MEETING NO. 10 October 30, 2018 BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES

Transcription

1 MEETING NO. 10 October 30, 2018 BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER ZONING BOARD MEETING MINUTES ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN PROVIDED AS IS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 231, PUBLIC LAW 1975 AND BY RESOLUTION , WITH THE REQUEST OF THE HOME NEWS AND TRIBUNE AND THE SENTINEL NEWSPAPERS TO PUBLISH SAME, AND THIS ANNOUNCEMENT MUST BE ENTERED INTO THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING. A meeting of the South River Zoning Board was held on October 30, 2018 commencing at 7:30pm at the Criminal Justice Building, located at 61 Main Street, South River, NJ This meeting was held in compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6. ROLL CALL Robert Bodak, Chairman James Kinneally, Attorney Nick Giannakopoulos, Vice Chairman Bruch Koch, Engineer Michael Clancy Todd Bletcher, Planner Bobby Brown Glenn Lauritsen, Construction Official Edward Trygar Tamar Lawful, Secretary Ruell Brown * Entered Meeting at 7:35PM Rui Almeida * Entered Meeting at 7:52PM Jeremiah O Grady MINUTES APPROVAL The meeting Minutes of September 25, 2018 was motioned to be approved by Mr. Trygar and seconded by Mr. Clancy with the correction to remove Mr. Trygar from the voting Roll Call for the SRED Property public hearing, held on September 25, [Mr. Trygar had recused himself from the dais right before the hearing].

2 BOARD BUSINESS & CORRESPONDENCE Mr. Kinneally informed the public that the application for Gilbert Eleto with regards to 76 Price Place will be heard on November 27, 2018 with no further notice. The board was briefly informed that the litigation matter in regards to Magdi Mikhail and Khaled Sadekv vs. South River Board of Adjustment trial date was rescheduled from October 11, 2018 to December 03, RESOLUTION(S) The following Resolution were submitted for approval by the board: MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTION FOR SOUTH RIVER ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ZB SRED PROPERTY, LLC WHEREAS, SRED Property, LLC, hereinafter referred to as the Applicant, has applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment of South River for a use variance and minor site plan approval to convert a portion of the second floor into a boarding facility associated with the existing school on the premises known as Block 269, Lot 8 otherwise known as 34 Charles Street, South River, New Jersey; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has complied with all jurisdictional requirements necessary to prosecute the within application; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Zoning Board on September 25, 2018, and WHEREAS, the Board has made the following findings of fact: 1. Applicant SRED Property, LLC owns a building at 34 Charles Street, otherwise known as Block 269, Lot 8, in South River, New Jersey. Page 2 of 19

3 2. The Applicant operates a private school known as Pillars Academy, in this former borough school building. 3. The Applicant proposes to convert a portion of the second floor into a boarding facility associated with the existing private school. 4. The Applicant s propose six boarding rooms; each room has a capacity of 12 students for a total capacity of 72 students. 5. The Applicant also proposes one bedroom to be attached to a supervisor s office also on the second floor. 6. The Pillars Academy school day runs from 7:50 a.m. to 3;20 p.m., Monday through Friday. 7. For the boarding students, after the conclusion of the school day, there will be supervised study time and activities; supervisors will be present at the facility at all times. 8. Although the school is co-ed, the boarding facility will be limited to male students. 9. The Applicant offered the testimony of Mr. John Chadwick, P.P. to offer planning justifications for this application; Mr. Chadwick testified that this application satisfied the positive criteria necessary for a Use Variance. 10. Mr. Chadwick also addressed the negative criteria; he testified that there will be no detriment to the surrounding neighborhood because the boarding use will bring no added traffic and will actually decrease the potential school enrollment by decreasing the number of classrooms. 11. The Zoning Board finds Mr. Chadwick s testimony to be credible; this testimony provides the evidence necessary to grant a Use Variance. 12. This use is inherently beneficial; it satisfies the positive criteria. 13. This use, coupled with conditions attached to this approval, will have no detrimental impact upon the surrounding neighborhood. 14. While the Zoning Board finds this Use Variance to be warranted, the Board also has concerns about the safety of the children who will be residing at this site; consequently the Applicant must take all measures required by the fire officials regarding sprinklers, fire separation walls, etc. Page 3 of 19

4 NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the South River Board of Adjustment that the Application of Applicant SRED Property, LLC for relief as described above is hereby GRANTED in accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law rendered above. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval be and is conditioned upon the following: 1. Applicant shall pay to the appropriate Borough officials all review fees and escrow funds certified to be due by the Board secretary to compensate for review of Applicant s plans as well as professional services. No building permits or certificates of occupancy shall be issued nor final plans signed by Borough officials until all such fees and escrow funds have been received and notice of same filed with the appropriate code official of the Borough. 2. Applicant shall obtain all required inspections, permits and approvals as required by the Borough of South River. 3. Applicant shall comply with all requirements of fire officials regarding sprinkler systems, fire separation walls, etc. 4. In complying with the fire officials requirements, Applicant shall upgrade the water supply system if necessary to ensure the proper operation of any sprinkler system. 5. Applicant shall repair/replace any damaged curb or sidewalk. 6. If this Applicant shall cease operation of this school, Pillars Academy, the Use Variance granted above will terminate and cease to be effective and shall expire. This Use Variance is only granted to this Applicant for this school based upon this Applicant s representations regarding its operation. Since any other school would be different in its operations, any other operator would be required to return to the Zoning Board for a Use Variance for boarding facilities. 7. No loading/unloading of food or other material is permitted from the adjacent streets; the surrounding streets are narrow and the loading/unloading in the streets would be a detriment to the surrounding neighborhood. 8. Applicant shall provide a crosswalk on Charles Street to allow students to safely cross, as discussed in Mr. Bletcher s report, paragraph 11(Q). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of the within Resolution certified by the Secretary of the Borough of South River Zoning Board of Adjustment be a true copy shall be Page 4 of 19

5 afforded to the Applicant herein, the Zoning Officer of the Borough of South River, and to the Clerk of the Borough of South River, who is hereby directed to cause same to be published in an official newspaper in the Borough of South River within ten (10) days from the date hereof. ZB The foregoing Resolution was: Moved by: Mr. Almeida Seconded by: Mr. O Grady ROLL CALL YES NO ABSTAIN ABSENT Mr. Rui Almeida Mr. Robert Bodak Mr. Bobby Brown Mr. Michael Clancy Mr. Nick Giannakopoulos Mr. Jeremiah O Grady Mr. Edward Trygar ALTERNATES Mr. Ruell Brown The foregoing Resolution was: Moved by: Mr. Giannakopoulos Seconded by: Mr. O Grady ROLL CALL YES NO ABSTAIN ABSENT Mr. Rui Almeida Mr. Robert Bodak Mr. Bobby Brown Mr. Michael Clancy Mr. Nick Giannakopoulos Mr. Jeremiah O Grady Mr. Edward Trygar ALTERNATES Mr. Ruell Brown Page 5 of 19

6 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IS A TRUE AND EACT COPY OF A RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT THE BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AT MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 30, TAMAR LAWFUL TAMAR LAWFUL ZONING BOARD SECRETARY Mr. Ruell Brown entered the meeting at 7:35pm. COMPLETENESS DOCKET #ZB JUAN CARLOS DIAZ 2 Congress Lane Block 355, Lot 1.18 Applicant is requesting a bulk variance to install a swimming pool in the front yard of the property. With no objections from the board nor its professionals, a motion was made by Mr. Giannakopoulos and seconded by Mr. Bobby Brown to deem the application complete and to set forth a public hearing date for November 27, PUBLIC HEARING DOCKET #ZB JEAN GREGO 24 Southside Avenue Block , Lot Applicant is requesting a bulk variance for a required 5 side yard and a required 25 front yard setback, not meeting the basement ceiling height requirement and exceeding the impervious coverage of 50%. Page 6 of 19

7 Mr. Jean Grego, the applicant who resides at 24 Southside Avenue, South River, NJ came forward. After being sworn in, he explained his intent before the board. According to Mr. Grego, he wants to dormer around the roof of his property. He explained that he has three children in a three bedroom house. The home consist of a walk up attic, stated Mr. Grego. In an effort to obtain more space for his children, he s requesting to create two bedrooms for his daughters in the attic. Additionally, he requested to turn the basement into a playroom for the children, and therefore is requesting a variance for the ceiling height requirement for having 6.9ft. when the requirement is 7ft. Mr. Grego further stated that he would like to improve the backyard. Going back to the basement, Mr. Bodak inquired whether the basement will be used solely as a playroom for the children. He further requested confirmation that there will be no bedding in the basement. Mr. Grego responded, yes to both concerns. Mr. Grego stated that there is a half bathroom in the basement, which he would like to legally convert into a full bathroom. Currently the bathroom doesn t have a shower. However, the shower pipes and the plumbing essentials currently exist. Mr. Grego stated that he is also requesting to create an open den in the basement for his children. Mr. Kinneally requested affirmation from Mr. Grego that there is no intent to convert the property into a two (2) family house and that he accepts the conditions that the house will never be used as a two (2) family dwelling. Mr. Grego confirmed that his use for the basement is solely for his family. He further stated that he wants to upgrade the shed on the property. Mr. Trygar asked whether the new shed will replace the old shed in its exact location. The old shed is about 8x10; however he wants to install a 14x10 in its place, stated Mr. Grego. Mr. Trygar asked if the shed is going to be the same distance from the property line. Mr. Grego responded that it s the same distance from the property line, just a bit longer than the previous shed. It is preferred that it be 2 feet from the property line, stated a board member. Mr. Bletcher stated that the property is located in an R-100 zone, on the southern side. The application requires the following variances: The lot area and lot width is existing, new bulk variances are being requested for the impervious coverage being a maximum of 50%, whereby the existing impervious coverage of the property is 56.2%, but a 59.5% increase is being proposed. There are some other existing bulk non-conformities and two new violations for the accessory building (the shed). The standard is 5 from the property line, and what is being proposed is 3 from the rear and 3 from the side. Page 7 of 19

8 There is a driveway variance, whereby the minimum setback from the property line is 5 and the applicant s driveway is on the property line. There is a minimum deck setback to property side line of 5 but the applicant proposes 1 to the property sideline. Overall there are 6 variances accounted for, stated Mr. Bletcher: Impervious coverage, accessory structure side yard setback, accessory structure rear yard setback, patio setback to the side property line, not meeting the basement ceiling requirement and the driveway setback to the property line. The property is a 40x100 ft. lot, therefore, most of what exist on the lot are preexisting conditions, stated Mr. Bletcher. The Borough s Construction Official, Mr. Glenn Lauritsen, stated that if we are going straight up from the parameter of the house, the dormer falls 25 within the 5 side yard setback, which will result in two additional bulk variances for the expansion of the second floor into the required setbacks. If you expand on a non-conforming condition, a bulk variance must be granted to elevate onto the existing foot, stated Mr. Lauritsen. It will continue to be a preexisting nonconforming condition, with the expansion onto the property; but it requires a bulk variance, he reiterated. Mr. Bletcher requested clarification on the number of bedrooms in the dwelling, as well as the number of parking spaces on the property. Additionally, since the basement have direct access to outside, there are concerns that the basement can be used as an illegal unit. Mr. Grego responded that there will be four (4) bedrooms in the house. The third bedroom will be converted into a walkthrough to the attic. Mr. Grego stated that he will remove the door from the third bedroom that is being converted into a walk through. In regards to the basement, Mr. Grego stated that he can t vouch that any future owners of the property won t turn the basement into a rental unit. However, speaking for himself and his family, his intent is to create an open den in the basement for the sole use of his family. In regards to the parking spaces, he further stated that the site can fit three (3) cars in the driveway. He also requested to remove the existing exterior barn door to install a normal size door. Mr. Koch informed the applicant that he should mitigate any negative drainage impact to the adjacent properties. Additionally, should the application be approved, he recommends a Page 8 of 19

9 condition be imposed that any sidewalk or driveway damage be replaced by the applicant. Mr. Grego accepts. My Clancy, inquired about the existing patio. Mr. Grego explained that the deck is currently a multi leveled deck and is being replaced by the patio. The steps to the deck bumps out about 7 ft.; therefore, there is only a 7ft. area to utilize on the deck, explained Mr. Grego. Based on Mr. Clancy s concern, Mr. Bodak recommended not extending the patio beyond the side wall of the house, which will help with any encroachment, while also reducing the impervious coverage. *Mr. Almeida entered the meeting at 7:52pm. PUBLIC SESSION A motion was made to open the floor to the public. With no one present, a motion was made to close the floor to the public. BOARD S DECISION A motion was made by Mr. Trygar and seconded by Mr. Giannakopoulos, to approve the application with the stipulation that the applicant move the patio 2.5ft off from the property line, and to mitigate any negative drainage impact onto the adjacent properties and replace any damage made to the sidewalk. The application was also approved for a 12ft. front yard setback. The applicant agrees to not utilize the basement as a living space. Mr. Bletcher informed the applicant that revised plans reflecting the changes in regards to the 2.5ft. setback of the patio should be submitted to Mr. Lauritsen in order to receive the correct building permits. Page 9 of 19

10 ROLL CALL MOTIONED SECONDED YES NO ABSTAIN ABSENT Mr. Rui Almeida Mr. Robert Bodak Mr. Bobby Brown Mr. Michael Clancy Mr. Nick Giannakopoulos Mr. Jeremiah O Grady Mr. Edward Trygar ALTERNATES Mr. Ruell Brown, Alternate DOCKET #ZB DENISE BARRANCO 32 Morningside Avenue Block 188, Lot 3 Applicant is requesting a bulk variance for the installation of a patio inside the 10 rear yard setback. The applicant, Denise Barranco, who resides at 32 Morningside Avenue, South River, New Jersey came forward. Upon being sworn in, Ms. Barranco stated that she purchased her home 19 years ago. At the time, the entire backyard was filled with clay. There was some cement for someone to walk on, in order to get by, stated Ms. Barranco. Drainage and pavers were installed. Ms. Barranco informed the board that she s selling her home and was told that the current condition of her property is not appropriate. Instead of removing what was installed in the backyard and installing the clay that previously existed, she applied for a variance. Mr. Bodak asked whether a contracture conducted the work in the backyard. Ms. Barranco responded that her husband, who was present at the hearing, is a plumber and he installed all the drainage and the pavers on the Page 10 of 19

11 property. Mr. Bodak inquired on where the drainage is draining. Mr. Barranco, the applicant s husband responded that the drainage runs out onto David Avenue. Mr. Bletcher stated the variances required for the property as follow: For the patio, the requirement would be a minimum 5 setback to the side yard. However, the patio was constructed onto the side property line. There is a minimum property setback to rear property line of 10. However, the patio was constructed to the rear of the property line. Additional information is needed for the area of the patio. In terms of building coverage and impervious coverage, the lot complies, explained Mr. Bletcher. There are no impervious coverage violations. The only variance that needs to be granted is for the patio in the side yard and the patio in the rear yard, Mr. Bletcher explained. Mr. Trygar stated that the back yard isn t very wide. Mr. Barranco confirmed that the backyard is only 12ft. wide. Mr. Lauritsen added that there is no depth in the backyard. Mr. Koch did not have any comments in regards to this application and neither did the Mr. Lauritsen, the Borough s Construction Official. PUBLIC SESSION A motion was made to open the floor to the public. With no one present, a motion was made to close the floor to the public. BOARD S DECISION A motion was made by Mr. Trygar and seconded by Mr. Almeida to approve the application. Page 11 of 19

12 ROLL CALL MOTIONED SECONDED YES NO ABSTAIN ABSENT Mr. Rui Almeida Mr. Robert Bodak Mr. Bobby Brown Mr. Michael Clancy Mr. Nick Giannakopoulos Mr. Jeremiah O Grady Mr. Edward Trygar ALTERNATES Mr. Ruell Brown, Alternate DOCKET #ZB PAULO S. MARTINS 51 William Street Block 41, Lot 7.01 Applicant is requesting a bulk variance to install concrete within 10 rear yard setback and 5 side yard setback, while also exceeding the impervious coverage of 50%. Mr. Martin came forward and was sworn in as the applicant and resident of 51 William Street, South River, New Jersey. Mr. Lauritsen explained to the board that the property, 51 William Street, was purchased at a sheriff sale. There was impervious coverage, side yard and rear yard setback violations on the property. When a property is purchased at a sheriff s sale, a C.O. inspection is not typically requested; therefore the buyer isn t likely to receive a list of violations for the property, if any, explained Mr. Lauritsen. Mr. Martin did the renovations on the said property, and then requested the C.O. During the time of renovating the house he installed concrete in the backyard of the property. He removed and replaced approximately a third of the rear yard Page 12 of 19

13 concrete and elevated it to the same height as the retaining wall to the adjacent property owner. Mr. Lauritsen stated that when he inspected the site, he wrote Mr. Martin a violation. At that point, Mr. Martin agreed to apply for the necessary variances for the property. He removed some of the concrete in the rear left, and replaced it with a garden. Although he reduced the impervious coverage, there is still violation(s) that needs to be addressed, which is why he is before the board applying for a variance, explained Mr. Lauritsen. Mr. Koch stated that the applicant needs to revise the plans submitted, especially should there will be any further modifications to the site. Upon doing so, he can offer a better review on the application. Mr. Koch further stated that the lot is essentially covered in impervious surface. Also, if the area is causing a drainage issue that did not exist before, something should be done to remediate the problem. Mr. Koch explained that the information on the plans submitted is not sufficient to provide a full review on the property. The drawings submitted only reflects concrete, stated Mr. Koch. Mr. Bodak asked the applicant if he understands what the board s engineer had explained. The information provided is not complete for either of the board s professionals. The board s professional would like to see drawings from an architect/engineer that shows the property and the grades on the property to get a better idea where the pitch is and where the water is going so that it is not interfering with the neighbor s property or anyone else s, explained Mr. Bodak. We cannot move forward with the application without having that information, he explained. Mr. Koch stated that an architect can indicated clearly what s going to be done. And if the impervious will be reduced, the plans will reflect such information. There must be some discussion about runoffs and management of the water, stated Mr. Koch. The recommendation will be to carry this application until the professionals have the opportunity to look at the revised drawings to get a better understanding of property, stated Mr. Bodak. Additional notice is not required. Mr. Bodak recommends the applicant contacting Mr. Koch s office for assistance. Mr. Koch stated that once a professional is retained, he will be happy to speak with the individual. Mr. Bletcher stated that the applicant is at 83/84% impervious coverage, which is very high. He recommends removing about 20% or 800 sq. ft. of the concrete and convert it into bushes or a lawn. PUBLIC SESSION A motion was made to open the floor to the public. Page 13 of 19

14 Mr. Wieshaw (Vinny) Krajewski, Esq. came forward as the attorney representing the objecting neighbor who resides at 39 William Street. Mr. Krajewski stated that the entire property of 51 William Street is impervious. All the runoffs goes on his client s property, Mr. Krajewski explained. His client s basement is 12ft. from the property line and gets flooded. 60x40 ft. of water goes through the retaining wall because it s elevated about 14, stated Mr. Krajewski. His client has lived at the property for 19 to 20 years. Before, there was a lawn on the property, which is now supposedly covered in concreted. There is no drainage whatsoever, stated Mr. Krajewski. The water has nowhere to go, so it flows over the retaining wall onto the adjacent property, he explained. Mr. Kinneally explained to Mr. Krajewski that the board carried the application; however, Mr. Krajewski insisted for something to be done immediately to prevent future damage onto his client s property. Mr. Kinneally stated that the board does not have that jurisdiction. However, the Borough s code enforcer should be contacted. Mr. Kinneally stated that if the applicant is doing anything that is damaging to the property, his client have the right to file a lawsuit. Mr. Krajewski stated that there were no issues with the property until the cementing of 51 Williams Street began. Mr. Lauritsen informed that board that both properties are in violation. The objecting property, 39 William Street, was written a violation for redoing his driveway without a permit; and the applicant for 51 William Street was written a violation for changing his concrete without a permit. They both went before the South River Municipal Court to pay the penalties for their violations. The client in 39 William Street agreed to take the 5ft. required from the side yard setback to the other adjacent property, and the owner of 51 William Street agreed to come to the Zoning Board to solve the problem. Alleviating the issue between both properties is the reason why the application is currently before the board, explained Mr. Lauritsen. PUBLIC SESSION With no one else present, a motion was made to close the floor to the public. Mr. Bodak informed Mr. Martins that the application will be carried to the next scheduled meeting. Mr. Kinneally recommends supplying the revised plans to his neighbor s attorney, Mr. Krajewski. Page 14 of 19

15 BOARD S DECISION A motion was made by Mr. Clancy to carry the application to the November 27, 2018, no additional notices required. This motion was seconded by Mr. Giannakopoulos. DOCKET #ZB SPRING LLC 16 Spring Street Block 277, Lot 7 Applicant is requesting a bulk variance to add a second floor addition to the property in the required front yard 25ft setback, and to also permit driveway to remain in the side and rear yards. Jessica Sweet, the attorney representing the applicant came forward. The application is before the board for preexisting non-conforming conditions, stated Ms. Sweet. The applicant is seeking to put a second story onto an existing single family house. The planner for the applicant, Nick Graviano from Graviano & Gillis Architects & Planners, LLC, located at 101 Crawfords Corner Road, Holmdel, NJ 07733, came forward. Mr. Graviano stated his qualifications before the board, which was accepted. According to Mr. Graviano, the property is a 2 bedroom, one bath single family home. The applicant seeks to demolish the existing half story, in an effort to build a full second floor. The applicant seeks to create a modern house to meet the demand of the current real estate market consistent with three bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, stated Mr. Graviano. The existing front yard and driveway setback, which ranges from 3.2 to 3.44 feet, is in violation of the Borough s zoning ordinance. The existing driveway is zero feet from the property line. The house shares a driveway with the neighboring property owner, explained Mr. Graviano. Relief can be granted under the C2 Criteria, promotion of general health, safety and welfare of the public, considering the applicant is converting a dilapidated house to build a modern house to current standards. The applicant also satisfies Purpose G, by providing sufficient space for a variety of rental usage in order to meet the needs of New Jersey s citizens. And lastly, the applicant purposes a desirable visual design and arrangement, both variances can be granted without any impairment to the zoning code in South River, stated Mr. Gravinao. Mr. Clancy inquired whether the property Page 15 of 19

16 is an investment property or a rental. Mr. Graviano stated that the applicant wants to revamp the house and sell the property. According to the application, it is indicated that the applicant intends to rent the single family home, stated Mr. Clancy. Mr. Graviano stated that the applicant would like to sell the property; however, if that does not occur, he would like to rent the property, instead. He further confirms to Mr. Clancy that the applicant will not be residing at the property. The applicant have done this in South River and other municipalities, explained Mr. Graviano. With the addition to the property for a potential family to own or to rent, what is the purpose of keeping the concrete in the back yard that is causing so much impervious coverage, asked Mr. Clancy? Mr. Graviano responded that there is a considerable amount of grass in the backyard. Also, some of the pavement is located on the neighbor s property. Given the shared driveway situation, the concrete area in the back is essentially a turn around to get out of the driveway, stated Mr. Graviano. Ms. Sweet added that the driveway setback is only 5.5ft, therefore, there is no coverage issue. Mr. Koch inquired whether an easements or a cross-easement exist for the property. The survey does not reflect that information, stated Mr. Koch. Mr. Graviano responded that he cannot answer that question, but it is an existing condition. Ms. Sweet stated that the adjacent property line to the eastern side is beside the railroad tracks. The driveway is 12 ft. wide, stated Mr. Koch. He doesn t understand why anyone would turn all the way around in the backyard, he explained. He further stated that he doesn t understand the excess concrete that remains in the backyard. Mr. Bletcher stated that adding the second story is not a zoning issue. The zone permits two story dwellings. There are other concerns with regards to the site, he explained. For instance, the site is located on a dead end street. It is the last house on the right and it abuts to the railroad right away, which means there is no street parking. When we examine the driveway situation, the driveway does not exist. There is a 5ft side yard setback, which limits a car from getting into the rear driveway. Unless there is an easement, there is no legal right for a future property owner to get to the back yard of this site. Essentially, the driveway that exist is someone else s property explained Mr. Bletcher. Naturally, you cannot trespass and drive onto someone else s property, explained Mr. Bletcher. Hypothetically speaking, should the neighboring property owner erects a fence on his or her property line, 6 out, there would be limited width to get a car in the backyard to the concrete area, explained Mr. Bletcher. By adding additional bedrooms affects the parking Page 16 of 19

17 calculation, explained Mr. Bletcher. The parking situation was a concern referenced in the report and must be clarified, stated Mr. Bletcher. Mr. Kinneally informed the applicant s planner that the board is looking for the applicant to put a driveway onto the property. Adding bedrooms impacts the limited parking situation, he continued. Ms. Sweet rebottled that the applicant is not concerned about increasing the number of bedrooms, but more so requesting a variance for the 5ft driveway setback from the property line. If we move the driveway to the other side of the property line, we would still need the same variance, she explained. Mr. Bodak explained to Ms. Sweet that the board and its professionals is stating that the driveway is not owned by the property unless a shared agreement exist. It would be difficult for the board to approve an application without proof of proper ownership to the driveway. Ms. Sweet stated that this is an existing condition and there clearly have been a driveway on the property. However, Ms. Sweet stated that she did not review the title report or its history for the property. But there may very well be an easement, she explained. Mr. Koch recommends carrying the application to give the attorney an opportunity to research the title for a potential driveway easement. A motion was entertained by Mr. Clancy and seconded by Mr. Almeida to carry the application to next month s meeting for better clarification. Mr. Graviano explained that the property was purchased at a sheriff s sale, therefore the applicant does not have a title report. Mr. Kinneally reiterated to the applicant s professionals that the property does not have an existing driveway. Previous residents might have utilized the driveway; however, unless the applicant can provide proof, a driveway does not exist for the property. Mr. Koch added that any improvements on 16 Spring Street should be identified in the revised plans. Moving the driveway on the other side of the property may not potentially work, explained Mr. Koch. Mr. Bletcher requested a bulk table with all of the data. We do not have an impervious coverage calculation on the plans, Mr. Bletcher stated. We would like to obtain the calculations to verify that a variance is not required. The ground level of the house has a study room, with a door and a closet, which can be defined as a bedroom. Our recommendation is to open up that room to be a part of the living/dining room, stated Mr. Bletcher. The aim is to not allow the space to be utilized as a fourth bedroom. Mr. Graviano stated that the wall for the room is a structural wall that defines the entrance to the living room. We can remove the door and keep it open to the rest of the dwelling, stated Mr. Graviano. Page 17 of 19

18 But it s not the applicant s intent to utilize the room as a bedroom, he explained. Mr. Graviano agrees to remove the door and the closet from the room. PUBLIC SESSION A motion was made to open the floor to the public. With no one present, a motion was made to close the floor to the public. BOARD S DECISION A motion was made by Mr. Clancy and seconded Mr. Almeida to carry the application to the next scheduled meeting of November 27, 2018 without any further notice by the applicant. NEW BUSINESS Mr. Bodak informed the board that the Borough s Business Administrator, Jack Layne, requested the Board s input on ways to improve the board and the community. According to Mr. Bodak, in his opinion, he would like to address as many applications per meeting in a more expedited fashion. He recommends that someone review all the notices for each application to ensure that all the residents were properly notified and such proof were submitted to the Board. Also, he wants the board s professionals, including Mr. Lauritsen, to be comfortable with all applications prior to proceeding before Board. The process is not just a rubber stamp, stated Mr. Bodak. People have to physically examine all the notices for each applications to ensure that the applicant is compliant. That is one area that can make a difference, stated Mr. Bodak. Mr. Bodak requested the opinion of the other board members on how to help enhance the board and the community. Mr. Trygar stated that stream lining things by examining the borough s zoning laws to ensure that it fits more appropriately with what already exist will be helpful to the Board and to the residents. He stated that the residents are subjected to strict zoning rules. Page 18 of 19

19 Mr. Bodak informed the board that a special meeting should be held for the Pondview application. Initially, the meeting was tentatively scheduled for a special meeting in November; however, due to many conflicts and time constraint for the applicant, the meeting was canceled. Additionally, the board s planner and engineer still have questions and concerns that needs to be examined prior to the public hearing. Since there are no meetings scheduled for the remainder of the year after November 27, 2018, Mr. Bodak asked the board whether they would entertain a special meeting to hear the Pondview application on December 11, 208. The Board agrees to meet December 11, 2018 for a special meeting to hear the Pondview application. The Board s secretary intends to contact the applicant s attorney to confirm the date, before finalizing a venue, stated Mr. Bletcher. However, the board will tentatively schedule a special meeting to hear the Pondview application for December 11, ADJOURNED With no further business to conduct before the Board, a motion was made by Trygar, seconded by Mr. Clancy, to adjourn this meeting at 9:18pm. All were in favor. Minutes prepared by: Tamar Lawful Planning Secretary Minutes were approved at the 11/27/2018 meeting Page 19 of 19