ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT - BOROUGH OF NORWOOD

ZONING BO= ARD OF ADJUSTMENT - BOROUGH OF NORWOO= D

REGULAR MEETING - APRIL 06, 2006=

The Re= gular Meeting of the Board of Adjustment convened at 8:00PM with Chairman Robert Trapani presiding. Mr. Trapani announced that the meeting is held in accord= ance with the Open Public Records Act and indicated the exit locations as requir= ed by law.

&= nbsp;

The fo= llowing board members were present: Michael Casey, Murray Bass, Marianne Orecchio, = Mr. Trapani, Carol Leeman, Christofer Deschler, Nicholas Chiacchiaro, and Dan Kelly. Barbara Cho was absent= . The Board Attorney Richard Toniolo= was present.

&= nbsp;

APPROVAL OF MINUTES =

Regular Meeting – February 02= , 2006

Ms. Or= ecchio offered a motion to accept the minutes of the February 02, 2006 Regular Meeting. Seconded by Mr. Bass= and all members voted yes.

&= nbsp;

BLOCK 80, LO= T 8

480 Broadway – American Legio= n

Cell Monopole=

The bo= ard briefly discussed Sprint’s agreement to place lighting at the top of = the cell tower in response to Mayor Kaplan’s letter to Sprint’s attorney. Mr. Trapani thanked= all those responsible for supporting the warning light.

&= nbsp;

APPLICATION #06Z-0112

Block 145, Lot 9 – 27 Brook Street

B. Foschino Landscape, Inc.

Attorn= ey Stuart Stern came forward representing Barry Foschino and Son in this application, which proposes a front yard setback and lot coverage variance at the above-indicated location. App= licant proposes to demolish the existing structure and replace with a building providing office and storage space.

&= nbsp;

Barry Foschino, 62 Mohawk Ave., owner of subject business, came forward, was sworn for testimony and testified that his landscape construction business has be= en located at 27 Brook St. since 1987. Applicant proposes to demolish the existing older house and replace = with a structure providing storage of equipment on the first floor and offices upstairs. The existing house = is currently in use as office space only.&nbs= p; Some equipment is stored in a garage, proposed to remain, at the bac= k of the property. Mr. Foschino testified that business has grown generating an increase in equipment, which should be stored inside during inclement weather. Currently four vehicles are parked= on site and two or more, if necessary, on rented space in an adjoining parking= lot owned by Robert Ghia. The proposed structure houses four vehicles, dependin= g on any repairs that would be undertaken in the new garage. There are no residential homes in = the immediate area and the Go= ddard Day = Care Center is located a= cross Brook Street. Most employees do not park on site= ; at the most, three or four cars per day are parked in front of the garage and/= or house.

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; PAGE TWO, ZBOA, APRIL 06, 2006

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; Application #06Z-0112 Continued

Archit= ect Chris Blake, 130 County Rd= ., Tenafly, NJ, was sworn and qualified as an expert witness. Mr. Blake testified that he prepar= ed the plans submitted to the board and that this application proposes to retain t= he existing two-bay garage at the rear of the property and remove the dwelling= at the front, which is old and in disrepair. Applicant proposes to replace the dwelling with a 1-½-story building, connecting with the existing gar= age, providing an additional two bays on the ground floor, with storage space and offices on the second floor. <= /span>

&= nbsp;

The fo= llowing variances are required: =

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Front Yard – 50 feet required, 8.7 feet proposed.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Lot Coverage – 22 percent permitted, 32 perce= nt proposed.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; Existing Rear Yard – 20 feet required, 11.9 feet existing.

The ex= isting building is located in the front yard setback and over lot coverage. Side yards are 10 feet required an= d proposed at 30 feet on the left and 18 feet on the right.

&= nbsp;

Concer= ning paving, Mr. Blake testified that applicant proposes approximately 20% paved area and 80% stones, which provided better drainage. Specific parking areas are not pla= nned. Mr. Foschino added that currently = the area in front of the garage is paved. Storm drains, installed in 1987, remove water out through the Sutton Place drainage system and there has never been any complaint from neighbors. Mr. Foschino testified that he pla= ns to provide angle parking at the side of the garage towards the front of the building. The proposed struct= ure provides that half of the vehicles and storage presently in view to the pub= lic would be under cover following completion of the project. Mr. Foschino testified that fencing might provide additional screening from the street and some plantings could= be added to soften the building. Although applicant does not propose curbing, additional drainage or landscaping, Mr. Blake testified that they would meet all criteria of the Borough Engineer and Building Department.

&= nbsp;

A disc= ussion took place concerning ingress and egress and Mr. Foschino testified that vehicles presently back into or out of the property and this situation would continue even if the proposal were accepted.

David = Spatz, Community Housing & Planning Associates, 185 Bridge Plaza North, Fort Lee, NJ came forward, was sworn for testimony, and qualified as an expert witness.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> Mr. Spatz testified that he visite= d the subject site and reviewed plans. The property is 8,349 square feet, 77 feet wide with a depth of 106 = feet and currently houses a two-story residential structure with garage at the r= ear of the lot. The site is prima= rily graveled with a few small paved areas, is relatively flat and drains towards the rear. Adjacent neighborho= od is developed with a mixture of uses including Sutton Place Garden Apartments to the rear, Goddard School opposite, an= d a vacant one-story industrial structure at the corner. To the left of the site is a paved parking lot used by the G= oddard School and on the o= ther side, a borough pump station. There are no other structures on the same side of the street as the subject property. Mr.Spatz reviewed variances as

&= nbsp;

PAGE THREE, ZBOA, APRIL 06, 2006

Application #06Z-0112 Continued

previo= usly testified by Mr. Blake. The u= se is permitted in the zone and the building conforms to all other zoning requirements.

&= nbsp;

Consid= ering the positive and negative criteria, Mr. Spatz testified that applicant seek= s a C-2 Variance where the benefits outweigh any detriments and provides a posi= tive impact on zoning. Proposal pr= ovides coverage for vehicles and is a visual enhancement benefiting the both the apartment complex and school in the area.&= nbsp; The existing building needs extensive repairs; whereas, the proposed structure provides interior parking of vehicles, storage and office space on the second floor and visual enhancement to the neighborhood. Mr. Spatz testified that the build= ing is a dramatic improvement and provides no detriment even though the approximat= ely 23 to 25-foot building is located 8-feet from the street. Reducing the building in size decr= eases storage from four to two vehicles. Existing building covers 26.6 percent and the trade-off of extra coverage (32% proposed, 22% permitted) for storing vehicles in the building= is a benefit. The proposal provi= des a positive impact to the neighborhood and does not conflict with zoning requirements or the Master Plan. It does not expand the existing business but improves an existing condition by parking vehicles inside a building, cleans up the look of the property, and reduces the impact on the surrounding properties. Water flows to the rear and gravel= areas provide superior drainage over paved areas. If the board so desires, applic= ant agrees to locate three or four parking spaces on. the side of the building = and to provide fencing and landscaping.

&= nbsp;

Anthony Foschino, 48 Burlington St= reet, Norwood came forward and was sworn in for testimony. Mr. Foschino testified that zoning was changed, which eliminated outside storag= e of equipment on Brook Street<= /st1:address>, following the family’s purchase of the property, This proposal does n= ot change the use of the property, but increases the number of vehicles that a= re stored inside the building. The property was purchased as a commercial site and “grandfath= ered” for that particular use.

&= nbsp;

Anthony Foschino testified that they have leased parking space from Mr. Ghia for approximately fifteen years and if Mr. Ghia decided to improve his property, they might have to look into finding another site.

&= nbsp;

At thi= s time a brief discussion took place regarding Mr. Blake’s plan and he testifi= ed that the property is 77.4 feet at the rear and not 105-feet as indicated on= the drawing.

&= nbsp;

As the= re were no further questions from the board, it was moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public and all voted yes.

&= nbsp;

Robert= Ghia, 22 Brickell Ave., Westwood, NJ came forward and was s= worn for his testimony. Mr. Ghia o= ffered several comments and questions concerning loading doors at the front of building, 100% lot coverage if graveled areas are included, permitted use

&= nbsp;

PAGE FOUR, ZBOA, APRIL 06, 2006

Application #06Z-0112 Continued

in the= zone, and the site plan should include drainage, parking, landscaping, etc. Mr. Ghia testified that he has ren= ted the space (50’ x 106= 217;) to Mr. Foschino with no lease for many years; he would have no problem with improving the existing building but objects to the location of the proposed building’s close proximity to the street.

&= nbsp;

Constr= uction Official Paul Renaud came forward, was sworn for his testimony and agreed to investigate the matter of the gravel areas and loading docks on behalf of t= he board.

As no = one else came forward, the board moved, seconded and voted to close the meeting to t= he public.

&= nbsp;

Follow= ing discussion with Mr. Toniolo, the applicant agreed to return to the next mee= ting with an improved site plan including parking, drainage and the matter of the permitted use for the zone including office and storage of vehicles. Applic= ant agreed to additionally address Borough Ordinance 233-30 concerning permitted uses and Section 233-32 (Off-Street Parking) subparagraphs a, b, d, and e.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'>

&= nbsp;

Mr. Deschler offered a motion, seco= nded by Ms. Orecchio, to continue this application to the next meeting. Mr. Casey, Mr. Bass, Ms. Orecchio,= Mr. Trapani, Ms. Leeman, Mr. Deschler, and Mr. Chiacchiaro voted yes.

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; APPLICATION #06Z-0113

&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Block 99, Lot 10 – 385 Liv= ingston Street

&nb= sp; = &nb= sp; = &nb= sp; Kwan Y. Lee

Attorn= ey Allen Bell, Tenafly, NJ came forward representing applicant= in this matter of an addition to an existing nonconforming use. Mr. Bell explained that the existi= ng two-family dwelling meets all zoning regulations and requires no variances except that required to enlarge an existing nonconforming use.

&= nbsp;

Mr. Tr= apani provided that all services are in order as required by law.

&= nbsp;

Archit= ect Jeffrey Lee, Flushing, NY came forward, was sworn and qualifi= ed for his testimony. Mr. Lee testif= ied that his firm designed the proposed structure and that applicant proposes to expand the existing two-family dwelling.&n= bsp; The property is 27,880 square feet and is located in the R10 Zone requiring 10,000 square feet. Referring to a rendering marked as Exhibit A-1 (page A.001), Mr. Lee testified that applicant proposes to separate the existing dwelling by loca= ting one family on each side of the two-story structure instead of a single residence on each floor. Page A.OO2, marked as Exhibit A-2, indicates that a two-car attached garage, one space for each residence, is proposed at the rear of the dwelling. The applicant plans to remodel the exterior of the older structure to match the new addition with tan colored brick.

&= nbsp;

PAGE FIVE, ZBOA, APRIL 06, 2006

Application #06Z-0113 Continued

Mr. Be= ll commented that page three of the plans was submitted in error and indicates= a previous subdivision application denied by the Planning Board.

&= nbsp;

Mr. Lee testified that an existing on-site detached garage is scheduled for removal= and that the existing house is currently vacant.

&= nbsp;

Mr. Be= ll commented that the Environmental Commission has raised the issue of proof t= hat the existing structure is a two-family dwelling. He offered correspondence (Exhibit= A-3) from Helen Guercio, Tax Assessor’s Office, dated June 2005, referring= to the house as a two-family conversion built in 1920, meaning that if the existing dwelling is destroyed it can only be rebuilt as a single-family. A Tax Search Record (Exhibit A-4) = that the client received during purchase, showing the assessor’s code indicating a two-family structure, a report from the Borough Engineer (Exhi= bit A-5) submitted to the Planning Board during the Subdivision Application in = the year 2000 describing the property as a two-family dwelling. The Resolution of Denial (Exhibit = A-6) adopted by the board also describing the property as a two-family dwelling.=

&= nbsp;

Mr. Be= ll commented that the existing home includes three bedrooms and the addition, = four bedrooms. Each unit incorpora= tes three bathrooms, one on the first floor and two upstairs.

&= nbsp;

Sean M= oronski, PP, Burgiss Planners, Westwood, NJ, was sworn and qualified as an expert witness for his testimony. Mr. Moronski testified that he is familiar with the proposal, the site, the surrounding area, the plans, Boro= ugh Zoning Regulations and the Master Plan Reexamination Report. Exhibit A-7, an existing land use = map of the area, shows the property as trapezoidal in shape, approximately 27,880 square feet, with lot frontage of 141.33 feet along Livingston Street. The lot narrows at the rear of the property to approximately 77 feet; lot depth is approximately 250 feet. Property is currently legal nonconforming with a two-family dwelling on site. To the north, the area transitions= from residential to business with the adjoining property the Bank of New York and the Norwood Fire Station to the rear. Across the street is predominately single-family residential with several nonconforming two and/or three-family homes.

&= nbsp;

Exhibi= t A-8, a series of six photos indicating the property in question and residences eit= her renovated or recently constructed, show the neighborhood upgrading and improving. Existing shrubbery= and landscaping at the front remain the same following construction.=

&= nbsp;

Mr. Mo= ronski testified that property is in the R10 Single Family Residential Zone with 27,880 square feet where 10,000 is required and proposal is in compliance w= ith all other regulations including lot, building coverage and height. Additional parking is accommodated= in the driveway and the existing detached garage removed.

&= nbsp;

PAGE SIX, ZBOA, APRIL 06, 2006

Application #06Z-0113 Continued

With r= egard to the variance that is required, D-2 Expansion of a Nonconforming Use, in ter= ms of case law it has been held that aesthetic improvement can justify expansi= on of a nonconforming use. The addition enhances and improves the existing eighty-five year old structure = in line with the immediate neighborhood and the use is not intensified by addi= tion of a third unit to the property.

&= nbsp;

In ter= ms of the negative criteria, Mr. Moronski testified that he does not believe ther= e is any detriment to the public good; there is no increase in the number of uni= ts on the property, the enhanced design is consistent with the type of improvements in the neighborhood. The addition is away from the residential neighborhood property and towards the bank to the north. = There is no impairment to the Zoning Ordinance or the Master Plan Reexamination Report, the proposal preserves the existing residential chara= cter of the neighborhood, and what is an existing two-family use.

&= nbsp;

In rep= ly to the board, Mr. Bell and Mr. Moronski commented that additional parking is available in the driveway if residents have more than one vehicle and there= is a back-up area to provide easy access to Livingston Street.

&= nbsp;

The bo= ard moved, seconded and voted to open the meeting to the public and all voted y= es.

&= nbsp;

Charles Bocchino, 455 Livingston S= treet, came forward representing the Norwood Fire Dept. as the Chairman of the Board. Mr. Bocchi= no commented that there are landscaping trailers parked at the rear of the property and Mr. Bell responded that the applicant has no knowledge of same= and shall have them removed.

&= nbsp;

Paul R= enaud, Construction Official, came forward and was sworn for his testimony. He commented that the exterior of = the building is similar to an apartment block and unsuitable for a residential district. Following discussio= n, the applicant agreed to provide a new exterior design with a break in the front= of the building to provide an enhanced appearance. Applicant agreed to provide same a= s a condition of approval.

&= nbsp;

As no = other member of the public came forward, the board moved, seconded and voted to c= lose the meeting to the public.

&= nbsp;

Mr. Be= ll commented that applicant has tried to present an expansion that is pleasing= and creates an attractive addition to an existing nonconforming use, which by l= aw has the right to remain that way. He cited two pertinent cases, Kingwood vs. Board of Adjustment and Alpine Tower vs. Mayor & Council. Case law also says that the purposes of zoning are advanced by aesth= etic improvements and applicant proposes to enhance, modernize and upgrade an 85-year old dwelling that needs repair.&nb= sp;

&= nbsp;

The ap= plicant indicated to the board that they plan to live in one unit and rent the othe= r.

&= nbsp;

PAGE SEVEN, ZBOA, APRIL 06, 2006

Application #06Z-0113 Continued

Mr. Be= ll commented that since the applicants are under a financial and time constrai= nt, they propose to provide revised architectural plans prior to a Resolution of Approval, if the board so desires. He also agreed to investigate the vehicles parked at the rear.

&n= bsp;

Mr. Casey offered a motion to appro= ve Application #06Z-0113, seconded by Mr. Chiacchiaro, with the modifications = to the exterior as discussed.

Mr. Casey, Mr. Bass, Ms. Orecchio, = Mr. Trapani, Ms. Leeman, Mr. Deschler, and Mr. Chiacchiaro voted yes.

At thi= s time Mr. Trapani called for a short break.

&= nbsp;

APPLICATION #06Z-0114

Block 140, Lot 10 – 1 Austin Avenue

Brian Mason

Proper= ty Owner Brian Mason came forward and was sworn in for his testimony. He testified that they propose to = extend the kitchen and build a new deck. The new kitchen extends approximately ten feet from where it is now = with a deck built out from there. Applicant proposes no expansion of the second floor. Existing setback is currently at 2= 5 feet (30 feet required) and the proposal reduces the setback to 17 feet. The existing deck is covered and t= he kitchen extended to the thirty-foot mark with the deck extended to the 17-f= oot mark.

&= nbsp;

Archit= ect Eugene Coleman, Teaneck, NJ, came forward and was sworn and qua= lified as an expert witness.   M= r. Coleman testified that the end of the house to the property line is 29 feet requiring a one-foot variance because a deck may extend 50% of the existing rear yard. The proposed addit= ion includes both a kitchen and laundry room.

&= nbsp;

The re= vised drawing dated March 1, 2006 as provided by Mr. Coleman was marked as Exhibit A-1.

Mr. Ma= son testified that the existing kitchen is very small with no workspace and presently the family has grown to include his wife, two children, sister-in-law, brother and father.

&= nbsp;

As the= re was no further question or comment the board moved, seconded and voted to open = the meeting to the public. Since = no one came forward, the board moved, seconded and voted to close the meeting to t= he public.

&= nbsp;

Mr. Deschler offered a motion to ap= prove Application #06Z-0114. Second= ed by Ms. Orecchio. Mr. Casey, Mr. = Bass, Ms. Orecchio, Mr. Trapani, Ms. Leeman, Mr. Deschler, and Mr. Chiacchiaro vo= ted yes.

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; PAGE EIGHT, ZBOA, APRIL 06, 2006

&nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;            =             &nb= sp;         Mandatory Education

The bo= ard briefly discussed classes available. Most members have completed the mandatory requirements the state initiated recently.

&= nbsp;

The bo= ard moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public. As no one came forward, the board = moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public.

&= nbsp;

Since = there was no further business to come before the board, a motion was offered and seconded to adjourn at 10:35PM.

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;         &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;

        &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp;           &nbs= p;            &= nbsp; Linda Grove, Board Secretary

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;

&= nbsp;