ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF May 2, 2007
Building, 195 Changebridge Road
8:00PM Regular Meeting
for the record.
Braden - Absent 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 rescheduled to 7/5/07
with notice required:
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 BY: 7/6/07
Levitt, Barbara – 51 Douglas Dr.. – B: 86, L: 8 – front setback 35.2’ vs 50’
for deck; side setback 15.9’ vs 20’ for addition; rear setback of 49.2’ vs 50’
for addition to single family residence
- Notice Acceptable ACT
on behalf of the applicant: Barbara Levitt, Applicant
Levitt - sworn
to update the house. Want to remain in
the front footprint of the house as it stands today. Requesting a variance for front setback 35.2’ where 50’ is
required for a deck; a side setback 15.9’ where 20’ is required for addition;
and rear setback of 49.2’ where 50’ is required for addition to single family
residence. This is a corner lot so I
have 2 front yards. There is an
existing screened porch that is at 49.2’ rear setback and I want to add along
that line. Want to keep the existing
side setback and go back from that. Mr.
Denzler – The addition is to the rear.
Mr. Denzler - Reviewed the proposed variances for the board. This is a corner lot. The existing side is at 15.3’ where the
applicant is requesting 15.9’. Why
can’t the 50’ be met along the back?
Ms. Levitt – I am trying to keep the house symmetrical. The proposal would not effect anyone in the
surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Denzler –
Possible future driveway turnaround shown on the plan. Mr. Huelsebusch –
Turnaround should be installed in driveway and a drywell should be installed
along lot 9.
to public –
Trizinski, lot 9 - sworn
with the existing runoff. Want to
ensure that the problem does not get worse.
Buraszeski – If we condition the driveway turnaround would they still be under
impervious coverage? Mr. Denzler –
Yes. Mr. Cartine – Is it true that the
dwelling next door is closer than this proposal. Mr. Denzler – Yes. Dr. Kanoff – Are most of these variances
existing? Mr. Denzler – Yes. Mr. Hug – Requested a description of the
drywell. Mr. Huelsebusch – Explained
the operation of a drywell and best location.
to approve the application subject to installation of a drywell and
installation of driveway turnaround, minimal effect to the neighborhood made
by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski; Mr.
Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore; No - Mr. Marinello
Ptaszek - 21 Rockledge Rd. – B: 13, L: 22 – construction of a single-family
residence – variances for lot size 18,564 s.f. vs 27,000 s.f.; front setback
25.2’ vs 50’; wall/fence height 9’ vs 6’; design exception driveway slopes
exceed 10%; development within steep slopes;; slope regulation in
environmentally sensitive area – Carried w/notice from 5/3/06; New notice
acceptable 4/27/07 - Eligible: Mr.
Buraszeski, Dr. Kanoff, Mr. Driscoll, Mr. Cartine, Mr. Hug, Mr. Braden, Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello ACT
on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Peter Steck, Planner;
Waldemar Ptaszek, applicant; Mr. Puzio, AIA; Marc Walker, PE
Schepis – This is our 2nd meeting before the Board. Reviewed the lot and surrounding area for
the Board. The applicant is requesting
a front setback variance; deviation of slopes and handrail on top of retaining
wall as well as existing lot size.
Puzio, AIA – previously sworn
recent architectural plans are dated 3/30/07.
The revisions show that the height and size of the house have been
reduced. We have reduced the overall
height by 8’. We have reduced the
height of the basement floor to 9’.
Reduced kitchen to 9’ where it used to be 14’. The rear elevation has been reduced to 32’. We have eliminated the attic. The front elevation is a single story
structure. The 2nd floor
(street level) has a living room; dining room and kitchen. The 2 bedrooms are on the floor below. 2 bedrooms are in the basement. The highest point of the roof from the
basement to the peak of the roof is 35’.
We made 5 different changes to make the house look smaller than it
is. The width of the house was reduced
by 1 ½’. Overall reduction was close to
30 square feet.
Walker, PE – sworn
- development map exhibit – highlighted area of lot and surrounding area
- Topo map of surrounding area
Walker - Average slope on the lot is less than 35%. The proposed footprint is considerable smaller than the housing
in the surrounding area. We start the
driveway at the lowest elevation we can.
House looks like a 1-story structure from the front. The rear of the house is 3 stories because
of the grade of the
property. The driveway is relatively flat. I have created a highpoint at the end of the
driveway to look over the hump in the road making less of a sight distance
problem. The neighboring house is 2’
closer to the street than what we propose.
We have a turnaround area as required so there will not be backing out
on Rockledge Road. We made application
to the Township Committee to change the speed limit but they did not
agree. They agreed to post a sign in that
area with 15 mph speed limit. We can
either re-align the road or lower the hump in the road. There are 2 houses already on the hump so
that would increase the steepness of their driveways. Re-aligning the road would create a significant amount of disturbance. We can add a curve but there will still be a
hump there. We decided that moving the driveway, as far away from the hump as
possible was the best bet. We moved the
driveway to the far south of the property.
We propose a 15 mph warning sign.
Propose a flashing sign that says, “When flashing vehicle exiting
driveway”. This would be a solar
powered sign that turns on when a plate on the driveway is driven on. The homeowner insists on having a mirror
that would give 155 feet of sight distance.
A recent report from Traffic Safety Officer indicated that he would not
approve the sign unless it met DOT regulations. We will consolidate the flashing sign and the 15 mph sign into
one sign as required by DOT.
A5 – sign detail
Walker – The Town Council will have to approve the sign and DOT will have to
authorize construction. Garage floor is
located on the 2nd floor.
The proposed house meets the Township ordinances as it relates to height
and stories. There is a series of 3
retaining walls in the rear. 1st
two are 6’ and the final one is 5’ in height.
Pedestrian access from front of garage on south side is a series of
steps that go adjacent to the house to the rear yard. The access is along a retaining wall and for safety purposes
propose a 3’ high handrail. Since we
raised the driveway to reduce sight distance problem, need a guide rail, which
is 2’10” in height. There is a chain
link fence on the other side of the house so there will not be pedestrian
traffic along that side of the house.
This is the best design for this property. The front setback requested is 33.7’ but the right of way along
the property is 34’ and had to measure as it was a 50’ right of way. If we moved the house back to conform to the
setback it increases the grade disturbance and the garage elevation would be
higher. It would make it look like the
garage is not related to the living space.
If we had a parking pad instead of a garage we would have to back out
onto Rockledge and it would require a 12’ high retaining wall. This proposal minimized the effect to the
neighbors. The house on lot 21 is only
2’ further back from the road. Many of
the driveways in the area exceed the 15% slope. No matter what the proposal there is no avoiding development into
Walker – Will require soil erosion approval from Morris County Soil Conservation
District. Collected all impervious
coverage runoff on site. Propose 3 -
1,000 gallon drywells. There were 2
prior approvals one in 1978 and one in 1988.
The 1988 approval shows the garage 23’ from the right of way where we
proposed 33’ from the right of way. Our
proposal has a flat driveway. The 1978
plan is similar but was to be constructed 25’ from the right of way. We will be hooking up to sewers where the
previous plans had septic systems proposed which would require more disturbance
than what is proposed. There are 72
houses in the area that are built on slopes higher than 25%. Once the site is constructed do not see any
effect to surrounding area or Lake Valhalla.
Denzler – Requested the square footage of overall house. Mr. Puzio – Approximately 5,000 including 3
floors and garage. Mr. Denzler – How
many truckloads of fill is required?
Mr. Walker – 2,286 cubic yards, so about 152 trucks. Mr. Huelsebusch - Adequacy of turning radii
on the driveway. Mr. Walker – will be
adequate for any car and will be able to turnaround and head out face
first. Mr. Huelsebusch – I believe that
A5 is in conformance with DOT requirements.
Mr. Barile did a letter dated today that would have to be conformed
to. Mr. Schepis – Agreed. Mr. Huelsebusch – Suggest a geotechnical
engineer be on site during construction.
Marinello – We will open to the public for these witnesses, if represented by
counsel then attorney shall go first.
The application will not be finished tonight. Any comments as to for or against the application will beheld to
the end of the testimony. We will be
requesting questions that may not be answered at this hearing but the
applicant’s professionals can come back at the next hearing with the answers to
those questions asked.
Pearce attorney for several property owners.
wish to do a power point presentation at the next meeting.
J. Micakowski, AIA - sworn
am testifying on my own behalf. Ihave
compared the 1988 design. I would like
to have opportunity to do a complete presentation at a later date.
O1 – poster board of photocopies
of 1988 site plan and 2005/2007 site plan
O2 – east elevation of 1988 and
comparing data from the past and today, how did Mr. Walker determine that this
house is smaller than the houses in the area?
Why does the current plan require many retaining walls and excessive
land disturbance when the 1988 plan did not?
How was this house designed specifically for this site? We would like an independent architect to
determine what the real square footage is. Will the house be about 16’ above
the driveway? Did you develop road
profiles to determine how much this house will be above the road? Most houses along this road are below street
level. How do you justify that this
house is above the road where the rest of the houses are below the road.
Batik – 24 Lakeshore Dr. - sworn
am concerned with the number of trucks that will be required for soil. I would like impact information to the area
of that number of trucks. I am
concerned with the amount of soil to be brought to the site. What kind of soil is it? What is consistency of the soil?
Mickowski – 23 Rockledge Rd. - sworn
would want to make sure that my husband’s presentation be allowed in power
point. Can an appropriate home be
built on this lot? The proposal
requested seems egregious.
Mareiniss – 22 Lakeshore Dr. - sworn
does the 1988 design show less impact to neighbors and public as opposed to
Cartine – How many drywells proposed?
Mr. Walker – 3. Mr. Cartine –
Only see 2. Mr. Cartine – Identify
properties that have the same or steeper slopes in the area. Identify any other house that has 3 stories
exposed? Dr. Kanoff – Have you done the
solar powered sign in any other project?
Mr. Walker – No. Mr. Hug –
Concerned with solar powered sign and mirror proposed. Will sunlight shine off mirror to blind
oncoming drivers? Mr. Marinello –
Concerned with the chain link fence.
Mr. Buraszeski – Are other properties in the area the same size as this
lot? Mr. Ackerman – Suggest a
neighborhood theme be established as to size of lots and square footage of
houses. Mr. Driscoll – Concerned with
dump trucks accessing the site. Mr.
DiPiazza – Who will take care of the sign in the future?
with notice to: 7/5/07, which the Board Secretary advised the public is a
Thursday and not a Wednesday due to the holiday, with an extension of time to
act to 7/6/07.
Raykov– 778 Rt. 202 – B: 110, L: 1 – certificate of pre-existing
non-conformity, expansion of non-conforming use and minor site plan; accessory
structure setback from principal building .5’ vs 10’; accessory structure rear
setback 2.5’ where 5’ required - carried
w/notice from 11/1/0, 12/6/06 & 1/3/07.
New notice acceptable1/3/07 -
Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr.
Driscoll; Mr. Braden, Mr. DiPiazza; Mr. Moore; Mr. Marinello
on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.; Raymond Raykov, applicant;
Joseph Mianecki, PP; PE
Schepis – Reviewed the variances requested for the board. We ran into an issue with the County and
decided to give an 8 ½’ easement to the County. It has been submitted to the County for approval.
Mianecki – previously sworn
was last revised 4/4/07. There is an 8
½’ right of way easement dedicated along the front of the property to the
County. There will be no parking of
display vehicles in front of the building line and will not exceed 25
vehicles. 5 spaces designed for
employee parking. Proposed 2 landscape
planters and foundation plantings. The
2 lights are wall mounted and are Towaco Style. There will be a painted line extended in front of the building to
designate where the County right of way is.
The County has not posted this as no parking but it is a viable area for
customers to park or maneuver on site.
Mianecki - The proposed shed will have a 2 ½’ rear setback where 5’ is
required. The purpose of the shed is to
clean up the site of items that are currently stored in the fenced in
area. The existing building is at 7.8’
so the rear setback cannot be met for the shed. The rear neighbor is the railroad track so it will not affect a
neighbor. Mr. Denzler – Requested
additional landscaping along easterly property line. Mr. Mianecki – There are currently bushes in front of the
southerly end of the rock wall. They
are about 3-4’ in height. I would not
want to put landscaping too close to the road.
Mr. Denzler – Do you have to walk out into the right of way to get into
the car along Rt. 202? Mr. Mianecki –
Yes. Mr. Denzler – Customers come out
of the building and have to go out onto the street to get around that car. Mr. Mianecki – We are trying to make
establish a more aesthetically pleasing view to the site with the
landscaping. Mr. Denzler – Recommend
concrete planters. Mr. Mianecki – Agreed. Mr. Denzler – 2 or 3 planters can be
installed along right of way. Mr. Schepis
– Would make it less maneuverable on site for display area.
Denzler - As it relates to the lighting detail on the plan the light source
must be 150 High Pressure Sodium. Mr.
Mianecki – Yes, with yellow bulbs, as per the specs that I received from Omland
Engineering. Mr. Denzler - Can the
lights be turned off ½ hour after closing?
Mr. Mianecki – Yes. Mr. Denzler
– Requested the height of the existing sign?
Mr. Mianecki - 18’ high. Mr.
Denzler- How is a 55 s.f. sign in keeping with the Towaco theme? Mr. Mianecki – It does not. Want to use the existing pole, the pole juts
out to the front of the building, if hung off the jut out area it would be
about 7’ in height and would prevent access from delivery trucks. There is no other location on the site for
this sign. Mr. Denzler – Only that sign
will work? Mr. Mianecki – Yes. Mr. Denzler- Looking for ½ that size for the
sign and lower than what exists. A
smaller sign at a lower height would be more aesthetically pleasing, even if
placed in the same location. Mr.
Schepis – We have not been able to come up with any different signage.
Huelsebusch –Do you believe that 30 cars can be parked on this site
safely? Mr. Mianecki – Depends on the
size of the cars. Mr. Hug – Asked the
Board Engineer if he thought that 30 cars could be parked safely on the
site. Mr. Huelsebusch – Maybe Mini
Coopers. Mr. Schepis – All the display
vehicles will be parked behind the building as required. Mr. Huelsebusch – Stripe should be 8” wide
not 4” wide. I am concerned with the
parking on site and the rights that go along with this type of use.
to public – none
Schepis – Mr. Raykov has brought 3 of his customers to testify to the
Denzler – There was a Board of Health report received this evening. Mr. Schepis – In lieu of waste oil being
stored in 5 gallon containers, this board requested tanks and containment. This was not reviewed by the Board of Health
previously so I sent them a letter clarifying same and they reported back
Shah, customer of Mr. Raykov – 89 Hunter Rd Lincoln Park - sworn
have had repairs done by Mr. Raykov for the past 2 years. Mr. Cartine – Have you ever bought a car
from this site? Mr. Shah – No.
Ispreai – 2102 Cedar Knolls, NJ -sworn
Raykov has been servicing my cars for years at the Rt. 202 site.
Bott – 8 Sheeprock Rd. Kinnelon - sworn
have known Mr. Raykov since 1984. He
has been servicing my car since then.
Schepis – Request painted line along the right of way instead of blockage by
planters. The County has approved this
plan. As it relates to the sign we do
not know what to do. Think it is in the
Towaco theme and any lower it will be smacked by a delivery truck.
Denzler – Reviewed the variances for the Board. Requesting a certificate of pre-existing non-conformity,
expansion of non-conforming use and minor site plan; accessory structure
setback from principal building .5’ vs 10’; accessory structure rear setback
2.5’ where 5’ required.
Marinello – Concerned with the maneuverability of the site onto the County
right of way. I have not seen
definitive proofs that the County has approved that. Mr. Cartine – Concerned with the lack of proofs that this use has
been the same since before the ordinances.
Mr. Cartine asked for an explanation of the use of the right of
way. Mr. Ackerman – This Board cannot
approve the use of a County right of way for maneuverability on site and the
applicant has not agreed to the beautification of the site by using concrete
planters that would prohibit the crossover onto the County right of way. Mr. Marinello – Would prefer it remain open
for safety purposes, but make it clear that the Board does not approve of the
use of the right of way.
Driscoll – What are we doing about the signage? Mr. Marinello – There has been no decision on the signage
yet. Mr. Driscoll – Suggest that the
signage be in conformance with the Towaco Center specifications. Mr. Driscoll – Suggest that we get review by
the Design Review Committee. Mr. Hug –
Can we do this subject to the Design Review Committee and meeting the Towaco
Design Standards? Mr. Ackerman – Yes. Mr. Marinello – You are in effect denying
the sign at this time. Mr. Cartine –
Can we deny the certificate of pre-existing non-conforming use due to lack of
proofs? Mr. Marinello – Yes but we can
approve the non-conforming use. Mr.
Cartine – I have not seen proof that the sale of vehicles has continued since
to approve the application the use is compatible with location as
non-conforming use and is a good use for a site that abuts a railroad, no more
than 25 cars behind the line and no more than 30 total on site, approval of the
shed location due to location of railroad and no residential lots, subject to
all professional and agency recommendations with the exception of the planters
on the west side of the property, subject to signage must be reviewed and
approved by the Design Review Committee with respect to Towaco Standards, sign
as proposed and as exists is not approved made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Mr.
Hug; Roll call: Yes - Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr.
Driscoll; Mr. Moore; Mr. Marinello
Mr. Buraszeski stepped down for the following application:
Apple Creek – 4 Berlin Ln.– B: 100.1, L: 8 – front setback 18.9’ vs 45’ to
unnamed right of way /rear setback 27.98’ vs 50’ for construction of a new home
and deck carried w/ notice from
1/3/07 Eligible: Mr. Hug; Dr.
Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore; Mr. DiPiazza; Mr. Marinello ACT
on behalf of the applicant: Gary Needleman, Esq.; Marc Walker, PE
Needleman, Esq. – Have reduced the house to meet the building coverage requirements. The applicant is requesting front and rear
setbacks variances. Mr. Marinello – You
have gone from 5 variances to 2? Mr.
Needleman – Yes.
Walker – previously sworn
s.f. lot size where 27,000 s.f. required.
We have shrunken down our proposed house from the previous
proposal. Variances requested are due
to the size of the lot. This house will
be substantially smaller than the other houses in the area. The applicant is requesting a variance from
unnamed street and rear setback. There
is one issue, recently the ordinances has been interpreted as the height of the
structure and relates to the side setback.
We have to move the house to 17.4’ from the unnamed right of way. I would like to amendment our application to
be 17.4’ instead of 18.9’. Mr.
Marinello – Did you notice for it.
Notice was reviewed and the applicant has notice properly. Mr. Huelsebusch – The applicant has proposed
extension of the stormwater drain in Berlin Lane. The application would require approval from the Township
Engineer. The revised plan must show
the elevations along with moving the house further from the side property
line. Mr. Walker – The drainage from
the site will be brought to the detention system off the subdivision. There will be no added infiltration to the
to public – none – closed
to approve the application, applicant has made adequate changes to the plan
subject to professional reports, township engineer review and approval of
proposed drainage system extension and if not approved then adequate drywell to
be installed made by: Mr. Hug; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes - Mr.
Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. DiPiazza; Mr. Marinello; Mr.
Moore - abstain
Mr. Buraszeski returned
Mr. Hug stepped down on the following application:
Boiling Springs Savings – 446 & 448 Rt. 202 – B: 39.11, L: 78.1 & 78.2
– interpretation of the ordinance Notice Acceptable
on behalf of the applicant: Steven Schepis, Esq.
Schepis – Requesting an interpretation of the zoning ordinance as it relates to
a potential development located at 446 and 448 Rt. 202. The properties are located in the B-1
zone. The ordinance requires that
bar/taverns exist in stand along buildings where the bar/tavern is part of this
strip mall. The applicant is proposing
to create a bank at the residential building in front of the strip mall. There will be cross parking easement to both
properties. Propose an increase of
parking on site. Request an
interpretation that the bar use is not being expanded since the parking will be
changed on site. I agree with Mr.
Denzler’s memo. Mr. Denzler – There is
no reduction in the Red Barn lot property, there is no taking away of parking,
and there are no improvements to be done to the building where the existing
non-conforming use stands. Do
see this as an expansion of a non-conforming use. I would interpret this application as being considered under the
jurisdiction of the Planning Board. Mr.
Marinello – We are not condoning any use on the property, just interpreting the
ordinance as it relates to the non-conforming use of the bar. Mr. Ackerman – Based on the fact that the
bank does not exceed FAR or height.
to grant the interpretation as not being an expansion of a non-conforming use
made by: Mr. Cartine; Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll call: Yes - Buraszeski;
Kanoff; Cartine; Driscoll; DiPiazza; Moore; Marinello
Abbott – 80A Stonybrook Rd. – B: 3, L: 14.04 – request by applicant to dismiss
to dismiss without prejudice made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll;
Roll call: Buraszeski; Hug; Kanoff; Cartine; Driscoll; DiPiazza; Moore;
of April 4, 2007 - Eligible: Mr. Buraszeski; Mr. Hug; Dr. Kanoff; Mr. Cartine;
Mr. Braden; Mr. Driscoll; Mr. Moore, Mr. DiPiazza, Mr. Marinello
Buraszeski requested that on Page 2 change hose to house.
to adopt as amended made by: Mr. Driscoll, Second by: Mr. Buraszeski; Roll
Bricker & Assoc. – Trust
for: $180; $300; $180; $360; $180; $360
William Denzler & Assoc. –
Trust for: $150; $150; $150; $30; $180; $420; $270; $240; $870; $90
to approve made by: Dr. Kanoff, Second by: Mr. Hug, Roll call: Unanimous
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 hose and rebuild – Approval resolution. Eligible: Cartine, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski,
Braden, Driscoll, Marinello
to adopt made by: Mr. Buraszeski;
Second by: Mr. Hug; Roll call: Yes –
Cartine, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Driscoll, Marinello
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 – Approval Resolution –
Eligible: Braden, Driscoll, Buraszeski, Hug, Kanoff, Cartine,
resolution 2 story to 1 story and a preposition was changed.
to adopt as amended made by: Hug; Second by: Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Driscoll, Buraszeski, Hug, Kanoff,
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 – Approval Resolution – Eligible: Cartine,
Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski, Braden, Driscoll, Marinello
to adopt made by: Dr. Kanoff; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll call: Yes – Cartine, Kanoff, Hug, Buraszeski,
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 – Denial
Resolution – Eligible: Kanoff, Buraszeski, Braden, Driscoll
Ackerman - Amended to state in #5 “there are 15 potential parking spaces
located on the plans as being capable of being constructed along Horseneck Rd.,
but they are not presently in existence at the property. Applicants do not
propose to construct these spaces”.
to adopt as amended made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Mr. Driscoll; Roll
call: Yes –
Plaza – 350 Main Rd. – B: 57.01, L: 6 – request for extension of approvals to
6/4/08 – Granted
Ackerman - Amended date to June 3, 2008
to adopt as amended made by: Mr. Buraszeski; Second by: Dr. Kanoff; Roll
call: Yes – Cartine, Kanoff, Hug,
Buraszeski, Driscoll, Marinello
of draft ordinance for Building Height and R-27D Childcare/Eldercare have been
distributed to the Board. Please
contact the Land Use offices with comments as soon as possible.
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 June 6, 2007.
M. White, Sec.
to 5/3/06 hearing
to 11/1/06 & 12/6/06 hearing
11/1/06 & 12/6/06