbecues which are currently provided on the river side of the sailing center for participants in the sailing programs.
(e) The Club would agree to a condition of approval that would limit the use of the entire said center second floor attic for storage, and not for office, social or other related uses.
(f) The Club would agree to a condition of approval that no waste/garbage disposal and removal containers or pick-up occur at the new sailing center. All waste/garbage disposal and removal containers or pick-up occur at the main Clubhouse.
(g) The Club would agree to a condition of approval to plant and maintain shrubbery or an additional landscape barrier and screen between the sailing center and the Citron property. A revised landscape plan will be provided to the Board in connection with the application for review and consideration by the Board and the public.
(h) The Club would agree as a condition of approval that the Club prohibit parking either by members or valets on Riverview Lane, except for delivery of sailing and related equipment to the sailing center, and/or removal of the same.

Said stipulations are made a part of this Resolution of approval and are conditions hereof. It should be noted that the Board finds that the conditions agreed to by the applicant and the objector are reasonable and the type that would normally be placed on this project by the Board.

7. With regard to the Use Variance, the Board finds as follows:
(a) The site is located on Riverview Lane in the R-2 Zone. Lot 8 contains a detached garage structure and recently contained a dwelling which was owned by a long time member of the Club. The lot is now owned by the Club which operates a yacht club and junior instructional program on adjacent Lots 5 and 5.01. It uses Lot 8.01 as well. The Yacht Club has been on the adjacent property for a number of years and has used Lot 8.01 since approximately 1967.
(b) The Board finds that the use promotes the general welfare because the proposed site is particularly suitable for the proposed use which meets a standard under the Medici Case and the Board also finds the use is an inherently beneficial use which meets a prong of the Medici standard. The Board finds that the junior sailing program can be considered inherently beneficial because it is a school and provides youth sailing instruction and boat training as well as recreation and socialization. Schools are inherently beneficial uses as defined by the MLUL, as such the Board considers the program that was testified to “youth sailing” that was an inherently beneficial use and as a result thereof the Board finds that as a justification for the gaining of the variances and Use Variance in question.
8. In addition thereto, the Board finds that the use promotes the general welfare because the proposed site is particularly suitable for the proposed use. The use is water dependent for recreational purposes and the proposed site is located on a State waterway (i.e. the Manasquan River). The Board finds that special reasons exist to support granting of the variance because of a State policy that shoreline resources should be utilized for recreational purposes and, therefore, the use of the property to house students and allow them access to the shore line meets the standard of the serving the general welfare and promoting the zoning purpose of providing recreational waterfront activity for the citizens of the State and of the local community. The Board notes that the existing site is adjacent to the Club and waterfront lease area and in the past the Club and waterfront have been used for recreational purposes. The subject property will use the existing infrastructure of the Club that is on the other lots for parking boat storage, docking which means that the subject building in use will be low intensity and as noted, the size of the building is residential compatible. The Board, therefore, finds that the proposal meets this standard of the Medici tests in evaluating the application.
9. The Board also, therefore, finds that there are other sections of the MLUL that have been met and advanced by the application. They are as follows:
(a) To encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use or development of all lands in this State, in a manner which will promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare;
(b) To provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreation, commercial and industrial uses and open space, both public and private, according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens;
(c) To promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangements.
The Board finds that in meeting these standards additional proof under the Medici requirements are satisfied.
10. The Board also finds that the proposed use will not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and that any detriments are mitigated to the greatest extent.
11. The Board finds that any detrimental effects to this application are minor and that there are no substantial detrimental effects that will result in the granting of it.
12. The Board is mindful in finding that the lawn area has historically been used by junior sailors by permission of the former land owner. Expansion of the use into a new building won’t increase noise on the site. The main parking lot will continue to be the only onsite parking for the Club other than the handicapped space on the subject property.
13. The Board finds that the following will mitigate the detrimental effects of the application. No parking lot is proposed on Lot 8. At present the Board finds that the non-residential use of the site is also mitigated by the fact that the R-2 Zone building standards are being complied with. The Board finds that the building has been designed to be very attractive. The other features of the lot will remain similar to residential features in nature. Therefore, the Board finds that on balance, the positive aspects of the use substantially outweigh the negative impact and that there is no substantial detriment to the public. Further, the Board finds that the restrictions entered unto by way of settlement on the record, and made a condition hereto, will significantly limit any detrimental impact to the neighborhood as a result of the proposed use.
14. The Board also finds that the granting of the Use Variance is not inconsistent with the intent and purpose of the Master Plan and Zoning Board Ordinance of the Borough. The Board also finds that such findings can be satisfactory reconciled with the continued omission of the proposed use from those permitted to the Zone. In addition to single family houses the R-2 Zone conditionally permits use that are equally or more intense than a yacht club, including:
(a) Government buildings and services which are necessary to the health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the inhabitants of the municipality;
(b) Churches, synagogues, parish houses and similarly religious use;
(c) Public utility installations.
15. The Board finds that the proposed use is a public benefit use similar to the
forgoing uses.
16. Additionally, the Board finds that although the Governing Body has not re-zoned Lots 5 and 5.01 for Yacht Club use, that does not automatically mean that the use is disfavored in this zone along the water’s edge. The Board in the past has approved improvements to the club property over the years. The Board finds that is understandable that the Governing Body may not want to zone two lots within a larger zoning district with non-residential use because it can be considered spot zoning. It should also be noted that as previously found the lot has been informally used by members of the Club for a long period of time, as has the Lot 8.01 waterfront. The character of the lot, as related to the Yacht Club, has been long been established. The Board, therefore, finds that it can reconcile the grant of the variance with the Zoning Ordinance.
17. The Board finds that the proposal is consistent with the Borough’s Master Plan.
(a) Overriding policies of the Master Plan and re-exam pertain to maintaining an enhancing of the maritime culture heritage of the Borough including recreation. The 2006 Master Plan re-examine indicates that existing waterfront sites should be maintained and provisions for a new waterfront site should become a Borough priority.
18. The Board also notes that in the 2002 Master Plan, principals were set forth to the following:
(a) Protection, enhancement and maintenance of areas suitable for public and quasi-public recreational activities;(b) Locating public, commercial, service and office uses at sites in and location which are suitable for their use environmentally, economically and geographically, and are compatible with existing uses, public facilities, roadways and natural features;
(c) Encourage a development pattern which will protect and enhance the long-term economic, environmental, and social welfare values of present and future residents of Brielle.
(d) Planning will encourage a variety of residential and non-residential conservation uses, which will enhance the Borough of Brielle as a quality suburban/residential and commercial maritime community in southern Monmouth County.
(e) To encourage commercial, office, serve and recreational development appropriate to a maritime community center, to provide employment for residents and to contribute to the stable economic and ratable base of Brielle.
19. Therefore, the Board finds that access to the waterfront is a planning priority in the Borough, which in this case will be accomplished through a private recreational group.
20. With regard to the needed parking variance, which is a bulk variance, the Board finds that this may be granted under the C-2 Criteria because the project meets the intent of the parking standard which is to provide sufficient parking. The Board finds that additional parking is not needed by the Club for the new building and the deviation will not create a substantial detriment to the community and does not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the Zone, plan and scheme.
21. The Board also finds that the driveway location deviation may be granted under the C-1 Criteria and that the location is existing and it would be an undue burden to require the applicant to alter its location. The Board also finds that it s relocating the driveway could possibly affect the ability to back out of the existing handicapped space. For those reasons the Board finds that it can grant the relief requested with regard to the driveway.
22. During the course of the hearing an objector raised an issue as to whether the application is actually an expansion to a non-conforming use which required relief under one section of the Land Use Statute or a new Use Variance in and of itself as Lots 8 and 8.01 are recently acquired. The Board finds that it is not necessary to delve into this question, as the standards of proof are the same, and that proper notice was given for a Use Variance. Besides that, the Board finds that the variance is to expand an existing non-conforming use. The existing use is at the property on Lot 5 and 5.01, and has been there for over 100 years. The Yacht Club has used the waterfront property at Lot 8.01 at least since 1967. The Board finds, therefore, that the applicant was properly entitled in expansion of a non-conforming use.
With regard to the bulk variances, the Board concludes that the applicant has satisfied the following:

1. 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 exceptional and undue hardship upon the applicant. It should be noted that the Board finds that the existing driveway at the site exists there lawfully;
a) 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.
b) 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 preliminary and final site plan approval, a Use Variance to expand the facilities as set forth on the plans and testimony to Lots 8 and 8.01 and for bulk variances for parking and location of driveway as specified herein. The Board also grants whatever waivers were requested subject to the following conditions:
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 the applicant receives the 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 required performance bonds and/or guarantees, as well as engineering and inspection fees, in amounts fixed by the Board and/or Borough Engineers, and in such form as shall be acceptable to the Borough Attorney and Governing Body.
1. 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, it another governmental agency grants a waiver or variance 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. All those conditions specified in Paragraph 6(a) through 6(h).
2. The applicant shall install a new fire hydrant, at their own expense, in close proximity to the Sailing Center. The exact location shall be provided by the Brielle Fire Department. Applicant shall not be required to satisfy this condition until and unless the Sailing Center is built.
3. Applicant shall have a period of sixty (60) months from the date of the adoption of this Resolution in which to commence the permitting process for the construction of the Sailing Center.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that as this application for development proceeds, the Land Use Office of the Borough may, upon the request of the applicant and with the written advice of the Board Engineer, grant such changes as are necessary with respect to the approved site plan and improvements related thereto that are not substantial and the Board does hereby authorize the Land Use Officer with the advice of the Board Engineer to take such steps as are appropriate to protect the integrity of the Site Plan approval being herein conditionally granted and to insure compliance with the Borough of Brielle Land Use and Development Ordinances and the Mt. Laurel requirements as well as compliance with the “Borough Affordable Housing Trust Fund.” Any substantial deviation in the opinion of the Engineer and/or Land Use Officer shall require a revised site plan application and plat to be submitted to this Board for its review and approval. Any non-substantial and/or minor changes permitted shall be placed upon a revised Preliminary Plat with same being signed and dated by the applicant and the applicant’s Engineer, as well as the Board Engineer and Land Use Officer indicating the changes made with the original being filed with the Land Use Office and a copy filed with the Land Use Office and the Planning Board Secretary and the Borough/Board Engineer. It is to be understood that with respect to any minor changes and/or deviations approved by this procedure herein set forth that same not in any way extend any applicable time limits with respect to final major subdivision approval that may exist according to law.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that in the event the conditions set forth in this Site Plan Approval are not met by May 8, 2014, with the Site Plan having been executed by said date, then this application shall be listed on the Planning Board Agenda for the meeting of the following month for dismissal without prejudice unless the Applicant offers appropriate reasons for the delay, all of which may be considered at the discretion of the Board. It should be understood that this time limit, of an administrative nature herein, is not a representation or guaranty by the Planning Board as existing State Law may affect same and it continues to be the applicant’s sole responsibility and obligation to comply with applicable law.

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.”

The above Resolution was approved on a motion by Mr. Sigler, seconded by Mr. Langenberger and by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Gina Murdoch, Tim Sigler

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: Mayor Thomas Nicol, James Harman, John O’Donnell,
Charles Sarnasi

The Board then turned to the approval of a Resolution for variance relief for Block 18.01, Lot 16, 620 Harris Avenue, owned by Christian Frerecks, to allow construction of a front porch.

As all Board members, as well as the applicant, had received draft copies 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, State of New Jersey has before it an application for Chris Frerecks for variance relief to allow the applicant to construct a front porch on the principal residence on property located at 620 Harris Avenue, said property being known as Block 18.01, Lot 16 and the applicant proposing to set the porch at 21.5 feet from the front yard setback whereas 30 feet is required, and a variance being necessary for said relief and the applicant having submitted a survey prepared by Vincent Lungari, PLS dated December 30, 2011 and the Board having held an open public hearing on May 8, 2012 on the project and at that time the Board having listened to the testimony offered on behalf of the applicant and the objectors, if any, and

WHEREAS, the Board has jurisdiction of the matter as a result of the applicable Ordinances of the Borough, adopted pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law, Chapter 291, Law of 1975, as amended and supplemented, and the Board having considered the matter at a public hearing as set forth above, and the Board having made the following findings of fact:

1. The property in question is located at 620 Harris Avenue in the Borough of Brielle on property known as Block 18.01, Lot 16. The property is in the R-3 Zone. The applicant proposes to add a one-story open porch on the premises which will be 8 feet by 28 feet (8’x28’). The porch is shown on architectural drawings submitted by Rice & Brown Architects for the property done by Dustin Brown, AIA, dated April 24, 2012. The porch shall be built in substantial compliance with the architectural plans submitted by Mr. Brown and referred to herein.
2. The Board finds that the lot is 50 feet by 100 feet (50’x100’) and that there is an existing house on the premises, which Mr. Frerecks purchased and has since been renovating the house. The Board finds that the addition to the porch will be useful to the applicant and will also add to the architectural integrity of the house and will make the house ore aesthetically pleasing.
3. The Board finds that the addition to the premises as being aesthetically pleasing will not have any negative impact on the neighborhood and, in fact, will have a beneficial effect on the houses in the neighborhood.
4. The Board finds that with limiting the use of the porch to an open one story porch with no enclosure and not to be added to on the second floor without further approval from the Board, that there will be a benefit to the area in granting the relief requested. The Board also finds that because of the existing house on the premises, where it is located, and the fact that the lot is a smaller lot for the area, that the applicant does face a certain amount of hardship in being prevented from building the addition unless the relief requested is granted.

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 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 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 Chris Frerecks for variance relief of 21.5 feet for front yard setback, whereas 30 feet is required to allow the applicant to construct a front porch on the principal residence on the property. 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 the applicant receives the 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 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, it another governmental agency grants a waiver or variance 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. No enclosing of the porch.
2. No addition to the second floor without requesting relief from the Board.”

A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mayor Nicol, seconded by Mrs. Murdoch and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Thomas Condon, Gina Murdoch, Tim Sigler
Noes: None
Not Eligible to Vote: James Harman, James Langenberger, John O’Donnell,
Charles Sarnasi

The Board then turned to the approval of a Resolution for Block 64.06, Lot 29, 824 Club Road, owned by Mark & Kathy Drent, to allow construction of a new single family 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, State of New Jersey has before it an application for Mark & Kathy Drent for property known as 824 Club Road, also known as Block 64.06, Lot 29 for variance relief for front yard setback whereas 30.47 feet is proposed and 40 feet is required and for lot depth, whereas 123.69 feet is proposed and existing and 125 feet is required and the applicant having submitted an architectural plan prepared by Grasso Design Group dated October 24, 2011, last revised December 12, 2011 and Charles W. Gilligan, PE having submitted engineering plans concerning the project and the Board having held an open public meeting on May 8, 2012 on the project and at that time the Board having listened to the testimony offered on behalf of the applicant and the objectors, if any, and

WHEREAS, the Board has jurisdiction of the matter as a result of the applicable Ordinances of the Borough, adopted pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law, Chapter 291, Law of 1975, as amended and supplemented, and the Board having considered the matter at a public hearing as set forth above, and the Board having made the following findings of fact:

1. The property in question is shown on a survey of the property prepared by Charles O’Malley, PLS dated February 22, 2011. The house sits at the end of the cul-de-sac on Club Road and is affected by the cul-de-sac due to the shape of the bulb on it. The bulb does affect the setback and the area in which the house can be built on. There is a 17 foot existing difference from the curb to the front property line. The setback requirement of 40 feet would position the home an unusually long distance from the curb and also would affect the use of the back yard of the premises.
2. The Board finds the proposal reasonable in light of the odd shape of the property because of the bulb of Club Road and how it affects the subject property. The Board also finds that the house adjacent to the subject property is set at 24.1 feet from the front property line and that, under the circumstances, a setback of 30.47 feet is reasonable and, therefore, the Board finds that it can grant the relief requested.
3. The Board further finds that the bulb of the cul-de-sac creates a hardship and affects the layout and design of the property in a new house to be put on it. The Board finds, therefore, that the relief can be justified under the C-1 Section of the Statute.

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 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 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 Mark and Kathy Drent for front yard setback whereas 30.47 feet is proposed and 40 feet is required and for lot depth whereas 123.69 feet is proposed and existing and 125 feet is required. The maps cannot be signed until conditions 4 through 6 are met:

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. Subject to the development here at issue being undertaken in accordance with the testimony presented to the Board and the plans submitted 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 the applicant receives the 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 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, it another governmental agency grants a waiver or variance 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.”

A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mrs. Murdoch and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Gina
Murdoch, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler

Noes: None
Not Eligible to Vote: James Harman, John O’Donnell

The last Resolution to be approved was for Block 66.02, Loy 19, 715 Howell Drive, owned by Joseph & Jennifer Introna, to allow construction of a single-story addition to an existing dwelling.

As the applicants and all Board members 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, State of New Jersey has before it an application for Joseph & Jennifer Introna for property known as 715 Howell Drive, said property being also known as Block 66.02, Lot 19 and said property lying in the R-3 Zone, and the proposal exceeding the lot coverage allowed of 20% maximum, whereas 24.62% is proposed and there being an existing non-conformity of lot area where 11,250 square feet is required and 11,204 square feet is existing and the survey of the property by Paul K. Lynch, PLS dated February 17, 2012 having been submitted and engineering plans having been submitted by Charles W. Gilligan, PE dated February 24, 2012 and architectural plans consisting of four 4 sheets having been prepared by Paul S. Moore, AIA dated January 31, 2012 and the Board having held an open public hearing on this matter on May 8, 2012 and at that time the Board having listened to the testimony offered on behalf of the applicant and of neighbors 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. Applicants have lived with a growing family at 715 Howell Drive for a number of years. They propose to add a new single story addition which adds approximately 747 square feet to the property which will increase lot coverage from 18.28% to 24.62%. It should be noted that although the building coverage is being increased 4.62% over what is allowed the total impervious coverage on the property will still remain well below what is the maximum allowed, as 39.29% is proposed, whereas 50% is allowed.
2. At the hearing, the applicant, through its experts, indicated that it would be allowed to add a second story to the existing premises which could be greater in area than the proposed addition to the house as proposed. There was testimony offered both by the applicant and neighbors that because of the grade and slope in the area, the addition of a second story to the house would end up being very imposing on the other houses in the immediate area. The neighbors, in particular, felt that the proposed plan was a better plan than asecond story addition on a conforming house. The Board finds that this is true.
3. The Board also finds that the fact that the house is well below the total impervious coverage is a significant factor in the granting of the relief requested. The Board also finds that the rooms are small and not overly imposing, and that because the proposal will meet the required setbacks, both front, side and rear, that the addition will not detrimentally affect the neighbors in the area, nor the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.
4. The Board also finds that the existing house was built in conformance with the Ordinance and that the lot area is currently 46 square feet below the required lot size and that is a pre-existing non-conformity. The Board finds that because of the placement of the existing structure on the premises, along with the unusual grade and slope to the property along with the development of the other houses in the area, that this relief can be granted either under the C-1 or C-2 Section of the Statute, as the relief requested is both reasonable and as there is an existing house on the property, which makes it difficult to develop without going up. In addition, the Board finds that the proposal is a better alternative than the applicant building a second floor addition which the Board finds would have a detrimental impact on the area. The Board also finds that the addition will be in substantial conformity in size and height with the neighboring lots on the street and that the addition will not affect any sight lines, view or privacy concerns of any neighbors of the subject property.
5. At the hearing the applicant did agree that there will be no further construction to the house on the premises (i.e. by way of 2nd floor) or any further expansion without return to the Board. The applicant did agree to file a Deed with a copy of this Resolution with said restriction in it so that property owners in the future would know the same.

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 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 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 Joseph & Jennifer Introna for variance for lot coverage of 24.62% whereas 20% is allowed and undersized lot area where 11,250 square feet is required and 11,204 square feet is existing. 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 the applicant receives the 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 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, it another governmental agency grants a waiver or variance 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 CONDTIONS
1. The house cannot be added to without further relief granted by the Board, including a second story addition.
2. A copy of this Resolution shall be attached to a Restrictive Deed and filed with the Monmouth County Clerk’s Office.”

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

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Gina
Murdoch, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler
Noes: None
Not Eligible to Vote: James Harman, John O’Donnell

NEW BUSINESS:

The Board then turned to an application for Block 121, Lot 21, 905 Birch Drive, owned by Elizabeth & Mary Louise Raab, to allow reconstruction of a deck & new stairs to rear of existing dwelling. Rear Setback 40 feet required, 13 feet proposed, 27 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. Mary Louise Raab of 905 Birch Drive came forward and was sworn in, she is one of the owners of the home.

They currently have a deck on the second floor which is over 30 years old and needs to be made over; they would like to add a staircase to this deck as the only way to get to it is through the interior of the home. They feel this will help in cleaning the deck as well as creating a way out in case of fire.

Mr. Sarnasi asked if this deck will remain an open and the answer was yes. Mr. Sigler asked if they had considered putting this anywhere else as it does infringe on the setback; Ms. Raab said they did think about putting it on the other side but then it would be in the way of the kitchen and they realized they could not put it anywhere else if they put it in the center it would be in front of the patio doors on the first floor.

As there were no other Board questions the hearing was opened to the public for questions and, as there were none, that portion was closed. It was then open for general comments and again there were none so that portion was closed and the Board went into discussion.

As no Board members had any further questions or comments, Mr. Condon agreed the stair are a good safety measure and asked for a motion for approval of the application as presented; this was done by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mrs. Murdoch and approved by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Thomas Condon, James Harman, James
Langenberger, Gina Murdoch, John O’Donnell, Charles Sarnasi,
Tim Sigler

Noes: None

As there was no further business to come before the Board, a motion was made by Mayor Nicol to adjourn, this seconded by Mrs. Murdoch and approved unanimously by the Board, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 7:40 pm.


Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary

Approved:








 

RELATED LINKS