REGULAR MEETING

NORWOOD PLANNING BOARD

JULY 17, 2003

 

The Regular Meeting of the Norwood Planning Board convened at 8:05PM with Chairman Joseph Ascolese presiding.  Mr. Ascolese announced that this meeting is held in accordance with the Open Meetings Act and has been advertised in the newspaper according to law.  As required, Mr. Ascolese pointed out the exit locations to those in attendance.

 

The following board members were present: Mr. DeBiasa, Mr. Butti, Mr. Altenbach, Mr. Ascolese, Mayor D’Ercole, Councilman Brizzolara, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Van Dyke, and Mr. Casey.

 

The following board members were absent: Dr. Koffler, Mr. Zacco, Mr. DeMaria, and Mr. Jacobs.

 

Both the Board Attorney Harold Ritvo and Engineer Joseph Neglia were present at this meeting.

 

VARIANCE APPLICATION #671 – ROEHRER

Block 6, Lot 8 – 41 Ridge Road

Property owner, Mr. Roehrer and Brian Callahan, AIA, 61 Brookside Ave., Oradell, NJ came forward and was sworn in for their testimony on this application.  Mr. DeBiasa recused himself from hearing this matter and stepped down from the dais.  Mr. Callahan testified that the subject property is a corner lot fronting Ridge Rd. and Dwars Kill Lane with 22,800 sq. in the R40 Zone (40,000 sq.ft. required).  Applicant proposes adding two stalls to an existing two-car garage (three vehicles maximum).  Two 50’ front yards are required because subject property is a corner lot and applicant proposes a 26.5’ side yard on  the Dwars Kill Lane frontage.  Mr. Roehrer testified that the additional space is for storage of personal antique cars only and that the additional space will not be used as a repair shop that is open to the public.

 

Mr. Ritvo commented that all services are in order as required by law.

 

As the board had not further questions, it was duly moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public.  All members voted yes.

 

Michael Knigin, 287 Summit St., came forward, asked for clarification of notice to the public, and commented in opposition to the application.

 

Mr. Roehrer testified that several properties in the area have existing four to six-car garages.  A discussion took place between board members that the garage space might possibly be used as a car repair sometime in the future following sale of the house.  Mr. Neglia commented that the proposed garage would not affect or violate the street sight pattern. 

 

As there was not further comment or questions from the public, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public.  All members voted yes.

 

RESOLVED: Mayor D’Ercole offered a motion to approve Application #671.  Seconded by Councilman Brizzolara.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Butti, Mr. Altenbach, Mr. Ascolese, and Mr. Byrne voted no.  Mayor D’Ercole, Councilman Brizzolara, Mr. Van Dyke, and Mr. Casey voted yes.   (This application was denied)

 

VARIANCE APPLICATION #672 – LUBY

Block 114, Lot 23, - 88 Kensington Avenue

Michael & Amy Luby came forward and were sworn in for their testimony on this application for a variance from the maximum lot coverage requirement (20%) of approximately four percent.

 

                                                            PAGE TWO, JULY 17, 2003

                                                            Application #672 – Continued

Mr. Luby testified that they propose a 10’ addition that expands the kitchen and a bedroom at the rear of the dwelling.  Existing landscape will shield and buffer the addition from neighboring properties.

 

All notice and publication is in order as required by statute.

 

As there were no further questions from the board, it was duly moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public.  All members voted yes.

 

Joyce Cerbasi, Kensington Ave., came forward, was sworn in, and spoke in favor of this application.

 

As there were no further questions from the public, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public.

 

RESOLVED: A motion was offered by Mr. Altenbach and seconded by Mr. Butti to approve Application #672.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. DeBiasa, Mr. Butti, Mr. Altenbach, Mr. Ascolese, Mayor D’Ercole, Councilman Brizzolara, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Van Dyke, and Mr. Casey voted yes.

 

                                                            SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #674

                                                            BLOCK 120, LOTS 20 & 21 - 283, & 275 Summit Street

                                                                                Eastern Allied Construction Corp.

Mr. Van Dyke recused himself from hearing this application.  Attorney Judith C. Reilly came forward representing Eastern Allied Construction Corp. in this application for subdivision of property on Summit Street.  All notice and proof of service is in order as required by law.  Ms. Reilly explained that this application is for a conforming major subdivision located on Summit St.

 

Harry Tuvel, LPE, PP, of Michael J. Hubschman, PC, 263A S. Washington Ave. came forward, was sworn in, and qualified as expert witness.  A shaded plan prepared on 3/25/03 by Hubschman Engineering and previously submitted to board members was marked as Exhibit A-1.  Mr. Tuvel testified that the proposed subdivision is fully conforming to zoning requirements and is located on Summit St., approximately 200’ from the Broadway intersection.  The site is 71,000 sq.ft or 1.6 acres and applicant proposes a five-lot subdivision with four new dwellings.  The existing dwelling, on the western portion of the lot fronting Summit St., is proposed to remain.  Required lot area in the R10 Zone is 10,000 sq.ft.; all lots exceed the minimum with the smallest, Lot 20.02, being 10,140 sq.ft.  in size.   Proposed homes will front on a cul-de-sac that is located off Summit St. 

 

The sanitary sewer, storm drainage system, and calculations for the detention system have been provided to the Board Engineer for review.  Regarding the Neglia review letter dated July 16, 2003; Mr. Tuvel testified that the lot depth calculation on Lot 20.02, the center property on the north side of the new road, was computed from the mid-point of the front of the front and rear lot lines as defined by the ordinance and in the general direction of the side lot lines. 

 

Mr. Tuvel additionally testified that lot coverage, front, rear, and side yard requirements will comply with zoning on all proposed lots.  Any additional data required on the plans as requested in the Neglia Engineering Review Letter shall be provided.  Testimony continued regarding the rear yard orientation of proposed Lot 20.01 and Mr. Tuvel indicated that applicant proposes to front the house on the bulb of the cul-de-sac.  As pertains to the “General Comments” of the review letter, Mr. Tuvel testified that applicant would address and satisfy all matters.  Applicant requests a waiver from the State RSIS sidewalk requirements, however, applicant would so comply if necessary.  The layout and arrangement of the subdivision is consistent with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and no variances are requested.  Proposed road is of required width, sufficient to accommodate traffic generated by the subdivision, and would afford access to emergency vehicles.  The site is gently sloping with all grades under 10 percent.     

 

PAGE THREE, JULY 17, 2003

Application #674 Continued

All utilities, including the water lines shall be installed within the roadway.  Drainage system has been designed to detain water so as not increase the flow; a full report has been provided to the Board Engineer for review.  Landscape design has been included on the plans submitted to the board and indicates new plantings.  The sanitary sewer line is proposed below the center of the cul-de-sac to an existing main in Summit Street.  Mr. Tuvel additionally testified that nothing in this application creates the possibility of danger to the community or new residents including flood or fire concerns.  Soil erosion controls will be installed during the construction process as required by local and county ordinances.  In conclusion, Mr. Tuvel testified that the subdivision is fully compliant and the applicant can accommodate any additional requirements or concerns of the board.

 

Discussion took place regarding elevations and drainage and Mr. Neglia commented that applicant is obliged by county law to provide zero percent increase in runoff.  The on-site detention incorporated in the design of both this development and the Tappan Road subdivision currently under construction, retains water and discharges at a slow rate so there is no impact on down-stream conditions.  Mr. Neglia additionally commented that the zoning code is unclear on calculations regarding mean distance measurements and Mr. Tuvel agreed to provide computations on how the lot depth of proposed Lot 20.02 was calculated.  Mr. Neglia commented that the Planning Board and Construction Code Officer are the interpreters of the zoning code.  Additional discussion took place regarding mean distance measurements and parallel lot lines and Mr. Tuvel testified that the applicant could meet any board requirement regarding parallel lot lines.  Mr. Ritvo quoted Section 232.19 “...so far as is practical, the side lot line shall be at right angles to straight streets and fronting on streets...”  Mr. Neglia commented that pending interpretation of said ordinance, a variance might be required. 

 

Additional discussion continued regarding runoff and possible impact on the surrounding area and both Mr. Neglia and Mr. Tuvel reiterated that applicant is obliged by law to provide zero percent runoff.  Regarding the cul-de-sac bulb, Mr. Tuvel testified that the radius is 50 feet and the diameter is 100 feet, in conformance with the Residential Site Improvement Standards, and is sufficient to provide emergency vehicles access.  The houses will exist within the footprints as shown on the plans.  Belgian block curbing is proposed. 

 

Chet Simunovich, Principal of Eastern Allied Construction Co., and the contract purchaser of the lots came forward and was sworn in for his testimony.  Mr. Simunovich testified that he foresees the entire project complete within one year and expects sales between $800,000 and $1,000,000.  The footprints of the proposed houses shall be within the building envelope as shown on the plans, but not necessarily of same design or location.  At submission of building permit applications to the Construction Code Official; any violation of setback requirements would require variance relief from this board.

 

As regards a previous denial by this board for subdivision of one of the lots within this application several years ago, Mr. Ritvo noted that, law cannot hear an identical application heard by the board again.  Ms. Reilly commented that the previous application required variances and was not similar in scope to this one, in particular because this application complies with zoning requirements. 

 

As regards to a traffic study, Ms. Reilly commented that non has been planned because it is not required in an application of this type.  At this time, it was noted that the borough’s emergency services have been provided with copies of the plans for their review and comment.

 

As board members had not further questions, it was duly moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public for questions of the applicant’s engineer.  All members voted yes.

 

David Elling, 263 Summit St., came forward and was sworn in for his testimony.  Mr. Elling questioned the radius of the cul-de-sac bulb as regards fire department regulations.

 

 

 

 

                                                            PAGE FOUR, JULY 17, 2003

Application #674 Continued

Peter Sideris, 282 Summit St., came forward and was sworn in for his testimony.  Mr. Sideris questioned the impact of this application on the neighborhood, in particular, drainage, water, and traffic problems that already exist on Summit Street.

 

Michael Knignin, 287 Summit St., came forward and was sworn in for his testimony.  Mr. Knigin questioned and commented on this application as it relates to the Borough Zoning Ordinance and Master Plan.  He additionally commented that it is his opinion that variances are required, in particular, because the side line measurements on the plans are inaccurate.

 

Additional lengthy discussion took place regarding the mean distance calculations and building envelopes as shown on the plan and as they relate to compliance with zoning requirements.  Mr. Neglia commented that it is his understanding that the building envelope is the area that can be built on without creating a variance and not the footprint of the house.  Both his office and Mr. Ritvo has recommended, that prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant provide site plans for review by the Construction Official and the Board Engineer.  Ms. Reilly commented that applicant stipulates to maintain all yard setbacks as required with any proposed house. 

 

In response to Mr. Knigin, Mr. Simunovich testified that he will save as many existing trees as possible and will replace any landscaping that is destroyed during construction along the property lines.  As regards trees on neighboring properties, which might be destroyed during or following   construction, Ms. Reilly commented that applicant would not commit to replacing trees these trees.  Further discussion took place regarding grading and potential flooding.  Mr. Tuvel repeated previous testimony regarding zero percent runoff as required by law.

 

Mr. Knigin also commented on traffic and the increase in danger to the neighborhood following construction of the proposed homes.  Mr. Tuvel testified that plans comply with the county sight requirements for egress and ingress to the cul-de-sac as indicated on note #17, page two of the submitted plans.  Mr. Neglia commented in agreement and additionally noted that no buildings are proposed within the county sight requirements. 

 

Additional discussion took place between Mr. Tuvel, Mr. Ritvo, and Mr. Neglia regarding the definition of “mean,” pertaining to the lot lines.  Mr. Ritvo commented that it is the board’s obligation to interpret same, and following Mr. Neglia’s explanation concerning calculations and computations to reach the “mean,” the board agreed to defer to his professional opinion.

 

Ms. Broomall, 304 Summit St., came forward and was sworn in for her testimony.  Ms. Broomall commented on the increase in traffic and the danger to children and residents that live on the street.

 

Peter Sideris came forward, spoke in opposition to this application, and expressed concern for the impact of increased traffic on the neighborhood.

 

Connie Klein, 298 Summit St., came forward and was sworn in for any testimony she might offer.  Ms. Klein questioned the occupancy of the existing house that is currently vacant.  Ms. Reilly commented that she is unclear on any plans that the present owners might have; however, at this time, they retain ownership of the dwelling.  Ms. Klein also commented on the impact of this type of development on the quality of the town.

 

Delores Senatore, 360 15th St., came forward and was sworn in for her testimony.  Ms. Senatore spoke in opposition to the increase of subdivisions and the profusion of larger homes.

 

PAGE FIVE, JULY 17, 2003

Application #674 Continued

Edward Lamp, 120 Summit St., came forward, was sworn in, spoke in opposition to the traffic, and commented on the historical qualities of the existing house that is proposed to remain in place.

 

David Elling, 263 Summit St., came forward and was sworn in for his testimony.  Ms. Reilly explained to Mr. Elling that the applicant is under contract to purchase a portion of the 275 Summit St. property in order to build the development and roadway and that the existing house is proposed to remain.  Mr. Elling also questioned the location of the side yard line in relation to a garage on his property and spoke to the loss of open space and the growth of cul-de-sac developments in town.

 

Kristy Chrenko, 290 Summit St., came forward, was sworn in, and spoke in opposition to this application.

 

Corinne Lynch, 677 Broadway came forward, was sworn in, spoke in opposition to this application and requested that the board require fences and large evergreen trees to screen existing properties from the back of the new houses.

 

Jay Marie Zacco, 787 Broadway, came forward, was sworn in, and spoke in opposition to this application

 

Barbara Broomall, 304 Summit St., came forward, was sworn in, and spoke in opposition to this application.

 

As there were no further questions or comments from the public, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public.  All members voted yes.

 

A discussion followed regarding reasons that this application might be denied.  Mr. Ritvo commented that there is a question of Lot 20.02 requiring a variance as pertains to lot depth.  However, if this plan meets these zoning criteria and the RSIS requirements, including traffic, it is difficult to deny a conforming application.  The board might, however, require drainage and buffering conditions.  Discussion took place regarding changes in zoning in order to restrict this type of development. 

 

RESOLVED: A motion was made by Mayor D’Ercole and seconded by Mr. Altenbach to carry this application to the August 21, 2003 meeting without further notice to the public.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. DeBiasa, Mr. Butti, and Mr. Altenbach, Mr. Ascolese, Mayor D’Ercole, Councilman Brizzolara, Mr. Byrne, and Mr. Casey voted yes.

 

DEED SIGNATURE AUTHORIZATION

Block 110, Lot 11 – 100 Summit Street

Gallagher/Cacici

RESOLVED: A motion was made and seconded to authorize the Board Chairman and Board Clerk to sign the deed on the above-indicated property as reviewed and approved by Mr. Neglia and Mr. Ritvo.  All members voted yes.

 

RESOLUTIONS OF APPROVAL

RESOLVED: A motion was made and seconded to accept the below Resolutions of Approval as prepared by Mr. Ritvo.  All members voted yes.

Variance Application #670 – Cho

Block 38, Lot 12 - 371 Fourteenth St.

 

Variance Application #669 - Muller

Block 103, Lot 9 – 16 Winthrop St.

 

Extension of Variances & Site Plan Approval – Wang & Lu

Block 122, Lot 2 – 430 Tappan Rd.

 

 

 

                                                            PAGE SIX, JULY 17, 2003

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Regular Meeting May 15, 2003

A motion was made and seconded to accept the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 15, 2003.  All members voted yes.

APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS

A motion was made and seconded to approve payment of the following vouchers:

                        Neglia Engineering Associates               $5,425.50

                        Harold Ritvo, Esq.                                            $1,404.50

All members voted yes.

 

 

                                                            JAY STREET COMMITTEE

Mr. Ascolese reported that this committee has met, and following investigation and discussion, agrees that renovation of Jay and Broad Street is imminent.  Following this discussion and additional discussion regarding changes in the Zoning Ordinance, the board agreed to schedule a public meeting(s) with both the Board Engineer and Attorney present, to discuss same.

 

                                                            OPEN TO PUBLIC

It was duly moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public.  All members voted yes.

 

Mr. Lamp, 120 Summit St., came forward and asked that the board consider larger lot sizes during       their review of the Zoning Ordinances.

 

As no one else came forward, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public.  All members voted yes.

 

As there was no further business to come to before the board, it was duly moved and seconded to adjourn at 10:40PM.

 

                                                           

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                   

                                                            Linda Grove, Clerk to Board

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE JUNE 19, 2003 MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD

 

 

 

 

WAS CANCELLED

 

 

 

 

 

THERE WERE NO APPLICATIONS ON THE AGENDA