ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF APRIL 4, 2007
Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
for the record.
Braden - Present Thomas Buraszeski - Present
Kanoff - Present James Marinello - Present
Driscoll - Present Richard Moore (Alt #1) - Present
Maury Cartine – Present
Carl DiPiazza (Alt #2) - Present
Hug - Present
Present: William Denzler,
for the record
in of Professionals
The following application was carried with new notice
required to 6/6/07:
ZSPP/FCD02-06 Old Towne
Properties – B: 40; L: 52, 53, 54, 55
– 630 & 632 Rt. 202; 3 & 5 Waughaw Rd. - Prelim & Final Site Plan;
“D” use variances for mixed retail/residential in a B-1 zone; Commercial
Off-Street parking is not a principal permitted use in the R-27A zone; Floor
Area Ratio 199.5% where 25% is allowed; Building Height of 35.33’ where 30’
allowed; “C” variances for Front Setback of –2.0’ (Waughaw Rd) where 25’
required and 51.5’ exists; Front Setback 4.9’ (Route 202) existing and proposed
where 25’ required; Side Setback .6’ (existing and proposed) where 10’
required; Maximum Building Coverage 65.4% where 20% allowed; Maximum Impervious
Coverage 81.1% where 55% allowed; Off-Street Parking 69 spaces where 204 spaces
are required; Design Waivers for Residential Buffer of 10’ where 20’ is
required; Minimum distance for location of traffic aisles, parking and loading
5’ where 10’ (to building) required and 20’ (to residential zone) required;
Fence screening; Minimum parking space size 9x20 required and 9’x18’
proposed Carried w/notice from
10/4/06. Eligible: Dr. Kanoff, Mr.
Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Moore, Mr. Marinello
The following application was rescheduled to
ZSPP/FDC10-89-29-06 Hook Mountain Care Center– Hook Mountain Rd. - B: 159, L: 4 - preliminary/final site plan/use
variance/bulk variances for construction of a 4 story, 75,538 s.f. assisted living facility containing 120
nursing beds and 60- residential health care beds. Use variances required for
height and use not permitted in zone.
Bulk relief requested for maximum building coverage, total lot
impervious coverage, wall heights and signage, along with disturbance of steep
slopes and off-street parking setbacks. ACT
ZC35-05 Sachdev – B: 24.2, L: 32 – 10 Indian
Ln – side setback10.5’ (existing and proposed) where 47’ required/setback from
utility easement 11’ where 50’ required/lot area of 70,742 s.f. vs 120,000
s.f./ lot width 195’ (existing & proposed) vs 216’ demolish existing house
and rebuild – Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 5/11/07
on behalf of the applicant: Ravi Sachdev, applicant; Derek Hughes, PE; Patrick
Sachdev - sworn
Sachdev – We have a 2-bedroom house with a 13 year old and a 4 year old. We wish to demolish the existing house and
construct a 4-bedroom house. The
property has a gas line easement through the property constraining the
Hughes, PE - sworn
property is restricted by wetlands and a gas easement. They have a front setback of 85’ existing
and 63’ proposed where 60’ required.
Cannot build to the rear or right of the easement, must build to the
front. This is only location on property
to locate house. The proposed house is
in conformance with other houses on Indian Lane. The house will be more aesthetically pleasing to the
Exhibit A1 – written responses
to board professional reports
Sachdev reviewed responses for the Board.
There is a wetlands buffer to the rear and right side of property and a
gas line easement to the left of the property.
There is a lack of space in the existing house for my family. The proposed house will be in conformance
with the other houses on Indian Lane.
A2–5 – photos of existing houses
on Indian Lane
Sachdev – We will connect to municipal water.
There is no detriment to the surrounding area. This is one of the smallest houses on the street. The proposed house will not worsen any
existing non-conformity. Nothing can be
built on the adjacent property closer to our house due to the gas
easement. There are no underground or
aboveground fuel tanks on the property.
We use natural gas. We did test
pits for the high water table and there was no presence of water. We could not purchase any adjoining lots due
to wetlands, Township owned property and the gas easement. Would be willing to move the water line if
required as per the Planner’s report.
Denzler – Have DEP permits been obtained?
Mr. Sachdev – Yes. Mr. Denzler -
Applicant is requesting side setback10.5’ which is existing and proposed where
47’ is required; setback from utility easement of 11’ where 50’ required; lot
area of 70,742 s.f. where 120,000 s.f. is required; lot width of 195’ which is
existing where 216’ is required in order to demolish existing house and
rebuild. Design exceptions for steep
slope disturbance required due to new water line that is to be run to the
house. I suggest the applicant run the
waterline along the driveway creating fewer disturbances in the slopes. A design waiver required for gravel
driveway. Concerned with gravel making
its way onto public roadway and suggest paving be installed at the driveway
entrance to Indian Lane.
McHugh, PP - sworn
performed test pits on the property and there was no evidence of water. There is bedrock under the soil.
Denzler – The property is constrained by wetlands. There will be no increase of existing non-conforming
Huelsebusch – I recommend drywells be provided. Mr. Hughes – The amount of disturbance is minimal and I ask for
relief from that. Mr. Huelsebusch –
Installation of a drywell will be required.
Mr. Hughes – We will install the drywell. Mr. Huelsebusch – The Township Engineer can require 25’ of paved
area for the driveway at the entrance of Indian Lane. Mr. Sachdev – We will pave part of the driveway as
to pubic – none
Buraszeski – How much of the slopes to the right of the property will be
disturbed? Mr. Denzler – 5.1% of the
property. Mr. Buraszeski – Will the
height of the building meet code? Mr.
Denzler – Yes. Mr. Hug – Is there a
garage on the proposed house? Mr.
Sachdev – No. Mr. Hug – That is a large
house on a small lot with no garage.
Have you thought about building a different type of home with a
garage? What is to stop you from coming
back and asking for a garage at a later date?
Mr. McHugh – If Mr. Sachdev
wanted a garage at a later date he would have to come back before the board and
he may have a hard case. Mr. Hug –
Concerned with a house with no garage in the wetlands. Mr. Denzler – It is unusual to not have a
garage for a house this large. Mr.
Hughes – The applicant will agree to a condition of approval to maintain the
footprint and have a 2-car garage. Mr.
Huelsebusch – The location of the entry for the proposed garage may require a
larger driveway. Can you reconfigure
your driveway and not violate the DEP permit?
Mr. Hughes – Yes, will propose a front entry garage on the left side of
to approve due to constraints of the
property; no additional variances than what exists; fits in with the community;
subject to driveway complying with DEP requirements and township ordinances, 2
car garage in existing footprint; waterline to run along driveway, paving of
portion of driveway near Indian Lane.; hook up to city water; installation of
drywell made by Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll
call: Yes - Cartine, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Braden, Driscoll, Marinello
ZC36-06 Vogt - B: 9, L: 26.01 - 14 Lenape Dr. – addition to single family
residence which will create a side setback of 8.9’(existing and proposed) where
20’ required; combined sides of 28.8’
(existing and proposed) where 36.75’ is required Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 6/16/07
on behalf of the applicant: Jacqueline Vogt, applicant
Vogt - sworn
side setback of 8.9’, which exists and is proposed where 20’ is required and
combined side yards of 28.8’, which is existing and proposed where 36.75’ is
required. The house was built in the
1920’s and we are trying to keep the charm of the existing house. The house currently does not have a family
room and has a small dining room and no master bedroom. There is a walk-in attic and we want to raise
the roof for the master bedroom. There
are currently 2 bedrooms on the 2nd floor and we propose a total of
4 bedrooms. The lot is steep
Vogt – We recently filled the septic have proposed it to be converted into a
drywell. We are trying to maintain the
character of the neighborhood. Most of
the proposed changes are to the side and rear of the property. The adjacent property is vacant and that
property owner put a letter in the file indicating he was in support of the
Vogt - We revised our application 3 times in accordance with the Board
professional’s requests. We have
supplied a grading plan as requested.
There is a design waiver requested for disturbance in steep slopes and
we are requesting an exception from the driveway turnaround. There is enough room by the garage to
turnaround. No blasting will be
required. There is a 90’ conservation
easement at the rear of the property that was granted by the planning board
during the subdivision of the property. Our addition will not be near the
Denzler – Reviewed the variances and design exceptions for the board. The Planning Board approved the
non-conforming setback in 2003 during subdivision. Can the addition be set back to meet the setback of 21’? Ms. Vogt – That cannot be done without
damaging the footprint of the home. Mr.
Denzler – Can the patio be shifted over?
Ms. Vogt – There are doors there so it made sense to locate the patio
there but would agree to any condition of the Board.
Denzler – Recommend evergreen buffer along side yard. Mr. Huelsebusch – There is an additional design exception for 1
small area of wall where alteration of elevations in excess of 1’ within 5’ of
the property line.
to public – none
Buraszeski – Is the patio above grade?
Ms. Vogt – It is slightly above grade.
Mr. Cartine – Is there any chance that the abandoned septic cannot be
used as a drywell? Mr. Huelsebusch –
Yes, and if it cannot be used a second location would be required. Ms. Vogt – We did pump out the septic and it
was done with permits.
to approve subject to installation of drywell system; installation of evergreen
buffer along variance request side of house, approval of all design exceptions
and waivers requested made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call:
Yes - Braden, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Hug, Kanoff, Cartine, No - Marinello
ZC19-04 Nieradka – B: 119, L: 20 – 102 Pine
Brook Rd. – addition to single family residence which will create a front
setback of 34.86’ vs 50’ on a corner lot Notice Acceptable
ACT BY: 6/16/07
on behalf of the applicant: David Nieradka, applicant; Steven Boshart, AIA
Nieradka - sworn
home is existing 5’ into the right of way.
I want to put an addition along the back of the house.
Boshart, AIA - sworn
is a small farmhouse that predates the development of the roads. They have 2 front yards. The proposal will not encroach any further
than exists along Longview Road.
Anywhere we put an addition would require a front setback. Mr. Denzler – The property is a corner
lot. There is an existing 34.86; front
setback to Longview, which is proposed to remain. The house is into the right of way along Pine Brook Road. Does this proposal meet the maximum building
height? Mr. Boshart – Yes. Mr. Huelsebusch – Are you planning on
putting a garage in the future? Mr.
Nieradka – No. Mr. Buraszeski – The
variance requested exists today? Mr.
Denzler – Yes. Mr. Cartine – Are the stairs on the deck being removed? Mr. Boshart - Yes they are to be
relocated. Mr. Hug – Is there the
ability to put a garage in? Mr.
Nieradka – The cost to include a garage we could not do. We wanted a larger basement for a play area
for our twins
were willing to give up the garage. We
do not have any building or impervious coverage issues and a garage can be put
on in the future is needed.
to public – none – closed
to approved due to the property is constrained because it is a corner lot,
there is no other location for addition, the request consistent with existing
encroachment made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Mr. Braden; Roll call: Yes -
Cartine, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Braden, Driscoll, Marinello
Mr. Marinello left the meeting:
Cartine stepped up as vice chairman for the following application:
ZSPP/FDC33-06 Casha &
Casha – 115
Horseneck Rd. – B: 139.03, L: 7.03 – amended prel/final site plan/maximum Floor
Area Ratio (11,602 s.f. proposed vs 10,030 s.f. allowed)/minimum required
off-street parking spaces (107 spaces required vs 80 spaces provided) in order
to occupy 2,600 s.f. of basement level in an existing 2 story office building.
Notice Acceptable ACT BY: 4/5/07
on behalf of the applicant: Geoff Evans, Esq.; Peter Steck, PP
Evans – I am concerned that the applicant has not arrived yet. The application is for amended
preliminary/final site plan for use of basement as offices. There is a variances requested for parking.
Steck, PP - sworn
Exhibit A1 – photos of existing
site; zoning map; floor plan
Steck reviewed A1 for the Board. The
property is 40,118.1 s.f. It is
developed as a 2-story office building with 9,000 s.f. on 2 floors. There is a fairly sizable common area in the
building. This site was part of the
corner property with the same size building as Lakeland Bank. There is a shared parking area with a recorded
instrument that says each occupant of the buildings have access to all spaces. There are 15 reserved parking spaces that
currently are green along Horseneck Road.
Lakeland bank does not have a basement.
The Casha building has a basement currently used for file storage and
mechanical equipment. Propose to
develop small office spaces in the basement. The net area for the offices is
1,220 s.f., which is exclusive of the file storage. On the approved site plan it was shown as storage only. Total basement area is 2,600 s.f. Mr. Steck reviewed the surrounding area for
the Board. The site is located in the OB-1 zone. Offices are permitted uses. There is a FAR variance
requested. The applicant is requesting
an amendment to the site plan since previously approved for storage only in
basement. There is a FAR variance
11,602 s.f. proposed where 10,030 s.f. is allowed.
Steck – There were several variances approved at original site plan. Since we are adding square footage the
parking requirements are changed. We
are asking to occupy the space without paving the 15 reserved spaces, variance
requested. I viewed the site on 4
occasions and there were no less than 29 spaces vacant at any one time. The applicant sent an employee out and
counts were done on the hour and they range from 32-54 vacant spaces. The use is permitted in the zone. 1,572 s.f. above the allowable FAR
proposed. There will be no change to
exterior of building. Only change is 8
small office spaces in the basement.
There are no windows. The only
noticeable land use change would be the number of cars. According to the code, if I occupy the
basement I need 11 more parking spaces.
There are plenty of spaces on site currently. The benefits outweigh the detriments as it relates to the parking
variance; there is no detriment to zone plan or zoning ordinance. There is a high ratio of common area to
Denzler – The greater number of parking space vacancies was when the bank was
closed? Mr. Steck – Yes. Mr. Denzler – Did you do a review of other
properties in the area as it relates to FAR?
Mr. Steck – No. If you look at
the entire property there would not be a need for a FAR but there are 2
buildings on this site. There are 11
spaces in the front of the Casha building that are marked for visitors. Mr. Denzler – The office space used for
existing uses? Mr. Steck – No there
will be additional users, up to a maximum of 8. Mr. Denzler – Will you meet the uniform construction codes? Mr. Steck – Yes. Mr. Huelsebusch – If required by this Board, would the reserved
parking be paved. Mr. Steck – If
required they would be paved.
Huelsebusch – Plans would have to be provided that meet building codes along
with fire safety codes. I am concerned
with the lack of windows. Mr. Steck –
The architect is confident that the fire safety codes can be met and will agree
to a condition of approval. Mr. Denzler
– Was there a specific trigger for paving of the additional parking in the
resolution of original site plan? Mr.
Evans – Read the resolution into the record indicating it was up to the
municipal officials as to whether it should be paved.
Buraszeski – Is there any area not to be calculated in the FAR calculations in
the ordinances? Mr. Denzler – Non-
habitable areas are exempt. Mr. Steck – We have included all of the square
footage of all floors for a worst-case scenario.
Braden – Was the original application considered for offices in the
basement? Mr. Denzler – The planning
board cannot approve a FAR variance.
Mr. Driscoll – Concerned with not enough parking on site during peak
hours. Mr. Buraszeski – How significant
is this FAR request? Mr. Denzler – The
board has been rigid on FAR variances but this is already constructed and is
not physically getting any bigger. Mr.
Buraszeski – Concerned with parking and additional number of tenants in the
basement area. Mr. Denzler – There are
certain uses that are allowed in that zone that would require a larger parking
demand. Suggest a condition of office
use only. Mr. Cartine – There are a lot
of office proposed and we do not know what type of tenants will be there. The bank may not always be a bank so a
higher use may come in some day which would require more parking. I am concerned with restricting
tenancy. Mr. Denzler – Any new tenant
would require approvals before a township board.
to public – none
continued on parking spaces. Discussion ensued on types of tenants that can go
into the building. Mr. Hug – This is
basement space so high traffic uses wouldn’t be jumping through hoops to get
basement space. Mr. Buraszeski – Why
should we take a risk on parking that may not be adequate by adding more
tenants to the site. Discussion ensued
on number of people per office. Board
voiced concerns on a possible telemarketing use.
to approve variances and amended site plan conditioned upon any change of
tenant must come before this board, additional parking spaces to remain green
until such time that municipal officials require paving at such time number of
spaces required by said township official shall be paved, subject to fire
codes; construction codes, no more than 8 offices built and no more than one
person per office made by Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Cartine; Roll call: Yes -
Cartine, Hug, Moore; No - Kanoff, Buraszeski,
Fails the application is denied.
Mr. Evans – Would the Board prefer conditions upon
certain tenants? We do not intend on
telemarketing use. Mr. Cartine –The
board does not want to set precedence on FAR variances.
of March 7, 2007 - Eligible: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug;
Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Braden; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr.
to adopt made by: Mr. Driscoll, Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call: Unanimous
& Croland – O/E for: $270; Trust for: $330; $780
& Associates – Trust for: $270; $300; $300; $330; $720; $780; $720; $330;
Associates – Trust for: $420; $420
Denzler & Assoc. – O/E for: $120; Trust for: $510; $150; $270; $240; $330;
to approve made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
ZCD28-06 Lignac – 18 Glen Terr – B: 9, L: 13
– Use & Bulk relief – existing dwelling to remain during construction of a
single family dwelling/slope disturbance.
Approval Resolution– Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr.
Cartine; Mr. Braden; Mr. Driscoll
Ackerman - Revision to #3 change driveway to lot terrain.
to adopt as amended made by: Mr.
Cartine; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll call:
Yes – Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Braden; Mr.
ZC39-06 – Konvalinka - B: 78, L: 4 – 49
Hillcrest Ave. – front setback 47.5’ vs 50’ for roofed
–Approval resolution Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr.
Cartine; Mr. Braden; Mr. Driscoll
to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski;
Second by: Mr. Hug; Roll call: Yes –
Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Braden; Mr. Driscoll
Plaza – 350 Main Rd. – B: 57.01, L: 6 – request for
extension of approvals to 6/4/08
Ackerman – It is out of the applicant’s control to meet the requirement of the
roadway extension. The Township is
getting closer to building the extension of the roadway. The applicant would like to bond their share
of the improvements with no CO until constructed. Discussion ensued on possible future changes to Rt. 202.
to grant the extension made by: Mr. Braden; Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll
call: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Braden; Mr.
being no further business there was a
motion to unanimously adjourn made by Mr. Hug, Seconded by: Mr. Cartine
true copy of minutes adopted at Zoning Board meeting of May 2, 2007.
M. White, Sec.