www.briellenj.com
A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ


July 14, 2015

September 15 2015

July 14th, 2015

BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD

TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2015

The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, July 14, 2015 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 Langenberger, Stacey Montalto, John O’Donnell, Charles
Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, James Stenson

Absent Terre Vitale

Also present was Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary, Alan Hilla, Jr., Board Engineer and Brett Wiltsey, Esq. substituting for Board Attorney Joe Clark. There were approximately 30 people in the audience and the reporter for the Coast Star newspaper was recording the meeting.

Mr. Condon called the meeting to order and declared a quorum. He announced that, in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, notice of this Body’s meeting had been sent to the official newspapers of the Board fixing the time and place of all hearings. He then announced that the hearing for Verizon Wireless, Union Avenue, was postponed until the August 11th meeting with no further notice required.

The Minutes of the June 9, 2015 meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Stenson and approved by voice vote, all aye, except Mayor Nicol & Councilman Garruzzo who abstained.

OLD BUSINESS:

As there was no Correspondence, the Board turned to the approval of a Resolution for a Minor Subdivision for Block 61, Lots 6.01, 6.02 & 6.03, known as 22 Crescent Drive, owned by Michael Centrella application to create 3 building lots.

All Board members, as well as the applicant’s attorney, had received a draft copy and, after one minor change by the Board attorney, the following was presented for approval:

WHEREAS, Michael and Lori Centrella (hereinafter “Centrella” or “Applicant”) have filed an application with the Borough of Brielle Planning Board (hereinafter “Planning Board” or “Board”), seeking minor subdivision approval and ancillary “C” variance relief for property known as Block 61, Lot 6.01 on the Tax and Assessment Map of the Borough of Brielle and located at 22 Crescent Drive, Brielle, New Jersey in the R-3 Residential Zone District (R-3 Zone); and
WHEREAS, public hearings were held on March 10, 2015, April 9, 2015, May 12, 2015, and June 9, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant was represented by C. Keith Henderson, Esq. (hereinafter “Henderson”).
WHEREAS, at the initial hearing on March 10, 2015, Applicant presented testimony and exhibits in favor of the proposed relief; and
WHEREAS, at the hearing on March 10, 2015, objectors were given an opportunity to come forward and be heard on the merits of the application; and
WHEREAS, at the hearing on March 10, 2015, one objector came forward and questioned Applicant’s expert as to any inherent right of the public to the view of private property; and
WHEREAS, no other objectors or representatives of objectors presented argument or evidence in opposition to Applicant’s proposed relief; and
WHEREAS, no objectors or representatives of objectors requested a continuance of the matter so as to present evidence or testimony in opposition to Applicant’s application; and
WHEREAS, the hearing on Applicant’s application was closed on March 10, 2015, and adjourned to April, 2015 for the sole purpose of providing the public an opportunity to comment; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2015, Edward Liston, Esq. appeared before the Board on behalf of several objectors and indicated that there may be an issue with the Board’s jurisdiction over the matter; and
WHEREAS, the matter was adjourned until May 12, 2015 to permit the Board to determine the validity of the jurisdictional issue; and
WHEREAS, on May 12, 2015, the matter was again adjourned due to a personal emergency relating to a family member of the objector’s attorney; and
WHEREAS, the matter was placed on the June 9, 2015 agenda; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2015, the Board inquired as to whether Applicant intended to re-open the hearing to address the issues raised by the Borough Engineer in his letter dated April 28, 2015; and
WHEREAS, Applicant’s attorney indicated that Applicant was not going to present additional testimony and evidence on the issues raised in the Borough Engineer’s letter dated April 28, 2015, and indicated that prior expert testimony was applicable to the issues in that letter; and
WHEREAS, the Board determined at that time, over objector’s objections, not to re-open the hearing, but to open the meeting to public comment; and
WHEREAS, members of the public made comments in opposition to and in support of Applicant’s application; and
WHEREAS, the Board, at the meetings in this matter, considered the following documents presented at the hearing in connection with this application:
a. Jurisdictional Packet
b. Exhibit B-1
WHEREAS, the testimony and commentary offered to the Board primarily consisted of the following:
The application before the Board is a request for minor subdivision approval and ancillary “C” variance relief for property known as Block 61, Lot 6.01 on the Tax and Assessment Map of the Borough of Brielle, which premises are located at 22 Crescent Drive, Brielle, New Jersey in the R-3 Residential Zone.
Testifying on behalf of Applicant during the hearing process were Applicant Michael Centrella, Robert Burdick, P.E. and P.P., (hereinafter “Burdick”); and James W. Higgins, P.P. (hereinafter “Higgins’’).
The Application involves a property that is subject to certain surrounding developmental constraints, given the fact that it is bordered by Crescent Drive, Donnelly Place and the Crabtown Creek section of the Manasquan River. These aforementioned physical features surround the property on the West, South and East sides, respectively. A fully developed property known as Lots 4.01 and 4.02 borders the property on its North side. Given these features surrounding the property, the need for two (2) requested variances arises. As to the requested variances, one is a temporary variance, and the other variance concerns lot width due to the shape of Donnelly Place. The Applicant seeks preliminary and final minor subdivision approval and bulk variance relief with regard to a technical lot width variance for one of three lots proposed pursuant to this Application. Applicant proposes to subdivide the existing parcel, Lot 6.01, into three (3) lots, including proposed Lot 6.05, which same proposed lot would require a lot width variance. The property is under single ownership and is owned by Michael and Lori Centrella, 22 Crescent Drive, Brielle, New Jersey. Currently Michael and Lori Centrella reside in a guest house located on the property. Applicant’s stated intention if this application is granted approval is to tear down the single dwelling currently on the property, and thereafter construct a new home. There are no additional homes proposed for construction at this time.
During the course of the hearing on March 3, 2015, Centrella of 22 Crescent Drive, Brielle, NJ testified that he is the owner of the property, having acquired same in 2001. Applicant further testified that currently the only structure on the property is a guest cottage, in which he and his wife and family reside. Centrella testified that originally the property had a main house with a two car garage, as well as a swimming pool. Centrella testified that within approximately one year of his purchase of the property, the main dwelling house and pool were demolished. Furthermore, Applicant testified that following Sandy, he and his family were forced to vacate a severely damaged guest house for approximately one year. With regard to his plans, Applicant testified that if his application was granted approval, he intends to tear down the guest house, located on the northerly lot, and build a new home on the middle lot.
Following Applicant’s testimony, a question was raised by Board Member Mr. Langenberger concerning the proposed variance in connection with the contemplated demolition of the guest house per Applicant’s stated plans. Applicant’s attorney, Keith Henderson, Esq., stated that by virtue of demolishing the guest house, the variance for any side yard set-back would be effectively eliminated and therefore, only leave one remaining variance. Applicant’s attorney further stated that with regard to the remaining variance, the criteria for a C-1 and C-2 variance are satisfied.
As there were no further questions from the Board at this stage, the hearing was opened to the public for questions and, as there were none, that portion was closed.
Following Applicant’s testimony, Robert Burdick, P.E. and Professional Planner, was sworn in to testify. Burdick testified that having being retained by Centrella in support of his Application, a total of three variances were advertised and submitted. Burdick went on to testify that one variance concerns a preexisting nonconformity as it relates to the guest house. Burdick further testified that the proposed subdivision will in no way effect this variance, given the fact that it currently exists. Burdick testified that the second variance concerns the proposed front set-back at Donnelly Place and Burdick then went on to testify that the decision was ultimately made not to pursue this variance. Burdick further testified that the third, and final, variance, concerns the lot-width along Crescent Drive for the corner lot. Burdick testified that the zoning ordinance requires compliance with regard to the lot-width as to both roadways on a corner lot, such as the property subject to this application.
Burdick represented that he is familiar with the Brielle Zoning Ordinance and testified that as to the aforementioned third variance, Applicant requires a corner lot variance for the Donnelly Place / Crescent Drive lot as 60 feet is required and the proposal is for 34.23 feet. Furthermore, Burdick testified that access to proposed lot 6.05 will be from Donnelly Place and that he believed this was a minimal variance request. Applicant’s attorney asked whether this variance was being requested due to the 60 foot requirement, and Burdick responded affirmatively. Burdick went on to testify that this corner lot has a unique pie-shape and the frontage is narrow.
In the course of rendering his testimony, Burdick referred to and relied on a Conceptual Minor Subdivision Plan dated 3-31-2014 and marked as Exhibit B-1, as well as an Engineer’s Report.
Following Burdick’s testimony, a question was raised by Board Member Mrs. Murdoch insofar as she sought clarity on the current situation as it pertains to the guest house and any plans for demolition. In response, Mr. Henderson stated that the timing of any demolition on the guest house was not certain, as it was dependent on the sale of the lots and also as to when the Centrellas could start building their new home. Additional questions and points were raised with regard to the height of the house pursuant to both FEMA rules and local ordinance, as well as a question about the “hardship” raised.
As there were no further questions from the Board at this stage, the hearing was opened to the public for questions and, as there were none, that portion was closed.
Following Burdick’s testimony, James W. Higgins, Professional Planner, was sworn in to testify. Higgins testified that in connection with his being retained by the Applicant, he reviewed the property, the master plan, the zoning ordinance and the proposed subdivision plan. Higgins went on to testify that, in his professional opinion, the Applicant is entitled to a C1 and C2 variance, meeting the criteria for both.
Higgins testified in detail as to the criteria for a C1 variance, including the demonstration of a “hardship.” Higgins then went on to testify that although the existing lot would accommodate four lots conforming as to area, because of the fact that the width of the lot along Crescent Drive would not permit an owner to have four conforming lots, a hardship thus exists. Furthermore, Higgins testified that because nothing can be done to increase the frontage along Crescent Drive, the Applicant has sought to create three lots which fully conform with the exception of the fact that there is a technical lot-width variance on the corner lot.
Higgins further testified that when reviewing the character of the R-3 zone as it extends between Crescent Drive and the Manasquan River, each lot in that zone runs from the street through to the River with waterfront frontage. Beyond this, Higgins testified that with regard to Exhibit B-1 as also referenced by Burdick, fifteen (15) other lots in the immediate area were researched, and of these, seven (7) such lots were found to have nonconforming lot widths. In light of his analysis of the application against the backdrop of these facts, Higgins testified that there is a practical and undue hardship that is associated with the configuration of the lot that acts to inhibit the extent to which the Applicant can currently use the property. Higgins’ testimony reasoned that assuming a three (3) lot subdivision, such resultant lots would be excessively over-sized for the zone, at somewhere between 30-40% larger than the zone would permit. Higgins concluded this portion of his testimony by indicating that he believed the Application meets the C-1 criteria as it relates to demonstration of hardship.
Higgins went on to testify that there will be no negative impact in the area, that all the proposed lots meet the zoning requirements except for the corner variance and that all three lots will be in character with the other properties in this area. In offering an analysis as to substantial negative impact, if any, Higgins testified that these properties could be developed meeting all of the setback criteria, all of the lot coverage criteria, all of the building height criteria, and therefore no negative impact is made on the zone plan.
Higgins further offered testimony concerning the C-2 variance and asserted that the analysis here turns on demonstration of a superior planning alternative as it relates to Municipal Land Use Law, and that those benefits serve to outweigh any detriments. Under the C-2 criteria, Higgins testified that the benefits clearly outweigh the detriment, and that here, the only detriment is a technical detriment, a technical variance concerning lot width as to one proposed lot.
In rendering his testimony, Higgins also addressed the safety aspect for any potential disasters, and that there would be light, air and open space with the plan proposed. Higgins testified that if this were a two lot subdivision, the homes built would likely be much larger and therefore out of character and inappropriate in this neighborhood.
Following Higgins’ testimony, several comments and questions were raised by Board members, including a comment by Board Member Mr. Sigler concerning some of the homes in the area being large homes. Board Member Condon asked a general question about parking on Donnelly Place and was informed by Board Members Councilman Garruzzo and Mr. Hilla that no parking is allowed there at all.
As there were no further questions from the Board at this stage, the hearing was opened to the public for questions and, one question was posed by Mr. Robert Houseal. Mr. Houseal inquired as to any inherent right of the public or local resident to the view of private property, including views of the water on Crabtown Creek. Mr. Higgins testified there was no such inherent right. As there were no further questions from the public, that portion of the hearing was closed.
During the course of the public hearings, this matter was opened up to the public and the public appeared at the March 10, 2015 hearing as detailed above, as well as an April 9, 2015 hearing. In particular, at the April 9, 2015 hearing, an objection was made by Edward Liston on behalf of several objectors.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Board makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, based on evidence presented at its public hearing, at which time a record was made.
The application before the Board is a request for minor subdivision approval and ancillary “C” variance relief for property known and designated as Block 61, Lot 6.01 on the Tax and Assessment Map of the Borough of Brielle, which premises are located at 22 Crescent Drive, Brielle, New Jersey in the R-3 Residential Zone.
The Applicant initially considered seeking preliminary and final major subdivision approval in order to create four (4) new single family residential lots from an existing lot. Shortly thereafter, however, and upon making a formal application to the Borough of Brielle Planning Board, Applicant through his counsel revised his request in order to seek approval for a three (3) lot minor subdivision. The subject site is located in the R-3 Residential District of the Borough. The proposed subdivision is permitted in the R-3 District. A small guest cottage is currently located on existing Lot 6.01. Applicant intends to demolish this structure, and in conjunction with this process and the sale of other lots, build a new home, which will be located on proposed Lot 6.05.
All of the proposed new lots will be conforming lots in all respects, with two exceptions. One variance concerns a preexisting nonconformity as it relates to the guest house and is an existing condition. Further, once the guest house is demolished, so too will this variance be extinguished. The second variance relates to proposed Lot 6.05. Specifically, Applicant requires a corner lot width variance for the Donnelly Place / Crescent Drive lot as 60 feet is required and the proposal is for 34.23 feet. In all other respects, the new lots will all meet the minimum requirements in the R-3 Zone.
The Municipal Land Use Law, at N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c provides Boards with the power to grant variances from strict bulk and other non-use related issues when the applicant satisfies certain specific proofs which are enunciated in the Statute. Specifically, the applicant may be entitled to relief if the specific parcel is limited by exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape. An applicant may show that exceptional topographic conditions or physical features exist which uniquely affect a specific piece of property. Further, the applicant may also supply evidence that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances exist which uniquely affect a specific piece of property or any structure lawfully existing thereon and the strict application of any regulation contained in the Zoning Ordinance would result in a peculiar and exceptional practical difficulty or exceptional and undue hardship upon the developer of that property. Additionally, under the C(2) criteria, the applicant has the option of showing that in a particular instance relating to a specific piece of property, the purpose of the act would be advanced by allowing a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance requirements and the benefits of any deviation will substantially outweigh any detriment. In those instances, a variance may be granted to allow departure from regulations adopted, pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance.
Those categories specifically enumerated above constitute the affirmative proofs necessary in order to obtain “bulk” or (c) variance relief. Finally, an applicant must also show that the proposed variance relief sought will not have a substantial detriment to the public good and, further, will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and Zoning Ordinance. It is only in those instances when the applicant has satisfied both these tests, that a Board, acting pursuant to the Statute and case law, can grant relief. The burden of proof is upon the applicant to establish these criteria.
With respect to the request for ancillary “C” variance relief, the Applicant requires ancillary “C” variance relief for a preexisting nonconformity as it relates to the guest house, and more significantly, a second lot width variance for proposed lot 6.05 as 60 feet is required and the proposal is for 34.23 feet. In all other respects, the new lots will meet all the minimum requirements in the R-3 Zone.
One variance concerns a preexisting nonconformity as it relates to the guest house and is an existing condition. Further, once the guest house is demolished, so too will this variance be extinguished. The second variance relates to proposed Lot 6.05. Specifically, Applicant requires a corner lot width variance for the Donnelly Place / Crescent Drive lot as 60 feet is required and the proposal is for 34.23 feet. In all other respects, the new lots will all meet the minimum requirements in the R-3 Zone.
The Board notes that as it relates to the first requested variance, there is a preexisting conformity as it relates to the guest house which lawfully exists on the lot and that, furthermore, this existing condition will be extinguished once the guest house is demolished per the Applicant’s stated intention. As it relates to the second aforementioned variance, the Board notes that because of the width of the lot adjacent to Crescent Drive, one would not be permitted to have four (4) conforming lots, an issue which presents a hardship. Nothing can be done to increase the frontage along Crescent Drive. Given the unique pie-shaped dimensions of the subject parcel, the Board further notes that the Applicant has sought to create three (3) lots which fully conform to the Zoning ordinance, with the exception of the lot width variance on the largest proposed lot (Lot 6.05), the corner lot. The Board notes that it would be impossible for the Applicant to acquire additional property in order to meet the lot width requirements in the R-3 Zone. The Board concludes that there is a practical hardship associated with the configuration of the lot that inhibits the extent to which the applicant can use the property, a hardship which satisfies the C-1 criteria. The Board further concludes that no substantial negative impact exists on this application sufficient to negatively impact the surrounding properties or the zone plan in a meaningful way. In this instance, the Board concludes that these properties can be developed in such a manner as to meet all of the setback criteria, height criteria, and in such manner as to be consistent with surrounding properties and homes on properties. There is a positive reason for nonconformity to continue. Thus, any developed lots will meet all of the requirements in the R-3 Zone with the exception of the lot width variance on proposed Lot 6.05 as previously indicated.
The Board has examined the request for variance relief under the Municipal Land Use Law pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(1) and the Board concludes that the Applicant is entitled to C1 variance relief due to the features existing which uniquely affect this specific piece of property and due to peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon the developer of such property.
The Board also reviewed the granting of ancillary “C” variance relief under the C-2 analysis. In Kaufman v. Planning Bd. for Warren Tp. 110 N.J. 551, 563 (1988) the New Jersey Supreme Court held:
By definition, then, no c(2) variance should be granted when merely the purposes of the owner will be advanced. The grant of approval must actually benefit the community in that it represents a better zoning alternative for the property. The focus of a c(2) case, then, will be not on the characteristics of the land that, in light of current zoning requirements, create a hardship on the owner warranting a relaxation of standards, but on the characteristics of the land that present an opportunity for improved zoning and planning that will benefit the community.

The Board recognizes that the subject site is located in the R-3 Zone, wherein the minimum lot width size is 60 feet. The Board also recognizes that given the unique shape of the existing lot at the corner of Donnelly Place / Crescent Drive, a hardship exists. The Board further recognizes that pursuant to a subdivision plan as currently proposed by Applicant, the apportioning of the subject parcel into three (3) lots will results in three lots that are all in compliance with the existing ordinance requirements, with the exception of a minor technical variance and a lot width variance, and these lots will be in conformance with the ordinance requirements.
The Board also concludes and accepts the representations of the Applicant’s experts that when taking into account the current character of the R-3 Zone as it extends between Crescent Drive and the Manasquan River, every single lot in that zone runs from the street through to the River with waterfront frontage, and that furthermore, within this area there are fifteen (15) other lots, of which seven (7) have nonconforming lot widths. The Board determines that approval of this application represents a better zoning alternative for the property which benefits the community. The Board also points out that preliminarily the Applicant’s counsel intimated Applicant might seek a subdivision of four (4) lots, but that since that time Applicant has filed an Application seeking a minor three (3) lot subdivision. The Board determined that having fewer lots with a larger lot area makes better planning sense and will not be in conflict with the nature and character of the R-3 Zone as presently developed. Therefore, under the C2 analysis the Board determined that the positive and negative criteria were met by the Applicant and the granting of “C” variance relief as set forth herein is appropriate.
The Board also concludes that it is not necessary to grant a variance for front yard setback for proposed lots 20.01 and 23.01 because the ordinance provides an alternative to the minimum 50 feet front yard setback, wherein the average setback in the zone is less than 50 feet, the Applicant can meet that minimum requirement and not seek variance relief. In this case, the Applicant does in fact meet the 29 feet front yard setback which is the average in the area. Thus, no variance relief is required.
Upon consideration of the plans, testimony and application, the Board determines that the proposed minor subdivision plan approval has met the minimum requirements of the Municipal Land Use Law, case law and Township ordinances to a sufficient degree so as to enable the Board to grant the relief being requested. The Board further finds that the granting of this application will not adversely impact or impair the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties.
The Planning Board clearly recognizes that at the time of this application, the only proposed development is in regard to proposed Lot 6.05 which is the Donnelly Place / Crescent Drive corner lot. It is the intention of the Planning Board that as to any future residential development on proposed Lots 6.03 and 6.04, there should be no additional bulk variance relief granted in the future that would permit development to be in nonconformity with existing Zoning ordinance.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle that the application of Michael Centrella for premises commonly known and designated as Block 61, Lot 6.01 on the Tax and Assessment Map of the Borough of Brielle, which premises are located at 22 Crescent Drive, Brielle, New Jersey in the R-3 Residential Zone requesting minor subdivision approval and ancillary “C” variance relief is determined as follows:
1. Minor subdivision approval is granted under the Municipal Land Use Law pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:550-47 as well as the land development ordinances of the Borough of Brielle.
2. Ancillary “C” variance relief is granted under the Municipal Land Use Law pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(1) and (2) as well as the land development ordinances of the Borough of Brielle with regard to a technical variance as it relates to the setback for the now existing guest house, as well as lot width variance for proposed Lot 6.05 where the minimum lot width required is 60 feet and 34.23 feet is proposed.
IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that the above land use relief is granted subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. The subdivision of this parcel shall be implemented in accordance with a subdivision plan prepared by Stanley Hans, Jr., PLS and Robert C. Burdick, P.E., revised March 11, 2015 and any subsequent revisions thereto as directed by the Planning Board or the Board’s professionals.
2. The Applicant represents that all of its representations and stipulations made by it or on its behalf to the Borough of Brielle Planning Board are true and accurate, and acknowledges that the Planning Board specifically relied upon said stipulations in the Board’s granting of approval. If said representations and stipulations are false, this approval is subject to revocation.
3. This approval is granted strictly in accordance with any recommendations set forth on the record by the Planning Board at the time of the public hearings on March 10, 2015, April 9, 2015 and June 9, 2015.
4. The Deed recorded memorializing the minor subdivision shall specifically refer to this Resolution and shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board engineer and Board attorney. The Applicant shall record the Deed within 190 days of the memorializing Resolution being adopted. Failure to do so shall render the approval null and void.
5. The Applicant shall comply with all terms and conditions set forth in the Board engineer’s Technical Review Report dated April 28, 2015 to the satisfaction of the Board engineer.
6. The granting of this application is subject to and conditioned upon the Borough of Brielle Tax Assessor assigning appropriate lot numbers in connection with this approval.
7. The granting of this application is subject to and conditioned upon Monmouth County Soil Conservation District approval, if required.
8. The granting of this application is subject to and conditioned upon New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) approval, if required.
9. The granting of this application is subject to and conditioned upon Monmouth County Planning Board approval, if required.
10. The granting of this application is subject to and conditioned upon the Borough of Brielle Health Department approval of the septic systems, if required.
11. The granting of this application is subject to and conditioned upon the submission by the Applicant to the Borough of Brielle Construction Code Official’s Department of plot plans for each proposed residence, which shall include stormwater management reports and any other reports that are required prior to the issuance of any building permits. The submission of these plans and reports shall be subject to the review and approval of the Board engineer and Board planner, if required.
12. Payment of all fees, costs and escrows due or to become due. Any monies are to be paid within twenty (20) days of said request by the Board Secretary.
13. Certificate that taxes are paid current to date of approval.
14. Subject to all other applicable rules, regulations, ordinances and statutes of the Borough of Brielle, County of Monmouth, State of New Jersey or any other jurisdiction.
The above Resolution was approved on a motion by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mayor Nicol and then by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Charles
Sarnasi

Noes: Tim Sigler

Abstain: Councilman Frank Garruzzo

Not Eligible to Vote: Stacey Montalto, John O’Donnell, James Stenson

The Board then turned to the approval of a Resolution for Site Plan/Use Variance for Block 33.01, Lot 1, 110 Union Avenue, owned by Rella Union, LLC, to allow a modification to the parking area and to allow outdoor dining.

As all Board members had received a draft copy and two changes were recommended by the applicant’s attorney, the Board had a brief discussion on the changes proposed: 1) not restrict the outdoor hours of the TV to just Sunday and 2) allow 60 days for the parking lot renovations instead of 30 as stated in the original Resolution. The Board decided to allow the volume on the TV to be on Monday through Saturday until 8:00 pm, after which time the sound will be turned off and to allow the TV volume to be on until 5:00 on Sunday, after which time the sound will be turned off.

Mr. Langenberger also questioned the awning issue that was raised last month and if it is a rigid or solid awning is it part of the structure and would this make more of a Use Variance. Mr. Wiltsey advised if it is a permanent structure it could be construed as an addition for a non-conforming use, this as opposed to an awning that can be removed. Mr. Stenson felt if the frame can be removed at the end of the season it would be okay. Mr. Hilla said if they have supports other than the building, like in the ground, there becomes a need for a building permit. Mr. Wiltsey said this Resolution does not grant them the right to put an awning support in the ground. His advice is to approve the Resolution, as written, and if the applicants want to come back for a permanent type awning they can. The Resolution does not authorize permanent awnings and Mr. Condon commented they can have umbrellas.

With the above revisions, the following Resolution was presented for approval:

WHEREAS, RELLA UNION LLC (“Applicant”) has applied to the Planning and Zoning Board (“Board”) of the Borough of Brielle seeking minor site plan approval for the property located at 110 Union Street, which is partially located in the Commercial Zone C-1 and in the Residential Zone 3 (R-3), and known as Block 33.01, Lot 1 (hereinafter “property or parcel”), on the tax map of the Borough of Brielle; and
WHEREAS, This application specifically requests the following:
a. Construction of 811 square foot outdoor dining area and masonry wall; and
b. Reconfiguration of the current parking lot and striping for parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a hearing on June 9, 2015, and the Board considered the following documents in connection with this application:
a. Jurisdictional Packet;
b. November 10, 2014 Zoning Permit Denial;
c. Minor Site Plan review by Alan Hilla, Jr. P.E. P.P.;
d. Letter dated April 9, 2015 from Brielle Fire Company No. 1 indicating that there were no objections to the application;
e. Letter dated March 20, 2015 from Department of Police, Borough of Brielle indicating that there were no issues that require stipulations or recommendations from that Department;
f. Resolution of the Borough of Brielle Planning Board dated November 10, 2009 for preliminary and final site plan approval with use variance and bulk variances for Thomas Whelan with regard to Block 33.01, Lot 1; and
g. Minor Site Plan dated April 16, 2015 prepared by Christopher Rosati; and
WHEREAS The Minor Site Plan review by Alan Hilla, Jr. P.E., P.P. discussed the following variances and other concerns:
1. Code Sections 21-·13 and 21-18 each address the permitted uses for the R-3 and C-1 Zones, respectively. Also, Code Section 21-17.1 prohibits properties in residential zones from serving as parking or driveway facilities for commercial uses. While the C-1 Zone permits restaurants and the customary accessory parking and other support facilities, the R-3 Zone limits permitted uses to single family dwellings. As stated previously, the bulk of the parcel is within the C-1 Zone, and all of the proposed improvements are well within the C-1 Zone; however, a portion of the rear parking lot is located within the R-3 Zone. As this use is non-conforming for the zone, and the Applicant wishes to expand the intensity of the use of the property (by up to 38 seats), a Use Variance will be required for the proposed patio expansion.
2. Code Section 21-31.6 requires off-street parking and other utility features be separated from walkways and sidewalks through the use of curbing and other protective measures. The Applicant's site currently does not provide for such means, nor are any means proposed through this application. Accordingly, a variance will be required for this existing/proposed non-conformity.
3. Code Section 21-31.21 allows off-street parking in front yard areas of commercial properties provided a minimum five foot landscaped area is provided along front and side property lines. The existing and proposed configuration of the parking along Route 71 and Magnolia Avenue are largely non-conforming for the requisite width and presence of landscape materials (other than rock).·A variance will be required for this existing/proposed non-conformity.
4. The Applicant proposes to modify the parking area only to the extent necessary to achieve the improvements proposed on the Minor Site Plan. Code Section 21-32 sets for the off-street parking requirements for all uses within the Borough. Specifically, this section requires one off-street space per 100 gross square foot of restaurant space. As applied to this application, there would be 9,570 gross. square feet of restaurant area (including the patio area), this driving an off-street parking burden of 96 spaces required. The site currently has 80 spaces, and the proposed reconfiguration would yield 86 spaces. Accordingly, a variance will be required for the 10 space deficit proposed.
Also, the Board should elicit testimony from the Applicant regarding handicap parking as I believe this site would require four off-street spaces where two currently exist.
Lastly, the proposed plan should be reviewed and approved by the Fire Official for the Fire Zones depicted.
5. The Applicant proposes to modify the parking area only to the extent necessary to achieve the improvements proposed on the Minor Site Plan. Code Section 21-36 sets forth a number of landscape design criteria that either do not exist at the site, do so limitedly, or are not proposed at all, as follows:
Five foot minimum landscape buffer adjacent to parking areas;
Six inch high curbing between pavement and landscape areas;
Landscape screening of the parking areas.
Variances will be required for these existing/proposed non-conformities.
6. The Minor Site Plan depicts proposed pier-mounted lighting at the perimeter of the patios. The Board should elicit testimony regarding the type and wattage of these lights, how many will be installed, proposed shielding to eliminate glare toward users of Route 71, and any other lighting that may be necessary to illuminate the proposed patios.
7. The Applicant's plans do not depict traffic flow at the site; however, I am aware that it generally operates with a two-way flow throughout. While this is acceptable as most travel aisles are the minimum 24 feet wide, the connection from the upper to lower lot is only 18 feet wide. The Board should strictly condition any approval on making that connection one-way only, and require the Applicant to provide adequate signage and striping to achieve this condition.
8. The site visit revealed that the pavement of the lower parking lot is in fair to poor condition. The Board should condition any approval on the repair of the failed sections of pavement prior to striping of the new configuration.
Also, it has been observed that patrons have been using the depressed curb ramp immediately north of the formal egress driveway along the Route 71 frontage for access/egress to the lower parking lot. This is an unsafe condition that has evolved through use. The Board should require the Applicant install adequate improvements at this location to ensure that it is physically impossible to use this curb depression.
9. The Board should elicit testimony regarding the proposed operation of the patio, including hours of operation, hostess arrangements, and noise issues that may accompany such a feature (such as music, amplified sound, paging, etc.).
10. The Board should elicit testimony regarding the status of the Site Plan Approval granted for this site approximately four years ago (commercial pad site application brought by Whelan) so the Board may consider what effect that approval, if ever implemented, may have in relation to the proposal; and
WHEREAS the Board heard testimony in support of the Application as follows:
1. John Vincente testified with regard to the R-3 zone that Exhibit C to the Master plan recommends that the R-3 portion upon which Applicant’s business is situated be rezoned for C-1. Mr. Vincente further testified that the site was suitable for expansion of a non-conforming use and that the proposed plan was consistent with development in the Route 71 corridor. With regard to the 86 parking spaces instead of 96, Mr. Vincente indicated that 86 spaces was 6 more than currently exists, and that the business can get by with 86 because the business is seasonal, and also that some people in the area do not drive to Rella’s, but walk or ride bicycles. Mr. Vincente further testified as follows:
a. Applicant intends to add two (2) additional handicapped spaces;
b. Applicant will obtain approval from the Fire Marshall for parking;
c. That the lighting on the proposed wall enclosing the outdoor area will be 60 watt;
d. That the exit onto Magnolia Street will be one-way;
e. That the paving in the parking lot will be fixed, and that curb stops will be installed on the Route 71 frontage so as to keep cars from exiting directly onto Route 71 from parking spaces located on Route 71;
f. Curb stops will also be placed at or near the border of the R-3 zone so as to prevent people from parking in the wooded area bordering the parking lot;
g. With regard to a prior approval obtained for the site; Applicant will not abandon the prior approval, but will cease outdoor seating if the plans that were previously approved are to be pursued;
h. That the site is suited for the proposed and that, being under 2,000 square feet is a minor site plan;
i. In terms of detrimental effect, Mr. Vincente pointed out that the proposed outdoor seating is in a location that is furthest away from homes located in the R-3 zone; and
j. That Rella’s has a liquor license that is subject to renewal, so any issues arising as a result of the outdoor area can also be addressed at the time of renewal.
2. Sam Chiarella, owner of Applicant, testified that the proposed outdoor addition will close at 11 p.m. at the latest, and that on Sundays, they may have a TV outside so that people can watch football games. Mr. Chiarella further testified that the television’s speakers would be the source of the audio during the games, and that no outside speakers would be attached to the television. Mr. Chiarella also testified that sound form live music may possibly be heard through a window that opens onto the outdoor area, but that Applicant would otherwise contain the sound of live music as much as possible to the interior space; and
WHEREAS at the hearing in this matter, the Borough Engineer, Alan Hilla, expressed concerns about the following:
1. That the proposed lighting for the outdoor area is at a height that is incompatible with safe driving; and
2. That Applicant will not take steps to repair and re-pave the entire parking lot; and
WHEREAS at the hearing in this matter, Applicant addressed the Borough Engineer’s concerns by stating that
1. Applicant will review the proposed lighting and will re-submit to the Borough Engineer as a condition of approval of the Application; and
2. The upper lot will be patched and re-paved; and
WHEREAS at the hearing in this matter, Members of the Board expressed concern about:
a. Traffic egress on Magnolia Street,
b. Potential noise from live music and football games;
c. Potential problems form persons sitting outside at later hours of the evening;
d. That construction of the outdoor area and the paving of the parking lot need to be coordinated so that the paving does not lag behind construction of the outdoor space;
e. That if an awning is placed over the outdoor space, that there be no sides attached to it so as to form a complete or partial enclosed space;
f. That there be no heaters of any kind in the outdoor space;
g. That the wall enclosing the outdoor area be more robust so that in the event of an accident, the wall would withstand a greater impact;
h. that the stockade fence located near the R-3 zone be inspected and repaired; and
i. That the dumpster be located further away from the R-3 zone and closer to the building in the C-1 zone; and
WHEREAS at the hearing in this matter, members of the public objected to the Application due to concerns about noise, traffic flow, the location of the dumpster, parking in the wooded area in the R-3 zone; and
WHEREAS after carefully considering the evidence and testimony presented by the applicant and of the adjoining property owners and general public, the Board granted the application permitting:
a. Construction of 811 square foot outdoor dining area and masonry wall; and
b. Reconfiguration of the current parking lot and striping for parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, the following conditions were attached to approval of the Application, and Applicant agreed thereto:
1. Applicant will re-submit proposed lighting scheme for approval by Borough engineer;
2. Applicant will patch and overlay the parking lot
3. Applicant will reinforce the proposed masonry wall with rebar or bollards so as to strengthen it and enhance the protection it would offer in the event of a car striking it;
4. Applicant will designate a portion of the lot near the R-3 zone as a fire zone
5. Applicant will examine the stockade fence and replace so as to enhance the privacy felt by residents in the nearby R-3 zone;
6. Applicant will route traffic in the parking lot so that it exits onto magnolia avenue;
7. Applicant will close the outdoor area no later than 11 p.m.;
8. No live music will be offered in the propose outdoor area, but if live music is offered inside the premises, all doors will remain closed so that the music will be heard as little as possible in the proposed outdoor area;
9. Applicant will install a no right turn sign at the exit onto magnolia;
10. Applicant will install curb stops on Route 71 so as to discourage egress directly onto Route 71 from the parking lot;
11. Applicant will install curb stops near the wooded area near the R-3 zone so as to discourage parking in the wooded area abutting Applicant’s parking lot;
12. In the event applicant installs an awning over the outdoor area, there will be no sides permitted so as to form any sort of full or partial enclosure, and no heating will be permitted;
13. The outdoor TV shall be allowed to have volume on Monday through Saturday until 8:00 p.m., after which time the volume shall be turned off; on Sunday the volume shall be turned off at 5:00 p.m.
14. The dumpster shall be moved from its current location to a spot nearer the premises so that residents of the R-3 zone experience less impact from the premises’ waste;
15. Applicant will not have speakers located on the proposed outdoor area, other than speakers that are internal to any television that may be placed outside during football games, which shall be National Football League games broadcast on Sundays;
16. Applicant will have 4 handicapped accessible parking spots, located in the same area as the present handicapped parking spot;
17. The parking lot shall complete re-paving and re-striping of the parking lot within 60 days of substantial completion of the outdoor area; and
18. Applicant will get approval from the Fire Marshall for the proposed parking.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, that Applicants’ application is approved, subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant will re-submit proposed lighting scheme for approval by Borough engineer;
2. Applicant will patch and overlay the parking lot
3. Applicant will reinforce the proposed masonry wall with rebar or bollards so as to strengthen it and enhance the protection it would offer in the event of a car striking it;
4. Applicant will designate a portion of the lot near the R-3 zone as a fire zone
5. Applicant will examine the stockade fence and replace so as to enhance the privacy felt by residents in the nearby R-3 zone;
6. Applicant will route traffic in the parking lot so that it exits onto magnolia avenue;
7. Applicant will close the outdoor area no later than 11 p.m.;
8. No live music will be offered in the propose outdoor area, but if live music is offered inside the premises, all doors will remain closed so that the music will be heard as little as possible in the proposed outdoor area;
9. Applicant will install a no right turn sign at the exit onto magnolia;
10. Applicant will install curb stops on Route 71 so as to discourage egress directly onto Route 71 from the parking lot;
11. Applicant will install curb stops near the wooded area near the R-3 zone so as to discourage parking in the wooded area abutting Applicant’s parking lot;
12. In the event applicant installs an awning over the outdoor area, there will be no sides permitted so as to form any sort of full or partial enclosure, and no heating will be permitted;
13. The outdoor TV shall be allowed to have volume on Monday through Saturday until 8:00 p.m., after which time the volume shall be turned off; on Sunday the volume shall be turned off at 5:00 p.m.
14. The dumpster shall be moved from its current location to a spot nearer the premises so that residents of the R-3 zone experience less impact from the premises’ waste;
15. Applicant will not have speakers located on the proposed outdoor area, other than speakers that are internal to any television that may be placed outside during football games, which shall be National Football League games broadcast on Sundays;
16. Applicant will have 4 handicapped accessible parking spots, located in the same area as the present handicapped parking spots;
17. The parking lot shall complete re-paving and re-striping of the parking lot within 60 days of substantial completion of the outdoor area; and
18. Applicant will get approval from the Fire Marshall for the proposed parking.
The above Resolution was approved on a motion by Mr. Stenson, seconded by Mr. O’Donnell and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Stacey Montalto, John
O’Donnell, Charles Sarnasi, James Stenson

Noes: None

Not Eligible to Vote: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo,
Tim Sigler

NEW BUSINESS:

As neither Mayor Nicol nor Councilman Garruzzo could hear two of the applications tonight, the agenda was changed to hear the one application they could vote on; the Board then considered an application for variance relief for Block 47.01, Lot 2, 202 Perry Place, owned by Donald E. Cresitello, to allow elevation of existing single family dwelling. Variances outlined in Zoning Officer’s Letter of Denial.

The correct fees were paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners within 200 feet as well as the newspaper were properly notified. Mr. Donald Cresitello came forward and was sworn in. He said he is the owner of this property which is in the R-3 Zone and is in Flood Zone A-3 with a flood elevation of 9 feet. He received a Letter of Denial as the elevation of the floor is over what is permitted by Governor Christie after Hurricane Sandy.

This is an existing single story home which is permitted in this zone; they want to elevate the home 8.63 feet and move the driveway to accommodate a new garage under the home. He also commented they need a deck here, then listed all the variances needed; he is seeking relief due to the extraordinary lot, depth and topography as this lot is undersized and in a flood zone.

He stated the positive criteria: the Municipal Land Use Law is advanced by a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance for this lot and it will be an aesthetic improvement for the neighborhood as it will fit in. He will comply with all FEMA requirements which will enable the new home to be able to withstand a Category 3 hurricane; it is anticipated that there will be no problems with flooding in the future. There will be no impact on the Zoning Plan or Zoning Ordinance.

Mr. Langenberger was concerned with the lot coverage, the application says 35% and he felt this was overbuilding. Mr. Cresitello said the lot coverage is 15% and not 35%, he said he thought he had calculated incorrectly. Mr. Sarnasi asked if there will be a change in the existing grade and the answer was no, it is not allowed. Mr. Sarnasi then asked what material will the new driveway be and Mr. Cresitello said it will be stone, it is now asphalt. Mr. Sigler asked about the new deck and Mr. Cresitello felt it will make the house look better.

As there were no more Board questions the hearing was opened to the public for questions only to Mr. Cresitello. As there was no response, that portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Hilla said he was looking into the lot coverage question, Mr. Condon said he came up with 26%; Mr. Hilla asked if there is a front porch there and the answer was yes. Mr. Cresitello said the deck will be new but that is not included in lot coverage.

The hearing was again open, this time for general comments and Hugh Johnson of 326 Fisk Avenue came forward and was sworn in. He said the application notice he received said “any and all other variances and waivers”. He questioned this wording but Mr. Hilla told him notices do have that wording in them. The Board may find something that was not applied for and this is a catch-all for that, however, in this case, all was covered properly and it does not apply here.

As there were no further comments the Board went into discussion and all members were in agreement with the application, as presented. As this time Councilman Garruzzo made a motion to approve the application, this seconded by Mr. Stenson and then by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Thomas Condon,
James Langenberger, Stacey Montalto, John O’Donnell, Charles
Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, James Stenson

Noes: None

As the next two hearings were for Use Variances, Mayor Nicol and Councilman Garruzzo left the dais as they are not eligible to hear Use Variances. The Board went back to Old Business and the continued hearing for Block 66.01, Lot 15, 715 Union
Avenue, LLC to allow interior alterations to a multifamily building, relocate existing
Trailers, create laundry facilities and parking lot improvements.

Mr. Chris Hanlon, Esq. came forward to speak to the Board for the applicant. He said they were here in June and had the testimony of the Engineer; he has two more witnesses to testify. First he had Mr. Ryan Sansone, the new owner of the Trailer Park, to come forward and be sworn in. Mr. Sansone said he has owned this since October of last year; he had met with Borough Council and their attorney about 6 months before purchasing this. He needs a Use Variance for the rear building, it is designed for 9 units but only one is being used; he wants to re-capture those rental units. He commented that the whole Trailer Park is in desperate need of repairs. The front two units allow apartments, one in the front building and five in the other; there will be improvements to these buildings such new roofs, as well as other cosmetic changes to make them more aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Sansone said they will raise the roof and put in dormers but the area will be dead space and used just for storage. He also said they will replace the trailers and put in new upgraded ones.

Mr. Hanlon said that last month there was a complaint about garbage smells and Mr. Sansone said he has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and has a maintenance group who takes care of the garbage on a regular basis. Mr. Hanlon then asked about the front of the property and Mr. Sansone said this is owned by the State of New Jersey but they are working with the Dept. of Transportation to purchase it, a formal request has been made and they are now waiting for an appraisal. If he gets it he will pave it with new asphalt which will open up the area for more parking; however, it can’t be used yet. Mr. Sarnasi asked if they do get this State property, how many parking spaces can they put in and Mr. Hanlon said the Engineer, Jason Fichter, can answer this but they hope to get 5 spaces. Ms. Montalto said this, added to the 9 they propose, would mean a total of 14 spaces and Mr. Fichter, who had come forward, said yes.

Mr. O’Donnell still felt there is a real issue here with parking but Mr. Hanlon said they are not proposing any more trailers. Mr. O’Donnell said the 1986 Resolution states that if a trailer is removed that land becomes parking but Mr. Hanlon did not agree as the trailers did not come out due to a lack of space. Mr. Sarnasi asked if the new trailers will be larger and Mr. Hanlon said the new ones are 12 feet whereas the old ones are 8 feet, but they are not asking for more space, it’s not needed. Mr. Condon read that part of the Resolution and he could see why there is a difference of opinion.

Mr. Hanlon said they could keep the old trailers and keep repairing them but the new ones are a better option and are safer as they are built to an upgraded code. They are not asking for a decrease of separation of trailers.

Mr. Hilla asked about access to the attic space in the building that will have a new roof and dormers and Mr. Sansone said there will be a “barn door” that will be built for owner related items to be stored, there will be no internal access.

Mr. Hilla then asked about the continuation of the Right-of-Way if the D.O.T. does not cooperate with the sale of that land. For safe passage the owner has to take care of the sidewalk and that pavement here is in poor condition; maybe they can fix it for safe passage for the public, he did not want to see the pavement stay that way. Mr. Langenberger suggested using a blacktop strip as the kids use this area going to and from school to get to the crossing guard on Higgins Avenue. Mr. Hilla felt this should be a minimum of what the town should require. Mr. Hanlon said his client agrees to that but they still need D.O.T. approval to do even this. Mr. Hilla said it’s already paved and he felt they have a duty to maintain it, but Mr. Hanlon countered that its State property and he did not think they had the right to fix it. It can be in the Resolution that they will comply with D.O.T. approval.

At this time the hearing was opened to the public for questions and Cynthia Farley from Brielle Commons came forward. She said the fence by the building in the back belongs to Brielle Commons and wanted to know the reason why this building was not used for motel units as originally done. Mr. Langenberger answered they were not able to use them unless they had kitchenettes, and only one had, this information came from the Construction Department. She then asked how far from the property line does this building have to be and Mr. Langenberger said it is existing and he thought it was 4 feet; Mr. Hilla said that 25 feet is the minimum. Mr. Hanlon said they do not have 25 feet and are asking for this difference to be continued, it is an existing non-conformity. Ms. Farley asked about the occupancy allowed for the motel units and Mr. Langenberger said they are one bedroom units so the occupancy would be two people. She then asked if this will be inspected and Mr. Langenberger said yes, it is on the Certificate of Occupancy that is issued for a rental unit and should be built into the lease.

Next to come forward was Les Reitman of 1 Courtyard Lane in Brielle Commons. He had one question and that was is there a requirement of 60 parking spaces by code. Mr. Hanlon explained that this is not specified in the Brielle Ordinance so they had to use the residential requirements, which come to 60 spaces. Mr. Reitman asked how are they going to fit 9 spaces where there should be 60 and Mr. Hanlon said if they were starting with a clean slate this would apply but they are working with a 1986 Resolution. They are trying to get more parking by purchasing land from the State and are looking to improve the situation. Mr. Reitman said he could not even see why this discussion is going on if they have 9 spaces where 60 are needed. Mr. Hanlon said they can keep it as it is if they do not get relief from the Board, they want to make it better.

Mr. A.J. Fox then came forward, he resides at 649 Woodland Avenue but owns trailer 3 in the adjacent trailer park. He wanted to know who they will be renting to as everyone has a car. Mr. Sansone said there is a limit on occupancy and the renters there now take mass transit, ride bikes or use cabs. Mr. Fox then asked where the garbage area is and was shown on the map. He wanted to know why it was there and not in another area away from people, he felt it can be moved from the north to the south side of the property. Mr. Sansone said it lays out best for them here and it has been here for 30 years. Mr. Hanlon said they would lose some of the expanded parking area if it is moved. Mr. Fox then questioned the single bedroom units and only allowing two people; Mr. Langenberger said the BOCA Code says this, there will be two occupants. Mr. Fox asked if this will be enforced and Mr. Langenberger said it is stated on the Certificate of Occupancy.

Roxanne DeAmbrosio then came forward, she and her husband own the trailer park next door. She wanted to acquire this property 15 years ago and was told she would have to have parking spaces, what has changed? It could take 3 years for D.O.T. Mr. Condon said the Board does not know who she talked to 15 years ago and all the Board can do at this time is listen to this testimony. She then asked if a license is needed for motels in New Jersey and Mr. Hanlon said they will register with the DCA and they will do the inspection, there are no licenses.

Next to come up to speak was Tom Hughs of 7 Courtyard Lane. He inquired about the spacing of the trailers as they are going up in size, he couldn’t understand how the spacing will not be increased if they are going from 8 feet to 12 feet. Mr. Hanlon said if they find it doesn’t work in the field they will not go in but he said they can get them to fit properly. Mr. Hughs asked how will we know if they fit and Mr. Sansone said he will make sure of it and Mr. Hanlon said the municipality can also check.

Mr. Condon asked if there will be a final, certified plan submitted and Mr. Hilla said he did not know if the Construction Official will want that but he thought the Board can require this in the Resolution. Mr. Hanlon said they just have to focus on the timing of that. Mr. Sansone said they will work in phases and they can put 4-5 in there, however, there are occupants in the trailer park and they are not getting rid of them until they move out, then those trailers will be replaced.

As there were no more questions, that portion of the hearing was closed and Richard Graham, Architect, came forward to be sworn in and testify. As the Board was very familiar with Mr. Graham he was accepted as an expert witness.

He said he was asked to do architectural studies to increase the appearance quality and he referred to the drawings he submitted. Page one is a rendering, the view seen from the overpass. The upgrade will be new siding, columns, cupolas and a sea shore roof. The other building here needs a new roof, a taller one which will give a better visual view and it will be higher than the mobile homes. The second page bottom shows one of the existing buildings and the top shows the renovations planned. He said the columns here will act as bollards, there will be a new roof detailed with dormer windows and will be used as an attic for storage, it is not habitable. The third page is an as-built showing the easterly side by Mariner’s Cove Diner. The fourth page shows improvements to another building, an upgraded roof with cupolas and they will replace the porch columns along with detail on the windows and doors. This building will also have reinforced columns to act as bollards; a similar improvement is for the back building. Mr. Hanlon said all these improvements can be part of the Resolution.

Mr. Sarnasi asked if there are any fireproof walls between the units and Mr. Graham said these are masonry walls so there is a high fire rating. If there are fire requirements for the gabled end they can upgrade to a fire rating. Mr. Condon asked if the attic space on top will have fire stops and Mr. Graham said they are big enough to require this and, if this is approved, they will be put in the working drawings.

At this time the hearing was opened for questions to Mr. Graham and, hearing none, that portion was closed and the hearing was again opened to the public, this time for comments. Cynthia Farley came forward and was sworn in. She wanted to tell Mr. Sansone that she applauded his efforts to clean up the trailer park, but the motel unit will be 15 feet from her deck she felt this will destroy her home value and her quality of life. She did not think Brielle Commons would have been built if this was done back when it was developed.

Mr. Les Reitman came forward and was sworn in. He said it sounds like it will be beautiful but what will they do with the cars? There still is no place to put them. Next to come forward was A.J. Fox who was sworn in, he owns Unit 3 in the trailer park next door. He liked the improvements planned and felt it will help the town; he just asked that they move the garbage area, he did not want it by his property.

As there were no more comments that portion of the hearing was closed. Mr. Hanlon said at the June meeting they went over the positive and negative criteria and he felt this application fits in the positive criteria; this property is here and the argument can be made that some people would prefer it not be here but his client wants to improve it which will benefit the town and neighbors. There will be a slight increase in the use and there is justification to granting the Use Variance.

The Board then went into discussion. Mr. Langenberger went back to when the Gold Brothers owned the trailer park next to this one and said if the DeAmbrosios’ had not purchased it and fixed it up it would be worse than this one is today. He thought Mr. Sansone is going to do the same thing here, there have been many people coming into the town and looking at this and deciding they didn’t want to touch it. Mr. Sansone came forward to fix it up and he applauded him for his work. He did not think Brielle Commons would not have been built if this was done back then.

Mr. Stenson agreed it will be a tremendous improvement but the parking is a problem and he asked if they could eliminate one or two trailers. Mr. Sansone answered and said that is not economically possible. Mr. O’Donnell agreed and could not get away from the parking for the units. Mr. Sarnasi was glad to see it getting fixed up but he could still envision people with cars with no parking. As far as the garbage area, there will now be more people which will be more garbage and more recycling; he agreed it should be moved away from any residents. Also, no one has been living in the motel units and now there will be people there, he suggested perhaps some sort of wall for the noise. Mr. Sigler agreed on the noise issue in the back building as well as the parking problem.

Ms. Montalto appreciated all the efforts made and agreed with the parking issues; she was sensitive to the neighbors’ comments and hoped there will be a real effort to enforce the occupancy. She also felt it would be fair to move the garbage area. Mr. Condon said parking is always an issue but in looking at what is there and what will be, this benefit far outweighs the detriment of parking. He agreed with the issues raised but he believed this is a positive for the town. He then asked Mr. Hanlon if he wanted a vote or did he want to address some of the concerns voiced by the Board. Mr. Hanlon asked for a brief recess and was given 3 minutes. He then came back before the Board and said they can tweak the plans for fix 3 issues; parking, refuse and noise.

He then referred to Exhibit P-1 and showed Trailer A’s location. He said they could remove this trailer and put in three parking spaces as well as move the garbage area here but again this is in the State Right-of-Way. Hopefully, that will take care of some of the concerns. Also, if they move the garbage area they may be able to come up with 2 more parking spaces but they have not finalized this concept; however, they felt it could be done. Mr. Fichter said for the masonry building in the back, the architect will put sound mitigating windows as well as insulation in the attic space. Mr. Hanlon agreed all this can be part of the Resolution.

At this time the Board decided to have a vote on this application and Mr. Langenberger made a motion to approve the application with the changes noted, this seconded by Mr. Stenson and then by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Stacey Montalto, Charles
Sarnasi, James Stenson

Noes: John O’Donnell

Not Eligible to Vote: Tim Sigler

The last item for the evening was an application for a Use Variance for Block 60, Lot 16, 11 Crescent Drive, owned by Michael & Stacey Farinacci, to allow construction of a new home. Building Coverage 20% allowed, 24.74% proposed. Floor Area Ratio - .50 allowed, .5497 proposed.

The filing fees were paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners within 200 feet as well as the newspaper were properly notified. Mr. Stephen Caccavale, Esq. came forward to present the application. He said that, in addition to the building coverage and maximum ratio they are making the driveway go from 5 feet to 2 feet from the property line.

At this time Michael and Stacey Farinacci came forward and were sworn in. Mr. Charles Gilligan, Planner & Engineer, was also going to testify and as he is well known to the Board he was accepted as an expert witness. Mr. Farinacci said he has a brother that lives in town and they have seen how happy their family is here and they decided they wanted to move here as well; they have three children and need a bigger home.

Mr. Gilligan came forward and was sworn in. He said this property is in the R-3 zone and this house will be residential which is permitted; the home that was here was demolished, it was a single family home. This is a substandard lot at 7,016 square feet and there are several homes in this area now under construction. They are proposing a home with 24.7% coverage as they need a slightly bigger home than the 20% maximum allowed. They want a ½ story above the second floor at .5497 ratio where .5 is allowed. They meet the requirements for imperious coverage and there will be two drywells, the grading goes to Crescent Drive. The previous home that was here drained to the rear so this will be a positive improvement.

Mr. Caccavale said the property is only 60.20 feet wide and 110.16 feet deep and Mr. Gilligan said this is the existing condition here, they did not want to go beyond the allowed setbacks and they met all of them. There will be no detriment to the public good and this home will fit in the neighborhood, it will not impair the Zoning Plan or Zoning Ordinance. This home is in a Flood Zone so there is no basement and this is the reason for the request for more space upstairs; there are “fingers” that are like dormers that will let in the light but this is not a usable area, 300 feet will be a livable area. Mr. Caccavale asked how big an area that was and Mr. Gilligan compared it to a 1 ½ parking spaces, not a huge increase; the lot is undersized and this is what creates the need for the overage.

He said that Mr. Hilla found one more variance need in his review regarding the driveway setback, they need a 5 foot radius and they swerve back to 2 feet. The property next to them goes back to the property line and the property to the west actually encroaches about 4 inches, so this driveway will fit in this area and not be out of place. He had photos of the driveways by this property. The first photo is the driveway on the west side, the one that encroaches by 4 inches. The house to the east has the driveway start at 5 feet and then goes to the property line. Mr. Gilligan also said that on the opposite side of the street are larger homes so this newer home will fit in. The Flood Zone elevation here is 7-9 feet so they can get maybe one foot of flood water and this home will be built to accommodate this concern.

He then addressed Mr. Hilla’s report on the grading and said the existing survey and proposed building will have no change in grading, the drainage will go to Crescent Drive and roof leaders will be installed. Mr. Condon asked if there was a tremendous amount of runoff with Sandy and Mr. Gilligan said the problem came from Debbie’s Creek so it came up from behind. Mr. Condon asked if this will be eliminated and Mr. Gilligan said yes, this home will meet the requirements of post-Sandy.

At this time the hearing was opened for questions and Mr. Anthony Knapp of Crescent Drive came forward. He asked how many square feet is permitted and how many square feet are they building. Mr. Gilligan said 3,508 square feet is allowed and they are building 3,857 square feet. Mr. Knapp then asked why the house next to them has a full basement and the house next to him has a full basement. Mr. Gilligan said the Flood Zones changed after Sandy and there are now new elevations and new requirements. Mr. Knapp said his home was not in a Flood Zone and Mr. Gilligan said that with the old maps he may not have been but there are new maps out. The Farinacci home is definitely in the Flood Zone.

As there were no other questions, that portion of the hearing was closed and Mr. Caccavale said he had nothing further to add in summation. As this time the hearing was again opened, this time for comments and Mr. Knapp came forward again and was sworn in. He felt this will be a big improvement, the home that was there was a total wreck, he had no problem with this new home. He did have a comment on the bulldozer that is across from his property, he spoke to Mr. Langenberger who told him to call the Construction Department in Spring Lake; he did and was told that as long as there is a permit for construction the bulldozer can stay, there is nothing in the Ordinance that addresses it. Spring Lake does have it in their Ordinance and he felt this is something Brielle should look into. Mr. Condon told him the Planning Board does not have jurisdiction in this matter and he has to take this problem to Mayor and Council. Mr. Langenberger said he had the Zoning Officer look into this and there is nothing on it; we do have an Ordinance on boats, that’s all. Mr. Knapp again offered that this should be looked into.

Christian Siano then came forward and was sworn in. He was in favor of this and had reviewed the plans; he looked forward to this family moving into town. As there were no other comments that portion of the hearing was closed and the Board went into discussion.

Mr. Langenberger felt this will be an outstanding addition to the neighborhood and was in favor of approval; Mr. Stenson agreed and wished them luck. Mr. Sigler did not like the coverage issue but felt it was necessary with the undersized lot and Mr. Condon agreed with him. As there were no other comments from the Board a motion was made by Mr. Stenson to approve this application, as presented, this motion seconded by Mr. Langenberger and then by the following roll call vote:

Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Stacey Montalto, John
O’Donnell, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, James Stenson

Noes: None

As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion was made by Mr. Sarnasi to adjourn, this seconded by Mr. O’Donnell and approved unanimously by the Board, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 9:40 pm.



_______________________________________
Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary

Approved:






 

RELATED LINKS