www.briellenj.com
A Community by the River

Borough of Brielle, NJ


March 21, 2017

June 08 2017

March 21st, 2017

BRIELLE PLANNING BOARD

TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 2017

The Regular meeting of the Brielle Planning Board was held on Tuesday, March 21, 2017 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 Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, James Maclearie,

Absent Councilman Frank Garruzzo, Charles Sarnasi, James Stenson

Also present was Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary, Joe Clark, Esq., Board Attorney and Alan Hilla, Jr. Board Engineer. There were 4 people in the audience.

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.

Mr. Condon announced that the continued hearing for Waypoint 622, scheduled for this evening, has been postponed and a new hearing date has not yet been set, property owners within 200 will be notified.

The Minutes of the February 21, 2017 meeting were approved on a motion by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mayor Nicol and approved by voice vote, all aye.

OLD BUSINESS:

The Board considered a Resolution for approval for variance relief for Block 70.01, Lot 1.01, 603 Sandy Court, owned by Andrew & Shannon Aldi, to allow construction of a covered rear patio addition to a single family dwelling. As all Board members, as well as the applicants, had received a draft copy and there were no changes or recommendations, the following was presented for approval:

WHEREAS, ANDREW AND SHANNON ALDI (“Applicants”) have applied to the Planning and Zoning Board (“Board”) of the Borough of Brielle seeking a variance for the property located at 603 Sandy Court known as Block 70.01, Lot 1.01 (hereinafter “Property or Parcel”), on the tax map of the Borough of Brielle, in the Borough’s Residential Zone 2 (R-2 zone) to allow construction of a covered rear patio addition to an existing 2 story dwelling; and
WHEREAS, this application specifically requires the following variance:
a. Rear Yard Setback 40 feet required,18.6 feet proposed
WHEREAS, the Board held a hearing on February 21, 2017, and considered the following documents presented at the hearing in connection with this application:
a. Jurisdictional Packet;
b. Exhibit A-1; architectural plans showing rear patio;
c. Exhibit A-2; photograph of backyard; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered the following testimony presented at the hearing in connection with this application:
Mrs. Shannon Aldi (“Mrs. Aldi”), who owns the property along with her husband Andrew, came forward to present this application and was sworn in. Mrs. Aldi testified that she and her husband had hired an architect to design the proposed rear patio; the plans were submitted and marked as Exhibit A-1. Mrs. Aldi further testified that according to the architect, their property can support 6,607 gallons of water for infiltration as far as rainwater. She stated that the patio would add to the property because it would make the rear of the house more usable.
Mr. Langenberger asked if the proposed structure was to be a raised paver patio; Mrs. Aldi responded that it would not be. She further testified that the structure would be under 36 inches in height and that one would come out the back of the home and then down to the patio. She also stated that the Aldis have planted over 40 trees on their lot as well as the streetscape area.
A picture of the back yard was then marked as Exhibit A-2. Mr. Lapham asked for clarification that 40 trees were planted and Mrs. Aldi show him on the picture where they were planted. Mr. Sarnasi questioned Mrs. Aldi about her comment on rainwater collection and asked if she needed a recharge system. Mrs. Aldi responded that the system would not be needed because the runoff will not exceed the 6,607 gallon infiltration threshold.
At this time the hearing was opened to the public for questions or comments and, hearing none that portion was closed. As all Board members were in favor of approving this application, Mayor Nicol made a motion for approval, this seconded by Mr. Maclearie and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, James Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, James Maclearie, Charles Sarnasi, Thomas Condon
Noes: None
WHEREAS, the Board after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant at the hearings and of the adjoining property owners and general public, if any, makes the following factual findings and conclusions of law:
a. The variance relates to a specific piece of property;
b. The purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law would be advanced by a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance requirement because the variance encourages 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; and promotes a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement, which benefit the entire neighborhood by creating an enhanced aesthetic and concomitant sense of community;
c. The variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good inasmuch as the proposed lot line change runs between two parcels owned by the same family;
d.  The benefits of the deviation substantially outweigh any detriment; and
e. The variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, that Applicant’s variance application is hereby approved and granted subject to the following conditions:
A. Applicant shall pay all taxes and other applicable assessments, costs and fees to date, as applicable.
B. Applicant shall comply with all requirements and outside approvals as may be required from the Borough of Brielle or any other governmental authority not otherwise disposed of by this application.
The above Resolution was approved on a motion by Mayor Nicol, seconded by Mr. Langenberger and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, James Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, James Maclearie, Thomas Condon
Noes: None
The Board then turned to the approval of a Resolution for variance relief for Block 47.01, Lot 14, 318 East Woodland Avenue, owned by Denise Cerone, to allow construction of an 8.2 foot wide porch on an elevated dwelling.
As all Board members, as well as the applicant, had received a craft copy and there were no changes or recommendations, the following was presented for approval:
WHEREAS, DENISE CERONE (“Applicant”) has applied to the Planning and Zoning Board (“Board”) of the Borough of Brielle seeking variances for the property located at 318 Woodland Avenue, and known as Block 98, Lots 1-1.01 & 2-2.01 respectively (hereinafter “Property or Parcel”), on the tax map of the Borough of Brielle, in the Borough’s Residential Zone 3 (R-3 zone) to allow construction of a two-story 8.2 foot wide porch on an elevated dwelling; and
WHEREAS, This application specifically requires the following variances:
a. Minimum Lot Area 11,250 square feet, 5,479 square feet existing & proposed;
b. Minimum Lot Width 75 feet required, 50 feet existing & proposed;
c. Minimum Side Yard Setback 10 feet existing, 8 feet proposed
d. Lot Coverage 20% maximum allowed, 25.8% proposed.
WHEREAS, the Board held a hearing on February 21, 2017, and considered the following documents presented at the hearing in connection with this application:
a. Jurisdictional Packet;
b. A-1 Application plans;
c. A2-A-5 photographs;
d. A-6 photograph showing hanging wire; and
e. A-7 photographs bearing handwritten notes.
WHEREAS, the Board considered the following testimony presented at the hearing in connection with this application:
Concetta Alvarez (“Ms. Alvarez”) & Denise Cerone (Ms. Cerone”) came forward to present the Application and were sworn in. Ms. Cerone is the owner of the property and Ms. Alvarez is a representative of the builder, who was present to explain the proposed construction and to address issues relating to the proposed construction. Ms. Alvarez stated the deck will be one story; the application plans showing the deck were marked as Exhibit A-1.
Ms. Alvarez testified that the proposed construction was part of a larger project that included raising the home due to FEMA Regulations. In turn, the raised porch would not be conforming, so Applicant requires a variance. The raised home now has long stairs and a deck offering more room at the top of the stairs is a safer alternative, and because of the stability would help prevent a fall down the stairs.
Ms. Alvarez further stated that the proposed front porch is consistent with the entire neighborhood, which possess raised front porches. Ms. Alvarez then presented pictures to the Board, which were marked as Exhibits A-2 A-5. Exhibit A-2 through A-5 shows the homes in Ms. Cerone’s neighborhood and in the surrounding areas; the homes in her neighborhood all have raised decks and/or porches; the testimony indicated that Ms. Cerone’s house was the only one in the neighborhood with the feature, while the other photographs showed that many other houses in the area possess raised decks and porches as well. Applicant is requesting a larger space, primarily for safety reasons relating to the staircase.
Mr. Langenberger asked if it was possible to make the deck smaller to reduce the lot coverage, and Ms. Alvarez indicated that if it were not for the FEMA regulations requiring the house (and therefore deck) to be raised, there would be no need for variances at all, and that the necessity was created by the new regulations. Mr. Hilla, the Planning Board’s Engineer, commented that the deck has a roof over it, which is why it was counted in lot coverage counted in lot coverage. Mr. Langenberger said he was not aware of anyone else coming in and asking for 26% lot coverage.
Mr. Hilla inquired about a shed on the property; Ms. Alvarez said that because of the house size, the shed is needed for storage, but can be removed if necessary. Mr. Hilla stated the application said the shed will be removed; Ms. Alvarez indicated that the statement should not have been put in the application. She also indicated that the shed square footage was included in the lot coverage calculation. Mr. Condon asked about storage in the home and was told there is a low crawl space that is sheet rocked.
Mr. Hilla then asked if the stairs are going straight down into the front yard and Ms. Alvarez said the original drawing shows that, but they might have to put in an “L” shaped stairway. Mr. Langenberger asked how far out it goes if it is not “L” shaped. At that time, Mr. William Taylor, Professional Engineer came forward, was sworn in and was accepted as an expert witness. Mr. Taylor said that a straight staircase sticks out 9 feet, while and “L” shaped staircase would be 6.5 feet; Mr. Hilla said this would change the variance by ½ foot.
Mr. Hilla then asked about the hanging wire that seems to touch the porch and stairs. The photo best showing this was marked as Exhibit A-6, and Ms. Alvarez said an electrician would be hired to lift the wire by one foot. At this point additional photographs bearing notes on them were marked as Exhibit A-7.
Mr. Hilla noted the hydrant in the driveway; Ms. Cerone explained that when she purchased the home she moved the driveway and so the hydrant is now in her driveway. Ms. Cerone said she is having the driveway redone and can construct it so that the hydrant is no longer there. Mr. Langenberger told them they need at least 3 feet on either side of the hydrant for Fire Company access; Ms. Alvarez said they will bring it in 3 feet and make it 10 feet wide instead of its current 13, or angle it away from the hydrant.
Mr. Hilla then asked about drainage, and Mr. Taylor testified that he did not do calculations on it. Ms. Alvarez said they can put in a gutter system to control the water flow.
At this time the hearing was opened to the public for questions and, as there were none that portion of the hearing was closed. It was then opened again for comments and, as there were none, that portion of the hearing was also closed and the Board went into discussion.
Mr. Langenberger did not have a problem with the application other than the lot coverage issue. Ms. Montalto felt it was an excellent plan, and made the most of the situation created by FEMA regulation; she was supportive of their efforts but said she would prefer the “L” shaped to the stairway, Mr. Maclearie agreed with her. Mr. Sarnasi felt this variance will enhance the look of the home and Councilman Garruzzo had no issues with the application, the other Board members were supportive of approval. Ms. Brisben told Ms. Alvarez she needs 5 sets of revised plans showing the changes that were discussed, the “L” shape stairs, gutters/leaders, the wire moved, the driveway change, and any other conditions discussed and included in the resolution.
Councilman Garruzzo made a motion to approve the application with the conditions as noted above and the Resolution will reference the possible need for drainage approval from the Board Engineer, this motion was seconded by Mr. Maclearie and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, James Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, James Maclearie, Charles Sarnasi, Tom Condon
Noes: None
WHEREAS, the Board after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant at the hearings and of the adjoining property owners and general public, if any, makes the following factual findings and conclusions of law:
f. The variance relates to specific pieces of property;
g. The purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law would be advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirement because the variances engendered in part by new FEMA regulations would and secure safety from fire, flood, panic and other natural and man-made disasters; 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; and promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement by making Applicant’s home consistent with the surrounding area;
h. The variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good inasmuch as the proposed lot line change runs between two parcels owned by the same family;
i.  The benefits of the deviation substantially outweigh any detriment; and
j. The variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, that Applicant’s variance application is hereby approved and granted subject to the following conditions:
A. Applicant shall pay all taxes and other applicable assessments, costs and fees to date, as applicable.
B. Applicant shall comply with all requirements and outside approvals as may be required from the Borough of Brielle or any other governmental authority not otherwise disposed of by this application;
C. Applicant shall raise the wires overhanging the proposed porch and as shown in Exhibits A-6 and A-7 to a level where the risk to health and safety is minimized;
D. Applicant shall install gutters on the roof of the porch, which shall direct runoff towards Applicant’s driveway;
E. Applicant shall have the staircase adjoining the deck constructed in an “L” shaped configuration;
F. Applicant shall move the driveway, either by narrowing same or angling away from the fire hydrant, so that the fire hydrant is no longer within it;
G. Applicant is not permitted to enclose or otherwise contain the porch in any manner whatsoever; and
H. Applicant shall submit new plans, consistent with the conditions in this resolution and which were agreed to by Applicant on the record, to the Planning Board for the Planning Board Engineer’s review and approval.
A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Langenberger, seconded by Mr. Maclearie and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, James Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, James Maclearie, Thomas Condon
Noes: None
The Board then considered approval of a Resolution for Variance relief for Block 97.01, Lot 2.01, 405 Sycamore Lane, owned by Stephen Flood, to allow construction of an addition of a front porch to a single family dwelling.
As all Board members, as well as the applicant and his attorney, had received a draft copy and there were no changes or recommendations, the following was presented for approval:
WHEREAS, STEPHEN FLOOD (“Applicant”) has applied to the Planning and Zoning Board (“Board”) of the Borough of Brielle seeking a variance for the property located at 405 Sycamore Lane, and known as Block 97.01, Lot 2.01 (hereinafter “Property or Parcel”), on the tax map of the Borough of Brielle, to allow construction of an addition of a porch for expansion of a single family dwelling.; and
WHEREAS, This application specifically requires the following variance:
b. Front Yard Setback 40 feet required, 33.9 feet to front porch addition
WHEREAS, the Board held a hearing on February 21, 2017, and considered the following documents presented at the hearing in connection with this application:
a. Jurisdictional Packet;
b. Exhibit A-1 and A-2, Photographs of existing structure; and
c. Exhibit A-3, color rendering of the site
d. Exhibit A-4; plans showing house and proposed porch.
WHEREAS, the Board considered the following testimony presented at the hearing in connection with this application:
Mr. John Jackson, Esq. came forward to present the application on behalf of Applicant. Mr. Christopher Rice, Licensed Architect in New Jersey was sworn in as a witness, and was ultimately accepted as an expert by the Board. Photos of the property were marked as Exhibit A-1 & A-2 and a color rendering of the site was marked as Exhibit A-3. Mr. Rice testified that the Exhibits portray an accurate depiction of Applicant’s intent with regard to the proposed construction. Mr. Rice further testified that the proposed construction was prompted by prior construction of a one story addition; after construction, Applicant felt that a porch would be aesthetically pleasing but would provide only 33.9 feet in frontage when 40 is required and the home itself is already at only 41 feet.
Exhibit A-4 was then marked, a drawing showing the proposed front porch, which is open air and, as testified to, will never be enclosed or screened. Plans show a 7 foot wide porch, and Mr. Rice testified that Applicant originally wanted 8-9 feet but ultimately felt that a width greater than 7 feet would extend too far into the front yard setback. Mr. Rice noted the street itself is beautiful, with a narrow lane bounded with mature sycamores. Mr. Rice further noted that because the right of way for the street itself adds numerous feet of grassy area in front of the beginning of Applicant’s front yard setback, a porch that encroaches into the setback by several feet would remain unnoticed and would not disturb the aesthetics of Sycamore Lane. He then testified, with reference to Exhibit A-4, that the porch would add an enhanced visual and aesthetic component to the structure, and also stated that because the Property is so large, the increased coverage due to the porch creates only 18.2% coverage, where 20% is the limit.
The Board then asked several questions of Mr. Rice. Mr. Lapham asked about the material for the base and was told it will be masonry. Mr. Hilla asked about drainage and in response, Mr. Ray Carpenter, Professional Planner, came forward, was sworn in and accepted as an expert witness. Mr. Carpenter told Mr. Hilla and the Board that Exhibit A-4 (the plan) contains an error as to drainage which will be corrected, and then 5 revised plans will be provided to the Board.
As there were no more questions from Board members the hearing was opened to the public for questions; as there were none that portion was closed and the hearing was again opened for comments; as there were none that portion was also closed and the Board went into discussion.
All Board members were in agreement that they liked the application, as presented, Councilman Garruzzo made a motion for approval, this seconded by Mr. Lapham and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, James Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, James Maclearie, Charles Sarnasi, Tom Condon
Noes: None
WHEREAS, the Board after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant at the hearings and of the adjoining property owners and general public, if any, makes the following factual findings and conclusions of law:
k. The variance relates to a specific piece of property;
l. The purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law would be advanced by a deviation from the zoning ordinance requirement because the variance encourages 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; promotes the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities and regions and preservation of the environment; and promotes a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement;
m. The variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good;
n.  The benefits of the deviation substantially outweigh any detriment; and
o. The variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, that Applicant’s variance application is hereby approved and granted subject to the following conditions:
A. Applicant shall pay all taxes and other applicable assessments, costs and fees to date, as applicable.
B. Applicant shall comply with all requirements and outside approvals as may be required from the Borough of Brielle or any other governmental authority not otherwise disposed of by this application.
C. The proposed porch shall remain open, and shall never be enclosed, screened in or otherwise altered in such a way that it does not remain open; and
D. Applicant shall submit, as soon as possible, and before any construction commences on the Property, 5 copies of plans for review and approval by the Planning Board’s Engineer correcting the error as to drainage to which Applicant’s expert Mr. Carpenter testified.
A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Maclearie, seconded by Mr. Langenberger and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, James Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, James Maclearie, Thomas Condon
Noes: None
The next Resolution was for Minor Subdivision approval for Block 98, Lots 1-1.01, 2-2.01, 912 & 914 Jordan Drive, owned by the Kokes family, to allow a lot line change between two existing properties.
As all Board members, as well as the applicant and their attorney, had received a draft copy and there were no changes or recommendations, the following was presented for approval:
WHEREAS, JERRY KOKES, LYNDA KOKES, AND THE IRENE KOKES TRUST (“Applicants”) have applied to the Planning and Zoning Board (“Board”) of the Borough of Brielle seeking a minor subdivision in the form of a lot line change and variances for the properties located at 912 & 914 Jordan Drive, and known as Block 98, Lots 1-1.01 & 2-2.01 respectively (hereinafter “Property or Parcel”), on the tax map of the Borough of Brielle, in the Borough’s Residential Zone 2 (R-2 zone); and
WHEREAS, this application specifically requires the following variances:
c. Proposed right-of-way width for Lot 2-2.01 is 40 feet where 50 is required;
d. Lot 1-1.01 has frontage of 22 feet along the right of way where 50 is required;
e. Proposed right-of-way width for Lot 1-1.01 is 40 feet where 50 is required;
f. Lot 2-2.01 side lot setback of zero feet for patio around fish pond, where 5 is required; and
g. Lot 1-1.01 side lot setback of less than one foot for driveway where 5 is required.
WHEREAS, the Board held a hearing on February 21, 2017, and considered the following documents presented at the hearing in connection with this application:
a. Jurisdictional Packet;
b. Exhibit A-1; plans showing proposed lot line change dated 10/16/2016; and
WHEREAS, the Board considered the following testimony presented at the hearing in connection with this application:
Mr. Matt Kalwinsky, Esq. came forward to present the application and stated that the purpose of the proposed subdivision was to improve nonconformities to the existing lot line between Lots 1-1.01 and 2-2.01, both of which are owned by the Kokes family.
At this time Mr. David Eareckson, Licensed Engineer in New Jersey came forward, was sworn in, and was accepted as an expert witness by the Board. He testified that he prepared the plans (marked as Exhibit A-1) and had a colored rendering that highlighted the variances. Mr. Eareckson recognized the need for variances for both proposed lots from the Borough Code requirement that all front yard face on a 50 foot right-of-way for at least 40 feet, both Lots have issues with this and require variances for the existing and proposed non-conformities for lot frontage. He also indicated that although moving the lot line does help one accessory structure become compliant, a variance would be needed for the patio around the fish pond on Lot 2-2.01, which would extend to the property line.
With regard to the fact that the relocation of the lot line will reduce the existing side setback to the driveway on Lot 1-1.01 from the 5 feet required to less than 1 foot, Mr. Eareckson indicated that there will be a landscape berm for drainage so water runoff would not be an issue.
Mr. Eareckson further testified that the only parties affected by the variances are members of the Kokes family, and that the proposed subdivision would help harmonize the two lots as much as possible.
Mrs. Brisben then spoke and said the application was submitted to the Board stating that no variances were required and this is a conforming subdivision. Mr. Kalwinsky indicated that Board Engineer Alan P. Hilla, Jr., P.E., P.P., CME indicated in his technical review letter that variances would be needed, and that Applicants came prepared to discuss them, and also gave appropriate notice of the variances in the notice to property owners and in the newspaper
Mr. Hilla asked how the subdivision will be filed and was told it would be done by deed.
The hearing was then opened publicly for questions and, as there were none, that portion was closed; the hearing was again opened for general comments and, again there was no response so that portion was closed and the Board went into discussion. As all Board members were in agreement that this moving of the lot line should be approved, a motion was made by Mr. a motion was made by Mr. Langenberger to approve this application with the variances noted in the Resolution, this seconded by Mr. Lapham and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, James Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, James Maclearie, Charles Sarnasi, Tom Condon
Noes: None
WHEREAS, the Board after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant at the hearings and of the adjoining property owners and general public, if any, makes the following factual findings and conclusions of law:
p. The variance relates to specific pieces of property;
q. The purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law would be advanced by a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance requirement because the variance encourages 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; and promotes a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement;
r. The variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good inasmuch as the proposed lot line change runs between two parcels owned by the same family;
s.  The benefits of the deviation substantially outweigh any detriment; and
t. The variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, that Applicant’s variance application is hereby approved and granted subject to the following conditions:
A. Applicant shall pay all taxes and other applicable assessments, costs and fees to date, as applicable.
B. Applicant shall comply with all requirements and outside approvals as may be required from the Borough of Brielle or any other governmental authority not otherwise disposed of by this application.
A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Lapham, seconded by Mayor Nicol and then by the following roll call vote;
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, James Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, James Maclearie, Thomas Condon
Noes: None
The last Resolution for consideration was for variance relief for Block 48.01, Lot 14,02, 306 Fisk Avenue, owned by Eric Leonhardt, to construct 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, ERIC LEONHARDT (“Applicant”) has applied to the Planning and Zoning Board (“Board”) of the Borough of Brielle seeking variances for the property located at 306 Fisk Avenue, and known as Block 48.01, Lot 14.02 (hereinafter “Property or Parcel”), on the tax map of the Borough of Brielle, in the Borough’s Residential Zone 3 (R-3 zone); and
WHEREAS, this application specifically requires the following variances:
h. Building Height 35 feet maximum allowable; 38 feet proposed; and
i. Building Height 2½ stories maximum allowable; 3 stories proposed.
WHEREAS, the Board held a hearing on February 21, 2017, and considered the following documents presented at the hearing in connection with this application:
a. Jurisdictional Packet; and
b. Exhibits A-1 through A-3; architectural plans and renderings.
WHEREAS, the Board considered the following testimony presented at the hearing in connection with this application:
Mr. Eric Leonhardt of 602 Valley Road came forward and was sworn in. Before testimony was given, Mr. Clark, Planning Board Attorney, informed the Board of a jurisdictional issue with this application. He stated that Mr. Hilla’s review found a need for a Use Variance due to excess floor area ratio (“FAR”), where .50 is permitted and Applicant is asking for .5073. The Board was informed that a Use Variance would require Mayor Nicol and Councilman Garruzzo to step down off the dais.
At this time Mr. Tom Peterson, a Licensed Architect since 1982 and a Professional Planner in New Jersey came forward, was sworn in and was accepted as an expert witness by the Board. With regard to the FAR/jurisdictional issue only, Mr. Peterson stated that Applicant’s need for a height variance due to the Property’s location in a Flood Zone, resulted in the existence of an unintended Use Variance. Mr. Peterson stated that the amount of excess floor area is 40 square feet. Mr. Clark then reviewed the notice that was sent out and said that Applicant did properly notice for the variances, including the Use Variance. Mr. Hilla stated that if Applicant proceeded with Use Variance he would need 5 affirmative votes to pass out of the 6 members able to hear an application for a Use Variance. Mr. Peterson spoke with Applicant and Applicant agreed to reduce the FAR by decreasing the size of the open deck on the third floor from 20x11 feet to 16x11 feet, resulting in a savings of 44 square feet, which would place them under the FAR. In light of Applicant giving notice of the proposed Use Variance, and in light of Plaintiff’s waiver of the Use Variance on the record and agreement to reduce the size of the third floor deck so as to result in a conforming FAR, it was decided that the application could proceed as a bulk variance request, thereby enabling Mayor Nicol and Councilman Garruzzo to hear and vote on the application.
The jurisdictional issue being resolved, Applicant was then permitted to proceed with the application.
Mr. Leonhardt testified that he and his wife purchased a home in Brielle about 4 years ago, and when the waterfront lot that is the subject of the application became available, they purchased it.
Mr. Maclearie asked if this is going to be a third story loft and Mr. Leonhardt said yes. Mr. Peterson then testified that the proposed structure would include a typical ½ story, to which Planning Board Engineer Alan Hill (“Mr. Hilla”) agreed and stated that it does achieve the definition of a ½ story in the Brielle Ordinance. Mr. Peterson further testified that it would not be a full story, but would be finished.
The hearing was opened for questions to Mr. Leonhardt and, hearing none, that portion was closed.
Mr. Peterson then came forward and testified that this property is in the Flood Zone A-11 & A-10, the first floor will be 13.5 feet high and will have 8 feet under the structure to park; it will be a walk-through open space with no storage. HE further testified that because the height of the structure is measured from the street, an issue exists as to building height. Mr. Peterson further testified that because the are under the structure reserved for parking is not usable storage space (because of potential flooding), Applicants added extra height to create the open ½ story which will be dedicated to storage.
At this time the architectural plans, sheets 1-3 as drafted by Mr. Peterson and dated 11/21/16 were marked as Exhibits A-1, A-2 and A-3. Mr. Peterson said front of the house was designed in the manner set forward in the plans so as to soften the look; he explained that the roof pitch is 6.5 on 12, which is low, and that when a house is that high, less of roof is able to be seen; consequently dormers were added so that the aesthetic would be similar to a Brielle seashore home.
Mr. Peterson further explained that because the Property is on a waterfront, and new definitions of Flood Zones have been adopted by FEMA, that the problem faced by Applicants is becoming very common and did not think the accommodations made as a result of the Flood Zone changes were unusual or unique but were instead an architectural response to the Flood Zones that made the structure compliant while also trying to preserve a seashore aesthetic.
Mr. Peterson testified as to another variance. He said it was for the amount of space not at the 5 feet height, created by the 2 gables which in the front. He stated that if the gables were not there, the structure would not need that variance, but he felt this home needs those gables as well as a half-round window.
Mr. Peterson then reviewed Mr. Hilla’s report and said that the proposed structure is below three stories. In regards to fill being put on the property Applicants will apply for a Flood Hazard Permit and Applicant’s engineer will work with Mr. Hilla on drainage issues. There will be a gravel driveway and landscaping will be put in. Mr. Hilla asked about the floor level material and was told it will be concrete.
Mr. Hilla further stated that Applicants should submit a survey so that the file is complete. Mr. Hilla asked whether parking spots would be delineated; because the front yard will be completely gravel, Mr. Hilla did not want to see the whole front yard end up as parking. Mr. Leonardt testified that Applicants want to run gravel in the front all the way but do not plan on parking cars in the front yard. In response, Mr. Langenberger commented that the home across the street needed to put in a green area so it does not look like a parking lot. Mr. Leonhardt indicated that the front of the house will also be landscaped so that it will not be a bare lot. Mr. Hilla indicated that there should be impediments to parking on the entire gravel area so that the driveway area is clearly defined, and Mr. Leonhardt agreed.
Mr. Peterson the summed up the application and stated that it will give Applicants a home that is FEMA complaint, conforms to the seashore style, and gives Applicants space for storage. He testified that the height variance is a result of the ridge and the top two gables; he further stated that if necessary, the gables could be eliminated because the ½ story was not being used for bedrooms. Overall he did not see any negative impact and only a positive impact on the town and, from a Planning standpoint, he could see no reason not to approve this application.
Mr. Sarnasi asked what the FEMA requirement is for a first floor and was told 13 feet and the Applicants are at 13.5 feet, which also helps with floor insurance. Mr. Sarnasi felt if they dropped to 13 feet they would lose headspace; Mr. Peterson agreed because Applicants cannot use the area underneath for anything other than parking and the ceiling of the open space is not even a full 8 feet. Mr. Sarnasi inquired about water runoff from the roof and Mr. Peterson said that it would run to the street and that Applicants can’t put in a recharge system because of the shallow water table.
At this time the hearing was opened to the public for questions and, as there were none, that portion was closed. It was opened again for general comments and again there were none so that portion was also closed. The Board all agreed with the plan as presented, with conditions as noted and with the Use Variance having been waived as a result of Applicants agreement to decrease the size of the deck. Mrs. Brisben told Mr. Peterson she would need 5 revised plans showing the reduced deck and driveway outline. Councilman Garruzzo made a motion to approve the application with the stipulations as noted, seconded by Ms. Montalto and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, Councilman Frank Garruzzo, James Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, James Maclearie, Charles Sarnasi, Tom Condon
Noes: None
WHEREAS, the Board after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant at the hearings and of the adjoining property owners and general public, if any, makes the following factual findings and conclusions of law:
u. The variance relates to specific pieces of property;
v. The purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law would be advanced by a deviation from the Zoning Ordinance requirement because the variance encourages 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; and promotes a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangement; and secures safety from fire, flood, panic and other natural and man-made disasters;
w. The variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good inasmuch as the proposed lot line change runs between two parcels owned by the same family;
x.  The benefits of the deviation substantially outweigh any detriment; and
y. The variance will not substantially impair the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Borough of Brielle, that Applicant’s variance application is hereby approved and granted subject to the following conditions:
A. Applicant shall pay all taxes and other applicable assessments, costs and fees to date, as applicable.
B. Applicant shall comply with all requirements and outside approvals as may be required from the Borough of Brielle or any other governmental authority not otherwise disposed of by this application.
C. Prior to commencement of construction, and with respect to the proposed fill to be used on the lot, Applicant shall obtain all necessary NJDEP or other outside permits including, without limitation, a Flood Hazard Permit;
D. Applicant shall provide, as part of Zoning Permit process, proposed grading and/or drainage facilities to manage stormwater runoff as a result of the proposed construction;
E. Applicant shall submit a survey of the property;
F. Applicants shall submit five copies of a revised plan consistent with the representations made on the record at the hearing on February 21, 2017 including, without limitation, the reduction in deck size so as to comply with the FAR limitations and the limitations, whether by landscaping or other means, on parking in the front yard; and
G. The third floor of the structure shall never be used as living space, including bedroom space.
A motion to approve the above Resolution was made by Mr. Lapham, seconded by Ms. Montalto and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, James Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, James Maclearie, Thomas Condon
Noes: None

NEW BUSINESS:
The Board turned to an application for Site Plan approval for Block 77.01, Lot 3, 421 Higgins Avenue, owned by Lombardi Residential, LLC, to allow a professional engineer’s office. Curb Cuts no more than 30 feet in length existing curb cut on Higgins Avenue is 50 feet & proposed curb cut on Gull Lane is 45 feet. Trash storage to be on paved surface & screened, not on plan. Front Yard Setback 30 feet required, 20.8 feet existing. Side Yard Setback 10 feet required, 4.8 feet existing (east) & 3.3 feet existing (west). Lot Coverage 25% maximum allowed, 33.61% existing. Off-street parking to be surfaced with properly bound pavement & drain, gravel surfaced driveway proposed. Driveway to be set back 5 feet from adjacent properties, 4 feet proposed. 17 parking spaces required, 14 proposed. Loading space is required, no loading space proposed. Landscaping 20% of site required, less proposed.
The proper fees were paid, taxes are paid to date and the property owners within 200 feet as well as the newspaper were properly notified. Mr. Daniel Popovitch, Esq. came forward to present this hearing.
He said this is an existing building with no site plan approval and they wish to use it for Midlantic Engineering; Mr. Matthew Robinson, Engineer from Midlantic then came forward and was sworn in. He has been an Engineer in NJ since 2006 and has been before many Boards; the Board accepted him as an expert witness. He said they wish to start up a satellite office in this building on Higgins Avenue, their main office is in Hamilton, NJ.
He then presented Exhibit A-1, a colored rendering of the site plan that was submitted with the application. Lombardi Residential, LLC has renovated it and they have done a great job. There are 5 parking spaces in front and one will be handicapped with one striped for a loading area. The employee parking will be in the rear and will be done on gravel with an infiltration pipe, this to collect drainage to Gull Lane. The lot in the rear is 52 feet wide and will have a concrete apron, the parking will be 45x48 feet deep and will be able to have 10 parking spaces here which will be bounded by the curing which will be expanded.
They had not proposed a trash enclosure as they do not have much trash, most of their work is digital. They will put an enclosed deck box in the rear for trash, it will hold 3 cans in a 6x4 area. Going back to the drainage in the rear of the building in the parking lot, this will be a gravel area and they will pitch the gravel to the middle of the area with a 4x4 foot stone trench with 24 inch perforated pipe to soak into the surrounding area. This will be employee parking and they are not creating delineations for spaces as this is for employees only, however, they can put in timber ties if the Board wants it done. Mr. Popovitch asked how many employees will be here at one time and Mr. Robinson said there will be 10-12 people in the building, this is a satellite location for them.
He went on to say they do work in this area and have worked on Clark’s Landing and the Point Pleasant Hospital site; they do not have much walk-in traffic and all work is done through appointments, they may have one walk-in now and then so the 4 parking spaces in the front will be adequate.
He commented on Mr. Hilla’s report and the concern about the way the stone is in the back lot. There are various underlays that can be used and they will work with the Board engineer to get a geo-textile fabric that pleases all. As far as landscaping, they are planning on doing some as per what is shown on Exhibit A-1.
In regards to the proposed lighting this is a 9:00 to 5:00 operation, Gull Lane has street lighting as does Higgins Avenue; they will have some lighting around the building but this is a well lit area. There will be .3 ft candle in the rear and 1.5 foot candle in the front, they do not want to be too intense with lighting as this is by a residential area.
Mr. Robinson then addressed the loading space and says the law demands a space for loading, they may have a Federal Express or use the UPS store that is right down the street. There will be no problem with a delivery truck, they just drop off supplies and do not stay. There are no parking bumpers proposed as well.
As this was the end of the testimony the Board had some questions. Mr. Maclearie asked how they keep the water from going out the wrong way and Mr. Robinson explained the apron on Gull Lane will be higher than the water that collects so that will drop back into the middle of the lot and go underground, they have 6 inch gravel that runs along a stone trench into the piping as he explained earlier; this is designed for the 25-year storm. If it did overflow it would run down Gull Lane and that is how it will be designed; he did not think there is high groundwater here in this location.
Mr. Langenberger noted one tree that is in this lot, it is bigger than what is shown on Exhibit A-1 and he wanted to know if they will be removing that tree. Mr. Robinson said the timber tie hits the trunk and will come out maybe 7-8 inches and the branches are above where the cars will park, they do not want to cut it down; the car opening will be past the trunk and should not be a problem, they want it to stay.
Mr. Maclearie said this is a big building and asked if there is a way to soften the edge by Simko’s parking lot, perhaps put in some arborvitae? Mr. Robinson said they would like lawn here, the slab & grade of the building are right next to each other so he did not think there is room. He felt perhaps they can put in beach grass and will look into that. They will submit plans to Mr. Hilla and work with him on this.
At there were no other questions from the Board the hearing was opened to the public for questions and, as there were none, that portion was closed.
Mr. Popovitch then summed up the application and felt the parking was workable, most of the variances noted already exist, they are just changing the parking area in the rear. They will work with Mr. Hilla on the drainage and landscaping issues and he felt this will be an improvement to the area.
The hearing was again open to the public, this time for comments and, hearing none, that portion was closed and the Board went into discussion. Mr. Langenberger said he hated to see this building empty for so long and could understand the stacked parking they are proposing; he noted they have gotten rid of the oil tank and this property now has natural gas, he liked the application. Ms. Montalto felt this was well thought out and was a good application, as well. The rest of the Board agreed with the comments and Mr. Condon stated he felt they have done a wonderful job on this.
At this time Ms. Montalto made a motion to approve the Site Plan application, as presented, this seconded by Mr. Lapham and then by the following roll call vote:
Ayes: Mayor Thomas Nicol, James Langenberger, Eric Lapham, Stacey Montalto, James Maclearie, Thomas Condon
Noes: None
As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Condon, seconded by Mayor Nicol and unanimously approved, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 8:06 p.m.

Approved: May 9, 2017


NEW BUSINESS:

The Board turned their attention to an application for Use Variance relief for Block 55.01, Lot 2, 506 Leslie Avenue, owned by Shawn Teicher, to allow the construction of a new 12x7 foot covered deck on the rear dwelling. Use Variance two dwellings existing on a property where only one is permitted. Minimum Lot Width - 50 feet, 40 feet existing & proposed.

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. Before this hearing started both Mayor Nicol and Councilman Garruzzo stepped off the dais as they were not eligible to hear a Use Variance.

Mr. Shawn Teicher of 506 Leslie Avenue came forward and was sworn in. He is looking for approval of an extension on a pre-existing roof and is not infringing on any setbacks or the main home. His mother is recovering from cancer and lost the family home to foreclosure; she will be living in the back home.

Mr. Langenberger said that Mr. Teicher got ahead of himself in doing these repairs and was told he had to come before the Board for approval. Mr. Langenberger also said this is a summer rental dwelling only, there are only about 4 of them in town and this is one of them; it can only be occupied from Memorial Day to Labor Day and can have no heat in it.

Mr. Condon asked if the porch is going to be enclosed and the answer was no. As no other Board member had any questions, the hearing was opened to the public for questions and, as there was no response, that portion was closed. It was opened again for general comments and again there was no response so that portion was also closed.

Mrs. Murdoch had no problem with the approval as long as it was in compliance with being a summer rental only and the rest of the Board agreed. Mr. Langenberger asked this stipulation be put in the Resolution of approval. Mr. Teicher asked why it had to be in the Resolution of approval and Mr. Langenberger said that sometimes people take advantage and will make a summer rental a year around one. Mr. Teicher was agreeable to this.

At this time a motion for approval of the application, as presented with the conditions of being only a summer rental, was made by Mrs. Vitale and seconded by Mrs. Murdoch; the following roll call vote was then taken:

Ayes: Thomas Condon, James Langenberger, Gina Murdoch, John O’Donnell, Charles Sarnasi, Tim Sigler, Terre Vitale

Noes: None

The Board then turned to an application 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. Lot Width (proposed Lot 6.05) 100 feet required, 34.23 feet proposed. Side Yard Setback (proposed Lot 6.03) 10 feet required, 2.57 feet existing & proposed.

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. C. Keith Henderson, Esq. came forward to present this application. Before he started, Mr. Condon wanted it on the record that his brother Nicholas, who did own property within 200 feet of this property, had sold it but his name has not yet been taken off the tax records; he was within his jurisdiction to stay on the Board and hear this application.

Mr. Henderson proceeded to state this is a 3 lot subdivision request and they need 2 variances, one proposed and one existing. This property is 46,618 square feet with 4,600 square feet in the water with riparian rights; this property is by the Crabtown Creek section of the Manasquan River, by Donnelly Place and Crescent Drive. There is one dwelling on this lot now and each lot created will exceed the requirements for this zone. They had appeared informally before the Board a while ago and the Board asked for a reduction in the number of variances requested and that is what they did, they now only have a new lot width variance.

He then asked Michael Centrella of 22 Crescent Drive to come forward and be sworn in. Mr. Centrella said he has owned the property since 2001 and there is now only a guest cottage on the property, the main house, garage and pool were demolished around 2002. The guest cottage was damaged by Hurricane Sandy and it took them one year to get back in. They want to build in the proposed middle lot and then tear down the guest cottage. Mr. Langenberger asked if the demolition of the guest cottage would mean one less variance and the answer was yes.

Mr. Sigler asked why they could not subdivide into two lots with no variances and Mr. Henderson said that, under the C-2 variance, all the lots conform. Mr. Sigler said they needed a lot width variance on one of the proposed lots and Mr. Henderson said there will be testimony on this.

As there were no further questions from the Board, the hearing was opened to the public for questions to Mr. Centrella and, as there were none, that portion was closed.

Mr. Robert Burdick then came forward and was sworn in, he is a Professional Planner & Engineer in New Jersey and has been before many Boards, including this one, since 1978. The Board accepted him as an expert witness.

He was familiar with the Brielle Zoning Ordinance and told the Board this minor subdivision originally needed three variances plus one on the existing home as it is just 2.57 feet from the property line. He said this existing variance is not affected by the subdivision proposal. They do need a corner lot variance for the Donnelly Place/Crescent Drive lot as 60 feet is required and they propose 34.23 feet; the access to proposed lot 6.05 will be from Donnelly Place and he felt this was a minimal variance request. The area is big enough for 4 lots and they propose 3 lots which will be 30% over the lot coverage area required. Mr. Henderson said the reason for the corner variance is the 60% rule and Mr. Burdick said yes, this is unique as this is a pie shaped lot and the frontage is narrow, however, they tried to make it as conforming as possible.

Mr. Henderson then asked that a Conceptual Minor Subdivision Plan dated 3/31/14 be marked as Exhibit B-1. Mr. Burdick said they did a layout that they believe is conforming but the lines are somewhat screwed, these lots shown on Plan B-1 do conform but they did not think this would work here. They believe the proposed alternative that they are presenting for approval is better.

Mr. Burdick then went over the Engineer’s report which noted discrepancies in the lot area descriptions and this will be corrected. Also, all riparian rights will be processed correctly so each lot has its own riparian rights. It was noted in the Engineer’s report that the fencing is not totally shown and this, too, will be corrected. In regards to any needed curb cuts, the road will be milled and resurfaced; water and sewer lines are there from the main house so any other milling and paving will be up to the Board. Mr. Henderson added that if they do not have to cross the road they do not want to mill and pave. Mr. Burdick said that if any CAFRA permits are needed they will take be taken care of and they plan to file this subdivision by deed which will be reviewed by the Board Professionals before any signing is done.

Mrs. Murdoch asked for clarification on the cottage home that is there now being demolished and Mr. Henderson it will be but it depends on the sale of the lots and when the Centrellas can start building their new home. Mr. Langenberger asked about the maximum height of the house being built there and if it has to be raised up due to being on the water. Mr. Hilla explained that any new home being built now has to comply, the FEMA rules revised after Hurricane Sandy only apply to an existing home; if they want to exceed the height maximum they can come back before the Board. Mr. Sarnasi questioned the lot frontage shown on the plan and was told it shows the measurement from the building setback line. Mrs. Vitale asked what “hardship” there was and Mr. Burdick said this is an irregular pie shaped lot. She asked if they were not going with Plan B-1 due to the weird lot shapes that would be created and Mr. Burdick said it is not easy to sell an odd sized lot.

As there were no more questions from the Board the hearing was opened to the public for questions to Mr. Burdick and, as there were none, that portion was closed. The next witness to come forward and be sworn in was James Higgins, a Licensed Professional Planner in New Jersey that has been doing this for 35 years and helped with Brielle’s Zoning Ordinance back in 1980. The Board accepted him as an expert witness. He said the criteria here meets both the C-1 & C-2 variances: C-1 the requirement reads either the shape or topography of a property for a hardship, this does not mean one cannot use the property, just that one can’t use it properly due to the topography or shape. You can fit in 4 conforming lots here but you would not want to due to the shapes of the lots, so they created 3 lots and only one needs a variance for lot width.

In this particular R-3 zone area every lot runs from street to street and to the river with straight lines, so if you look at Exhibit B-1 you can see that these conforming lots would be completely out of character. Out of 15 lots that were researched, 7 of them are less in lot frontage but they are parallel lots and this can’t be done on Donnelly Place; more can be done with the plan that is presented for approval. There will be no negative impact on the area, all the lots meet the zoning requirements except for the corner variance and all 3 of the lots will be in character with the other properties here; by eventually removing the cottage dwelling another negative impact will be taken away.
Under the C-2 criteria, the benefits outweigh the detriments here and the appropriate use of the land is encouraged. This is also in Brielle’s Master Plan and all the proposed lots are oversized and more consistent than the B-1 plan. He then addressed the safety aspect for disasters, Donnelly Place is a 30 foot Right-of-Way but only 14 feet of it is paved. If Plan B-1 were used that would mean a residence would be fronting on Donnelly Place with a 14 foot paved roadway; if there were a fire only one fire truck could get in so the town would have to widen Donnelly Place. Councilman Garruzzo confirmed that the ingress and egress off Donnelly Place would be at the other end with the proposed plan so it would not be affected by the 14 foot end and Mr. Higgins said this is correct.

He then stated that there would be light, air and open space with the plan proposed, 3 lots with 3 residences with proper lot lines between the homes with enough open space. If this were a two lot subdivision the homes built would be a lot bigger and out of character in this neighborhood, what is being proposed is what is appropriate for this area. If Plan B were approved Donnelly Place would have to be widened and the Borough would have to maintain a 28 or 36 foot strip it would also be difficult to restrict parking on Donnelly Place.

The proposed subdivision is in keeping with the residential use and density recommended in the Zoning Ordinance, it is consistent with the character of the neighborhood and gives a reasonable consideration to the area use; it is a good design and arrangement and is a more efficient use of the land rather than 2 lots being created. Mr. Sigler commented there are homes in this area that are on double lots and are large homes. Mr. Higgins agreed that some of the frontages are 60 feet or more and the proposed lots will fit in as they are also oversized. Mr. Condon asked about parking on Donnelly Place now and was told by both Councilman Garruzzo & Mr. Hilla that there is no parking allowed there at all.

As there were no further questions from the Board the meeting was opened to the public for questions to Mr. Higgins and Mr. Robert Houseal came forward and was sworn in. He asked if the public has any rights to views of the water on the Crabtown Creek portion of the Manasquan River and is this addressed in the Land Use Law. Mr. Higgins answered no. Mr. Houseal then asked about the other residents on Crescent Drive and if they have that right and again the answer was no. As there were no other questions from the audience that portion of the hearing was closed.

Mr. Hilla commented that his memo addressed the plans of January and now there are different front setbacks. Mr. Burdick said he revised the plans about 10 days ago; Mr. Hilla just wanted to make that clear to all present. Mr. Condon said the Board needs correct plans to review.

Mr. Henderson said he had no other witnesses to testify and, as there were people in the audience that may want to comment and the time was up Mr. Condon said the hearing will be continued next month and all will have a chance to speak at that time, Tuesday, April 14th.

As there was no other business to come before the Board, a motion was made by Mrs. Vitale to adjourn, this seconded by Mrs. Murdoch and approved unanimously by the Board, all aye. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 pm.



_______________________________________
Karen S. Brisben, Recording Secretary

Approved:






 

RELATED LINKS