Chairman Sterritt called the Board of Adjustment Meeting ...



Chairman Dietz called the Board of Adjustment Meeting of November 29, 2006 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 John Sheridan- Present

Vice-Chairman Wetter – Present Peter Passalaqua - Present

Jack Kennedy - Absent Kevin Lovell Alt. #1 - Present

Frank Valcheck - Present Joseph Jaghab Alt. #2- Present

Barry Quick - Absent

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

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BUSINESS

Chairman Dietz offered on behalf of the Board their condolences of the loss of Mr. Perlman’s mother

BUSINESS FROM THE FLOOR

APPLICATIONS

LAVECCHIA, VINCENT - BA-06-07 – Block 6, Lot 22 – 431 Woodfern Road. Bulk variance for construction of single family dwelling. – carried from November 1, 2006

Michelle Tulio, attorney for the applicant, appeared. Testimony and Discussion included:

• The applicant wishes to build a new home on the existing lot and reside in the existing home on the lot until the new house is constructed

• This will require a temporary use variance to have two dwellings on the same lot

• The applicant will agree to apply within 30 days for a demo permit on the old home once the new home is completed.

• The applicant is also seeking a hardship variance for side yard setback of the new dwelling

• The lot is an improved lot of substandard size in the AG zone

• The lot does not have sufficient width and the proposed home will violate the side yard setback

• The applicant has addressed the drainage issues that were raised by the Board and the public

• The proposed home has been located closer to the street, from 200 feet to 170 feet, 30 feet closer to the street.

• The placement of the proposed home closer to the street addresses aesthetic concerns by neighbors and drainage issues.

• The home has been reconfigured so as to increase the side yard on the southerly side from 14 feet to 23.15 feet while also reducing the impervious coverage proposed for the lot by 500 square feet

• Access to the garage for the proposed home will now be from the front on the home.

• All drainage issues raised by the Board Engineer have been satisfied to his satisfaction as set forth in his memo

• The applicant increased the swale length on the south side of the property to 380 feet to permit drainage further back form the property.

• Additional trees are also proposed to be planted to address other environmental concerns

• The existing home is not in good condition and a new home will enhance the subject and surrounding property values

• The home will be on well and septic.

Vincent LaVecchia, the applicant, appeared and was sworn. Testimony and discussion included;

• There will be a new well and septic system put in place if the Board grants approval, and would be done as a condition of approval

Mr. Demuro asked the applicant if he knows that the subject property is a viable lot. Mr. LaVecchia stated that there already is a septic system present on the property. Ms. Tulio stated that this is the applicant’s risk, and that if Mr. LaVecchia cannot construct a septic system, then he cannot build a house in any event. Mr. Wetter asked Mr. Demuro what his concern is. Mr. Demuro stated that if the septic is a mound system, then the grading would be different and it would impact the drainage of the property. Ms Tulio stated that if the placement of the septic system results in substantial changes in grading or causes other variances, the applicant would have to come back before the Board. Mr. LaVecchia stated he plans on living in the existing home and moving into the new home once it is completed. Mr. Wetter asked for a clarification on the existing setbacks. Mr. LaVecchia said they are 18.76 feet and 39.37 feet are the existing setbacks. Mr. Dietz commented that the Board was unhappy with the distance of the home back from the road. The proposed home was first proposed 200 feet and now the home has been moved up only 30 feet and that’s not a whole lot. Mr. LaVecchia stated that the house cannot be brought up much closer to the road because the exiting home is in the way. Mr. Dietz stated that there appears to be more room to bring the house closer. Mr. LaVecchia stated that moving the house closer would cause more grading problems. Mr. LaVecchia asked the Board what the problem is of having the home 170 feet back from the road. Mr. Dietz stated that the neighboring properties are setback from the road much closer to the road. Mr. LaVecchia stated that there are tree lines along the side yard and additional trees will be placed along the side yard to increase the buffer between the properties.

Open Public: no members from the public had questions. Close public

Amanda Jensen, planner and representing the applicant, appeared and was sworn. Testimony and discussion included;

• The variances sought by the applicant are already existing issues with the existing dwelling

• No additional land may be purchased to make this lot more conforming.

• The variances can be granted without substantial detriment to the surrounding properties

• If the variances are improved, property values will increase in the surrounding area

• The buffering that exists and the additional planting will serve as a mitigating factor for any visual and noise issues that the neighbors may have

Mr. Dietz asked if all of the lots were empty, would the planner put one house forward and one house back in an uneven manner. Ms. Jensen replied that it would depend on the goal of the municipality. Placing houses at different setbacks can create visual interest. Mr. Dietz commented that the house is set a bit too far back and while the existing house is functionally obsolete, it may increase the neighbor’s problems. Ms. Jensen commented that the existing and proposed plantings will take care of any problems. Mr. Wetter asked about the homes on adjacent properties and their setbacks from the road. Ms. Jensen stated that the neighboring homes are located closer to the road. Mr. LaVecchia stated that there are several homes down the road that are set further back from the road. Mr. Dietz commented that those homes are near the river and are pretty far away, at least a half-mile away. Mr. Dietz asked Mr. Demuro 94 80 80+ feet back.

Mr. Perlman asked whether the proposed buffer on the September plan is the proposed buffer plan. Mr. LaVecchia stated in addition to those trees shown on the plan, 5 additional trees birch trees will be planted along the side yard between the house and the swale. Mr. Dietz stated that the applicant will have to plant additional trees. Ms. Tulio would be willing to work with the township planning staff. Ms. Tulio also commented that the zoning ordinance does not have a maximum setback, only a minimum setback.

Open Public: Ms. Helanar asked how five trees are going to be sufficient buffer so that she does not see the house. Ms. Helanar asked how they addressed the drainage on the property. Mr. Dietz stated that the Board engineer reviewed the drainage plans and approved them. Close public

Mr. Dietz asked that if the Board did look favorably on the application, would the applicant be willing to increase buffering along the property line with evergreens. Ms. Tulio agreed to sit down with the Township planner and work out additional landscaping scheme to the satisfaction of the township planner. Mr. Perlman stated that it would be a landscaping plan. Mr. Dietz stated that he wants to be assured that the neighbors are protected. Ms. Tulio agreed.

Open Public. Ms. Helanar stated that she has a problem with tearing down the home and that the placement of the proposed home is not in line with the other homes along Woodfern. The placement of the proposed home will look out of place. The lots are too long and narrow to accommodate a large house as proposed by the applicant. Ms. Helanar questioned the gravel driveway proposed for the lot. Mr. Ruvolo from Woodfern Road plans to do the same thing, which is to tear down his existing home and rebuild further back on the lot. The houses on these lots are small. Close Public

Mr. Anderson said the application consists of two separate variance requests, one is a c variance and one is a d variance. It appears that the d variance drives the location of the house. If the Board were to not approve it, then the existing house would have to be torn down first. The side yard variance is driven by the narrow nature of the lot. Mr. Dietz asked that if the applicant cannot live in both houses at the same time, then does the applicant have two principle uses on the lot. Mr. Anderson stated that it is probably correct, but it was the applicant’s request. Mr. Lovell recommended that the Board give the applicant a 30 day window to get a demo permit after the new house is built, or hold the applicant’s CO until the applicant demolishes the existing home. Mr. Lovell stated that the side yard setbacks requested by the applicant will not impact the neighbors given that the house will be set so far back. Mr. Passalacqua stated while it would be ideal to line the houses up, common sense suggests that a new house not get built so close to the road. Mr. Perlman stated that the applicant should consider the placing of a fence along the retaining walls. Ms. Tulio stated that the applicant will comply.

Mr. Lovell made a motion to approve including provisions stated therein, seconded Mr. Sheridan

ROLL CALL:

Mr. Valcheck – yes

Mr. Sheridan – yes

Mr. Passalacqua - yes

Mr. Jaghab – yes

Mr. Lovell - yes

Vice-Chair Wetter- yes

Chairman Dietz – yes

CONDITIONS:

Landscaping to the satisfaction of the Township Planner

Fencing as recommended by the Board Engineer

No significant re-grading shall occur as a result of the septic design without Board approval

PLAZA GRANDE AT HILLSBOROUGH –BA-06-24 – Block 86, Lot 21, Camplain Road & Sunnymead Road. Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan.

Exhibits:

• A-1 Overall Site Plan, dated 9/28/06

• A-2 Conceptual Site Plan dated 5/25/06

• A-3 Photograph of Dwelling Units

• A-4 Photograph of Clubhouse

• A-5 Enlarged View of Proposed Development

Mr. Richard Brigliodoro, the attorney representing the applicant, appeared and was sworn. Testimony and discussion included:

• Applicant previously received use variance approval from this Board for a 232 unit age-restricted development

• The applicant is now seeking site plan approval

• The lots owned by the applicant and previously left off the application have been added and the application amended as necessary

Alfred Coco, Engineer for Menlo Engineering and representing the applicant, appeared and was sworn. Testimony and discussion included;

• The site lies in the northeast quadrant of the township

• It is south of Camplain Road, which is an east-west road, and to the east of Sunnymeade Road, which runs north/south

• The municipal boundary lies along the extension of Arizona Street with Manville located to the east.

• Sunnymeade is approximately 550 feet to the west of the project’s boundary line.

• To the east and south of the site are residential properties of varying lot sizes

• Camplain Road contains a mix of residential and commercial properties, with the commercial properties along the north side of Camplain Road.

• In addition to the main portion of the site is a piece of property approximately 3 acres.

• The three acre parcel is currently undeveloped and is not proposed to be developed by the applicant

• The applicant would wish to dedicate the lot to the township for municipal purposes.

• The lot area of this parcel was not included in any of the calculations for coverage or density calculations.

• The site planned for development predominately wooded.

• The site was farmed at one point but has now become a successional wooded area.

• The area along the southern boundary of the site is next to the Roycebrook and is a more heavily wooded area, including mature trees and wetlands.

• The site is relatively flat, with some slopes to the rear of the property.

• A ditch running through the property collects drainage from the site and ends up in the Roycebrook.

• The perimeter buffer of the development was increased to 75 feet as conditioned by the Board at the use variance phase of this application.

• There was previously an Assisted Living facility proposed for the site which has been removed.

• The original proposal also had 287 units. The use variance approved only 232 in eight buildings, 29 units per building. All the units are two bedrooms.

• The applicant presented photographs of identical buildings for a project built in Old Bridge, NJ.

• Each unit has a ground level garage space, whether they are in the main building or in a free-standing garage – 25 spaces in the main building and 5 in the free-standing garage.

• There is also parking arranged in clusters along the front of each building.

• The driveways are large enough so that a driveway space is provided in front of most of the garages.

• The entire site contains 511 parking spaces. 192 of them are garage spaces, plus 40 detatched garage spaces, 144 driveway spaces, and then 102 off-street spaces, plus 33 spaces near the clubhouse.

• The clubhouse will be a 7,000 square foot structure, plus a tennis court, bocchi court, pool and seating area.

• Overall, the 28 acres of the 61 acre site will be developed, with the remaining 34 acres being left undeveloped.

• Approximately 20%, or 12 acres of the site will be considered impervious

• The gross density will be 3.8 units/acre, which is based on the 61 acres

• There are two main access points to the development

• The first access point is off of Camplain Road, and this would be where potential buyers will enter the site.

• The access off of Camplain will be a 24 foot-wide road, which is widened out to two 20 foot boulevards.

• The Boulevard enters into a circle which feeds traffic both to the east and wets portions of the development.

• Another access point from the eastern portion of the site would improve a part of Estelle, which is currently a paper street.

• Estelle street ties into Roosevelt which goes to the East and out to Arizona.

• It is not anticipated that this access would result in heavy use given that most site traffic would access Camplain Road

Mr. Dietz stated that Estelle Street should not be opened up to traffic. The Estelle Street access point would be appropriate for emergency access only. The applicant agreed to use the Estelle connection as an emergency access where posts and a breakaway fence would be constructed along with hidden pavement. Mr. Coco then explained that the other main access to the site will be off of Sunnymeade Road along Grant Avenue, which accesses the western portion of the site. Mr. Coco’s testimony continued;

• All the parking and access areas around the residential structures are similarly laid out

• The RSIS requirements mandate that two parking spaces per unit be provided, and this case, that would equal 464 parking spaces.

• 511 parking spaces are proposed.

• The internal road on the site will conform to the RSIS standards.

• The roadway width is proposed to be 24 feet wide

• The RSIS standards require sidewalks on both sides of the street where the applicant is proposing a sidewalk on only one side of the street

• The applicant is seeking an exception from this requirement

• The applicant is instead proposing pedestrian pathways around the open space and building.

• The other place where sidewalks will be placed on one side of the street is along Grant Avenue given the narrow right-of-way.

Mr. Dietz asked why the applicant does not want to put sidewalks on both sides of the street. Mr. Coco replied that he did think it was necessary, and that this is an adult community where there will not be children trying to cross the street. A sidewalk on one side of the street would be sufficient. Mr. Dietz stated that he did not like the fact the sidewalks would be placed on only one side of the street. Mr. Coco said that placing sidewalks on both sides of the street would be redundant given that this is not a single family development and thus the traffic patterns here are different. Mr. Coco’s testimony continued;

• The landscaping plan provides a combination of deciduous evergreen trees and ornamental trees

• The applicant is proposing to plant over 1,000 trees and shrubs

• A pedestrian path is proposed with exercise stations and seating areas

Mr. Dietz asked how many trees are being removed on the site. Mr. Coco stated that the applicant estimated 1,300 trees would be removed. Mr. Lovell commented that the applicant is required to plant 2,900 trees based upon the Planner’s report. Mr. Coco confirmed that the applicant is approximately 2000 trees short of what the ordinance requires. The applicant will be seeking relief on this, based upon the significant number of trees that are going to be preserved on the site. The trees on the developed portion of the site are essentially successional in nature. The trees near the wetlands are older trees and are being preserved. Mr. Coco’s testimony continued;

• The site will have 15 foot high PSE&G colonial fixtures throughout the site.

• The lighting plan will meet the recommended the minimum .3 footcandle in parking lots and .1 in the street.

• The applicant is currently proposing to light the improved portion of Grant Avenue, but some residents have expressed a concern about the lighting and the applicant is amenable to remove some lighting if the Board approves

• The proposed lighting fixtures are 150 Watt Metal Halides and do not spill a lot of light

• The applicant has applied to the NJDEP for a stream encroachment permit and the DRCC

• The DRCC has approved the stormwater management calculations

Mr. Dietz asked what would happen if the DEP or the DRCC do not approve the stream encroachment permit? Mr. Brigliadoro stated that if the DEP denies the permit it would alter the municipal approval. Mr. Brigiadoro stated that the applicant has decided to pursue local approval first and then obtain all other governmental approvals. Mr. Coco’s testimony continued;

• Three detention basins are proposed.

• They will be wet basins and will be owned, operated, and maintained by the Homeowners Association.

• Soil samples taken from the site indicate that there is currently no groundwater recharge on the site.

Mr. Dietz asked if the applicant calculated the one hundred year flood plain. Mr. Coco said that the applicant did calculate it which is 1% probability of a storm meets or exceeds 8 ½ inches of rain within a 24-hour period. This was used to design the detention basin. Mr. Demuro asked what the elevation of the surface water is. Mr. Coco said it was approximately 40 feet. Mr. Demuro countered that the DRCC determined the elevation to be at 42 feet. Mr. Dietz asked what does this mean. Mr. Demuro said that if the 42 foot elevation is used, then the 100 foot buffer would put the detention basin in the 100 year floodplain. The applicant conducted a detailed analysis of the flows in the Roycebrook and calculated an elevation of 40. Mr. Coco commented that the DRCC is using a general number rather than a detailed analysis. The applicant is seeking permission to use the lower number. Mr. Dietz asked how the applicant came up with a lower number. Mr. Coco said that the DRCC is using numbers from a FEMA study and use generalized calculations. Mr. Coco said that the applicant took additional sections of the Roycebrook and calculated the surface water elevation. Mr. Dietz asked what the flood line would be on the site in a Hurricane-Floyd like event. Mr. Coco said that none of the proposed buildings would have been affected by Hurricane Floyd. Mr. Coco’s testimony continued;

• The site is serviced by Elizabethtown Water Company.

• There will also be fire-hydrants located on the site.

• Sanitary sewer will be provided via the Hillsborough Municipal Utilities Authority and from Garfield, a paper street

• The applicant received the Board Engineering memo and addressed the technical issues.

Mr. Demuro asked if the brick wraps around to the rear of the buildings. Mr. Demuro said yes. The stone veneer does not wrap around to the rear of the buildings, but rather a vinyl siding. Mr. Demuro asked about the parking stalls in front of the garages and will the car overhang into the drive isle. Mr. Coco said 18 feet is provided. Mr. Demuro said that people may park in front of their detached garage making access difficult. Mr. Coco disagreed commenting that parking in front of the detached garage would not be permitted. Mr. Demuro asked why the applicant has only 24 foot wide roadways within the site. Mr. Coco said that they meet the RSIS standards. Mr. Dietz said the applicant should reconsider and make the roadways 28 feet wide. Mr. Demuro expressed a concern that visitors may end up parking along the roadway. Mr. Coco replied that these types of residential developments are less intense than in other townhouse developments.

Mr. Demuro asked how the applicant will ensure the ponds will always have water. Mr. Coco replied that the ponds will be supplemented with wells and have aerators to keep the water moving. Mr. Coco said that where the groundwater level drops below the elevation in the ponds, the well will put water into the pond. Mr. Dietz asked how the applicant will ensure that these wells won’t impact the neighbors’ wells. Mr. Coco replied that the wells will not be running all the time, but simply to keep a certain water level in the pond. He also stated well drillers are licensed by the DEP and will not put in a well unless it won’t affect the neighbors. Mr. Demuro asked that since the water line is being extended on Camplain and down Estelle, would the applicant permit the surrounding residents to tap in. Mr. Coco stated that it would be up to Elizabethtown Water Company.

Mr. Demuro stated that the Hillsborough Environmental Commission wanted the applicant to mass trees along the bordering properties. Mr. Coco stated that the applicant placed additional trees and buffering along the westerly edge of the site, and also the area along the municipal border. Mr. Demuro commented that the number of trees to be replanted does not meet the required number as determined in the township ordinance. Mr. Demuro asked how the applicant plans on meeting the requirement. Mr. Bridiadoro stated that the applicant will pursue the option of making a payment paid in lieu of planting the trees on site, and the applicant will pursue the economic hardship waiver as provided for in the ordinance. Mr. Demuro also asked about the improvements to some of the streets surrounding the site, particularly Estelle and Roosevelt after they are ripped up for utilities. Mr. Coco replied that the applicant will examine each street and assess the condition but assured that the restoration of the streets will be done properly.

Mr. Demuro expressed some concern about the garages located on the ground floor of the building and whether enough space has been provided to ensure that parked cars do not block residents from accessing their cars in the garages. Mr. Coco replied that he did not feel as though this would be a problem. Mr. Coco recommended that the Board visit the site in Old Bridge, where an identical development to this one has been built. Mr. Coco added that the applicant will look at adding additional parking to the site.

Mr. Dietz asked what the build-out time is for the project. Mr. Coco replied about three to five years. Mr. Dietz stated that the use variance is only viable for one year and that the applicant would need to complete construction within two years. Mr. Dietz stated that the applicant will need to come back before the board for an extension.

Mr. Demuro asked what the dumpsters will look like. Mr. Coco replied that they are of masonry construction and match the style of the building. Mr. Demuro asked if the enclosures will be able to accommodate the county’s recycling requirements. Mr. Coco replied that the applicant will conform to the county’s requirements. Mr. Dietz expressed a concern that garbage trucks will have difficulty accessing the dumpsters on the property as they are located at the far end of the buildings. Mr. Coco contended that there is adequate access for garbage trucks and is safe. Mr. Dietz stated that backing up a garbage truck to get out of the site is not safe.

Open Public: The following members of the public had questions. Michael Clarke from 64 Sunnymeade Road asked what assurances are there that his well will not be affected by this development. Mr. Coco answered that the proposed wells will only be used to supplement water to the detention basins. Mr. Coco continued saying that it is unlikely the proposed well for the development will impact anything greater than 100 feet away. Mr. Clarke asked if the proposed development will impact his septic tank. Mr. Coco replied that the proposed site is lower than Mr. Clarke’s, and so there will be no impact to his septic. Mr. Clarke asked if the applicant would be willing to provide fencing to block the lights of vehicular traffic entering Grant Street. Mr. Coco stated that the applicant will review the request. Mr. Clarke asked if the applicant would extend the water and sewer lines to the surrounding properties. Ms. Navata from 2101 Roosevelt Avenue asked how Estelle will be closed off to vehicular traffic except for emergency vehicles. Mr. Coco stated that the applicant has agreed to the driveway out to Roosevelt. Instead of a paved surface, something called hidden pavement will be installed that will be covered with grass but can support the weight of a fire truck. Mr. Rapacki from Jackson Avenue asked what kinds of trees will be planted at the site. Mr. Coco replied that a variety of trees, most of which are native to the area, will be planted. Mr. Rapacki asked which street the garbage and other services will use to access the site. Mr. Coco believes they will use Camplain Road. Mr. Rapacki asked about the street lights along Grant Street. Mr. Coco stated that the streets lights are metal halide lights on 15 foot high fixtures that will angle the light downwards. Mr. Rapacki asked where the gas lines would be located. Mr. Coco stated that the applicant is not notified of their location until the start of construction. Mr. Coco also stated that electric lines would be placed underground. Mr. Nusbaum at 40 Sunnymeade Road asked who will be responsible for the sidewalk along Grant Street before it enters the site. Mr. Coco answered that this issue will be addressed at the next hearing. Mr. Nusbaum asked if the applicant can run the sewer line up to Sunnymeade Road so that he may tie in. Mr. Coco said that it would depend on the Hillsborough Municipal Utilities Authority and the DEP. Mrs. Rapacki asked why a sidewalk is being placed along Grant Street when there are no sidewalks along Sunnymeade. Mr. Coco replied that it is a requirement of the Residential Site Improvement Standards. Mrs. Rapacki expressed a concern that the standing water on her property will be retarded from draining off her property. Mr. Coco responded by stating that the applicant will put in a pipe across the road in order to permit water to flow across the road. The applicant is also placing a drainage system in Grant Street which will discharge water into the detention basin. Mrs. Rapacki asked what the elevation of the road will be. Mr. Coco answered that Grant Street will be at or below existing grade.

Mr. Dietz asked that Mrs. Rapacki be sworn. Mrs. Rapacki was sworn. Testimony and Discussion included;

• Property currently retains water that is 6 to 8 inches deep

• The ponding of water extends beyond the edge of her property

• The water appears to extend onto Grant Street.

• In terms of wetlands on her property, the only letter she received from the NJDEP was regarding Lincoln stating that a portion of her property was wet.

Mr. Dietz recommended that the applicant investigate the condition of Grant in the vicinity of Mrs. Rapacki property to check for any wetlands. The applicant agreed.

Due to the lateness of the hour, the applicant requested that application be carried to next available date. Upon conferring with Mr. Perlman, the applicant the Board agreed to carry the application to January 17th, 2007.

ACCEPTANCE OF MINUTES:

ACCEPTANCE OF RESOLUTIONS

Peter & Jean Macaluso

Mr. Wetter made a motion to approve including provisions stated therein, seconded Mr. Lovell

ROLL CALL:

Mr. Valcheck – yes

Mr. Sheridan – yes

Mr. Passalacqua - yes

Mr. Jaghab – yes

Mr. Lovell - yes

Vice-Chair Wetter- yes

Chairman Dietz – not eligible

Frank & Carol Ann Rucci

Mr. Wetter made a motion to approve including provisions stated therein, seconded Mr. Passalacqua

ROLL CALL:

Mr. Valcheck – yes

Mr. Sheridan – yes

Mr. Passalacqua - yes

Mr. Jaghab – yes

Mr. Lovell - yes

Vice-Chair Wetter- yes

Chairman Dietz – not eligible

ADJOURNMENT- 11:00 P.M.

Submitted by,

Jeffrey Perlman

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download