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. Fleischer, Mr. Allen, Mr. Church, Mr. McCullough, Mr. Simon, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Petto. Mr. Allen, Ms. Harris and Mr. Caulfield were excused.
RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution for 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.
A motion was made to approve the resolution as submitted by Mr. Church, seconded by Mr. McCullough. The resolution was approved unanimously with Mr. Fleischer and Mr. Moore abstaining.
App. 2641: 117 Valley Road. 117 Valley Road, LLC. Use variance and site plan for three townhomes in the R-2 Two Family Zone.
A motion was made to approve the resolution as amended by Mr. McCullough, seconded by Mr. Simon. The resolution was approved unanimously with Mr. Fleischer and Mr. Moore abstaining.
NEW BUSINESS – (ONE- AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL)
App. 2649: 14 College Avenue. Ki S Lee. Bulk variance of rear yard setback for deck addition in the R-1 One Family Zone.
Present for the application was the applicant Ki S Lee.
Mr. Lee reviewed the proposed deck addition application for the Board. He noted that he was seeking to construct a new deck that would extend 11 feet from the rear of the dwelling. He stated that the proposed rear yard setback would be 22.7 feet where 25 feet is required. He also noted that the building coverage would require a variance with the deck addition as well.
Questions from the Board were then offered.
The Board asked if a 9-foot deck would be enough, as it would not require a variance. Mr. Lee stated that the proposed 11-foot deck is already small and reducing the size further would limit use of the deck. The Board asked if the deck would be enclosed. Mr. Lee stated that it would only have a roof. Mr. Lee noted that other homes in the area have similar decks. The Board asked about the change in building coverage from existing to proposed. Mr. Lee noted that the deck addition is 240 sq. ft. and stated that the existing coverage is about 23.6% of the lot.
No questions nor comments from the public were offered.
The Board discussed the application and noted that the lot is not overly deep, leading to a limited rear yard. The Board noted that the existing dwelling has a setback of 25 feet, and that the rear lot line is on an angle. The Board stated that a 10-foot deck addition would provide enough space and minimize the impact on the zone plan.
A motion was made by Mr. Fleischer, seconded by Mr. Moore to approve the application subject to a 10-foot extension of the deck only. The application was approved unanimously.
App. 2652: 334 North Mountain Avenue. Amanda & Paul Spagnoletti. Bulk variance of maximum building width for new dwelling in the R-1 One Family Zone.
Present for the application was attorney David Owen, the applicant Amanda Spagnoletti and architect for the applicant Paul Sionas.
Mr. Owen introduced the application to the Board for construction of a new dwelling. He stated that the applicant is seeking a variance of the maximum building width for a porte-cochere addition. Mr. Owen introduced the applicant to testify.
Ms. Spagnoletti addressed the Board. She stated that she and her husband had been seeking to purchase a home along Anderson Park and are currently residents of Montclair. She stated they are planning to stay in the Township and build this home for their family’s needs. She stated that the proposed porte-cochere would provide cover at the side entry to the dwelling where the proposed mudroom is located.
Mr. Owen then introduced Paul Sionas to review the plans for the dwelling to the Board. Mr. Sionas submitted Exhibit A-1, a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed dwelling. He reviewed the plans in detail for the Board, noting the proposed new dwelling, rear yard pool, pool house and detached garage.
Questions from the Board were then accepted.
The Board asked if a stormwater plan would be prepared. Mr. Sionas stated that while the area is not identified as steep slopes, a stormwater plan was being prepared by an engineer. The Board asked if the applicant would consider a condition that limited enclosure of the porte-cochere in the future. Mr. Sionas replied yes.
The Board asked if the applicant had considered a cantilevered roof without structure support posts to the ground, which would be permitted by right. Mr. Sionas stated that the presented solution was the preference of the applicant. The Board asked if the proposed dwelling could have been designed differently on the lot so that the proposed porte-cochere would fit within the maximum building width requirement. Mr. Sionas stated that the proposed dwelling was designed to meet the family’s needs and could not be further reduced in width.
The Board asked about the proposed retaining walls and if they conformed to the height requirements. Mr. Sionas replied yes. The Board asked about the accessory buildings in the rear yard and if they complied with the coverage requirements. Mr. Sionas replied yes. The Board asked about the proposed circular driveway and if the applicant would comply with the no parking requirement in front yards. Mr. Sionas replied yes. The Board asked if the front and rear yard requirements were met for the new dwelling. Mr. Sionas reviewed the calculated front yard requirement and noted compliance. He also noted compliance with the rear yard.
No questions nor comments were offered by the public.
Mr. Owen summarized the application for the Board. He noted that the applicant is seeking on the relief of the maximum building width and noted that the proposed porte-cochere would be open and not a solid wall addition. He stated that the porte-cochere also complies with the required side yard setback.
Final comments from the Board were then offered.
The Board discussed the application. The Board members commended the design of the new dwelling and believed it was a benefit to the neighborhood. However, some members felt that the exceedance of the maximum building width for the porte-cochere could not be justified by the design. These members also believed that, as the existing dwelling was to be demolished, the applicant was starting with an empty lot to which their design objectives could be met in compliance with the zone requirements. Other members believed that the proposed dwelling with the porte-cochere addition was appropriate in the context of the neighborhood with other dwellings.
A motion was made by Mr. Fleischer, seconded by Mr. Simon to deny the application. The motion failed with Mr. Harrison, Mr. Fleischer and Mr. Simon voting in favor and Mr. Church, Mr. McCullough and Mr. Moore voting in opposition.
A motion was made by Mr. Moore, seconded by Mr. Church to approve the application with a condition that the porte-cochere not be enclosed and that access to the roof of the porte-cochere be limited. The motion failed with Mr. Church, Mr. McCullough and Mr. Moore voting in favor and Mr. Harrison, Mr. Fleischer and Mr. Simon voting in opposition.
The application was denied.
App. 2657: 10 Washington Street. Malgorzata Dolgan. Bulk variance in R-2 Two Family Zone.
Present for the applicant was attorney Alan Trembulak and the applicant Malgorzata Dolgan.
Mr. Trembulak introduced the application to the Board noting that the applicant is seeking to construct an addition and renovate the subject property. He introduced Ms. Dolgan to review the plans for the Board.
Ms. Dolgan reviewed the proposed renovations and addition to the dwelling. She noted that the proposed two-family dwelling would contain one unit on the first floor and one unit on the second floor. She stated that each unit would have two bedrooms and a new kitchen, dining and living area. She also noted that a new entry porch would be constructed on the front façade. Ms. Dolgan also reviewed the variances sought with the application.
The Board asked questions of the applicant. The Board asked about the size of the units. Ms. Dolgan noted that each unit would be 1,200 sq. ft. in size. The Board asked about the front porch and if it would be covered. Ms. Dolgan replied yes. The Board asked if a window could be incorporated on the front façade at the second floor over the entry door. Ms. Dolgan replied yes.
The Board noted that there are other two and multi-family dwellings in the area and that the property is in the R-2 Two Family zone.
The Board noted the front porch addition and noted it should project no closer to the front property line that the adjacent dwelling at 12 Washington Street. Ms. Dolgan agreed.
No questions nor comments from the public were offered.
Mr. Trembulak summarized the application and the variance relief being sought for the Board.
The Board discussed the application. The Board members stated that the rehabilitation of the dwelling would be a benefit to the area. The Board noted that the proposed addition was in alignment with the existing dwelling. The Board expressed some concern regarding the proposed porch and believed aligning the porch with the adjacent dwelling at 12 Washington Street would protect the front yard area. The Board noted that the proposed additions will also maintain the dwelling as a two-family which is consistent with the zone.
A motion was made to approve the application by Mr. Fleischer, seconded by Mr. McCullough to approve the application with a condition that the proposed porch be no closer to the front property line than the adjacent porch at 12 Washington Street. The motion was approved unanimously.
App. 2658: 81 Mission Street. Malgorzata Dolgan. Bulk variance in R-2 Two Family Zone.
Present for the applicant was attorney Alan Trembulak and the applicant Malgorzata Dolgan.
Mr. Trembulak introduced the application to the Board noting that the subject property is currently vacant, and that the applicant is seeking to construct a new dwelling on the property. He noted that the existing lot is undersized for the zone and needs relief to be built upon. He noted that his applicant is aware of the residential development fee that would be required for development of the new dwelling. He introduced Ms. Dolgan to review the plans for the Board.
Ms. Dolgan reviewed the plans for the new two-family dwelling. She stated that the lot was purchased in its current condition and the previous dwelling was removed by the bank that owned the property. She noted that the proposed dwelling would contain one unit on the first floor and one on the second floor. She stated that each unit would have two bedrooms and a den along with a bathroom and kitchen, dining and living areas. She reviewed the variance relief being sought under the application for front and side yard setbacks and lot width.
Questions from the Board were then accepted.
The Board asked if the dwelling could be reduced in width by one foot to eliminate the requested side yard setback variance. Ms. Dolgan stated that a reduction of the width may be possible, but it could impact the interior layout of the dwelling. The Board noted that the lot is very deep, and the proposed dwelling could be extended rearward to accommodate the reduction.
No questions nor comments were offered on the application.
The Board discussed the application. The Board noted that the lot is an existing lot and previously had a dwelling constructed upon it. The Board stated that the new dwelling would be an improvement over the existing vacant lot condition. The Board stated that the side yard setback variance could be eliminated with a modification to the plan. The Board also noted that the front yard setback would align the dwelling with adjacent dwellings on the block.
A motion was made by Mr. Fleischer, seconded Mr. Moore to approve the application with a condition that the applicant comply with the required residential development fee. The application was approved unanimously.
NEW BUSINESS – (MULTIFAMILY & COMMERCIAL)
App. 2654: 15 Oxford Street. Frank Amabile. Certification of non-conforming use for a three-family dwelling in the R-2 Two Family zone.
Present for the application was attorney for the applicant Michael Piromalli. Mr. Piromalli summarized the application for the Board discussing the history of the dwelling. He stated that the dwelling was converted to a three-family dwelling in the early 1960s, but noted that there is no record of approval by the Township for the conversion. Mr. Piromalli stated that the zoning was R-2 two family before and after the conversion date. He stated that the applicant is seeking certification that the dwelling is a three-family.
Mr. Sullivan stated that the jurisdiction of the Board of Adjustment is not be appropriate for the requested certification. He stated that the applicant could file a use variance to the Board seeking relief to permit a three-family dwelling.
Mr. Piromalli stated that the applicant is working to exhaust administrative options before proceeding to recognize the dwelling as a legal three-family.
Comments on the application were accepted.
Ms. Adrienne Vento, 7 Park Avenue, Englishtown, NJ, stated that she used to reside in the subject property and stated that there were always tenants in the third floor of the building.
The Board discussed the application and noted that the information has been reviewed in detail and the zoning before and after the stated conversion date was R-2 Two Family.
A motion was made by Mr. Harrison, seconded by Mr. Church to deny the certification. The motion was approved unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT
A motion to adjourn was offered by Mr. Church, seconded by Mr. Caulfield. The meeting was adjourned at 10:20 pm.