MINUTES OF REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, MARCH 12, 2019 Vice Chairman Zapf called to order the regular meeting of the Board and announced the meeting was duly advertised in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act by notice dated March 5 th, 2019 sent to the Daily Record, Suburban Trends and posted on the bulletin board and website at Borough hall. All stood the Pledge of Allegiance. PRESENT: BRACCHITTA, ERICKSON, FOREMAN, KUBISKY, WOLFSON, ZAPF, DUBOWSKY (ALT. #1) AND ZALEWSKI (ALT. #2) ALSO PRESENT: BOORADY, ENGINEER AND ALEXANDER, COUNSEL ABSENT: *BYRNE Ms. Ward mentioned everything on the agenda was carried from our February 12 th, 2019 meeting due to inclement weather. Vice Chairman Zapf announced the first order of business is the approval of the minutes from the January 8 th, 2019 reorganization meeting. Ms. Ward mentioned the members that can vote are Bracchitta, Erickson, Foreman, Kubisky, Wolfson, Zapf, Dubowsky and Zalewski. All of the regular members and Bruce can vote on the minutes. Vice Chairman Zapf stated I have a couple of corrections. On page 4 starting with Section D., the same error carries over three times in the template. It says, the compensation is $150 an hour and in the number it is $135 an hour. Ms. Ward mentioned I see it. Vice Chairman Zapf stated it carries over in E and F. That one we have to fix with his contract and that s all I have for the reorg meeting. Ms. Ward mentioned okay. Vice Chairman Zapf asked anybody else. I ll make a motion to accept the minutes from January 8 th the reorganization meeting with the corrections to those three issues. Is there a second? Mr. Bracchitta seconds. Roll call: Yes: No: Abstain: Zapf, Bracchitta, Erickson, Foreman, Kubisky, Wolfson and Dubowsky (Alt. #1) Vice Chairman Zapf stated the second order of business is the January 8 th, 2019 regular meeting minutes which were very short. In the header I noticed the date was one year ahead 2019 instead of 2018 and that was all I have. Ms. Ward mentioned okay. The same members can vote again. Vice Chairman Zapf made the motion to accept the minutes with the one correction. Does anybody else have any comments? Mr. Bracchitta seconds. Roll call:
Page 2 March 12, 2019 Yes: No: Abstain: Zapf, Bracchitta, Erickson, Foreman, Kubisky, Wolfson and Dubowsky (Alt. #1) Ms. Ward mentioned okay they re approved. Vice Chairman Zapf announced the next order of business is Variance Application #2018-05 by John and Margaret Murphy, on property known as Block 151, Lot 12 on the municipal tax map also known as 55 Anthony Boulevard. This was complete on December 21 st, 2018 and we have to make a decision before April 20 h, 2019 so we are in the window. Ms. Ward mentioned it is a public hearing. Mr. Alexander swore in Mr. & Mrs. Murphy. Please state your names and address for the record. Mrs. Murphy testified Margaret Murphy, 55 Anthony Boulevard. Mr. Murphy testified John Murphy, 55 Anthony Boulevard. Vice Chairman Zapf mentioned we have a project proposal before us so why don t you tell us what you are proposing to do briefly? Mr. Murphy testified we are here tonight for a variance for the construction of a master bedroom above our family room so this would be directly above the existing structure. The purpose for the home improvement, we are longtime residents of the town and we decided we wanted to stay here and expand the property. Vice Chairman Zapf stated we have your plans before us and Tom has sent you a letter detailing some of the issues he has come up with in this particular project. Tom do you want to go over your report? Mr. Boorady stated sure. My letter was dated December 31 st, 2018. *Chairman Byrne arrived at the meeting. Mr. Boorady stated I m sure everybody has my letter. Ms. Ward mentioned we re going over Tom s report. Mr. Boorady asked if everyone was ready. Ms. Ward mentioned we re ready. Mr. Boorady stated I issued a letter on December 31 st, 2018 and just starting on page 2 I have a project summary. The lot is conforming and it is a corner lot, on the corner of Anthony and Little Court. It has conforming lot frontage, lot area and there are two front yards because it is a corner lot. There are two side yards because it is a corner lot and there is no backyard. It is improved with a split level dwelling and there is a wraparound porch in the back, left corner along the left side and back, a swimming pool, an asphalt pad which is really a basketball court, a stone patio area, framed sheds and a driveway. They want to build it within the footprint of the structure so they are just going up in the four walls that they have. and I guess it would be the east side of the house above what would have been the garage. I guess your garage was converted to a living room? Mr. Murphy testified prior to us moving there, the garage, the carport was enclosed and converted into a play space. So as one of the improvements we have done to the property is we ve raised that up to be a formal part of the house to create a living space.
Page 3 March 12, 2019 Mr. Boorady stated so that is one of the variance they need because there is no carport or garage where at least one is required in a residential zone. Lot coverage is also a variance too. The coverage really isn t changing because you are going up right so it is a nonconforming condition as it stands. They are at 27½% not including the pool, the pool deck and the pavement stone patio which is made out of pavers. In Lincoln Park you don t include those towards your lot coverage. Mr. Zapf asked even the pool Tom. Mr. Boorady stated even the pool. Mr. Zapf mentioned okay. Mr. Boorady stated if I included all of that they would be at 40% just for reference, but when you subtract all that out they are only over by 2.5% okay. The sheds are nonconforming and are supposed to be 10 feet away from the side yards. Did you put those in? Mr. Murphy testified no. The first shed was there when we bought the property and we did put the second shed in when we added the pool and there is electricity going to that shed. We put it in line with the other shed that was right in front of that, and from the side yard perspective I think you measured it pretty close, and then from a back yard perspective we are two feet off of that property line. Mr. Boorady stated 2.4 in the back and 2.3 in the side. I m calling it the back but it is really two side yards. Mr. Murphy testified it is very confusing. Mr. Boorady stated then the existing fence is nonconforming. You are supposed to have in the front yard a four foot maximum and I believe you have a six foot fence and it is supposed to be open and it can t be greater than 25% solid. It is a solid fence correct? Mr. Murphy testified yes. Mrs. Murphy testified yes. Mr. Boorady stated those are some of the pre-existing nonconforming items. The setback for the actual addition that you are looking to put up is conforming so you know the denial was issued because there is no garage and whenever you are expanding the house you know Sal doesn t let that go, the construction and zoning official, unless they come in for a variance. The lack of the garage is really why they are here. The other items are pre-existing nonconforming so the Board could either memorialize those items or ask the applicant if there is any way to improve any of those nonconforming items such as the fence, sheds, the coverage and that is where I go into page 3 some of those comments. So Item #1 is whether any of those items could be improved or more conforming, and then the other items relate to flood development, and technically it is a flood hazard area and it will be taken out under the preliminary maps. But under the effective map technically it is in a DEP flood hazard area, it is not in the hundred year flood plain and they are not required to have flood insurance or anything like that, and I believe the work they are doing is not a substantial improvement so they qualify for a permit-by-rule and I state that in my letter. Items #3 and 4 are just standard conditions about as-builts and keeping the escrow account current. Mr. Alexander asked your comment of substantial improvement applies for issuance of a building permit.
Page 4 March 12, 2019 Mr. Boorady stated yeah any approval would have to be subject to the applicant providing a substantial improvement calculation and I think they meet it under what they are looking to do, but they would just have to provide the documentation, the assessed value of the structure versus the cost of the improvements and it can t be worth more than 50%. So again it is adding a level onto part of the house and there is no new kitchen being installed. There is one new bathroom and I don t think it would increase the value by more than 50%. If there was a garage in this house, they would more than likely have been issued a construction permit, so the main reason they were denied is because of the lack of a garage or carport. Mr. Foreman asked how long have you lived in the house. Mr. Murphy testified 23 years. Mr. Foreman asked and there was no garage when you first moved in. Mr. Murphy testified no. Mr. Foreman asked explain again what you did to improve that. Mr. Murphy testified so when we bought the house the area that was a carport had been paved and enclosed and they were using it as a sunroom. Mr. Foreman asked so you improved it so it could be used all year around and you did that when. Mr. Murphy testified 2000/1998. Mr. Foreman asked and all these other issues like your fence has been solid and stuff like that. Mr. Murphy testified so when we installed the pool in 2004 we sought approvals from the town to make sure we were in step with the code for things like electrical. We installed the fence because the pool had to be enclosed in a fenced in area and we have not made any changes to the backyard or the asphalt blacktop since then. Mr. Forman stated I m confused as to how the fence was approved and now it is not. Mr. Boorady stated so the fence ordinance wasn t in place when he did this work. Mr. Foreman mentioned oh that s a nonconforming pre-existing -- Mr. Boorady stated that s why it is pre-existing nonconforming. Mr. Zapf asked does that go into the right-of-way is that part of the issue it is too close to the road on this side. Mr. Boorady stated it is right on the right-of-way line. Mr. Zapf stated okay so it is on the right-of-way line but it is not significantly in it or anything like that so they are not going to have a problem down the road or anything like that. Mr. Boorady stated if they go to replace it, then technically they have to make it conforming. Mr. Zapf mentioned okay if they go to replace it. Mr. Boorady stated you need a zoning permit when you do a fence and then it would get flagged at that point. We are not going around town and making everybody who has nonconforming fences prior to the ordinance change it. Again the main reason they are here is the lack of a garage or carport. of the other nonconforming items were flagged for the construction permit for the addition.
Page 5 March 12, 2019 Mr. Foreman stated I have driven up and down that street a bunch of times and I don t know exactly which house is yours, but I probably should have driven by, but just knowing those houses there is no place to put a garage now right? Mr. Murphy testified there is not. We looked at that and potentially trying to leverage some of the neighbor s property but they are all in the same condition and can t give up any property. Mr. Zapf stated when you bought the house you said that the carport was enclosed because all those houses came with a carport that was open. Some people used what they call jalousie windows and other people just put like a kind of screen that wasn t solid across. When you say enclosed, how enclosed was it? Mr. Murphy testified jalousie windows, a foundation and a poured concrete floor. We have pictures of other homes in the area too. Mr. Zapf stated the reason I m asking is you improved what was basically not a living room, heated or anything like that but did you get a building permit? Mr. Murphy testified yes. Mr. Zapf stated okay you did. Mr. Murphy testified they inspected it. Mr. Zapf stated one of the problems that we had in the last couple of years is people who make improvements like that behind the walls go to sell their house and then there is a problem because the buyer will not buy the house until the variances are put together, so you got a building permit that s good. Mr. Murphy testified yes. Mr. Zapf asked what year was that. Mr. Murphy testified 1999. Mr. Alexander stated so the Borough allowed you to close the garage. Mr. Murphy testified yes. Mr. Zapf stated you got a building permit that kind of answers the questions. Mr. Boorady stated so again the structure they are looking to erect itself it is just obligating the variance. Mr. Foreman asked do we even need to vote on something. (Inaudible several members speaking at once.) Mr. Zapf mentioned they are right on the property line. Mr. Boorady stated you are memorializing the site the way it is today; including the sheds, the fence, you are saying all the nonconforming conditions that they have and the impervious coverage you are allowing that to happen. Mr. Zapf mentioned the only impervious coverage is 2 percent. Mr. Boorady stated 2½% not including the pavers and the pool. Lincoln Park doesn t include the pool and the pavers. Chairman Byrne asked what is the asphalt pad used for. Mr. Murphy testified it was a basketball court and it is still a basketball court.
Page 5 March 12, 2019 Mr. Foreman asked do your kids play basketball. Mr. Murphy testified not any more that was another life time. Mr. Zapf asked regarding the two sheds, you have a house on your left hand side and they are right against the property line, and there is an hedge row there and some ornamental trees and things like that, are they moveable without it being a major inconvenience, or do you have electricity in one of those and that may become an issue. The reason I am asking is your neighbors to the left might be great friends of yours or something, but whatever we pass goes with the property it does not go with you if you sell the house. Three years down the road you would have two sheds right there and then the neighbors could be at loggerheads with one another so it is just something to ask because they look pretty substantial, not like one of those little aluminum ones that you can pick up and setback down again. Mr. Murphy testified they are 8 x 12 sheds. Mr. Zapf stated okay kind of a big deal. Mr. Murphy testified the shed that was added we have electricity running to it which supports the pool and supports the lighting that we have in the backyard so I have thought about trying to figure out how to move that. Mr. Zapf asked what is behind that on your neighbor s property because I can t see back there. On their side do they have two sheds against yours or do you know? Mr. Murphy testified directly behind us they have a pool and a fenced area. Mr. Zapf asked the one on the side like your sheds sit side ways. Mr. Murphy testified yes to the left of us. Mr. Zapf stated 57 I guess that is? Mr. Murphy testified he s got a shed probably 5 feet or so from ours. Mr. Zapf stated so it backs up to yours okay. I mean if they have something really ornamental there like a gazebo, could you move it over a little bit? They have a shed there too. Chairman Byrne stated just to be clear, if they were to remove the shed or try to improve it, they would have to make them conform. Mr. Boorady stated they should when they come in for zoning. Chairman Byrne stated if they come in for a building permit or something and they decided to rip these down and replace them with another shed, they would have to be conforming. Mr. Zapf mentioned yes. Chairman Byrne stated the same with the fence I just want to be clear on that. So if you want to replace the fencing, you will have to make it conforming. Mr. Murphy testified yes. Mr. Zapf stated I don t have any more questions. Chairman Byrne asked does anyone from the Board have any more questions Board members no. Chairman Byrne asked any members of the public wish to speak. Seeing none we ll close the public portion.
Page 7 March 12, 2019 Mr. Zapf made the motion to grant the variance for the nonconforming no garage. Motion for the solid fence. Motion for the two sheds that are too close to the property line. Chairman Byrne asked what about the impervious coverage. Mr. Zapf made the motion regarding the impervious coverage since we don t count the pool and the paver stones because that absorbs water anyway so that is only two percent. Mr. Bracchitta seconds. Chairman Byrne stated he made four motions. Ms. Ward stated I know but aren t you going to put them in one vote? Chairman Byrne asked if everyone was comfortable with that. Mr. Zapf stated yes. Roll call: Yes: No: Abstain: ZAPF, BRACCHITTA, BYRNE, ERICKSON, FOREMAN, KUBISKY AND WOLFSON Ms. Ward stated okay we ve got everyone. Mr. Murphy thanked everyone. Ms. Ward mentioned the resolution will be on for next month and you ll get a copy in the mail. If you are in agreement with it, you do not have to attend the meeting. If you have any questions, contact us or attend the meeting. Mr. Murphy asked we were trying to do this for a while so would it be possible to memorialize the vote tonight so we can move forward with the building permits. Ms. Ward stated this is a resolution of memorialization. Tom, can they submit their package for the permits? Mr. Boorady stated well he has to conform to the substantial improvements so we need that letter first and then Sal and I will review it. Mr. Murphy testified okay. Chairman Byrne stated you can start submitting your permits but you can t start construction yet. Mr. Zapf mentioned until the resolution is voted on to make sure it is right. Mr. Alexander stated you can start the application process now. Mr. Boorady mentioned April 9 th is right around the corner so by the time you get your paperwork going the resolution should be in place hopefully. Mr. Murphy testified and the weather should be better. Mr. Boorady stated yeah. Mr. Murphy thanked everyone. Chairman Byrne announced the next order or business is waiver request with reference to
Page 8 March 12, 2019 Variance Application #2018-06 and Grading Permit Application #G18-2 by Michal Makarewicz and Marta M. Zajkowski, on property known as Block 71, Lot 42 on the municipal tax map also known as 26 Pocahontas Path. Mr. Alexander swore in Mr. Mianecki. Please state you name for the record. Mr. Mianecki testified Joseph S. Mianecki, Jr., 9 Midvale Avenue, Towaco. I am here on behalf of my clients who are on vacation and they asked me to come before the Board on the completeness waivers. The project includes basically the construction of a detached 2½ car garage and other miscellaneous improvements; extension of the driveway, putting a dry well in and replacing some of the retaining walls that are falling over, and regrading the back yard, basically sprucing up the place. I am here to answer any questions regarding the completeness waivers. I went over Mr. Boorady s memo of January 21 st of this year. Mr. Boorady stated we had like a little sidebar before and I think the checklist for general information, the checklist for grading permit and the checklist for the Board of Adjustment variances I think you are going to provide all of that right? Mr. Mianecki testified correct. Mr. Boorady stated it boils down to I believe on page 3 at the bottom, the checklist for grading permits Item 6.M and Item 6.FF are the only two waivers you are asking for and everything else you are going to provide right? Mr. Mianecki testified everything else we ll provide. Mr. Boorady stated it just saves time so we do not have to go through the whole letter. 6.M is the location and description of all existing and aboveground and underground utilities within 200 feet of the property. They have or will have on the plans eventually everything within the property but they are not going to locate the utilities 200 feet out, so within their frontage they are going to locate so it is kind of a partial waiver right? Mr. Mianecki testified right. Mr. Boorady stated we ll call it a partial waiver. Mr. Mianecki testified yes. We are showing everything that s on site. Mr. Boorady stated right. So I don t think there is a need to have like the neighbor s water connection on either side, or stormwater and water mains so I would recommend that waiver. Chairman Byrne asked why do we ask for that. Why is that part of our application? Mr. Boorady stated if this were a new site where you didn t have maybe services to it and they were coming in for a grading permit, you would probably want to see where they are connecting and what impacts it would have on the neighbors. Chairman Byrne stated yeah I was just letting the Board know why we ask for that so when they vote they know. Mr. Boorady stated the existing conditions are already there so it is not impacting anybody. Mr. Mianecki testified sometimes you have to go out in the street on vacant properties to do wet taps and water mains but in this case we are not touching any utility connections. The only thing we are going to do is put an electric line from the house to the garage. Mr. Boorady stated right. Similarly with 6.FF it is all other information within 200 feet not just the utilities but you know building location, driveways and such.
Page 9 March 12, 2019 Chairman Byrne stated again that is something that is usually asked for with new development. Mr. Boorady stated yeah. They are showing within their property limits but not outside of that so again that is a partial waiver. Chairman Byrne stated and that s sufficient for your purposes. Mr. Boorady stated yeah based on the plans that we have I think there is enough information provided. Mr. Zapf asked we are going to see this again. Mr. Mianecki testified absolutely. Mr. Zapf asked is it the one tan house with the driveway that comes in on the right hand side. Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Mr. Zapf stated I wasn t sure which house it was because there was no number on it. Mr. Mianecki testified Mr. Makarewicz has a lot of toys that he needs to put inside a garage. Mr. Zapf stated I went home and Googled it but I thought it was that one. Mr. Boorady stated the carport and the shed are going to be taken away in favor of the garage. There are some area improvements to the retaining walls too. Mr. Mianecki testified it is sprucing up of the place. Ms. Ward stated you don t have the plans yet because only 3 were submitted for the initial completeness review. You ll have the plans for the meeting. Mr. Boorady stated these are only checklist waivers. Let s say for some reason we need a utility pole 200 feet away they will have to locate it and come back. You always have the opportunity to ask for this information at the next hearing and then they have to go away and come back. It just gives them the opportunity to come in sooner with less information that you probably don t need. Mr. Mianecki testified they save a lot of money too. Chairman Byrne stated so for the waivers the only ones they are asking for is 6.M and 6.FF. Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Chairman Byrne asked does anyone have any questions. I think Tom explained why we ask for it and how it is really not applicable in this case. Does someone want to move it? Mr. Zapf made the motion to grant both waivers. Mr. Erickson seconds. Roll call: Yes: No: Abstain: Zapf, Erickson Bracchitta, Byrne, Foreman, Kubisky and Wolfson Mr. Mianecki thanked the Board. Chairman Byrne stated that s all we have. Is there a motion to close the meeting?
Page 10 March 12, 2019 Mr. Erickson moved to close the meeting. Mr. Dubowsky seconds. Meeting adjourned 7:35 P.M. Respectfully submitted: Joan Ward, Secretary Patrick Byrne, Chairman