GLEN ROCK ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of the December 8, 2016 Meeting

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "GLEN ROCK ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of the December 8, 2016 Meeting"

Julius Sparks
5 years ago
Views:

1 GLEN ROCK ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of the December 8, 2016 Meeting The regular meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment was called to order by Vice-Chairman Diane Herrlett at 7:30 p.m. In attendance: Diane Herrlett, William Mitchell, Janet Chen, Barbara Schineller, Denley Chew, Robert Bourne, Kay Tuite and Al Tarleton. Also in attendance was Spencer Rothwell, Esq., Board Attorney. Bruce Beal and Board Secretary Nancy Spiller were absent. The Acting Secretary called the roll and read the Sunshine Statement from the Open Public Meetings Act. The Board reviewed the minutes of the November 2, 2016 work session and November 10, 2016 regular meeting. A motion was made by Mrs. Chen and seconded by Mrs. Tuite and passed unanimously with Mr. Bourne abstaining from the November 10 th meeting. Old Business: Block 113, Lot Harristown Road Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Rosario Patane Memorializing resolution approving the application to construct second story addition and two one story additions which will, if constructed, encroach into the required front and side yard setbacks. A motion to approve the memorializing resolution of Mr. and Mrs. Rosario Patane, 802 Harristown Road was made by Mr. Mitchell and seconded by Mrs. Tuite. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Herrlett, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Chen, Mrs. Schineller, Mr. Chew, Mrs. Tuite, Mr. Tarleton None Mr. Bourne abstained. The resolution is attached to these minutes. Block 130, Lot Rock Road Applicant: Mr. James Zuzzolo and Ms. Karen Aiello Memorializing resolution approving the application to construct second story addition which will, if constructed, encroach into the required side yard setback. A motion to approve the memorializing resolution of Mr. James Zuzzolo and Ms. Karen Aiello, 568 Rock Road was made by Mrs. Chen and seconded by Mr. Mitchell. The voice vote was as follows:

2 Page 2 of 11 AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Herrlett, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Chen, Mrs. Schineller, Mr. Chew, Mrs. Tuite, Mr. Tarleton None Mr. Bourne abstained. The resolution is attached to these minutes. Block 169, Lot Gramercy Place Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Alexander Garger Memorializing resolution denying the application to construct two story addition which will, if constructed, exceed the permitted Effective Gross Floor Area (EGFA). A motion to approve the memorializing resolution of Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Garger, 254 Gramercy Place was made by Mr. Mitchell and seconded by Mrs. Chen. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: Mrs. Herrlett, Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Chen, Mrs. Schineller, Mr. Chew, Mrs. Tuite, Mr. Tarleton None Mr. Bourne abstained. The resolution is attached to these minutes. Block 115, Lot Rock Road Applicant: New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless Applicant seeks site plan approval and use variance for installation of a network wireless communications facility atop the Glen Rock Inn. New Business: Block 196, Lot 2 21 Harristown Road Applicant: Grace Redeemer Church Applicant requests conditional use variance and minor site plan approval for use as a house of worship.

3 Page 3 of 11 David Becker, Esq. noted his appearance on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is under contract to purchase the property located at 21 Harristown Road. The applicant is not proposing any external changes to the building; however they are requesting a use variance and minor site plan approval. No external changes are being proposed to the property. Mr. Becker noted that under Borough ordinance a House of Worship requires a minimum of two acres where this applicant has slightly under 3.4 acres. Additionally, there is ample parking for this site, requiring no variance. Mr. Becker commented that there are 147 parking spaces which is one more space than required. Mr. Becker commented that the Courts have been very clear in ruling that a House of Worship is an inherent benefit to a neighborhood thus meeting this requirement for a use variance. The two most important concerns are acreage and parking, which this location meets causing no detriment to the neighbors. Mr. Rothwell swore in Peter Wang. Mr. Wang is the Senior Pastor of Grace Redeemer Church. Mr. Wang noted his education and extensive job history. Mr. Wang stated Grace Redeemer was started in 1999 and is a member of the Presbyterian Church. They are a multi-cultural church and have been instrumental in starting other churches, as they typically expand into additional churches rather than have one large congregation. Mr. Wang commented in 2008 they entered into a 10-year contract for space in Teaneck. Approximately 2 years ago they began searching for property that they could potentially purchase with the intent of establishing permanent roots. Unfortunately, any properties that became available were deficient in numerous requirements. It wasn t until the Harristown Road property became available were they serious about a location. The number of parking spaces and the building layout were ideal. Mr. Wang clarified a comment in the Boswell report stating they do not have any type of school for children nor do they have any plans, at this time, for such. Mrs. Herrlett asked how many congregants they currently have. Mr. Wang replied they have approximately 250 adult members of the church; however weekly attendance averages 440, including babies and children. The 440 attendance is broken down to approximately 150 adults, the rest children and spread over two services and a Sunday school service at 10:00 (8:30 a.m. and 11:15 a.m.). Mr. Wang noted that when the church is consistently 80% full the church tends to stop growing, as people do not like to be crowded in the sanctuary.

4 Page 4 of 11 Mr. Wang noted that a typical Sunday will have congregants coming for the 8:30 service, staying for the 10:00 school service and then leave; while others will come for the 10:00 school service and stay for the 11:15 service; thus creating somewhat of an overlap between the two services. Additionally, there are several smaller groups that meet throughout the week as well as 4-7 staff members during office hours, Monday through Friday. The majority of these groups consist of no more than ten members. Mr. Wang confirmed there are no plans for changes to the exterior of the building. Mr. Bourne asked if there would be services outside of the building. Mr. Wang replied they have never done that; however, if allowed perhaps Easter sunrise services could be held outside. Mrs. Schineller confirmed no one would be permanently living at the facility. Mr. Wang stated that is correct. The Board commented on the involvement of the various religious establishments and their involvement in the community. Mr. Wang agreed stating even in their temporary locations they have gotten involved in the community, adding that a permanent home will only strengthen their bond and commitment with the community and their neighbors. Mr. Becker stated in his applicant s current location they have 95 parking spaces. Mr. Becker asked if they have ever max d out their parking. Mr. Wang replied in addition to the 95 spaces they have been given permission to occupy approximately 12 spaces on the street for parking. Mr. Wang stated at peak times, i.e. Christmas, Easter, Good Friday, they have max d out their parking. The local Police are aware and make special dispensation on these occasions. Mr. Bourne asked if there has been any discussion with neighbors regarding parking. Mr. Becker commented they did not believe this would be beneficial as they are not requesting a parking variance and have the required number of parking spaces; however, he realizes this may be an option in the future (businesses that are closed could be used for overflow parking). Mr. Bourne asked due to the close proximity to Fair Lawn, are they aware of this application. Mr. Becker replied they have been made aware, though no official application is required to be filed with them.

5 Page 5 of 11 Mr. Mitchell asked how this new space compares with their current space. Mr. Wang replied their current sanctuary is 4,000 square feet and seats approximately 330 people. They are looking to double the size of the sanctuary; however, not double the amount of seating due to aisle width, providing optimum traffic flow and office/counseling space. Mr. Mitchell asked what the growth pattern has been over time. Mr. Wang replied originally the church started out with a rapid growth rate. Over time it has slowed down considerably; however the growth does continue. Mr. Wang commented that a good portion of their current congregation live in Glen Rock, Ridgewood and Fair Lawn. There were no further questions from the Board or the audience for Mr. Wang. Mr. Rothwell swore in Mr. Carl, architect/engineer with LAN Associates. Mr. Carl is a licensed architect, engineer and planner with the State of New Jersey. Mr. Carl noted his education and years of graduation. Mr. Carl has testified before numerous municipalities and was accepted as an expert in architecture, engineering and planning. Mr. Carl s office prepared and approved the presented site plans, which were marked as Exhibit A-1. Mr. Carl stated there is currently a single driveway opening which allows access to a small parking area. There are two handicapped parking spaces in this area, with a barrier-free access to the building. The front of the building is appealing in appearance. The side of the building does provide some parking with access to additional parking in the rear. There is a free standing garage, which is only 5 from the side yard property line creating one of the variances with this pre-existing condition. The building itself is only 5 off the other side yard property line which is adjacent to another commercial office building and parking lot. The rear parking lot will remain as it currently exists with the existing lighting also remaining the same. Mr. Carl commented that the front yard setback is currently 47.1 where 50 is required, which they believe may have been created with a road widening of Harristown Road. Mr. Carl noted it is only one corner of the building that is at Mr. Becker asked Mr. Carl if he believes the parking capacity, which this application meets, would be the most important aspect. Mr. Carl agreed, noting this site can certainly accommodate this use.

6 Page 6 of 11 Mr. Becker commented the applicant faces a hardship as they are seeking to use an existing building, which complies with the requirements for a D zone; however, Borough ordinance minimizes the property coverage for Houses of Worship. Mr. Becker noted if the applicant were rebuilding the building it would not be built to the current size. Mr. Carl presented the Architectural Floor Plan, First Floor Plan which was marked as Exhibit A-2. This drawing shows the building as it exists, with most of the building remaining unchanged. Minor changes will be done to the interior of the building. The front office area will be preserved as is. The rear entrance will be slightly modified to create the fellowship hall. Mrs. Herrlett asked if there were any questions for Mr. Carl from the audience. Mr. Rothwell swore in Ron Pagano, 55 Harristown Road. Mr. Pagano is the owner of the adjoining property. Mr. Pagano asked Mr. Wang what the growth of the church has been. Mr. Wang replied they have grown approximately 10% over the last three years. Mr. Pagano asked if they expect more congregants to attend during the Holidays, Easter and Christmas. Mr. Wang replied they would expect so. Mrs. Herrlett clarified with Mr. Wang if they would expect more than the 440 regular attendees. Mr. Wang stated the days which bring in the largest amount of attendees are Good Friday and Christmas Eve. To date they have stuck with one service on Christmas Eve. Historically, they have found that although some congregants are away, others are bringing visiting friends and family. Mrs. Herrlett clarified if the attendance would hypothetically grow to 600 attendees or just all of the 440. Mr. Wang could not positively say one way or the other. Mr. Wang noted to date they have fit with the current 95 parking spaces they have. Mr. Pagano questioned if a fence could be installed between the two properties. Mr. Pagano argued if the neighboring property has a parking problem, why he should have to incur the expense of a fence. Board members questioned why Mr. Pagano believes he is going to have problems with parking on his property, when over the last 30+ years there has been no history of such.

7 Page 7 of 11 Mr. Rothwell asked if there is anything that Mr. Pagano is aware of with his property that may cause a dangerous or unsafe condition. Mr. Pagano replied no. Mr. Rothwell asked how many entrances and exits are there to Mr. Pagano s property. Mr. Pagano replied there are two entrances and two exits. Mr. Rothwell asked if Mr. Pagano s concerns could be rectified with a gate to his parking area. Mr. Pagano does not believe that would be a good idea. Mrs. Herrlett reminded Mr. Pagano the only day that parking would be an issue would be on Sunday s, when his office building is closed. Mr. Pagano replied he is aware of this, which is why he is concerned. Mrs. Herrlett asked if Mr. Pagano would be willing to negotiate use of his parking lot, if the need arose. Mr. Pagano replied no, he does not want the liability. Mrs. Herrlett reminded Mr. Pagano this application is within the requirements for parking, no parking variance is being sought. Mr. Pagano asked if there will be a traffic report conducted. Mr. Carl replied no, as traffic would not be during peak business hours. Additionally, the Borough Engineer did not see a need for a study to be conducted. Mr. Pagano asked if the applicant would be willing to remove the garage. Mr. Carl replied to remove the garage solely to gain two or three parking spaces would not make sense. The garage is a valued asset for the church vehicles. Mr. Pagano had no further questions. Mr. Bourne asked Mr. Rothwell if a resolution is proposed, is it possible to limit the size of the sanctuary to what is being proposed today. This would indicate that the parking is then tied to the size of the sanctuary. Mr. Rothwell replied if the use is being intensified, the applicant would be required to come back before the Board and request approval for additional spots. This could be indicated in any proposed resolution.

8 Page 8 of 11 Mrs. Herrlett asked if there were any further comments from the Board or anyone in the audience. Mr. Becker summarized the applicant is here for variances which are all pre-existing. Houses of Worship are deemed inherently beneficial for the area. Mr. Becker noted if the sanctuary size is increased, the applicant would be willing to come back before the Board as the current size is what the parking calculations are based upon. Mr. Becker believes the applicant justifies the conditional use variance and the five bulk variances that are existing conditions on this property. A motion to approve the application of Grace Redeemer Church, 21 Harristown Road was made by Mr. Bourne and seconded by Mrs. Chen, with the stipulation if the sanctuary size is increased the applicant will reappear before this Board for a parking variance. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Chen, Mrs. Schineller, Mr. Chew, Mr. Bourne, Mrs. Tuite, Mr. Tarleton, Mrs. Herrlett None The resolution will be memorialized at the next meeting. Block 179, Lot 8 69 Ferndale Avenue Applicant: Rocco Orlando, Jr. Applicant proposes to construct a one story and two story addition which will, if constructed, encroach into the required front yard and side yard setbacks and exceed the permitted building/structure coverage and floor area. Applicant seeks relief from Borough Ordinance B, where a front yard of 50 is required, 47 is proposed, a difference of 3, C, where a side yard of 6 is required, 4.39 is proposed, a difference of 1.61, G, where a building/structure coverage of 25% is permitted, 28.2% is proposed, a difference of 3.2%, and J where 38.13% (2, square feet) is permitted, 42.97% (3,008 square feet) is proposed, a difference of 4.84% ( square feet) and any other variances and waivers that are required in connection with this application. Mr. Rothwell swore in Rocco Orlando. Mr. Orlando is a licensed, practicing architect in the State of New Jersey. Mr. Orlando was accepted as an expert in the field of architecture. Mr. Rocco stated they are seeking relief from four variances. First, Mr. Rocco referred to the front yard setback. Mr. Rocco stated the existing screened-in porch is the proposed addition. A side yard setback variance is also requested, which is just an extension of the existing home. The average front setback is 23, with this house being setback 30. The established streetscape or front yard will not be disturbed.

9 Page 9 of 11 Discussion ensued regarding the definition of the average setback. Mrs. Herrlett clarified that the average setback is determined by the entire street, not just the houses on either side of the applicant as stated by Mr. Rocco. The applicant is seeking a side yard setback variance where 6 is required and 4.39 is proposed. The impact on the neighbor would be minimal as it is a one story addition and is set back. Additionally, there is a row of arborvitae bushes between the properties. The third variance pertains to building coverage. The allotted coverage is 25% where the applicant where 28.2% is requested. Mr. Rocco noted part of the coverage is due to open porches in the front and rear, which equates to 204 square feet where 154 would be the permissible amount. Due to the openness of the two porches the impact to the neighbors will be little to none. Mrs. Herrlett asked what the hardship would be with this application. Mr. Rocco believes the undersized lot creates a hardship. Mrs. Herrlett commented this Board has never accepted an undersized lot as a hardship, simply because if they did the majority of Glen Rock would require a variance using this as a hardship. Mr. Rocco added the location of the existing house, narrowness and size of the property all create a hardship. Mr. Bourne noted that the property is long and narrow, noting the placement of the house does create a hardship. Mr. Bourne commented the biggest concern with building coverage is rainfall runoff and impact on neighboring properties. Mrs. Herrlett asked if they have considered any alternative plans to reduce the EGFAR as this is a large variance and historically the Board has been very strict. Mr. Rocco replied they have looked at options, noting the removal of the rear porch would reduce the EGFAR coverage by 118 square feet from to or 41.29% instead of 42.9%. Mrs. Herrlett again reiterated how strict the Board has been in the past, noting they have perhaps approved a 1% overage. Mr. Bourne asked for clarification of the second floor addition. After considerable discussion it was determined the house is quite small and the addition is large in comparison.

10 Page 10 of 11 Mrs. Schineller stated although they appreciate the reduction of the EGFAR with the porch removal the percentage is still considerably high. Mrs. Herrlett noted the building coverage is at 39% adding that people have sometimes moved the garage back behind the 140 line. Mr. Rocco added to move the garage would have a large cost involved. The Board continued to express reluctance with the large EGFAR variance. Mr. Rocco asked if the Board would be amenable to the removal of the rear porch (118 square feet) and the side addition (81 square feet), totaling 199 square feet. This would reduce the square foot overage from to and the percentage from 42.97% to 40.13%. This would also eliminate the front and side yard setback variances. The building coverage would be reduced from 28.2% to 25.36%. Mrs. Tuite commented she is not comfortable with the calculations and would like the Zoning Officer to calculate the proposed new numbers. Other Board members agreed. Mr. Rocco asked if these numbers are accurate would the Board be accepting. The Board appreciates the effort though suggested Mr. Berninger review the calculations. The applicant took the Board s suggestion and will come before the Board again next month. Mrs. Herrlett asked if there were any comments from anyone in the audience. Mr. Rothwell swore in James McHugh, 906 S. Maple Avenue. Mr. McHugh appreciated the sentiment of the Board in keeping with the integrity of the neighborhood. Block 115, Lot Rock Road Applicant: New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless Applicant seeks site plan approval and use variance for installation of a network wireless communications facility atop the Glen Rock Inn. Mr. Rothwell commented that no correspondence was received from the applicant. They previously consented to being heard by the last meeting in December (which this is), Mr. Rothwell recommended that the application be dismissed without prejudice as no one has appeared on behalf of this application.

11 Page 11 of 11 A motion to dismiss without prejudice the application of New York SMSA Limited Partnership d/b/a/ Verizon Wireless, Rock Road was made by Mr. Mitchell and seconded by Mrs. Chen. The voice vote was as follows: AYES: NAYS: Mr. Mitchell, Mrs. Chen, Mrs. Schineller, Mr. Chew, Mr. Bourne, Mrs. Tuite, Mr. Tarleton, Mrs. Herrlett None The resolution will be memorialized at the next meeting. As there were no further residents wishing to be heard, a motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Mrs. Chen, seconded by Mr. Chew and passed unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Nancy Spiller Board Secretary

RAMSEY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held September 19, 2012

RAMSEY ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Minutes of the Regular Meeting Held September 19, 2012 The Chairman, Howard Cantor called the regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Ramsey to order