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. Allen, Mr. Church, Mr. McCullough, Mr. Simon, Ms. Harris, Mr. Caulfield, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Petto. Mr. Fleischer and Mr. Moore were excused.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
October 16, 2019
A motion to approve the minutes as amended was made and seconded. The minutes were approved unanimously with Mr. Church and Mr. Simon abstaining.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution for 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. Harrison recused himself from consideration of the resolution.
A motion was made to approve the resolution as amended by Mr. Church, seconded by Ms. Harris. The resolution was approved unanimously with Mr. Harrison and Mr. Allen abstaining.
OLD BUSINESS – (ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
App. 2643: 10 Alexander Avenue. Bruce Bird. Bulk variance of the maximum permitted building width in the R-1 One Family Zone.
Mr. Petto announced that the applicant has requested that the application be carried to the December 18 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. 2646: 11 Oxford Street. Mengjie Li. Bulk variance of number of stories for addition to two-family dwelling in the R-2 Two-Family Zone.
Present for the application was the applicant Mengjie Li and Austin Song and the architect for the applicant John Monchak.
Mr. Monchak introduced Exhibit A-4, a revised rendering of the proposed dwelling. Mr. Monchak reviewed the revisions to the plans since the prior appearance before the Board. He noted that the new addition to the eastern side of the dwelling has been moved rearward and that the dormer at the third level has been modified. He also noted that the façade has been revised to respond to the comments of the Historic Preservation Commission.
The Board asked questions of the applicant.
The Board asked if the proposed roof deck would be accessible from the upper unit master bedroom only and if the decking was sloped for drainage. Mr. Monchak replied yes and noted the slopes shown on the roof plan.
The Board asked for a review of the shift of the new addition rearward. Mr. Monchak reviewed in detail.
The Board asked if the applicant would comply with the comments of the HPC regarding the historic window sills and the use of wood for the front porch railings. Mr. Monchak replied yes.
Questions and comments from the public were then accepted.
Kathleen Bennett, 10 Glenwood Road, addressed the Board and applicant as a representative of the Historic Preservation Commission. Ms. Bennett commended the revisions by the applicant. She asked if the window configuration had changed since the original submission. Mr. Monchak replied yes. Ms. Bennett asked about the windows on the third floor at the new bedroom level. Mr. Monchak reviewed the proposed windows.
The Board discussed the application and was generally in favor of the application given the revisions per the previous discussion. The Board noted that the situation of the existing dwelling limited options for additions. The Board noted that the proposed plan would not impair the zone plan nor be a detriment to the public. The Board noted that any condition of approval should include conditions 7 and 8 from the memorandum provided by the Historic Preservation Commission.
A motion was made by Mr. Simon, seconded by Mr. Church to approve the application with the conditions as stated. The motion was approved unanimously.
App. 2647: 48 Label Street. John Florek. Bulk variance for front, side and rear yard setback for additions to single-family dwelling in the R-2 Two-Family Zone.
Present for the application was the applicant, John Florek, and attorney for the applicant Alan Trembulak.
Mr. Trembulak introduced the application to the Board. He noted that the subject property is a very small lot and is only 24 feet in width and 1,600 sq. ft. in size. He stated that the applicant is proposing to construct a new second floor and attic level in alignment with the existing dwelling on the subject property.
Mr. Florek was introduced by Mr. Trembulak to testify. Mr. Florek stated that he owns the property and has prepared the submitted plans for the additions to the dwelling. He noted that he is seeking to make the existing dwelling more livable, as the existing second floor has very low ceilings and is difficult to use. He stated that the resulting dwelling would be about 2,000 sq. ft. in size.
The Board asked questions of the applicant.
The Board referred to the memorandum submitted by the Historic Preservation Commission on the application and asked if a window could be incorporated at the second floor over the entry door on the façade. Mr. Florek referred to the plans and noted that there is a closet in this area on the interior and a window would be difficult to install at this location. Mr. Florek stated that he would work with the HPC on all submitted comments should the application be approved.
The Board asked about the use of the third level of the dwelling. Mr. Florek reviewed the plans for the third level for the Board.
The Board asked about the basement level of the existing dwelling. Mr. Florek stated that the current basement level of the dwelling is constructed of a cement foundation and contains a full bathroom and laundry room.
Mr. Florek reviewed the configuration of the second floor, which will contain bedrooms, and the third-floor bedroom with access to the rear deck, for the board. Mr. Florek also noted the location of the HVAC system and outdoor condensing units at the new dwelling.
The Board asked for clarification from Mr. Petto regarding the HPC comment with respect to the eaves. Mr. Petto noted that the HPC requested that the dormer eave projection be like the eaves of the main roof.
Questions and comments from members of the public were then accepted.
Kathleen Bennett, 10 Glenwood Road, addressed the Board and applicant as a representative of the Historic Preservation Commission. Ms. Bennett reviewed the comments of the Commission for the Board and requested that the conditions presented by the Commission be considered.
Priscilla Eshelman, 50 Label Street, address the applicant and the Board. Ms. Eshelman asked about the potential noise level of the proposed units. Mr. Florek stated that he did not presently have them but stated they could be provided.
Ms. Eshelman introduced Exhibit O-1, a series of images and renderings of the potential impact of the proposed dwelling on her property for the Board to review. Ms. Eshelman reviewed the exhibit in detail for the Board. She noted the improvements that have been completed to her dwelling and the impact that the proposed dwelling additions of the subject property would have upon her home. She expressed concern regarding the proposal and the impact of noise from the HVAC units.
Mr. Trembulak stated that the applicant recognizes the concerns of Ms. Eshelman. He noted that the applicant is seeking to renovate and improve the existing dwelling on the subject property. He stated that the applicant will consider reducing the third-floor addition to improve conformance with the zoning requirements. He also stated that the applicant can relocate the HVAC units away from the shared property line with Ms. Eshelman.
The Board discussed the application.
The Board recognized the hardship presented by the applicant due to the very small lot. The Board noted that the lot is 24 feet in width and 70 feet in depth. The Board also discussed the comments of the Historic Preservation Commission and held varying opinions on the design of the dwelling regarding the Commission’s comments. Some members support the requested design changes and others believed the design was acceptable as presented. The Board also expressed concerns regarding the proposed dormer additions which would constitute a third story under the ordinance.
Mr. Trembulak requested that the application be carried to the December 18, 2019 meeting of the Board to allow for time to revise the plans in response to the Board’s comments. The Board also requested that the applicant return to the HPC to review the revised plans again. The Board announced that the application would be carried to the December 18 meeting with no further notice.
NEW BUSINESS – (MULTIFAMILY & COMMERCIAL)
App. 2641: 117 Valley Road. 117 Valley Road, LLC. Use variance and site plan for three townhomes in the R-2 Two Family Zone.
Present for the applicant was attorney Steven Azzolini. Mr. Azzolini reviewed the previous testimony on the application before the Board. He noted that the existing rooming house had been damaged by a fire and the applicant is seeking to construct three new townhouse units at the property. Mr. Azzolini noted that two modifications had been made to the plans in response to previous testimony: the shed has been moved to comply with the rear and side yard setbacks and the townhouse building has been shifted to be parallel with Valley Road.
Mr. Azzolini introduced architect for the applicant Perry Chevestick to review the revised plans for the Walnut Street façade of the townhouse building.
The Board asked about the proposed entry door on the Walnut Street façade. Mr. Chevestick stated that the door entered the end unit garage. The Board asked if the windows on the northern façade could be aligned on center. Mr. Chevestick replied yes.
The Board asked if the applicant would comply with conditions 2 through 6 of the Historic Preservation Commission’s memoranda on the application. Mr. Chevestick replied yes.
Mr. Azzolini then introduced Bradley Neumann, landscape architect for the applicant. Mr. Neumann submitted Exhibit A-4, a colored landscape plan for the site. He reviewed the plan in detail for the Board and noted that the applicant would replace the tree to be removed on site. He stated that the replacement tree would be a willow oak tree. He noted that the magnolia trees along the Valley Road side of the dwelling would be about 5 to 7 feet in height. Mr. Neumann introduced Exhibit A-5, a photo of a magnolia tree, and Exhibit A-6, a photo of a willow oak tree.
The Board asked about if the proposed trees would drop their leaves. Mr. Neumann replied yes. The Board asked if the willow oak was best suited as the replacement tree. Mr. Neumann replied yes, noting that they have proven resilient in other instances. The Board asked about maintenance of the proposed landscaping. Mr. Neumann stated that the area was small and could be easily maintained.
Mr. Azzolini then introduced David Karlebach, professional planner for the applicant. Mr. Karlebach submitted Exhibit A-7 to the Board; a planning analysis document. Mr. Karlebach reviewed the analysis in detail for the Board, noting the situation of the property in the R-2 zone and the variance relief sought by the applicant. Mr. Karlebach cited the Land Use and Circulation Element of the Township Master Plan and noted the proposed housing type the application would provide. He stated that the proposed development of three townhouse units is an improvement over the prior 11-room rooming house on the property.
The Board questioned Mr. Karlebach. The Board asked about adjacent buildings on Walnut Street and in the immediate area in the same zone. Mr. Karlebach noted that many seem to be two- or maybe three-family dwellings. He noted that the adjacent dwelling appears to be vacant at this time. The Board asked about the comment from the Historic Preservation Commission recommending a three-family dwelling rather than a townhouse development. Mr. Karlebach stated that the proposed townhouse development has less coverage than the previous dwelling and stated that townhomes are an underrepresented housing type in the township.
Questions and comments from the public were then accepted.
Kathleen Bennett, 10 Glenwood Road, addressed the Board and applicant as a representative of the Historic Preservation Commission. Ms. Bennett stated that the Commission finds that the townhouses are not consistent with the neighborhood and noted that the objectives of the applicant could be met through design of a three-family dwelling.
Mr. Azzolini summarized the application and the variance relief sought by the applicant.
The Board discussed the application.
The Board was divided in their consideration of the application. Some Board members believed the proposed townhomes would serve as a transition between the R-2 zone and the adjacent N-C Neighborhood Commercial Zone. These members found the design to be appropriate for the site, with primary frontage along Valley Road.
Other Board members found the proposed townhomes to be inconsistent with the existing residential development in the area and expressed concern that other properties in the area with frontage along Valley Road may seek to construct similar developments. These members noted that the lot size of the subject property was consistent with many other lots in the immediate area in the same zone district.
The Board summarized the conditions, should an approval be made, as follows:
- The applicant shall comply with and satisfy comments 2 through 8 contained in the report of the Historic Preservation Commission dated August 22, 2019.
- The applicant shall comply with and satisfy comments 1 through 12 contained in the October 15, 2019 report issued by Joseph R. Vuich, PE, PP, CME, Board Engineer.With respect to comment 12, the existing 21-inch dogwood shall be replaced with a willow oak and the four-star magnolias shall be replaced by four sweetbay magnolias.
- The building shall be realigned so that it is parallel to Valley Road consistent with the stipulation by the applicant at the public hearing.
- The fence height shall comply with the ordinance.
- The shed shall be relocated to provide a minimum 6-foot setback from the side and rear yards as stipulated by the applicant at the public hearing.
- The applicant shall be bound by all representations made on its behalf by its attorney and professionals during the course of the public hearings.
- 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. Allen, seconded by Mr. Simon to approve the application with the conditions as stated. The motion was approved with Mr. McCullough, Mr. Allen, Mr. Simon, Ms. Harris and Mr. Caulfield voting in favor. Mr. Harrison and Mr. Church voted in opposition.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion to adjourn was offered by Mr. Church, seconded by Mr. Caulfield. The meeting was adjourned at 10:45 pm.