ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 7:35 p.m. by Graham Petto. Mr. Petto read the notice of compliance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act and indicated that appropriate notice was forwarded to the officially designated newspaper of Montclair and posted in the Municipal Building. The schedule of meetings is also posted on the Township website.
ROLL CALL:
Mr. Petto called the roll. Present were Mr. Harrison, Mr. Church, Mr. McCullough, Mr. Simon, Ms. Harris, Mr. Caulfield, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Petto. Mr. Allen, Mr. Fleischer and Mr. Moore were excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
July 17, 2019
A motion to approve the minutes as amended was made by Mr. Church, seconded by Mr. Caulfield and approved unanimously.
August 21, 2019
A motion to approve the minutes as amended was made by Mr. Church, seconded by Mr. Caulfield and approved unanimously with Mr. McCullough, Ms. Harris and Mr. Simon abstaining.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution for App. 2637: 2 Holland Terrace. Jordan & Chloe Geary. Bulk variance relief of the required side and rear yard setback for a new swimming pool in the R-1 One Family Zone.
A motion to approve the resolution as amended was made by Mr. Caulfield, seconded by Mr. Church and approved unanimously with Mr. McCullough, Ms. Harris and Mr. Simon abstaining.
Resolution for App. 2642: 289 Grove Street. Samir Agarwal. Bulk variance of the minimum front yard setback for corner lots in the R-1 One Family Zone.
A motion to approve the resolution as submitted was made by Mr. Church, seconded by Mr. Caulfield and approved unanimously with Mr. Harrison, Mr. McCullough, Ms. Harris and Mr. Simon abstaining.
NEW BUSINESS – RESIDENTIAL
App. 2643: 10 Alexander Avenue. Bruce Bird. Bulk variance of the maximum permitted building width in the R-1 One Family Zone.
The applicant’s son and architect, Jeff Bird was present for the application. Mr. Bird reviewed the proposed addition to the dwelling to add an attached two car garage with a second-floor bedroom. He stated that the design intent was to minimize impact to the existing dwelling, connecting the addition at an existing window with a small hallway between the dwelling and the addition.
The Board asked if the applicant had considered placing the garage addition to the rear of the dwelling. Mr. Bird stated that such an addition would still require variance relief and would necessitate a lengthy driveway across the lot. The Board asked if the proposed garage addition could be turned so that the garage doors are oriented towards the eastern property line. Mr. Bird replied yes but noted that a tight turning radius to enter the garage would be needed. The Board asked if the existing driveway that extends deep in to the rear yard would be removed. Mr. Bird replied yes.
The Board noted that the proposed addition will change the design and character of the house.
Mr. Bird requested that the application be carried to the November 13 meeting to allow for time to consider the Board’s comments. The Board agreed to carry the application and announced that the matter would be carried with no further notice.
App. 2648: 47 Mission Street. 47 Mission Street Trust. Bulk variance of required front and side yard setback and building coverage for additions to two-family dwelling in the R-2 Two Family Zone.
The applicant was represented by Malgorzata Dolgan and Wojciech Lzyminski, the trustee members of 47 Mission Street Trust. Ms. Dolgan reviewed the application for the Board. She reviewed the proposed two-story rear addition in detail, which will include one bedroom for each of the two units in the two-family dwelling. Ms. Dolgan introduced Exhibit A-1, an updated sheet Z1.0 of the submitted plans and Exhibit A-2, an aerial photograph of the subject property and adjacent buildings in the area, noting the depth of adjacent dwellings.
The Board asked about the basement of the dwelling and if it could accommodate space for the units. Ms. Dolgan noted that the height of the basement was only 6 feet and not suitable for habitation. The Board asked if the proposed office space of the second-floor unit could be relocated to the attic level to reduce the depth of the proposed addition at the second level. Ms. Dolgan stated that may be possible.
The Board stated that the applicant should consider additional living space within the attic. Ms. Dolgan stated that dormer additions would be necessary and perhaps even raising the peak of the roof to accommodate additional living space. Ms. Dolgan noted that a front yard setback variance may be required to allow construction of the dormers. The Board stated that such variance relief could be granted if the proposed second floor addition would be reduced to eliminate the second bedroom on that level. Ms. Dolgan agreed.
No questions nor comments from the public were offered.
The Board discussed the requested variance relief of the front and side yard setbacks and maximum building coverage for the principal building. The Board summarized the following conditions of any approval:
-
No portion of the front entry steps to the front porch are to encroach upon the Township right-of-way.
-
The depth of the second-floor addition to the rear of the dwelling, as shown on the submitted plans, shall be reduced in length to extend no further than the wall between bedroom one and bedroom two shown on the second-floor plan.
-
The side yard setback is to be no less than 4 feet from the southern property line and 4.5 feet from the northern property line
-
The height of the dwelling is not to exceed 35 feet in height.
-
All storm water is to be directed to drain on to the subject property.
-
The applicant is to submit a revised plan pursuant to all conditions of this resolution for review.
A motion was made by Mr. Church, seconded by Ms. Harris to approve the application with the conditions as stated. The application was approved with Mr. Harrison, Mr. Church, Mr. McCullough, Ms. Harris, and Mr. Caulfield voting in favor and Mr. Simon voting in opposition.
OLD BUSINESS – NON-RESIDENTIAL
App. 2638: 73 South Fullerton Avenue. St. Luke’s Episcopal Church. Variance relief and site plan approval for installation of new entry door, pedestrian sidewalk and HVAC units in the R-1 One Family Zone.
The applicant was represented by attorney Susan Singer. Ms. Singer introduced the application to the Board and summarized the proposal. Ms. Singer introduced Rev. John Minell of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church. Rev. Minell reviewed the use of the basement level of the church for the Second Time Around shop and the need for an accessible entry to the store from the exterior. He also noted the relocation of the HVAC units to improve entry and the additional units to improve cooling of the church building. Rev. Minell noted that there would be no addition of signage for the shop on the building or site.
Ms. Singer introduced Paul Sionas, architect and professional planner for the applicant. Mr. Sionas introduced and reviewed Exhibit A-1, a series of color slides detailing the proposed improvements to the site. Mr. Sionas reviewed the proposal in detail and noted that the applicant would comply with the comments of the Historic Preservation Commission. He also noted that the applicant would screen the relocated HVAC units and stated that the units could be tested for any sound impact.
The Board asked about the proposed HVAC units and the hours of the Second Time Around shop. Rev. Minell noted that the new HVAC units would serve the shop and noted that the shop is open from 10am to 2pm on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday and open from 10am to 12pm on Saturday. The Board asked about lighting at the new entry door. Mr. Sionas noted that a small light would be mounted beneath the proposed covered roof at the entry.
The Board asked about sound impacts of the proposed HVAC units and if additional measures could be implemented. Mr. Sionas stated that the units can be fitted with sound dampening to aid in reduction of noise. Mr. Sionas also noted that based upon the distance to the adjacent residential properties, sound impact would be minimal and within the ordinance limitations.
No questions nor comments from the public were offered.
The Board discussed the requested variance relief to locate the HVAC units in the front yard and the proposed walkway and entry door improvements. The Board summarized the following conditions of any approval:
-
The applicant shall comply with all state and municipal noise regulations governing daytime and evening hours.
-
At the time of installation, the HVAC units shall be tested while all units are running to confirm compliance with all applicable noise regulations.
-
The applicant shall comply with and satisfy comments 1 through 3 contained in the Montclair Historic Preservation Commission report dated July 25, 2019.
-
The applicant shall be bound by all representations made including those on its behalf by its attorney and witnesses during the course of the public hearing.
-
The applicant shall be responsible for all inspection fees required under Montclair Code Section 202-27 as well as escrow fees incurred in connection with review of this matter.
A motion was made by Mr. Church, seconded by Mr. McCullough to approve the application with the conditions as stated. The application was approved unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS – NON-RESIDENTIAL
App. 2644: 325 Claremont Avenue. Montclair Town Center, LLC. Amended site plan approval and variance relief for free-standing sign and plaque signs in the R-3 Garden Group Zone.
Mr. Petto announced that the applicant has requested to carry this matter to the October 16, 2019 meeting of the Board.
OLD BUSINESS – MULTIFAMILY
App. 2639: 360 Orange Road. DH Development, LLC. Use variance and site plan approval for construction of two new two-family dwellings on one lot in the R-1 One Family Zone.
The applicant was represented by David Owen, attorney for the applicant. Mr. Owen reviewed the application for the Board and summarized the previous testimony. He noted that the applicant seeks to construct two two-family dwellings on the lot. Mr. Owen introduced David Beesley, engineer for the applicant. Mr. Beesley reviewed the proposed plans for the site in detail for the Board. He reviewed the two stormwater management systems, the tree plan and the site distance for vehicles exiting the site. He also reviewed the trash and recycling enclosure. Mr. Beesley reviewed the memorandum submitted by the Board’s Engineer as well.
The Board asked about access to the rear building on the site and for clarification. The Board also asked about the refuse collection for the units. Mr. Beesley stated that cans would be located at each unit, like single-family dwellings. The Board asked if additional green space can be provided for the rear building by converting parking space number five on the plans to a landscaped area. Mr. Beesley stated that this was possible. The Board asked for clarification of the connections of the storm water system to the retention storage system.
The Board asked for details on the lighting plan for the site. Mr. Beesley reviewed the lighting proposed for the site. The Board asked if an accessible parking space would be provided. Mr. Beesley replied yes, stating a space could be provided. Mr. Beesley also noted anticipated compliance with the Township tree ordinance.
No questions nor comments from the public were offered.
Mr. Owen introduced Joseph Staiger, traffic engineer for the applicant. Mr. Staiger reviewed the traffic study for the application. He noted that the development would result in just one or two vehicle trips per hour generated by the site. He stated that the site distance is more than adequate to exit the property and noted that the applicant would require approval from the County Planning Board.
The Board did not have any questions nor comments of Mr. Staiger.
No questions nor comments from the public were offered.
Mr. Owen introduced Peter Steck, professional planner for the applicant. Mr. Steck submitted exhibit A-3, a three-page planning report with photographs of the property and adjacent areas. Mr. Steck reviewed the report in detail for the Board. Mr. Steck also reviewed the variance relief being sought by the applicant in detail for the Board.
The Board asked about the properties to the rear of the subject property with frontage along Pleasant Avenue, noting that they are similar in depth or even deeper than the subject property and could justify the same level of development based upon similar size. Mr. Steck stated that the situation of the subject property is different with the supportive housing and the garden apartment complex on either side of the subject property. He stated that a variance gives the Board control over the proposed use of the site to ensure development that is limited. The Board asked for a review of densities in the area for the adjacent developments. Mr. Steck reviewed in detail. Mr. Owen submitted Exhibit A-7 a transcript of the approval for the supportive housing development.
The Board announced that the application would be continued at the October 16, 2019 meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion to adjourn was offered by Mr. Church, seconded by Mr. Caulfield. The meeting was adjourned at 11:35 pm.