REGULAR MEETING
NORWOOD PLANNING
BOARD
The Regular Meeting of the Norwood Planning Board convened at 8:00PM 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. Mr. Ascolese indicated the exit locations as required by law.
The following board members were present:
Mr. DeBiasa Mr. Butti Mr. Altenbach
Mr. Ascolese Mayor D’Ercole Mr. DeMaria
Mr. Jacobs Mr. Byrne Mr. Casey
The following board members were absent:
Dr. Koffler Councilman Brizzolara
Mr. Van Dyke Mr. Zacco
The Board Engineer Michael Neglia was present as was Harold Ritvo, the Board Attorney.
Attorney Richard Hubschman, Jr., Palisades Park, NJ came forward representing Mr. & Mrs. Pierorazio, owners of 317 High St. (Block 105, Lot 12). Mr. Hubschman explained that Mr. & Mrs. Pierorazio have contracted with the adjoining property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Deschler, 222 Hudson Ave. (Block 105, Lot 9), to purchase a rectangular piece of property in order to widen their rear yard. Both lots will remain fully conforming to all zoning requirements; there is no impact on any neighboring properties or roadways, and no proposed structures. Mr. & Mrs. Pierorazio have recently built a new residence at the 317 High Street address and plan to move in this weekend.
It was duly moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public; all members voted yes. As no one came forward, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public. All board members voted yes.
RESOLVED: Mayor D’Ercole offered a motion to approve Application #668. Seconded by Mr. Altenbach.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. DeBiasa, Mr. Butti, Mr. Altenbach, Mr. Ascolese, Mayor D’Ercole, Mr. DeMaria, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Byrne, and Mr. Casey voted yes.
Falciglia Enterprises
Sal Falciglia, Jr., Falciglia Enterprises, Ridgewood, NJ came forward and was sworn in for his testimony on Variance Application #666. Mr. Falciglia testified that he proposes to remove an existing 20’ x 40’ garage at the back of the building and replace with a 50’ x 70’ addition. Applicant proposes 46% lot coverage from existing 43.4% (30% required). There is also an existing non-conforming minimum front yard, (50’ required, 35’ existing), maximum disturbed area (85% required, 97% existing), and maximum impervious coverage (75% required, 84.5% existing). Mr. Harvey Cheringal, a printer, has had his business in the building for approximately fifteen years.
It was duly moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public. All members voted yes. As no one came forward, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public. All members voted yes.
Mr. Ritvo noted that the services provided are in order and according to statute.
RESOLVED: A motion was offered by Mayor D’Ercole and seconded by Mr. Altenbach to approve Application #666.
PAGE
TWO, MARCH 20, 2003
VARIANCE APPLICATION #666 Continued
ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. DeBiasa, Mr. Butti, Mr. Altenbach, Mr. Ascolese, Mayor D’Ercole, Mr. DiMaria, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Byrne, and Mr. Casey voted yes.
VARIANCE
APPLICATION #667
Since Mr. Travers’ attorney was not yet present, the board agreed to hold this application until later in the evening.
AMENDED
SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #664
Joseph
Cacici & Judith Gallagher
Attorney John Phillips, Woodcliff Lake, NJ, came forward representing Mr. Cacici and Ms. Gallagher in this request for amendment to prior approval of a two-lot subdivision. Applicant proposes that the board remove a finding of fact in the Resolution of Approval that the existing structure is historic and a condition of approval that the house cannot be demolished without board authorization. Although applicants have no immediate intention of removing the existing structure and Mrs. Gallagher currently resides on premises; they do not want a restriction on title. Minutes indicate that on May 17, 2001, the board denied the original two-lot subdivision; consequently, the applicants returned on January 17, 2002 with a conforming three-lot subdivision. At the end of that meeting, a motion was offered and passed to approve the original two-lot subdivision as revised subject to engineering and legal reviews. On February 21, 2002, the board carried the application as plans had not been resubmitted, and on April 18, 2002, the board reconsidered the newly revised plans. During the course of that hearing, the applicant, according to the minutes, agreed to stipulate to no construction within ninety-three feet from the front of the house to the street line and within forty feet parallel to the property line. As the hearing continued, the applicant agreed to extend the ninety-three foot no-build zone to one hundred three feet and the new construction on the subdivided lot site so complies with this requirement. During the course of that meeting, Mr. Ritvo recommended that the board might condition approval on the no-build zone and provide a deed restriction to non-disturbance of trees in the indicated area. A request was also placed into the resolution that the developer provides a dwelling harmonious with the surrounding neighborhood. A motion was made to approve the application with the above restrictions. On May 16, 2002, the board accepted a Resolution of Approval. There are resolutions dated May 20, and June 20, 2002. The latter resolution moves paragraph seven into paragraph eight and reads as follows: “...the applicant agreed that the existing masonry dwelling, which has some historical architectural significance, would not be destroyed” and condition number five “...masonry structure currently existing shall remain and not be destroyed without further application to this board”. The sole request of the applicant at this time is to remove those two restrictions from the Resolution of Approval.
Mr. Ritvo commented that he has reviewed notice and these are in order and according to statute.
Joseph Cacici, 37 Topeka Ct., Lawrence Harbor, NJ was sworn in for his testimony. Mr. Cacici testified that he has a financial interest in the property, was coapplicant in the original subdivision application, and proposes that the board delete the historic reference and condition of non-removal from the Resolution of Approval. There is no present intention to remove the existing structure; however, the conditions place a deed restriction on title should his ex-wife decide to sell the house in the future. Mr. Cacici additionally testified that he is unaware of any studies, articles or other indication from either professional or community organizations that have placed historical significance or value on the structure. The dwelling is not listed on any Historical Register with the town, the county or state.
Mr. Phillips suggested that it is unfortunate that, at the time the Resolution of Approval was adopted, the attorney representing Mr. Cacici did not express his client’s opposition
AMENDED SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #664 Continued
to the condition of approval. Although Mr. Cacici was present at several of the hearings, he was absent at the time the resolution was adopted. Mr. Phillips additionally commented that correspondence from his client to the attorney indicates Mr. Cacici’s objection to the restriction.
Following some discussion, both attorneys agreed that the historical finding restriction and condition was noted in both resolutions. Mr. Ritvo commented that the January 17, 2002 minutes indicate that, following discussion between Mr. Cacici and his attorney, Mr. Cacici agreed to revert to the original two lot subdivision, retain the existing house, and construct a single dwelling in order to satisfy board and public concerns. Mr. Phillips remarked that the conforming three-lot subdivision would have required removal of the existing dwelling and resulted in three new dwellings on three new lots. Upon reversion to the original two-lot subdivision, it was unnecessary to remove the existing house because there was no need to create a third lot. Mr. Ritvo commented that the minutes reflect a lengthy discussion regarding the historical significance of the existing house. Mr. Cacici additionally testified that it was never his intention to have a restriction or condition placed on the deed that severely diminishes the value of the property. Mr. Ritvo additionally commented that minutes (1/17/2002) reflect that, in response to a member of the public “...Mr. Watkins stipulated that the applicant intends to retain the existing house.”
Mr. Ritvo commented that the legal basis for this type of application is unclear. The applicant proposes to modify a provision of a resolution that was previously adopted and there might be an expired time period in effect for objection to the board’s memorialization of the Resolution of Approval. As concerns applicant’s comment that he did not approve the condition, the board might assume that the attorney is qualified to speak for the client regarding stipulations and conditions. Mr. Phillips offered that the board might consider this application, pursuant to the resolution, to either demolish the house or to remove the restriction on demolition. Mr. Ritvo advised that the board is obliged to interpret its intent concerning language of the condition as it stands within the resolution. Additional discussion took place regarding historical status of the house and Mr. Ritvo suggested that the dwelling is not an historical house under any definition or historical register and it is the owner’s right to preserve. The board might find that the condition is a stipulated restriction and part of a variance and subdivision application that the applicant has consented to in order to gain approval and that the courts generally uphold such restrictions as agreed to by the applicant. Mr. Phillips added that the board might determine that the condition was connected to the variance(s) requested and this particular condition or restriction is not related to the lot frontage variance as required and previously granted.
Mr. Phillips commented that the restrictions were not in the deed, which the applicant signed at the request of Mr. Watkins, several months before adoption of the resolution. The resolution was attached to the deed without the consent of the client and Mr. Phillips reiterated that Mr. Cacici was not present at the adoption of the resolution and did not knowingly agree to that particular restriction. Several of these legal issues will be decided in a different forum sometime in the future.
It was duly moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public. All members voted yes.
Edward Lamp, 120 Summit St., came forward representing the Norwood Historic Preservation Committee and was sworn in for his testimony. Mr. Lamp requested permission to read an advisory report into the record regarding the subject property. Following review, Mr. Phillips objected to the introduction of the report on the grounds that the information submitted is hearsay, there is no documentary support, the report was not considered by the board at the time of the hearing, and is, therefore, irrelevant. Mr. Ritvo offered that the Governing Body has appointed the Historic Preservation Committee, and while the report contains information that might or might not have support, the board may evaluate the information as presented. Mr. Lamp agreed to
summarize the report, explained how the information was gathered and suggested that the house might, at sometime in the future, be listed on both the National and State Register of Historic Places. He additionally agreed that, without historical standing, the owner might demolish with no approval or notice to the public. In response to Mr. Phillips, Mr. Lamp testified that the house is not listed on any historic register, is not contained in an historic element of the Master Plan, and no structures in the borough are subject to historic restrictions.
Judith Lamp, 120 Summit St. came forward and was sworn in for her testimony. Ms. Lamp spoke in favor of the deed restriction and in opposition to demolition of the existing structure.
As no one else came forward, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public. All members voted yes.
Following discussion with board members and Mr. Ritvo, Mr. Phillips agreed to the alternate request that the board remove the restriction from the Resolution of Approval enabling the applicant, at some point in the future, to remove the house. Additional discussion took place regarding the impact on the neighborhood to this application.
RESOLVED: Mayor D’Ercole offered a motion to remove the restriction from the Resolution of Approval. Seconded by Mr. Casey.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. DeBiasa, Mr. Butti, Mr. Ascolese, Mayor D’Ercole, Mr. DeMaria, and Mr. Casey voted yes. Mr. Altenbach, Mr. Jacobs, and Mr. Byrne voted no.
VARIANCE
APPLICATION #667
Robert
& Denise Travers
Attorney Nicholas Sekas, 540 Sylvan Ave., Englewood Cliffs, NJ came forward representing the applicant in this application for accessory building side yard variance.
Mr. Ritvo commented that notice is appropriate and according to statute.
Mr. Sekas explained that applicants propose to renovate and add on to an existing house because they have two small children and require additional space. The existing structure is approximately 1600 square feet and the proposed addition expands the house from three to four bedrooms, improves, and beautifies the neighborhood. An existing garage is projected for removal and a new garage, requiring a side yard variance (15 feet required, 5 feet proposed) is planned at the southerly side of the house.
Conrad Roncati, Licensed Architect, Arcari & Iovino, One Katherine St., Little Ferry, NJ, came forward, was sworn in, and qualified as an expert witness. Mr. Roncati testified that he has been involved with this project since inception, has visited the location, and is familiar with the character of the neighborhood. Property is located on the east side of Summit St., with a 90-foot frontage, 241-foot southerly property line, 222-foot northerly property line, and 108 feet across the rear of the property. Applicant proposes to remove a single story detached garage at the rear of the property. The property is deep and the existing house is narrow and deeper than wide; the facade that fronts Summit St. is narrow in comparison to the width of lot. The expansion provides three bedrooms, a study, family room, closets, bathroom(s), and allows additional growing space for the family. Applicant hopes to build a structure compatible with the neighborhood. Mr. & Mrs. Travers have considered building the addition to the rear; however, this creates an undesirable house that is long and deep. Many of the homes in the area have side yards that average eight to ten feet from primary or accessory structures. Applicant proposes to add approximately fifteen feet to each side of the main structure in order to broaden the house and achieve natural light for the bedrooms and other living spaces. This would not be possible with an addition to the rear. In addition, the back yard landscaping is quite mature and includes various specimen trees including a star magnolia.
PAGE FIVE, MARCH 20, 2003
VARIANCE APPLICATION #667
Continued
There is also an existing jacuzzi pool and Mr. & Mrs. Travers hope to retain the park-like setting and natural beauty of the back yard.
A one-story detached garage is proposed at the southerly property line that requires a ten-foot side yard variance (fifteen feet required, five feet proposed). The drawings that applicant has submitted reflect that the rooms are modest in size and would not over-crowd the property. The second floor of the proposed addition is set approximately 40 feet from the side yard. Foliage along the south property line has died off because of encroachment of the neighboring property. The bulk of the addition is towards the center of the lot with the lower single story detached one-car garage at the right or south side of the property in deference to the neighboring property. In Mr. Roncati professional opinion, the proposed addition is in keeping with the area and is not detrimental to the Master Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, Mr. Roncati testified that attaching the garage to the house means that no glazing is possible on the joining wall, and light and air is eliminated. Detaching provides a breezeway and creates both a large and small structure rather than one massive structure. The adjoining house to the south might be as close as five feet to the property line and, at some point in time, neighboring properties might or might not have been granted variances since many of the attached and detached structures are within the setbacks of the zone.
Brief discussion took place regarding the condition of the existing foliage in the rear yard. A photograph mounted on board was marked as Exhibit A-1 and a series of four photographs designated 130 Summit St., front and rear, was marked as Exhibit A-2. Mr. Roncati testified that Exhibit A-2 depicts the front, rear, and side of the property, includes a view of the property to the south, and a row of heavy evergreen trees between the two properties. The proposed height of the structure is twenty-seven feet and thirty-five feet is allowed.
Homeowner, Robert Travers came forward and was sworn in for his testimony. Mr. Travers testified that he has reviewed properties near his home, and many of the lots include a detached garage or accessory building within five or ten feet of the property line. He additionally testified that the adjoining house at the south property line shadows and blocks sunlight in his back yard. The detached garage as proposed, allows for easy access to the kitchen. Because of the height of the house at the south side of the property, the detached garage would also provide a buffer between the buildings. A series of photographs taken by Mr. Travers were marked as Exhibits A3-A through A3-F and an additional photograph was marked at Exhibit A-4. Mr. Travers stipulated that neither building would be higher than as shown on the plans (maximum building height 27 feet).
It was duly moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public. All members voted yes.
Joan Groarke, 122 Summit St., came forward and was sworn in for her testimony. Ms. Groarke testified that she is the homeowner at the south property line and that the addition to her house was variance free as they built a second story above an existing garage and replaced that garage with a family room. At present, there are approximately thirty-five between structures; the proposed variance placing the garage at five feet from the property line seems extremely close and intrusive. She expressed concern that two structures so close together might devalue the property.
Judith Lamp, 120 Summit St., came forward and was sworn in for her testimony. Ms. Lamp spoke in opposition to this application; she expressed concerns with overbuilding on Summit Street.
Theodore Fischer, 43 Kensington Ave., came forward and was sworn in for his testimony. Mr. Fischer spoke in favor of this application and commented that Mrs. Travers is his daughter and the family has lived in Norwood for thirty years.
PAGE SIX,
MARCH 20, 2003
VARIANCE APPLICATION #667 Continued
Lois Eremin, 110 Summit St., came forward and was sworn in for any testimony she might offer. Ms. Eremin spoke in opposition to this application.
Kevin Passante, 11 Cobblestone Crossing, came forward and was sworn in for any testimony he might offer. Mr. Passante spoke in favor of this application and commented on the unique quality of Summit Street.
At this time, and following discussion with the board, Mr. Travers agreed that if the board so stipulates, he would provide trees that are shade-friendly at the south property line.
Edward Lamp, 110 Summit St., came forward and was sworn in for his testimony. Mr. Lamp questioned the proposed location of the garage at the south side of the property and recommended that applicants move same to the north and rear of the property in order to avoid a variance.
Barbara Shaw, 129 Summit St., came forward and was sworn in for any testimony she might offer. Ms. Shaw questioned Mr. Travers regarding the location of the driveway and Mr. Travers responded that the existing driveway at the south of the property would be removed. Several trees are also scheduled for removal because they are diseased and/or weather damaged.
Ann Barnum, 123 Summit St., came forward and was sworn in for her testimony. Ms. Barnum spoke in opposition to this application and suggested that applicant build an addition that conforms to the zoning requirements.
Ralph Nickl, 35 Everett St., came forward and spoke in favor of this application.
As no one else came forward, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public. All board members voted yes.
In conclusion, Mr. Sekas commented that the applicant requires a bulk variance because of the narrowness of the property and has applied to board as permitted by state statute. He additionally commented that the adjoining neighbor has expanded upon a non-conforming eight-foot side yard by building up and out. The Travers’ proposed garage is one story and small and in keeping with the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Travers additionally commented that several trees on the south side of the property have been damaged during this past winter, however, the mature vegetation and trees at the rear of the property and near the existing garage does not affect the house.
RESOLVED: Mayor D’Ercole offered a motion to approve Application #667. Seconded by Mr. DeMaria.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. DeBiasa, Mr. Butti, Mr. Ascolese, Mayor D’Ercole, Mr. DeMaria, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Byrne, and Mr. Casey voted yes. Mr. Altenbach voted no.
RESOLUTION
OF DENIAL
200
Tappan Road – Starapoli
A motion was offered by Mayor D’Ercole and seconded by Mr. Butti to accept the Resolution of Denial on the above-indicated application.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Butti, Mr. Altenbach, and Mr. Ascolese, Mayor D’Ercole, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Jacobs, and Mr. Casey voted yes.
RESOLUTIONS
OF APPROVAL
72 Mohawk
Avenue – Monfried
A motion was made by Mayor D’Ercole and seconded by Mr. Butti to adopt the Resolution of Approval on the above-indicated application.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Butti, Mr. Altenbach, Mr. Ascolese, Mayor D’Ercole, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Jacobs, and Mr. Casey voted yes.
RESOLUTIONS OF APPROVAL
Continued
Variance Application #665 –
Block 9, Lot 4
89 Briarwood Avenue – Reilly
A motion was made by Mayor D’Ercole and seconded by Mr. Casey to adopt the Resolution of Approval on the above-indicated application.
ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Butti, Mr. Altenbach, Mr. Ascolese, Mayor D’Ercole, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Jacobs, and Mr. Casey voted yes.
Mayor D’Ercole offered a motion to approve the following vouchers:
Neglia Engineering Associates $1,202.50
Harold Ritvo, Esq. $ 410.75
Seconded by Mr. Butti.
ROLL CALL VOTE:
Mr. DeBiasa, Mr. Butti, Mr. Altenbach, Mr. Ascolese, Mayor D’Ercole, Mr. DeMaria, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Byrne, and Mr. Casey voted yes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting February 20, 2003
A motion was made and seconded to accept the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 20, 2003. All members voted yes.
CORRESPONDENCE – NONE
MEETING CANCELATION
Mr. Ascolese announced that the April 17, 2003 meeting is canceled because of religious holiday.
As there was no further business to come before the board, it was duly moved and seconded to adjourn at 10:10PM. All members voted yes.
Linda Grove, Clerk to Board