www.briellenj.com
A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ


May 14th, 2013

July 19 2013

May 14, 2013

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD
TUESDAY, May 14, 2013
The regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, May 14 at 7:30pm in the Brielle Borough Hall, 601 Union Lane. After a moment of silence and a salute to the flag, roll call was taken:
Present - Mayor Thomas Nicol, James Langenberger, Tim Sigler, Frank Garruzzo, John O’Donnell
Alternate Members Nicholas Stango
Absent- Thomas Condon, Terre Vitale, James Stenson, Charles Sarnasi, Gina Murdoch

Also present were Steve Pardes Board Attorney and Carol McMenamy Alternate Board Secretary. There were approximately 4 people in the audience.

Mayor Thomas Nicol called the meeting to order and declared a quorum. He announced that, in compliance with the Open Public Meeting 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 8th, 2013 meeting were approved on a motion by James Langenberger, seconded by Tim Sigler and approved unanimously by voice vote, all aye. Councilman Frank Garruzzo abstained.

Correspondence: A copy of the March/April issue of NJ Planner was distributed. A copy of EnviroTactics CAFRA letter for an individual permit, Block 92.01 Lot 8 & 8.01, 400 Laurel Avenue is on file in Board Office. Copy of letters from Freehold Soil Conservation District, in reference to Block 95.01 Lot 8, 401 Osborn Ave.(certification letter), Block 72 Lot 10 403 Bel Aire Road and Block 60 Lot 3.01, 5 Crescent Drive(project exempt) on file in Board Office. Coastal Permit for Waterfront Development to D.E.P. for Block 101, Lots 10-10.01, 7 Kings Path, owned by Robert & Maria Martorelli, to construct a single family replacement dwelling on file in Board Office.

Old Business: The Approval of the Resolution for Block 65.01, Lot 8, 629 Higgins Avenue, owned by M. Holtzman Realty, LLC (Applicant-Brielle Sports Club), to allow construction of an indoor swimming pool.

Mr. Steve Pardes started the discussion by reading the email he had received from Mr.
McLaughlin.

Paragraph 3 - I would suggest that there be a specific finding by the Board that the swimming pool is an accessory use to the existing health club.

Paragraph 4 (a) - Suggest reference to the thirty-one (31) foot buffer refer to the “existing buffer.”

Paragraph 4, last sentence - Suggest that the reference be to “capable of satisfying the landscaping requirement.”

Paragraph 8 - In addition to the reduction of the square footage, a recalculation of the required parking spaces for all of the uses on the property was conducted and showed that the property, with the addition, will meet all parking requirements.

Additional Finding - At the April 10, 2012 meeting, the question was raised as to whether a variance was necessary because the existing building is non-conforming. We discussed the two schools of thought in the existing case law; the one being that a totally conforming addition would not require a variance because of the existing non-conformity. The other school of thought holding to the opposite conclusion. I do not believe and the minutes do not reflect that the Board decided whether or not a variance was necessary.

We provided testimony to satisfy the variance requirement should the Board find that it was necessary to do so. I would think that the Board should either find that a variance is necessary and grant it, or find that one is not necessary but that the evidence would justify a variance even if it were required.

After the changes suggested by Mr. McLaughlin were read, the Mayor opened the discussion to the board members. James Langenberger asked if the change effects #3. Mr. Pardes responded no it refers to an earlier paragraph #4 which relates to the borough ordinance which was established that no commercial property in Brielle could meet that standard. Mr. Langenberger wanted to make sure the landscaping was not forgotten in the buffer zone. He stated it was one of the neighbors’ major concerns and he did not want the board to lose control of that factor.

Tim Sigler, Nick Stango and John O’Donnell had no comments.

With the lawyer’s approval, the board decided to open the meeting to the public so they may voice their opinions on the resolution.

Mayor Nicol opened up the meeting to the public to voice their opinions on the resolution. Mr. Dickerson, 618 Locust Road, spoke of the comments made at an earlier meeting about underground and surface water changes being the responsibility of the applicant. He would like it stated in the resolution so it does not cause problems down the line for the neighbors. The lawyer said he didn’t know what kind of relationship was between the owner of the property and the owner of the sports club. He continued the owner of the sports club could be responsible but his approach if he represented the neighbors would be to go after both the owner of the property and the tenant. The lawyer added that if they put it in the resolution it would be the Borough Zoning Officer who would get involved if there was a problem.

Mrs. Noni Dickerson 618 Locust Road came forward next to comment on the owner and tenant situation. She restated that the owner says it is the tenant’s problem and the tenant is saying it is the owner’s problem. The neighbors are caught in crossfire.

Mr. Scott Kenneally, 624 Locust Road, came forward. Mr. Kenneally asks that the water situation be a part of the resolution so if there should be a problem he would be able to call upon the Borough Engineer. He continued that the site has had two prior resolutions and he wants the new resolution to state that all conditions of previous resolutions remain in effect unless they have been modified. And finally he added his concerns with landscaping. He would like the pine trees in the buffer zone to be replaced by similar sized trees.

The mayor closed the public portion of the meeting. The board didn’t have any problems with the requests of the public. The lawyer did feel the board should state whether a variance is needed or not and if not honor Mr. McLaughlin’s request saying that one is not necessary but that the evidence would justify a variance even if it were required.

The Board decided to carry the resolution until the June 11th, 2013 meeting.

A motion to adjourn was made by Frank Garruzzo, seconded by John O’Donnell and approved by the board, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 7:55pm.






 

RELATED LINKS