Also in attendance was Mark Anderson, Board Attorney, Jeffrey Perlman, Zoning Officer, William White, Board Engineer and Lucille Grozinski, CSR.

Transcription

1 Chairman Dietz called the Board of Adjustment Meeting of April 4, 2007 to order at 7:30 P.M. announcing that this meeting had been duly advertised according to Chapter 231, Open Public Meetings Act. The meeting took place at the Municipal Building in the Court Room. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL Chairman Dietz - Present Vice-Chairman Wetter Absent Jack Kennedy - Absent Frank Valcheck - Present Barry Quick - Present John Sheridan- Present Kevin Lovell - Absent Joseph Jaghab Alt. #1- Absent Helen Haines - Present Also in attendance was Mark Anderson, Board Attorney, Jeffrey Perlman, Zoning Officer, William White, Board Engineer and Lucille Grozinski, CSR. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BUSINESS BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR APPLICATIONS OSTERMAN, ALFRED H. File #BA Block 173, Lot 9.07, 25 Wertsville Road. Bulk & Use variances to convert part of barn to apartment. carried from March 7, 2007 Exhibits A-1: Variance Plan A-2: Property Deed A-3: 8 by 11 Morton Building brochure A-4: 81/2 BY 13 Morton Building brochure A-5: Aerial photograph of the property David Trombadore Esq., attorney for the applicant, appeared. Introduction included The property is located off of Wertsville Road The property totals 104 acres and was preserved farmland since 1999 It is used as a nursery The subject property is adjacent to another farm under the same ownership The applicant proposes to construct two new barns along the northern border of the property One of the barns will have an attached residential unit solely for farmland labor It is permitted under the deed restrictions required by the County and State when the farm was preserved in 1999 Applicant has applied for approved by the County Board A small garage is also proposed to be constructed to garage a vehicle for the residential apt. Purpose of the barn will be used to relocate equipment from the other farm The applicant needs to bulk variances, one for the front yard setback and one for the side yard setback The front yard setback is 100 feet, but the property is a very long flag lot The applicant also requires a variance for the height of the barn, which is an accessory structure The applicant needs a use variance to permit the farm labor on the property. Farm labor is not a permitted use in the Mountain Zone but is a conditional use in Agricultural Zone The proposed apartment for farm labor generates an obligation

2 Mr. Trombadore stated that the applicant and the Board s counsel have a different definition of what a market rate unit is for the purposes of determining whether an affordable housing obligation is generated. The applicant s position is that the proposed unit is not a market rate unit because. The unit may create a fair share obligation but could never meet the obligation because even though the person living there may meet the income requirements, the unit won t be marketed to the public as a unit. Chairman Dietz asked why the unit can t qualify as an affordable unit. Mr. Anderson said that the reasons are that because the unit cannot be affirmatively marketed to anyone. The unit, to be affirmatively, marketed, must be offered to anyone who meets the income requirements. The unit cannot be marketed to anyone except those who would be employed at the farm. Mr. Anderson continued by saying that COAH has pending regulations but not adopted that would exempt farm labor housing from creating an obligation. Ms. Haines asked how long would it take for COAH to adopt these new regulations. Mr. Anderson said he did not know, but the public comment period for the new rules has ended. Ms. Haines asked that could the Board direct that the money be collected and placed within a fund. Mr. Anderson said no, but the Board could state that the applicant pay the fee when the building permit is issued. Mr. Trombadore agreed with these arrangements. Mr. Heibell, engineer for the applicant, appeared and was sworn. Testimony and discussion included the following; Property is a flag lot along the southerly side of Wertsville Road Driveway portion extends over 1000 feet. Property not served by sewer or public water Soil testing was conducted and a septic design was approved The closest residential structure is 400 feet away from one of the proposed barn and 500 feet away from The applicant is requesting The zoning officer has determined that the front yard setback be measured from the northern property line behind the pole portion of the lot and not from Wertsville. The applicant has not appealed the decision but contends that the front yard setback be measured from Wertsville Road The proposed barn with farm office and apartment is 75.5 feet away from the property line where 100 feet is a requirement The Agricultural zone permits these structures and requires them to be set back 75 feet. The other proposed barn is proposed to be placed 50 feet off the front property line The applicant is also seeking a height variance for the proposed barn with the apartment is proposed to be 4,600 square feet and 22 feet in height, which is 2 feet higher than what is permitted. The apartment portion of the barn is only 18 feet high. The 3,600 square feet barn is 19 feet high and the garage is 16 feet high and those two structures do not need variances Mr. Trombadore said that is it possible to relocate these barns outside of the front yard setback. Mr. Heibell said yes it is possible, but moving the location further away from the property line eats up more farmland and places the buildings further up the hill and makes the buildings more visible. Mr. Heibell said that the applicant has proposed a buffer along the northern property line from the barn to the drive, approximately 370 feet of buffer. The applicant has proposed shrubs, trees that have been reviewed by Mr. White. 2

3 Mr. Osterman, the applicant, appeared and was sworn. Testimony and discussion included the following; The applicant has contracted with Morton to build the two barns and garage The applicant has proposed a landscaping plan to screen the two barns, which include white Pine, Dogwood, crab apples, and other trees The applicant s father owns the adjacent farm and the applicant needs a place to store equipment and a place to house farm labor. The 22 foot high proposed barn is required in order to accommodate farm equipment Ms. Haines asked how many bedrooms will be in the apartment. Mr. Osterman said there will be two bedrooms and 1 and a 1/2 bathrooms. Ms. Haines asked what uses are proposed in the barns. Mr. Osterman said it will be a multi-use structure to store equipment, but no livestock will be housed in the barns. Mr. Osterman added that 1,700 square feet of the barn will be used for the residence and office. Mr. John Chadwick, planner for the applicant, appeared and was sworn. Testimony and discussion included; The closest residence to the property is 400 feet away from the proposed buildings The applicant contends that the front yard setback of the property is not directed toward Wertsville Road, but towards the private drive The properties adjacent to the subject lot are also accessed from a private drive and are faced away from Wertsville Road. Chairman Dietz asked what Mr. Chadwick where the front of the property is located for this lot. Mr. Chadwick said that the front of the lot is located along the eastern property line. The setbacks along the easterly property line are 25 feet rather than 100 feet for a front yard setback. Mr. Chadwick stated that there is a grade change across the property from north to south and that placing the buildings further up the hill and away from the property line the buildings will be more prominent and visible from adjacent properties. Mr. Chadwick continued by stating the proposed labor housing is a permitted use in the Agricultural Zoning district in the township and that there is a disconnect within the township regulations. The township has adopted a Right to Farm Ordinance and the applicant is operating under the ordinance and has preserved the farm. The State preservation program supports farm labor while the zoning ordinance does not. The property is suitable for the proposed use as the surrounding property is agricultural in nature, including farm labor housing. Ms. Haines asked why there is a 10 acre minimum in the MZ zone when it states 15 acres. Mr. Perlman answered that for flag lots in the MZ, the minimum lot size is 10 acres, not counting the pole portion of the lot. Ms. Haines asked how the applicant can claim that the proposed apartment will not add value to the property. Mr. Osterman agreed that the proposed improvements will add value to the property, but Mr. Trombadore said that the issue has to do with the COAH contribution. Chairman Dietz said that the Board would be amenable to holding off paying the affordable housing fee until either COAH has adopted new rules of the applicant applies for a building permit for the residence. The applicant agreed. Mr. Anderson stated that will COAH be looking to the township to build another affordable unit and in his opinion, there will be an obligation. The issue would be who will pay for it, the applicant or the taxpayers. Mr. Chadwick said that the applicant can make a request to COAH for an administrative interpretation. Open Public: No members of the public had questions. Close Public 3

4 Ms. Haines asked how many people will be living in the apartment. Mr. Osterman said he will house two people. Chairman Dietz said the Board will limit the number of residents in the apartment for up to four people. Ms. Haines made a motion to approve the application with the restriction that the residential apartment be limited to four people, seconded by Ms. Sheridan MACARO, ABNER File #BA Block , Lot 13, 23 Hughey Lane. Bulk variance for impervious coverage to construct sunroom and pool. carried from March 7, 2007 Mr. Macaro, the applicant, appeared and was sworn. Testimony and discussion included the following; The applicant has reduced the size of the proposed sun room by 59 square feet and has reduced the impervious coverage The applicant originally proposed a sunroom of 540 s.f. and has now revised the sunroom down to 481 square feet Chairman Dietz asked what the impervious coverage will be if approved. Mr. White said he calculated the proposed impervious coverage to be 18.7%. Mr. Sheridan asked if there will be heat in the sunroom. Mr. Macaro said that there will be no heat, A/C, or water, just a recreational sunroom. Ms. Haines asked what the setback will be for the proposed sunroom. Mr. Perlman replied that the main dwelling is setback 35 feet while the proposed setback for the sunroom is 30 feet. Mr. Sheridan asked how far will the pool filter will be from the property line. Mr. Macaro replied that the pool filter will be closer to the house. Chairman Dietz said that the applicant proposed originally 19.5% and it is now lowered it to 18.7% impervious and said that the sunroom is still too big. Ms. Haines asked if she can vote given that she was not present at the first hearing. Mr. Anderson stated that it appears that the applicant has put all of the testimony on the record at this hearing and all board members can vote. Open Public: No members of the public had questions. Close Public Mr. Sheridan made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Mr. Quick 4

5 DOWLING, KIMBERLEY & THOMAS File #BA Block 207.2, Lot 28, 17 Steeple Drive. Bulk variances for impervious coverage for pool and walkway. Exhibits: A-1: Original Impervious coverage sheet A-2: Amended Impervious coverage sheet O-1: Photographs of standing water of neighboring properties Mr. & Mrs. Dowling, the applicants, appeared and were sworn. Testimony and discussion included the following; Constructed an in-ground pool in 2006 without a concrete walkway around pool The applicant is requesting an impervious coverage variance to install a patio for chairs and a picnic table The allowable impervious coverage for the property is 10% The applicant s property is one of the smaller properties in the neighborhood The current impervious surfaces include the house and driveway and paver stone patio. The proposed concrete walkway around the pool will add 3.75% of impervious coverage to the lot The applicant also has a 192 square foot shed that was obtained with a building permit Chairman Dietz asked how wide the pool walkway will be. Mrs. Dowling replied that the walkway is to be 9 feet along the sides and 12 feet on the ends of the pool. Chairman Dietz asked why the pool walkway has to be so big. Mrs. Dowling said that the pool walkway could be reduced to 6 feet on the sides and 9 feet on one end and 12 feet on the other end. This would reduce the increase in impervious coverage to 2.64%. Chairman Dietz said that was better than what was requested in the application. Ms. Haines asked how the property slopes. Mr. Dowling said that the property slopes down toward the rear. Ms. Haines asked if there are homes behind the subject property. Mrs. Dowling said yes, there are developed homes all around their homes. Chairman Dietz asked if the applicant can purchase land from their neighbors. Mrs. Dowling said no, they cannot. Ms. Haines expressed a concern that the increase impervious runoff will go to the neighboring properties. Mr. Dowling said that there is no drainage issues associated in the development. Ms. Haines asked what the total impervious coverage will be with the proposed improvements. Mr. Dowling said that they are proposing to add 1,152 square feet of impervious for a total of 12.64%. Ms. Haines said that there is a discrepancy between those numbers and what is shown on the plan. Mr. White said that the discrepancy is due to an old survey submitted by the applicant and Mr. White did ask the applicant for an updated survey. Open Public: The following members of the public had questions: Edward Yakley from Block , lot 4 asked about drainage problems on the applicant s property. Mr. Dowling said that there are portions of his property that are wet, but there are no standing pools of water. Steve Kubick asked if information is available on the amount of the additional stormwater runoff that will be generated by this improvement. Mr. Dowling responded that the runoff flows east to west and no onto the property behind the applicant. Mr. Kubick asked if there is information conducted by an engineer regarding the condition of the existing swales on the applicant s property. Mr. Dowling answered no. Public Comments: Edward Yakley from 32 Surrey Drive stated that the applicant constructed a patio and walkway without permits and shouldn t the applicant get approval for those improvements as well. Mr. Yakley said that there are existing stormwater issues in the neighborhood. Mr. Yakley stated that his property has standing water as well as neighbors. Mr. White asked if the picture was taken during a sunny day. Mr. Yackley said yes. Mr. White commented that it appears that there is insufficient grading on Mr. Yackely s property. Mr. Yackley said that the township should provide a solution for all of the neighbors in the area as he 5

6 cannot take any more water on his property. Mr. White said that the applicant should direct any water discharge from the pool be directed to Surrey Drive. Ms. Haines asked Mr. White if the applicant has addressed how the stormwater runoff would impact adjoining properties. Mr. White said that the flow of water from the pool filter is going to be pumped out to the street. Mr. White said that the applicant has submitted a grading plan showing water flowing to the southwest property. Chairman Dietz asked how Mr. Yackley s property is graded. Mr. Yackley said that the property is essentially flat but lower that the applicant s property. Mr. Sheridan asked Mr. Yackley said that it appears that the standing water is from ground water. Mr. Yackley said that the pictures are not taken during a rain but afterwards, so the pictures don t show the runoff. Chairman Dietz asked the applicant to carry the application and hire an engineer to review the drainage and address the neighbors concerns. Mr. Anderson recommended that the applicant give the Board a clear picture of what the impervious request is. Ms. Haines asked if the applicant is also requesting the other improvements that were completed without permits. Mr. Anderson replied that the Board is approving an impervious coverage amount. Mr. Kubick expressed a concern about stormwater impact and asked the applicant to provide more information regarding the stormwater impact on surrounding properties. Mr. Kubick also recommended that the applicant move the pool closer to the existing the patio. Close Public. Chairman Dietz asked Mr. Perlman when can the Dolwing application be rechedueld. Mr. Perlman stated that the applicant can be scheduled for May 2 nd. No further public notice will be given. GONZALEZ, HENRY File #BA Block 145, Lot 27A, 594 River Road. Bulk variance for impervious coverage to construct addition. Exhibits A-1: photograph of home from River Road Mr. Henry Gonzalez, the applicant, appeared and was sworn. Testimony and discussion included the following; Applicant is seeking an impervious coverage variance to expand the existing dwelling in order to expand the kitchen The applicant is proposing to repair and replace walkways and the porch which will retain 202 square feet on the property Applicant moved into the existing dwelling in the summer of 2006 Kevin Wilkes, the architect for the applicant, appeared and was sworn. Testimony and discussion included the following; The applicant proposes to expand the kitchen and have an eat-in portion of the kitchen Improvements also include an addition 8.5 feet by 26.5 feet and not be visible from the street The property is approximately 1.3 acres in size The property slopes towards River Road The maximum impervious coverage permitted on the lot is 10% and presently 12.5% impervious coverage exists The applicant is proposing a 240 square feet addition A roof over the front door and stoop of 17 square feet to the coverage There are two walkways that are to be replaced Total improvements increase in impervious coverage to 442 square feet 6

7 13.2% total impervious coverage is proposed for the lot No other variances are requested Building is set very far back on the lot which requires a deep driveway The bulk of the impervious coverage is for the driveway Approximately 5,000 of the 6,534 square feet is the driveway The benefits of the addition will out-weight the detriments of the addition Chairman asked Mr. Gonzalez if he could purchase additional land from his neighbors. Mr. Gonzalez stated that there are homes in all directions and the applicant cannot purchase land from his neighbors given the minimum lot sizes for the zone. Ms. Haines asked if the there are drainage problems on the property. Mr. Gonzalez said all the runoff goes to the street. Mr. Sheridan asked how the applicant exceeded the impervious coverage on the lot. Mr. Gonzalez replied that he purchased the property as it currently exists. Mr. White asked if the applicant could mitigate some of the impervious coverage by reducing some of the driveway located near the garage area. Mr. White said a section of the driveway is not required for accessing the garage. Ms. Haines asked how this would reduce the impervious coverage. Mr. White said that the pavement could be removed and reseeded with grass or vegetation and recommended a 300 square foot piece to be removed. Ms. Haines agreed with Mr. White recommendation. Mr. Gonzalez said that he was amenable to this suggestion. Mr. Anderson commented that Mr. White is recommending a reduction of 300 square feet and would then bring the impervious coverage 12.7%. Open Public: No members of the public had questions. Close public Mr. Quick made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Mr. Sheridan FERRARA, JR., MICHAEL File #BA Block , Lot 11, 59 Van Zandt Drive. Bulk variance for impervious coverage for pool and patio. Mr. Michael Ferrara, the applicant, appeared and was sworn. Testimony and discussion included the following; Constructed an in-ground pool in 2006 without a concrete walkway around pool The applicant is requesting an impervious coverage variance to install a patio for chairs and a picnic table The current impervious surfaces include the house and driveway and paver stone walkway to front door, and 3 foot walkway around the pool. The applicant is looking for an increase of impervious coverage of 1.6% or 248 square feet paver-patio addition to the side of the pool. Mr. Dietz asked if the detention basin is next to the house. Mr. Ferrara answered that a drainage easement is located on his property and the basin is across the street which serves the entire development. Mr. Ferrara has no standing water or drainage problems on the property. Mr. Ferrara attempted to purchase land from their neighbors, but no could be obtained. Mr. Sheridan asked why Mr. White s report stated that the impervious coverage is 25% going to 26.9%, which is lower than what the applicant is seeking. 7

8 Open Public: No members of the public had questions. Close public Ms. Haines asked why the applicant s impervious numbers are different. Mr. Ferrara said that he included the public sidewalk in his impervious calculation. Mr. Ferrara continued to state that the impervious coverage on the lot is currently 20% and wants to go to 21.6%. Mr. Sheridan made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Ms. Haines REILLY, PATRICK & GAIL File #BA Block , Lot 20, 12 Vliet Drive. Bulk variance for impervious coverage for pool walkway. Mr. Patrick Reilly, the applicant, appeared and was sworn. Testimony and discussion included the following; Applicant is seeking a variance for impervious coverage to install a 3 foot wide walkway around the existing in-ground pool The property is already over impervious and was that was the applicant purchased the property The rear of the subject property backs up against the woods road school baseball field There are no drainage issues on or surrounding the property Adjacent properties are residential properties of similar size Ms. Haines asked what the minimum lot size is in the zone. Mr. Perlman stated that the minimum lot size is one acre in the R/A zone, but this is part of the Country Classics development which is a court mandated development. Mr. Perlman added that the impervious coverage limitation for court mandated developments that are undersized are Open Public: No members of the Mr. Sheridan made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Mr. Quick ACCEPTANCE OF RESOLUTIONS Hillsborough Towers, LLC Mr. Sheridan made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Mr. Quick 8

9 Diann Blanset & Richard Kint Mr. Quick made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Mr. Sheridan Arthur J. Guenther, Jr. Mr. Sheridan made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Mr. Quick Harold and Catherine Sawtell Mr. Quick made a motion to approve the application, seconded by Mr. Sheridan ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES January 17, 2007 Mr. Quick made a motion to approve the minutes as written, seconded by Mr. Jaghab. All in favor. ADJOURNMENT- 10:30 P.M. Submitted by, Jeffrey Perlman 9