Zoning Board of Adjustment

MINUTES BOROUGH OF MADISON ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Regular Meeting, November 13, 2014 at 7:30 P.M., Hartley Dodge Memorial, 50 Kings Road, Madison, New Jersey 1. CALLED TO ORDER BY CHAIRPERSON 2. ANNOUNCEMENT OF NOTICE (STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE) A regular meeting of the Borough of Madison Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Thursday, November 13, 2014 at 7:30 pm in Room #140 of the Hartley Dodge Memorial Building, located at Kings Road, Madison, N.J. Joseph Santoro, Chairman opened the meeting and requested the reading of the public notice as follows: “Let the minutes reflect that adequate notice of this meeting has been provided in the following manner: At the reorganization meeting of the Board, held on January 9, 2014, the Board, by resolution adopted a schedule of meetings. On January 13, 2014, a copy of the schedule of meetings was posted at the bulletin board at the main entrance of the Hartley Dodge Memorial, was sent to the Madison Eagle and the Daily Record and filed with the Borough Clerk, all in accordance with the “Open Public Meetings Act”. 3. ROLL CALL Present: Joseph Santoro, Toni DeRosa, Michael Lami, Ronald Poeter, Timothy Blair, Diane Driscoll and Carl Hess Also Present: Gary Hall, Zoning Board attorney, Susan Blickstein, PP, Frank Russo, PE Excused: Susan Niculescu and Kyle Wickman 4. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The following minutes were distributed to all Board members prior to this meeting for their review. There were two minor corrections made to the minutes. A voice vote of aye was heard in approval of the corrected minutes by all eligible voting Board members. 5. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL – Regular meeting of October 9, 2014 The following Resolutions were distributed to all Board members prior to this meeting for their review. There were two minor changes made to the McManus Resolution. A voice vote of aye was heard from all eligible voting Board members in approval of the Resolutions. 6. RESOLUTIONS FOR MEMORIALIZATION: CASE NO. Z 14-029 Resolution granting variance application to Andy & Eva Szumzer, Block: 2001, Lot: 8, 19 Alexander Avenue to construct a 1 ½ Story Rear Addition with Covered Porch, Removal of Existing Mud Room and Portion of Existing Rear Patio in an R-3 (Single-Family Residential) Zone requiring relief from Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage. ZBA – 11/13/14 Page 1 CASE NO. Z 14-030 Resolution granting variance application to John & Adrienne Novak, Block: 4003, Lot: 4, 49 East Lane to construct a 2 Story Addition with Small Covered Porch, 2 Air Conditioning Condenser Units, Removal of Front Concrete and Slate Walkway, Expansion of Existing Driveway and Drywell in an R- 2 (Single-Family Residential) Zone requiring relief from Minimum Side Yard Setback (Right), Minimum Rear Yard Setback, Maximum Principal Building Coverage and Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage. CASE NO. Z 14-031 Resolution granting variance application to Kevin & Johnelle McManus, Block: 3901, Lot: 21, 15 Kensington Road to construct a 2nd Story, 2 Story and 1 Story Rear Additions, Front Portico, Front Stoop with Roof, and Existing Front Walk Expansion in an R-3 (Single-Family Residential) Zone requiring relief from Minimum Front Yard Setback and Maximum Principal Building Coverage. CASE NO. Z 14-036 Resolution granting variance application to Kristen O’ Sullivan, Block: 4206, Lot: 2, 6 Wyndehurst Drive to construct a Rear 1 Story, & 2 Story Additions, Rear Screened Covered Porch, Rear Covered Entrance Way, Detached 2 Car Garage, and Expansion of Existing Driveway in an R-2 (Single-Family Residential) Zone requiring relief from Minimum Left Side Yard Setback (Right), Minimum Rear Yard Setback and Maximum Height Accessory Structure. 7. OLD BUSINESS; CASE NO. Z 14-00 Jayneil Shah Block: 1203, Lot: 23 7 Elm Street Applicant is requesting the demolition of an 2‐Family Residence in an R‐5 zone and construction of a 2‐Family Residence requiring variance of Minimum Front Yard Setback, Minimum Front Yard Setback, Side Yard setback (Left), Side Yard setback (Right), Rear Yard setback, Maximum Building Stories Maximum Principal Building Coverage, Maximum F.A.R., Driveway Setback, Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage and Principal Permitted use of 2‐Family in an R‐5 Zone. Application was started on May 8, 2014. Continued hearing with revised plans presented at the September 11, 2014 hearing. B – 5 Revised Memo from Susan Blickstein,PP dated 11/7/14 B – 6 Memo from Frank Russo, PE, dated 11/10/14 A – 10 Revised Plans, ASA Architectural, rev. 10/10/14, A – 11 Plans from Casper Engineering, 10/17/14, rev. 10/17/14 A – 12 Storm-water Maintenance Plan, dated, 10/29/14 prepared by Casper Engineering A – 13 Topographic survey prepared by Mr. Shah, 6/14 A – 14 Colored rendering, streetscape S – 15 Colored rendering, streetscape A – 16 Colored version of one of the plan sheets, sheet 2 of 5 Mr. Alan Andreas, Architect began by reviewing the changes that were made to the plans since the last meeting. The building was narrowed and it was jogged to the rear to follow the contour of the ZBA – 11/13/14 Page 2 land. A parking space will be located on either side of the building. The mansard roof was removed and in its place a gable roof will be constructed. He then reviewed each variance. A front yard variance is being sought, proposed is 4.5 feet; this setback will be aligned with those on the street. The left yard setback, a portion of the house is conforming, and a small piece in the rear is non-conforming. The property to the right affords a lot of screening. The rear yard setback will be eliminated with the changes that were made. No negative detriment will be made to the surrounding properties in the rear. The maximum building coverage 41.6% is proposed, this was reduced from the original plans that were submitted and reduced with the changes. The maximum impervious coverage is 64.1%. The removal of the accessory structure will reduce the variances to seven. A one foot overhang is proposed, so no projections are planned. Screening around the refuse containers is planned. There were no questions for Mr. Andreas from the public. Christian Kastruv, Kastruv Engineering began by reviewing Exhibit A-16. Two parking spaces were added on the outside of the building. Three additional feet is being dedicated to the Borough in the front of the home. He then reviewed the items which Susan Blickstein’s memo addressed. Mr. Kastruv stated that a single bedroom unit only generates one space; and a single space is more than adequate for a two bedroom as well. Ms. Blickstein requested that Mr. Kastruv clarify the type of lighting that is being proposed. He stated all the lighting is of a residential type, eight feet in height. Additional landscaping will be added around the fencing. The asphalt parking spaces will be changed to pavers. The walkways are all constructed of concrete. Mr. Russo began by stating that all of the comments in his review letter were agreed to, however, the parking spaces and movement of the cars were a bit of an issue. Mr. Kastruv explained this issue and he stated he does not believe this would cause any vehicular problem. A – 17 Photo Board consisting of 9 photos including an aerial photo Robert Michaels, Licensed P.P. began by reviewing the photos on the Board. He stated the neighborhood is comprised of a mix of multi-family homes. No garage space is being provided. Special reasons must be established. The home has existed since 1934 and the neighboring homes are multi-family. A sub-standard dwelling will be demolished and be replaced by a structure constructed under the new standards. There will be a benefit to the Borough by the applicant providing an additional right-of-way. The negative criteria will be met because the impact on the neighborhood will be less and a modern, more aesthetically pleasing structure to the neighborhood is being proposed. Mr. Russo asked if there are any single family dwellings on the street. Mr. Michaels believes there may be only one and across the street there may be one. Mr. Kastruv returned to describe the storm-water management plan and what is proposed onsite. There will be one drywell and all leaders going to the drywell. The public had no questions for the witness. There were no questions from any of the Board members. The public was given the opportunity to make statements. There being none, the Board began their deliberation. The consensus of the Board was to approve the application with all the changes that were discussed. A motion to approve the application was made by Mr. Blair and seconded by Mr. Lami. A roll call vote was requested and recorded as follows: AYES: Mr. Blair, Mr. Lami, Mr. Poeter, Mr. Santoro and Mr. Hess NAY: Mrs. DeRosa Diane Driscoll left the Board for the evening. ZBA – 11/13/14 Page 3 CASE NO. Z 14-026 Peter Meshki Block: 1703, Lot: 13 44 Greenwood Avenue Applicants are seeking permission to construct a 3 Story Rear Addition, Vertical Expansion of Existing Portion of Principle Dwelling from 2 ½ Stories to 3 Stories, Detached 2 Car Garage, Expansion of Existing Driveway and a Drywell in an R4 (Single or Two Family Residential) Zone requiring relief from Maximum Building Height/Stories, Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage and Minimum Driveway Setback. This application was started at the September 11, 2014 Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting with continued hearing with revised plans presented on October 9, 2014. A – 10 Plot Plan, revised dated 10/20/14 A – 11 Architectural Plan, dated 10/20/14 A – 12 Letter from Mr. Novalis, dated 10/24/14 A – 13 Layout of the parking area Mr. DeAngelis began and reviewed the changes which were made as suggested by the Board. The impervious coverage was eliminated by not constructing the garage. The non-conforming lot size cannot be changed. Mr. John Novalis began by describing the changes to the plans. The full 3rd story was reduced to two stories. The building footprint was increased by the reduction of the 3rd floor. The building footprint was increased by 220 sf. The first floor was reduced to a 2 bedroom unit with an additional loft space, from a 3 bedroom unit. More space on the first floor was given to the second floor. The ridge height will stay at 32.5 feet. The front of the house stays the same, however, the back addition is 9 feet longer than originally requested. The two car garage has been removed from the application. Mr. Santoro still had a concern. He believes the rear of the house is not aligned with the other homes due to its length and still projects a large building mass. He also had issue with the number of parking spaces, that it would not be sufficient. Mr. Novalis addressed the existing parking conditions which were the same for the past 20 years. The proposed building is within the building envelope. This witness had no further remarks. The public was given the opportunity to ask questions as follows: Shaun Oharen, 48 Greenwood, asked how many feet to the new exterior wall. Mr. Novalis stated 19 feet. Andrew Clarke, Engineer has prepared a revised Plot Plan and began by describing it. The height of the building was brought down below the permitted height. He stated the existing parking conditions are the same as what had existed. Mr. Clarke discussed the parking issue with the Board justifying that 4 spaces are sufficient. Mr. Hall questioned Mr. Clarke as to the width of the parking spaces. Mr. Clarke used A-13 to show the layout of the parking area that is proposed, which will reduce the impervious coverage. The public was given the opportunity to question Mr. Clarke as follows: Alex Daley, 47 Greenwood, asked if the dimensions of the driveway reflect the present or the last neighbor’s dimensions. Mr. Clarke stated it is today’s dimensions. ZBA – 11/13/14 Page 4 Mr. DeAngelis gave his summary and believes the applicant has done a great job in making the changes that the Board had suggested. The public was now given the opportunity to make comments. Shaun Oharen, 48 Greenwood stated that he is happy to see the plan is coming into conformance. He still believes that the house will be aesthetically detrimental to the neighboring properties . Alexander Daly, 46 Greenwood believes she will have no privacy at all. She believes that the property was not intended to house such a huge mass. The applicant will return on December 11, 2014 with revised plans. CASE NO. Z 14-033 Alexandre Gerber Block: 1803, Lot: 6 31 Greenwood Avenue Applicant is seeking permission to install a Shed, Fence, Expand Existing Driveway, and Expand Previously “Approved” Blue stone Patio in an R-4 (Single-Family Residential) Zone requiring relief from Minimum Driveway Offset from Property Line and Minimum Accessory Structure Offset from Property Line. This application was started at the September 25, 2014 Zoning Board of Adjustment special meeting. A – 3 Revised Plan A – 4 Photos attached to a letter A – 5 Photo 2 A – 6 Photo 3 Mr. Gerber began with Photo #1 which shows the shed which will house bikes. The changes made were the removal of the driveway beyond the fence and replacing it with a walkway which ends at the garage. The existing driveway will be repaved. The driveway will end near the house. The garage will be 2.5 feet from the property line instead of on the property line. The rear of the property is less than 50 feet, it being 47 feet. The garage will be moved slightly back a few feet. All the homes have garages in the rear and the applicant will align his garage with the neighbor’s garages. A – 7 Photo of view of neighbor’s garage Mr. Gerber began by stating he spoke with his neighbor and he is fine with the proposal and he stated that he is attempting to please his neighbors. He tried to contact his neighbor and the property manager with no response. Sam DeAngelis, representing Paul Waterman, stated there are three issues between the two parties. The fence is mislocated; two surveyors have met and will agree upon the location. Mr. Gerber will install a drop curb along the pavement when he is repaving his driveway. His client’s shed is at the rear of the property and would like Mr. Gerber’s shed in the rear of the property. Mr. Gerber stated he would like to keep the peach tree when he locates the shed. ZBA – 11/13/14 Page 5 Hillary Robin, 27 Greenwood Avenue, stated she believes Mr. Gerber is doing a fine job with this project. She believes Mr. Gerber’s alignment of the shed is fine and allows for green space in the rear. There being no further questions or comments, the Board began their deliberation. The consensus of the Board was to approve the application as presented. A motion to approve the application as presented was made by Mr. Lami and seconded by Mrs. DeRosa. A roll call vote was requested and recorded as follows: AYES: Mr. Blair, Mrs. DeRosa, Mr. Lami, Mr. Poeter, Mr. Santoro and Mr. Hess. 8. NEW BUSINESS: CASE NO. Z 14-037 Catherine Haddad Block: 4803, Lot 5 10 Noe Avenue Applicant is seeking permission to construct a Covered: Open: Front Porch, (2) 2 Story Additions, (2) 2nd Story Additions, Expansion of Existing Driveway, Front Walk, Second Curb Cut, and the Removal of Existing Front Walk in an R-2 (Single-Family Residential) Zone requiring relief from Minimum Side Yard Setback (Left) and Maximum Impervious Lot Coverage. B – 1 Letter of Denial from the Borough of Madison, Deputy Zoning Officer, Dan Buckalew, dated 10/16/14 A – 1 Set of Plans prepared by Stephen Hockstein, Architect dated 9/23/14 A – 2 Survey Copy dated 5/23/13 A – 3 Survey Copy, dated 5/23/13, “proposed” Catherine Haddad,applicant and Douglas Miller, Architect, Millburn, NJ were sworn in and Mr. Miller began by explaining the proposed changes to the home. He continued by describing the floor plan. The first floor has been previously expanded and the kitchen is fairly new. A study space is needed for her work and an additional garage is planned to take the cars off of the driveway in front of the house. Second floor has 4 bedrooms and they are very narrow. The applicant would like to improve the floor plan and construct a master suite. The plan is to improve the circulation of the house. A circular driveway is proposed. A – 4 Rendering of the house as it will look after the proposed changes The left rear of the house would make more sense to locate the addition because it would have the least impact upon the neighbors. A – 5 Photo board showing homes in the neighborhood The left side and rear of the home is already wooded and well shrubbed. That area would impact the neighbor the least. The existing setback will be maintained. No site-lines are being impacted. The circular driveway is being proposed due to the hardship of pulling in and out of the driveway. The large trees in the front of the neighbor’s home block Ms. Haddad’s view when exiting the existing driveway. ZBA – 11/13/14 Page 6 Mr. Miller believes the improvements to the home will be aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. Drywells will be installed and the entire roof area of the home will go into the drywell. There being no further questions or comments from the Board or the pubic, the Board began their deliberation. The consensus of the Board was to approve the application as presented with the condition that the entire roof water runoff be captured into drywells. A motion to approve the application as presented was made by Mr. Lami and seconded by Mr. Blair. A roll call vote was requested and recorded as follows: AYES: Mr. Blair, Mrs. DeRosa, Mr. Lami, Mr. Poeter, Mr. Santoro and Mr. Hess 9. OTHER BUSINESS: No Other Business. 10. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:30 pm with a motion made by Mr. Lami and seconded by Mr. Blair. Respectfully submitted, Lorraine Sola Recording Secretary ZBA – 11/13/14 Page 7