meeting no. 10 october 30, 2018 borough of south … minutes 10.30.18.pdf · grego accepts. my...

MEETING NO. 10 October 30, 2018

BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER

ZONING BOARD MEETING

MINUTES

ADEQUATE NOTICE OF THIS MEETING HAS BEEN

PROVIDED AS IS REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 231, PUBLIC

LAW 1975 AND BY RESOLUTION 2018-6, WITH THE

REQUEST OF THE HOME NEWS AND TRIBUNE AND THE

SENTINEL NEWSPAPERS TO PUBLISH SAME, AND THIS

ANNOUNCEMENT MUST BE ENTERED INTO THE MINUTES

OF THIS MEETING.

A meeting of the South River Zoning Board was held on October 30, 2018 commencing at 7:30pm

at the Criminal Justice Building, located at 61 Main Street, South River, NJ 08882. This meeting

was held in compliance with the Open Public Meeting Act, N.J.S.A. 10:4-6.

ROLL CALL

Robert Bodak, Chairman James Kinneally, Attorney

Nick Giannakopoulos, Vice Chairman Bruch Koch, Engineer

Michael Clancy Todd Bletcher, Planner

Bobby Brown Glenn Lauritsen, Construction Official

Edward Trygar Tamar Lawful, Secretary

Ruell Brown * Entered Meeting at 7:35PM

Rui Almeida * Entered Meeting at 7:52PM

Jeremiah O’Grady

MINUTES APPROVAL

The meeting Minutes of September 25, 2018 was motioned to be approved by Mr. Trygar

and seconded by Mr. Clancy with the correction to remove Mr. Trygar from the voting Roll Call

for the SRED Property public hearing, held on September 25, 2018. [Mr. Trygar had recused

himself from the dais right before the hearing].

of 19

BOARD BUSINESS & CORRESPONDENCE

Mr. Kinneally informed the public that the application for Gilbert Eleto with

regards to 76 Price Place will be heard on November 27, 2018 with no further notice.

The board was briefly informed that the litigation matter in regards to Magdi

Mikhail and Khaled Sadekv vs. South River Board of Adjustment trial date was rescheduled from

October 11, 2018 to December 03, 2018.

RESOLUTION(S)

The following Resolution were submitted for approval by the board:

***

MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTION

FOR

SOUTH RIVER ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

ZB 2018-15

SRED PROPERTY, LLC

WHEREAS, SRED Property, LLC, hereinafter referred to as the Applicant, has applied to

the Zoning Board of Adjustment of South River for a use variance and minor site plan approval to

convert a portion of the second floor into a boarding facility associated with the existing school on

the premises known as Block 269, Lot 8 otherwise known as 34 Charles Street, South River, New

Jersey; and

WHEREAS, the Applicant has complied with all jurisdictional requirements necessary to

prosecute the within application; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Zoning Board on September 25, 2018, and

WHEREAS, the Board has made the following findings of fact:

1. Applicant SRED Property, LLC owns a building at 34 Charles Street,

otherwise known as Block 269, Lot 8, in South River, New Jersey.

of 19

2. The Applicant operates a private school known as Pillars Academy, in this

former borough school building.

3. The Applicant proposes to convert a portion of the second floor into a

boarding facility associated with the existing private school.

4. The Applicant’s propose six boarding rooms; each room has a capacity of

12 students for a total capacity of 72 students.

5. The Applicant also proposes one bedroom to be attached to a supervisor’s

office also on the second floor.

6. The Pillars Academy school day runs from 7:50 a.m. to 3;20 p.m., Monday

through Friday.

7. For the boarding students, after the conclusion of the school day, there will

be supervised study time and activities; supervisors will be present at the facility at all times.

8. Although the school is co-ed, the boarding facility will be limited to male

students.

9. The Applicant offered the testimony of Mr. John Chadwick, P.P. to offer

planning justifications for this application; Mr. Chadwick testified that this application satisfied

the positive criteria necessary for a Use Variance.

10. Mr. Chadwick also addressed the negative criteria; he testified that there

will be no detriment to the surrounding neighborhood because the boarding use will bring no added

traffic and will actually decrease the potential school enrollment by decreasing the number of

classrooms.

11. The Zoning Board finds Mr. Chadwick’s testimony to be credible; this

testimony provides the evidence necessary to grant a Use Variance.

12. This use is inherently beneficial; it satisfies the positive criteria.

13. This use, coupled with conditions attached to this approval, will have no

detrimental impact upon the surrounding neighborhood.

14. While the Zoning Board finds this Use Variance to be warranted, the Board

also has concerns about the safety of the children who will be residing at this site; consequently

the Applicant must take all measures required by the fire officials regarding sprinklers, fire

separation walls, etc.

of 19

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the South River Board of

Adjustment that the Application of Applicant SRED Property, LLC for relief as described above

is hereby GRANTED in accordance with the findings of fact and conclusions of law rendered

above.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this approval be and

is conditioned upon the following:

1. Applicant shall pay to the appropriate Borough officials all review fees and

escrow funds certified to be due by the Board secretary to compensate for review of Applicant’s

plans as well as professional services. No building permits or certificates of occupancy shall be

issued nor final plans signed by Borough officials until all such fees and escrow funds have been

received and notice of same filed with the appropriate code official of the Borough.

2. Applicant shall obtain all required inspections, permits and approvals as required

by the Borough of South River.

3. Applicant shall comply with all requirements of fire officials regarding sprinkler

systems, fire separation walls, etc.

4. In complying with the fire officials’ requirements, Applicant shall upgrade the

water supply system if necessary to ensure the proper operation of any sprinkler system.

5. Applicant shall repair/replace any damaged curb or sidewalk.

6. If this Applicant shall cease operation of this school, Pillars Academy, the Use

Variance granted above will terminate and cease to be effective and shall expire. This Use

Variance is only granted to this Applicant for this school based upon this Applicant’s

representations regarding its operation. Since any other school would be different in its operations,

any other operator would be required to return to the Zoning Board for a Use Variance for boarding

facilities.

7. No loading/unloading of food or other material is permitted from the adjacent

streets; the surrounding streets are narrow and the loading/unloading in the streets would be a

detriment to the surrounding neighborhood.

8. Applicant shall provide a crosswalk on Charles Street to allow students to safely

cross, as discussed in Mr. Bletcher’s report, paragraph 11(Q).

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of the within Resolution certified by the

Secretary of the Borough of South River Zoning Board of Adjustment be a true copy shall be

of 19

afforded to the Applicant herein, the Zoning Officer of the Borough of South River, and to the

Clerk of the Borough of South River, who is hereby directed to cause same to be published in an

official newspaper in the Borough of South River within ten (10) days from the date hereof.

ZB 2018-15

The foregoing Resolution was:

Moved by: Mr. Almeida

Seconded by: Mr. O’Grady ROLL CALL YES NO ABSTAIN ABSENT

Mr. Rui Almeida X

Mr. Robert Bodak X

Mr. Bobby Brown X

Mr. Michael Clancy X

Mr. Nick Giannakopoulos X

Mr. Jeremiah O’Grady X

Mr. Edward Trygar X

ALTERNATES

Mr. Ruell Brown X

2018-15

The foregoing Resolution was:

Moved by: Mr. Giannakopoulos

Seconded by: Mr. O’Grady ROLL CALL YES NO ABSTAIN ABSENT

Mr. Rui Almeida X

Mr. Robert Bodak X

Mr. Bobby Brown X




Mr. Edward Trygar X

ALTERNATES

Mr. Ruell Brown X

of 19

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE ABOVE IS A TRUE AND EXACT COPY OF A

RESOLUTION ADOPTED AT THE BOROUGH OF SOUTH RIVER ZONING BOARD OF

ADJUSTMENT AT MEETING HELD ON OCTOBER 30, 2018.

_____ TAMAR LAWFUL___________

TAMAR LAWFUL

ZONING BOARD SECRETARY

Mr. Ruell Brown entered the meeting at 7:35pm.

COMPLETENESS

DOCKET #ZB2018-26

JUAN CARLOS DIAZ

2 Congress Lane

Block 355, Lot 1.18

Applicant is requesting a bulk variance to install a swimming pool in the front yard of the

property.

With no objections from the board nor its professionals, a motion was made by Mr.

Giannakopoulos and seconded by Mr. Bobby Brown to deem the application complete and to set

forth a public hearing date for November 27, 2018.

PUBLIC HEARING

DOCKET #ZB2018-25

JEAN GREGO

24 Southside Avenue

Block 253.01, Lot 12.01

Applicant is requesting a bulk variance for a required 5’ side yard and a required 25’

front yard setback, not meeting the basement ceiling height requirement and exceeding the

impervious coverage of 50%.

of 19

Mr. Jean Grego, the applicant who resides at 24 Southside Avenue, South River, NJ came

forward. After being sworn in, he explained his intent before the board. According to Mr. Grego,

he wants to dormer around the roof of his property. He explained that he has three children in a

three bedroom house. The home consist of a walk up attic, stated Mr. Grego. In an effort to obtain

more space for his children, he’s requesting to create two bedrooms for his daughters in the attic.

Additionally, he requested to turn the basement into a playroom for the children, and therefore is

requesting a variance for the ceiling height requirement for having 6.9ft. when the requirement is

7ft. Mr. Grego further stated that he would like to improve the backyard. Going back to the

basement, Mr. Bodak inquired whether the basement will be used solely as a playroom for the

children. He further requested confirmation that there will be no bedding in the basement. Mr.

Grego responded, yes to both concerns. Mr. Grego stated that there is a half bathroom in the

basement, which he would like to legally convert into a full bathroom. Currently the bathroom

doesn’t have a shower. However, the shower pipes and the plumbing essentials currently exist. Mr.

Grego stated that he is also requesting to create an open den in the basement for his children. Mr.

Kinneally requested affirmation from Mr. Grego that there is no intent to convert the property into

a two (2) family house and that he accepts the conditions that the house will never be used as a

two (2) family dwelling. Mr. Grego confirmed that his use for the basement is solely for his family.

He further stated that he wants to upgrade the shed on the property. Mr. Trygar asked whether the

new shed will replace the old shed in its exact location. The old shed is about 8x10; however he

wants to install a 14x10 in its place, stated Mr. Grego. Mr. Trygar asked if the shed is going to be

the same distance from the property line. Mr. Grego responded that it’s the same distance from the

property line, just a bit longer than the previous shed. It is preferred that it be 2 feet from the

property line, stated a board member.

Mr. Bletcher stated that the property is located in an R-100 zone, on the southern side. The

application requires the following variances:

The lot area and lot width is existing, new bulk variances are being requested for the

impervious coverage being a maximum of 50%, whereby the existing impervious coverage

of the property is 56.2%, but a 59.5% increase is being proposed.

There are some other existing bulk non-conformities and two new violations for the

accessory building (the shed). The standard is 5’ from the property line, and what is being

proposed is 3’ from the rear and 3’ from the side.

of 19

There is a driveway variance, whereby the minimum setback from the property line is 5’

and the applicant’s driveway is on the property line.

There is a minimum deck setback to property side line of 5’ but the applicant proposes 1’

to the property sideline.

Overall there are 6 variances accounted for, stated Mr. Bletcher: Impervious coverage,

accessory structure side yard setback, accessory structure rear yard setback, patio setback to the

side property line, not meeting the basement ceiling requirement and the driveway setback to the

property line. The property is a 40x100 ft. lot, therefore, most of what exist on the lot are

preexisting conditions, stated Mr. Bletcher.

The Borough’s Construction Official, Mr. Glenn Lauritsen, stated that if we are going

straight up from the parameter of the house, the dormer falls 25’ within the 5’ side yard setback,

which will result in two additional bulk variances for the expansion of the second floor into the

required setbacks. If you expand on a non-conforming condition, a bulk variance must be granted

to elevate onto the existing foot, stated Mr. Lauritsen. It will continue to be a preexisting non-

conforming condition, with the expansion onto the property; but it requires a bulk variance, he

reiterated.

Mr. Bletcher requested clarification on the number of bedrooms in the dwelling, as well as

the number of parking spaces on the property. Additionally, since the basement have direct access

to outside, there are concerns that the basement can be used as an illegal unit. Mr. Grego responded

that there will be four (4) bedrooms in the house. The third bedroom will be converted into a walk-

through to the attic. Mr. Grego stated that he will remove the door from the third bedroom that is

being converted into a walk through. In regards to the basement, Mr. Grego stated that he can’t

vouch that any future owners of the property won’t turn the basement into a rental unit. However,

speaking for himself and his family, his intent is to create an open den in the basement for the sole

use of his family. In regards to the parking spaces, he further stated that the site can fit three (3)

cars in the driveway. He also requested to remove the existing exterior barn door to install a normal

size door.

Mr. Koch informed the applicant that he should mitigate any negative drainage impact to

the adjacent properties. Additionally, should the application be approved, he recommends a

of 19

condition be imposed that any sidewalk or driveway damage be replaced by the applicant. Mr.

Grego accepts.

My Clancy, inquired about the existing patio. Mr. Grego explained that the deck is

currently a multi leveled deck and is being replaced by the patio. The steps to the deck bumps out

about 7 ft.; therefore, there is only a 7ft. area to utilize on the deck, explained Mr. Grego. Based

on Mr. Clancy’s concern, Mr. Bodak recommended not extending the patio beyond the side wall

of the house, which will help with any encroachment, while also reducing the impervious coverage.

*Mr. Almeida entered the meeting at 7:52pm.

***

PUBLIC SESSION

A motion was made to open the floor to the public.

With no one present, a motion was made to close the floor to the public.

***

BOARD’S DECISION

A motion was made by Mr. Trygar and seconded by Mr. Giannakopoulos, to approve the

application with the stipulation that the applicant move the patio 2.5ft off from the property line,

and to mitigate any negative drainage impact onto the adjacent properties and replace any damage

made to the sidewalk. The application was also approved for a 12ft. front yard setback. The

applicant agrees to not utilize the basement as a living space. Mr. Bletcher informed the applicant

that revised plans reflecting the changes in regards to the 2.5ft. setback of the patio should be

submitted to Mr. Lauritsen in order to receive the correct building permits.

of 19

ROLL CALL MOTIONED SECONDED YES NO ABSTAIN ABSENT

Mr. Rui Almeida

Mr. Robert Bodak X

Mr. Bobby Brown X


Mr. Nick Giannakopoulos X X


Mr. Edward Trygar X X

ALTERNATES

Mr. Ruell Brown, Alternate X

***

DOCKET #ZB2018-17

DENISE BARRANCO

32 Morningside Avenue

Block 188, Lot 3

Applicant is requesting a bulk variance for the installation of a patio inside the 10’ rear

yard setback.

The applicant, Denise Barranco, who resides at 32 Morningside Avenue, South River, New

Jersey came forward. Upon being sworn in, Ms. Barranco stated that she purchased her home 19

years ago. At the time, the entire backyard was filled with clay. There was some cement for

someone to walk on, in order to get by, stated Ms. Barranco. Drainage and pavers were installed.

Ms. Barranco informed the board that she’s selling her home and was told that the current condition

of her property is not appropriate. Instead of removing what was installed in the backyard and

installing the clay that previously existed, she applied for a variance. Mr. Bodak asked whether a

contracture conducted the work in the backyard. Ms. Barranco responded that her husband, who

was present at the hearing, is a plumber and he installed all the drainage and the pavers on the

of 19

property. Mr. Bodak inquired on where the drainage is draining. Mr. Barranco, the applicant’s

husband responded that the drainage runs out onto David Avenue.

Mr. Bletcher stated the variances required for the property as follow:

For the patio, the requirement would be a minimum 5’ setback to the side

yard. However, the patio was constructed onto the side property line.

There is a minimum property setback to rear property line of 10’. However,

the patio was constructed to the rear of the property line.

Additional information is needed for the area of the patio.

In terms of building coverage and impervious coverage, the lot complies, explained Mr. Bletcher.

There are no impervious coverage violations. The only variance that needs to be granted is for the

patio in the side yard and the patio in the rear yard, Mr. Bletcher explained.

Mr. Trygar stated that the back yard isn’t very wide. Mr. Barranco confirmed that the

backyard is only 12ft. wide. Mr. Lauritsen added that there is no depth in the backyard. Mr. Koch

did not have any comments in regards to this application and neither did the Mr. Lauritsen, the

Borough’s Construction Official.

***

PUBLIC SESSION



***

BOARD’S DECISION

A motion was made by Mr. Trygar and seconded by Mr. Almeida to approve the application.

of 19

ROLL CALL MOTIONED SECONDED YES NO ABSTAIN ABSENT

Mr. Rui Almeida X X

Mr. Robert Bodak X

Mr. Bobby Brown X




Mr. Edward Trygar X X

ALTERNATES

Mr. Ruell Brown, Alternate X

***

DOCKET #ZB2018-18

PAULO S. MARTINS

51 William Street

Block 41, Lot 7.01

Applicant is requesting a bulk variance to install concrete within 10’ rear yard setback

and 5’ side yard setback, while also exceeding the impervious coverage of 50%.

Mr. Martin came forward and was sworn in as the applicant and resident of 51 William

Street, South River, New Jersey. Mr. Lauritsen explained to the board that the property, 51 William

Street, was purchased at a sheriff sale. There was impervious coverage, side yard and rear yard

setback violations on the property. When a property is purchased at a sheriff’s sale, a C.O.

inspection is not typically requested; therefore the buyer isn’t likely to receive a list of violations

for the property, if any, explained Mr. Lauritsen. Mr. Martin did the renovations on the said

property, and then requested the C.O. During the time of renovating the house he installed concrete

in the backyard of the property. He removed and replaced approximately a third of the rear yard

of 19

concrete and elevated it to the same height as the retaining wall to the adjacent property owner.

Mr. Lauritsen stated that when he inspected the site, he wrote Mr. Martin a violation. At that point,

Mr. Martin agreed to apply for the necessary variances for the property. He removed some of the

concrete in the rear left, and replaced it with a garden. Although he reduced the impervious

coverage, there is still violation(s) that needs to be addressed, which is why he is before the board

applying for a variance, explained Mr. Lauritsen.

Mr. Koch stated that the applicant needs to revise the plans submitted, especially should

there will be any further modifications to the site. Upon doing so, he can offer a better review on

the application. Mr. Koch further stated that the lot is essentially covered in impervious surface.

Also, if the area is causing a drainage issue that did not exist before, something should be done to

remediate the problem. Mr. Koch explained that the information on the plans submitted is not

sufficient to provide a full review on the property. The drawings submitted only reflects concrete,

stated Mr. Koch. Mr. Bodak asked the applicant if he understands what the board’s engineer had

explained. The information provided is not complete for either of the board’s professionals. The

board’s professional would like to see drawings from an architect/engineer that shows the property

and the grades on the property to get a better idea where the pitch is and where the water is going

so that it is not interfering with the neighbor’s property or anyone else’s, explained Mr. Bodak.

We cannot move forward with the application without having that information, he explained. Mr.

Koch stated that an architect can indicated clearly what’s going to be done. And if the impervious

will be reduced, the plans will reflect such information. There must be some discussion about

runoffs and management of the water, stated Mr. Koch. The recommendation will be to carry this

application until the professionals have the opportunity to look at the revised drawings to get a

better understanding of property, stated Mr. Bodak. Additional notice is not required. Mr. Bodak

recommends the applicant contacting Mr. Koch’s office for assistance. Mr. Koch stated that once

a professional is retained, he will be happy to speak with the individual. Mr. Bletcher stated that

the applicant is at 83/84% impervious coverage, which is very high. He recommends removing

about 20% or 800 sq. ft. of the concrete and convert it into bushes or a lawn.

***

PUBLIC SESSION


***

of 19

Mr. Wieshaw (Vinny) Krajewski, Esq. came forward as the attorney representing the

objecting neighbor who resides at 39 William Street. Mr. Krajewski stated that the entire property

of 51 William Street is impervious. All the runoffs goes on his client’s property, Mr. Krajewski

explained. His client’s basement is 12ft. from the property line and gets flooded. 60x40 ft. of water

goes through the retaining wall because it’s elevated about 14”, stated Mr. Krajewski. His client

has lived at the property for 19 to 20 years. Before, there was a lawn on the property, which is now

supposedly covered in concreted. There is no drainage whatsoever, stated Mr. Krajewski. The

water has nowhere to go, so it flows over the retaining wall onto the adjacent property, he

explained. Mr. Kinneally explained to Mr. Krajewski that the board carried the application;

however, Mr. Krajewski insisted for something to be done immediately to prevent future damage

onto his client’s property. Mr. Kinneally stated that the board does not have that jurisdiction.

However, the Borough’s code enforcer should be contacted. Mr. Kinneally stated that if the

applicant is doing anything that is damaging to the property, his client have the right to file a

lawsuit. Mr. Krajewski stated that there were no issues with the property until the cementing of

51 Williams Street began. Mr. Lauritsen informed that board that both properties are in violation.

The objecting property, 39 William Street, was written a violation for redoing his driveway without

a permit; and the applicant for 51 William Street was written a violation for changing his concrete

without a permit. They both went before the South River Municipal Court to pay the penalties for

their violations. The client in 39 William Street agreed to take the 5ft. required from the side yard

setback to the other adjacent property, and the owner of 51 William Street agreed to come to the

Zoning Board to solve the problem. Alleviating the issue between both properties is the reason

why the application is currently before the board, explained Mr. Lauritsen.

***

PUBLIC SESSION

With no one else present, a motion was made to close the floor to the public.

***

Mr. Bodak informed Mr. Martins that the application will be carried to the next scheduled

meeting. Mr. Kinneally recommends supplying the revised plans to his neighbor’s attorney, Mr.

Krajewski.

of 19

***

BOARD’S DECISION

A motion was made by Mr. Clancy to carry the application to the November 27, 2018, no

additional notices required. This motion was seconded by Mr. Giannakopoulos.

***

DOCKET #ZB2018-24

16 SPRING LLC

16 Spring Street

Block 277, Lot 7

Applicant is requesting a bulk variance to add a second floor addition to the property in

the required front yard 25ft setback, and to also permit driveway to remain in the side and rear

yards.

Jessica Sweet, the attorney representing the applicant came forward. The application is

before the board for preexisting non-conforming conditions, stated Ms. Sweet. The applicant is

seeking to put a second story onto an existing single family house. The planner for the applicant,

Nick Graviano from Graviano & Gillis Architects & Planners, LLC, located at 101 Crawfords

Corner Road, Holmdel, NJ 07733, came forward. Mr. Graviano stated his qualifications before

the board, which was accepted. According to Mr. Graviano, the property is a 2 bedroom, one bath

single family home. The applicant seeks to demolish the existing half story, in an effort to build a

full second floor. The applicant seeks to create a modern house to meet the demand of the current

real estate market consistent with three bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms, stated Mr. Graviano. The

existing front yard and driveway setback, which ranges from 3.2 to 3.44 feet, is in violation of the

Borough’s zoning ordinance. The existing driveway is zero feet from the property line. The house

shares a driveway with the neighboring property owner, explained Mr. Graviano. Relief can be

granted under the C2 Criteria, promotion of general health, safety and welfare of the public,

considering the applicant is converting a “dilapidated house” to build a modern house to current

standards. The applicant also satisfies Purpose G, by providing sufficient space for a variety of

rental usage in order to meet the needs of New Jersey’s citizens. And lastly, the applicant purposes

a desirable visual design and arrangement, both variances can be granted without any impairment

to the zoning code in South River, stated Mr. Gravinao. Mr. Clancy inquired whether the property

of 19

is an investment property or a rental. Mr. Graviano stated that the applicant wants to revamp the

house and sell the property. According to the application, it is indicated that the applicant intends

to rent the single family home, stated Mr. Clancy. Mr. Graviano stated that the applicant would

like to sell the property; however, if that does not occur, he would like to rent the property, instead.

He further confirms to Mr. Clancy that the applicant will not be residing at the property. The

applicant have done this in South River and other municipalities, explained Mr. Graviano. With

the addition to the property for a potential family to own or to rent, what is the purpose of keeping

the concrete in the back yard that is causing so much impervious coverage, asked Mr. Clancy? Mr.

Graviano responded that there is a considerable amount of grass in the backyard. Also, some of

the pavement is located on the neighbor’s property. Given the shared driveway situation, the

concrete area in the back is essentially a turn around to get out of the driveway, stated Mr.

Graviano. Ms. Sweet added that the driveway setback is only 5.5ft, therefore, there is no coverage

issue.

Mr. Koch inquired whether an easements or a cross-easement exist for the property. The

survey does not reflect that information, stated Mr. Koch. Mr. Graviano responded that he cannot

answer that question, but it is an existing condition. Ms. Sweet stated that the adjacent property

line to the eastern side is beside the railroad tracks. The driveway is 12 ft. wide, stated Mr. Koch.

He doesn’t understand why anyone would turn all the way around in the backyard, he explained.

He further stated that he doesn’t understand the excess concrete that remains in the backyard.

Mr. Bletcher stated that adding the second story is not a zoning issue. The zone permits

two story dwellings. There are other concerns with regards to the site, he explained. For instance,

the site is located on a dead end street. It is the last house on the right and it abuts to the railroad

right away, which means there is no street parking. When we examine the driveway situation, the

driveway does not exist. There is a 5ft side yard setback, which limits a car from getting into the

rear driveway. Unless there is an easement, there is no legal right for a future property owner to

get to the back yard of this site. Essentially, the driveway that exist is someone else’s property

explained Mr. Bletcher. Naturally, you cannot trespass and drive onto someone else’s property,

explained Mr. Bletcher. Hypothetically speaking, should the neighboring property owner erects a

fence on his or her property line, 6” out, there would be limited width to get a car in the backyard

to the concrete area, explained Mr. Bletcher. By adding additional bedrooms affects the parking

of 19

calculation, explained Mr. Bletcher. The parking situation was a concern referenced in the report

and must be clarified, stated Mr. Bletcher.

Mr. Kinneally informed the applicant’s planner that the board is looking for the applicant

to put a driveway onto the property. Adding bedrooms impacts the limited parking situation, he

continued. Ms. Sweet rebottled that the applicant is not concerned about increasing the number of

bedrooms, but more so requesting a variance for the 5ft driveway setback from the property line.

If we move the driveway to the other side of the property line, we would still need the same

variance, she explained.

Mr. Bodak explained to Ms. Sweet that the board and its professionals is stating that the

driveway is not owned by the property unless a shared agreement exist. It would be difficult for

the board to approve an application without proof of proper ownership to the driveway. Ms. Sweet

stated that this is an existing condition and there clearly have been a driveway on the property.

However, Ms. Sweet stated that she did not review the title report or its history for the property.

But there may very well be an easement, she explained. Mr. Koch recommends carrying the

application to give the attorney an opportunity to research the title for a potential driveway

easement.

A motion was entertained by Mr. Clancy and seconded by Mr. Almeida to carry the

application to next month’s meeting for better clarification. Mr. Graviano explained that the

property was purchased at a sheriff’s sale, therefore the applicant does not have a title report. Mr.

Kinneally reiterated to the applicant’s professionals that the property does not have an existing

driveway. Previous residents might have utilized the driveway; however, unless the applicant can

provide proof, a driveway does not exist for the property. Mr. Koch added that any improvements

on 16 Spring Street should be identified in the revised plans. Moving the driveway on the other

side of the property may not potentially work, explained Mr. Koch. Mr. Bletcher requested a bulk

table with all of the data. We do not have an impervious coverage calculation on the plans, Mr.

Bletcher stated. We would like to obtain the calculations to verify that a variance is not required.

The ground level of the house has a study room, with a door and a closet, which can be defined as

a bedroom. Our recommendation is to open up that room to be a part of the living/dining room,

stated Mr. Bletcher. The aim is to not allow the space to be utilized as a fourth bedroom. Mr.

Graviano stated that the wall for the room is a structural wall that defines the entrance to the living

room. We can remove the door and keep it open to the rest of the dwelling, stated Mr. Graviano.

of 19

But it’s not the applicant’s intent to utilize the room as a bedroom, he explained. Mr. Graviano

agrees to remove the door and the closet from the room.

***

PUBLIC SESSION



***

BOARD’S DECISION

A motion was made by Mr. Clancy and seconded Mr. Almeida to carry the application to

the next scheduled meeting of November 27, 2018 without any further notice by the applicant.

***

NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Bodak informed the board that the Borough’s Business Administrator, Jack Layne,

requested the Board’s input on ways to improve the board and the community. According

to Mr. Bodak, in his opinion, he would like to address as many applications per meeting in

a more expedited fashion. He recommends that someone review all the notices for each

application to ensure that all the residents were properly notified and such proof were

submitted to the Board. Also, he wants the board’s professionals, including Mr. Lauritsen,

to be comfortable with all applications prior to proceeding before Board. The process is

not just a rubber stamp, stated Mr. Bodak. People have to physically examine all the notices

for each applications to ensure that the applicant is compliant. That is one area that can

make a difference, stated Mr. Bodak. Mr. Bodak requested the opinion of the other board

members on how to help enhance the board and the community.

Mr. Trygar stated that stream lining things by examining the borough’s zoning laws to

ensure that it fits more appropriately with what already exist will be helpful to the Board

and to the residents. He stated that the residents are subjected to strict zoning rules.

of 19

***

Mr. Bodak informed the board that a special meeting should be held for the Pondview

application. Initially, the meeting was tentatively scheduled for a special meeting in

November; however, due to many conflicts and time constraint for the applicant, the

meeting was canceled. Additionally, the board’s planner and engineer still have questions

and concerns that needs to be examined prior to the public hearing. Since there are no

meetings scheduled for the remainder of the year after November 27, 2018, Mr. Bodak

asked the board whether they would entertain a special meeting to hear the Pondview

application on December 11, 208. The Board agrees to meet December 11, 2018 for a

special meeting to hear the Pondview application. The Board’s secretary intends to contact

the applicant’s attorney to confirm the date, before finalizing a venue, stated Mr. Bletcher.

However, the board will tentatively schedule a special meeting to hear the Pondview

application for December 11, 2018.

***

ADJOURNED

With no further business to conduct before the Board, a motion was made by Trygar,

seconded by Mr. Clancy, to adjourn this meeting at 9:18pm. All were in favor.

Minutes prepared by:

Tamar Lawful

Planning Secretary

Minutes were approved at the 11/27/2018 meeting

meeting no. 10 october 30, 2018 borough of south … minutes 10.30.18.pdf · grego accepts. my...

Documents