GLEN ROCK ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of the June 14, 2018 Meeting 7:30 PM

Transcription

1 OF ADJUSTMENT 7:30 PM In attendance: Diane Herrlett, Chairwoman, William Mitchell, Janet Chen, Barbara Schineller, Denley Chew, Robert Bourne, Katherine Tuite and Marc Sturiale. Also in attendance was Mark Berninger, Zoning Official and Spencer Rothwell, Esq, Board Attorney The Board Secretary called the Roll and read the Sunshine Law. A motion to approve the minutes of the May 2, 2018 work session and the February 8, 2018 regular was made by Mrs. Schiller and seconded by Mrs. Tuite. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: Herrlett, Mitchell, Chen (abstain for 5/2/18, yes for 2/8/18), Schineller, Chew (yes for 5/2/18, abstain for 2/8/18), Bourne, Tuite NAYS: None Old Business: Block 20, Lot Dean Street Applicant: Abhinav Gupta Memorializing resolution approving variances to construct two story addition, which will, if constructed, encroach into the required front yard, side yard and total side yards. A motion to approve the resolution prepared by Mr. Rothwell was made by Mrs. Schineller and seconded by Mr. Bourne. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: Herrlett, Mitchell, Schineller, Bourne, Tuite AYES: None Mrs. Chen, Mrs. Tuite and Mr. Chew abstained. Block 56, Lot Doremus Avenue Applicant: Douglas and Jennifer Montone Memorializing resolution approving variances to construct stairs and portico which will, if construct, encroach into the required front yard, and exceed the permitted Building/Structure coverage and Effective Gross Floor Area. A motion to approve the resolution prepared by Mr. Rothwell was made by Mrs. Schineller and seconded by Mr. Bourne. The voice vote was as follows:

2 Pg. 2 of 8 AYES: Herrlett, Mitchell, Schineller, Bourne, Tuite AYES: None Mrs. Chen, Mrs. Tuite and Mr. Chew abstained. Block 17, Lot South Maple Avenue Applicant: 366 South Maple Avenue Assoc. LLC Applicant requests use variance and preliminary and final site plan approval for construction of a three (3) story eight (8) unit multiple family residential building with first floor parking garage and any other variances or waivers that may be required in connection with this application. At the request of the applicant, this application has been postponed until the July meetings. No further notice will be required. New Business: Block 150, Lot Ridge Road Applicant: Mr. Bryan O Malley Applicant proposes to construct second story addition which will, if constructed, encroach into the required side yard setback. Applicant seeks relief from Borough Ordinance (C) where 7.12 side yard setback is required, 4.61 is proposed, a difference of 2.51 and any other variances or waivers that may be required in connection with this application. Mr. O Malley was sworn in by Mr. Rothwell. Mr. O Malley stated that he wishes to build a second story bedroom addition over the existing garage, requiring a side yard setback variance. Mrs. Herrlett wanted to point out that he is very close to exceeding the permitted EGFAR. Mr. O Malley stated that the hardship with the property is that it is much narrower than the required 80 width. In addition, he will not be expanding the footprint of the dwelling. Many homes on Ridge Road have done similar addition, he pointed out. When asked why he just doesn t set the second floor addition in so that a side yard variance would not be required, he stated that it would result in a non-functional bedroom size. In addition, he opined that the Board could grant a C-2 variance as bringing in the second floor would result in a choppy appearance of the home. No one in the audience had any questions or comments.

3 Pg. 3 of 8 A motion to approve the variance(s) requested was made by Mrs. Schineller and seconded by Mr. Mitchell. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: Herrlett, Mitchell, Chen, Schineller, Chew, Bourne, Tuite NAYS: None The resolution will be memorialized at next month s meeting. Block 250, Lot 9 5 Franklin Place Applicant: Ms. Bella Zolotnitsky Applicant proposes to install 12 x 24 semi-in ground oval swimming pool contrary to Borough Ordinance (A) which does not permit pools in the side yard and (H) which requires pool equipment to be in the rear yard and any other variances or waivers that may be required in connection with this application. Mrs. Herrlett recused herself from hearing this application. Mr. Bourne took over as chairman for this application. Ms. Zolotnitsky was sworn in by Mr. Rothwell. Ms. Zolotnitsky stated she wished to install a semi-inground pool in the side yard of her property. She presented a photo gallery showing the type of pool she is proposing. Ms. Zolotnitsky stated that her property is non-conforming and there is no place to place the pool that would be conforming, in that her rear yard (which is where a pool is permitted by ordinance) is extremely shallow. She stated practically doing anything to her house would require a variance. Mr. Bourne stated there is no aesthetic component to a pool; there is just a land use component. Ms. Zolotnitsky stated that her neighbor to the rear has a pool and that her family would like to have a pool also, as she has 2 children who would enjoy using the pool. She explained to the Board exactly what a semi-inground pool is. She stated that this is a less expensive alternative to an inground pool. Mrs. Schineller stated she is very concerned about the impact on the neighborhood. Ms. Zolotnitsky stated she was unaware of the zoning constraints on the property prior to purchasing it. She stated from a previous owner s application, the zoning front yard is Franklin, even though Andover is the larger yard. This makes anything they want to do to the property difficult. Mrs. Schineller asked where the pool equipment would be going to which Ms. Zolotnitsky stated it would be to the rear of the pool close to the side yard property line. It will be next to the pool in her neighbor s backyard.

4 Pg. 4 of 8 Mr. Lunne Zolotnitsky was sworn in by Mr. Rothwell. Mr. Zolotnitsky stated that the neighbor to the rear (who faces Andover) has a pool in his backyard. He stated that the neighbor s pool equipment is close to their side yard, which is where the rear of the house is. His intention is to put his pool equipment close to his neighbor s. Mr. Bourne noted that the neighbor s pool is in their backyard in a conforming location. Mr. Bourne stated that if the board granted a variance, it would go with the property forever. Mr. Zolotnitsky stated that they have installed shrubbery to mask the pool from the neighbors. Mrs. Schineller stated the shrubbery doesn t help noise. Mr. Berninger explained how the front yard determination was made and that once it is made, it cannot be changed by subsequent homeowners. Mr. Bourne asked if anyone in the audience had any questions or comments regarding this application. The owner of 15 Franklin Place was sworn in by Mr. Rothwell. She asked where the pool equipment was going to be placed. Mrs. Zolotnitsky stated it would be between the pool and their own house, far away from the neighbor s property. Mrs. Schineller again stated that she is concerned about the noise impact to the neighbor. Mrs. Zolotnitsky stated her property is unique in that there is no conforming area to construct the pool. A motion to deny the application was made by Mrs. Schineller and seconded by Mr. Mitchell. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: Mitchell, Chen, Schineller, Chew, Bourne, Tuite Sturiale. NAYS: None The resolution will be memorialized at next month s meeting. Block 79, Lot Kenmore Place Applicant: Ms. Shira Hochman and Mr. Eric Hochman Applicant proposes to construct second story addition which will, if constructed, encroach into the required front and front side yard setbacks. Applicant seeks relief from Borough Ordinance (B), where 50 front yard is required, 45.9 is proposed, a difference of 4.1 and (B), where 37.5 front side yard is required, is proposed, a difference of and any other variances or waivers that may be required in connection with this application.

5 Pg. 5 of 8 Mrs. Herrlett rejoined the dais. Mr. Rothwell swore in Mr. Scott Bella, architect on the project. Mr. Bella has testified before the Board on many occasions and after confirming his license is in good standing, was accepted as an expert in the field of architecture. Mr. Bella state that the applicants wish to construct a second story addition requiring front and front side yard setback variances. He stated that the current house is non-conforming in location and that the addition will not come any closer than the current home. Mr. Bella stated that hardships of the property are the current non-conforming location of the house. The topography of the louse is also a hardship in that there is a severe slope. Because of the position of the house on the property, there is no rear yard, just property on the side. Mrs. Herrlett stated that, even though an EFGAR variance is not needed, there is only 20 sq.ft. available after the addition is done. Mr. Bella agreed. Mr. Bella and Mr. Berninger discussed their respective EGFAR calculations. While Mr. Bella thought there was more square footage available, he stated the plans will reflect the accurate EGFAR and it will be below the permitted EGFAR. Mr. Bella stated he does not believe there will be any impact on the neighbors. Mrs. Herrlett asked if anyone in the audience had any questions or comments regarding this application- no one did. A motion to approve the application was made by Mrs. Schineller and seconded by Mrs. Chen. Mr. Mitchell asked that there be a condition on the resolution that the EGFAR will not be any more than 20 sq.ft. below the required amount. Mrs. Schineller agreed. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: Herrlett, Mitchell, Chen, Schineller, Chew, Bourne, Tuite NAYS: None The resolution will be memorialized next month. Block 228, Lot Hillman Avenue Applicant: Vincent J, Cioffi Applicant proposes to construct one story addition, which will, if constructed, encroach into the required front side yard, side yard and rear yard. Applicant seeks relief from Borough Ordinance (C), where 10.5 side yard is required, 6 is proposed, a difference of 4.5, 230-

6 Pg. 6 of 8 54(D), where 30 rear yard is required, 24 is proposed, a difference of 6 and (B) where a 37.5 front side yard is required, is proposed, a difference of 4.85 and any other variances or waivers that may be required in connection with this application. As improper notice was given, the applicant will re-notice and be on the July agenda. Block 199, Lot Radburn Road Applicant: Mr. Izufu Yoshimoto Applicant proposes to construct second story addition which will, if constructed, encroach into the required side yard and rear yard. Applicant seeks relief from Borough Ordinance (c) where a side yard of 9.1 is required, 5.8 is proposed, a difference of 3.3 and (D), where a rear yard of 30 is required, 28.3 is proposed, a difference of 1.7 and any other variances or waivers that may be required in connection with this application. Mr. Gary Chartoff, architect for the project, was sworn in by Mr. Rothwell. After giving the Board the benefit of his education and professional experience, and confirming that his license is in good standing with the State of New Jersey, he was accepted as a professional in the field of architecture. Mr. Chartoff stated that his client would like to add a full second story to the existing ranch home. The current house is non-conforming in its location in that it is too close to the required side yard and rear yard. Mr. Chartoff stated that if they were to reduce the side of the addition, the resulting bedroom would be too small to be functional. The same holds true for the master bedroom in relation to the rear yard setback. Mr. Chartoff stated that going straight up would allow for better construction design. Mr. Chartoff stated that many homes on Radburn Road have added a second floor. He stated that the house was built with the front door facing sideways and that a better and safer alternative would be a front facing front door. He also stated that the neighbor to the rear has a substantial rear yard. Mrs. Herrlett asked if anyone in the audience had any questions or comments regarding this application- no one did. A motion to approve the application was made by Mrs. Schineller and seconded by Mr. Chew. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: Herrlett, Chen, Schineller, Chew, Bourne, Tuite

7 NAYS: Mitchell GLEN ROCK ZONING BOARD Pg. 7 of 8 The resolution will be memorialized at next month s meeting. Block 115, Lot Maple Avenue Applicant: Mr. Kaan Atalay and Ms. Laura Cora-Atalay Applicant installed swing set in front yard, contrary to Borough Ordinance (A)(3), which does not permit accessory structures, along them swing sets, in the front yard. Mrs. Cora-Atalay was sworn in by Mr. Rothwell. She stated she is requesting a temporary variance to leave a previously constructed swing set in the front yard of her property. Swing sets are structures and structures are not permitted in the front yard. Mrs. Herrlett stated variance approvals are permanent. Mrs. Cora-Atalay stated the swing set will only be up for a few years- it is not permanent. An approval would allow the swing set to remain permanently from either this homeowner or a future homeowner, Mrs. Herrlett explained. Ms. Cora-Atalay stated she was unaware that a swing set was not allowed in the front yard. She stated that there is no room to place the swing set in either the side yard or the rear yard. She added that there is no other place for her children to play except for the front yard and that she installed a fence in the front yard for added security as Maple Avenue is a busy street. Mrs. Herrlett opined that this structure is not just a swing set; it also contains a fort and slide and is quite large. Mr. Rothwell confirmed that if approved, the variance goes with the land, not the homeowner, and any subsequent homeowner could also have a swing set in the front yard. Mrs. Herrlett stated that Maple Avenue is a busy street and she is concerned for the safety of the children. Mrs. Schineller stated that a smaller swing set could fit in the backyard. Mrs. Cora- Atalay respectfully disagreed. She stated that the installer stated there was not enough room in the backyard. Mrs. Schineller noted that the garage is for 2 cars and the driveway is at an angle. Perhaps the homeowners could make changes so that there would be sufficient room on the side of the property. She opined that a smaller set might be in order to fit in a conforming location. Mrs. Herrlett stated that reasons for structures not being allowed in the front yard is aesthetics and also it is a distraction to motorists. Mrs. Cora-Atalay stated she has seen quite a few swing sets in front yards so never assumed they were not permitted. Mrs. Spiller stated she has observed swing sets in front side yards of corner

8 Pg. 8 of 8 properties on Maple Avenue, but none on interior lots. It is also unknown how long those swing sets have been there. Mrs. Cora-Atalay stated she does not think the swing sets detracts from the house. Mrs. Herrlett stated that there are 2 large bushes that could be removed to find room for the swing set. Mr. Bourne stated he is uncomfortable with the permanence of the variance. Mrs. Schineller agreed. Mrs. Herrlett suggested the applicant continue the application until next month and weigh alternatives and options. Mrs. Cora-Atalay agreed. No further notice will be necessary and the applicant extends the time the Board has to make a decision until next month. As there was nothing further before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 8:35 PM. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Spiller Board Secretary