Borough of Little Silver
480 Prospect Avenue, Little Silver, NJ 07739
732-842-2400 phone 732-219-0581 fax

Council Administration Planning-Zoning Committees Police Fire Dept - EMS Recreation Library Court
Home
Mayor's Message
Borough Directory
Borough Calendar
Pay Taxes Online
Recycling - Garbage Info
Borough Newsletter
Public Records
Bid Notices - RFPs
Forms
Recreation
Business & Professional Association
Schools
Community

May 1, 2007

LITTLE SILVER PLANNING BOARD
BOROUGH OF LITTLE SILVER
480 PROSPECT AVENUE
LITTLE SILVER, NEW JERSEY  07739
(732) 842-2400


Tuesday, May 1, 2007                                    7 P.M.
Regular Meeting - Planning Board

The Regular Meeting was called to order at 7 P.M. by Chairman Jacobi who gave the following Statement of Compliance:  Adequate notice of this meeting has been provided by giving of annual notice to the Asbury Park Press and Two River Times and by filing of such notice with the Clerk of the Borough of Little Silver and by prominently posting said notice on the Borough bulletin board.

Roll Call:    Present:        Mayor Castleman, Chairman Jacobi, Mr. Olimpi, Mr. Lindsey,
Mr. Scott, Mr. Drawbaugh, Mr. Nuara, Mr. Neff, Mrs. Montella, Attorney Leckstein and Borough Engineer, Mr. Blash

Absent:         Councilman DeNoia and *Mr. Chimento
        *Mr. Chimento arrived after Roll Call was complete

Correspondence:  April 30, 2007 letter from Attorney Meese advising that the applicant is negotiating with the lumber yard for placement on the existing cell tower and requesting that the current application be carried to June 19th with new notice.  Notice for DEP Permit regarding 50 Rivers Edge Drive; copy of Appellate Brief regarding the Costello matter; report from the County Health Commission, the Little Silver Fire Marshal and Environmental Commission regarding Carriage Park at Little Silver; copies of Purchase Orders.

Mr. Scott Moved to carry the Sprint Application to June 19, 2007 as requested.  Seconded by
Mr. Olimpi and a unanimous voice vote followed.

Approval of Minutes:  Mayor Castleman Moved to approve the April 17, 2007 Minutes.  Seconded by Mr. Lindsey and a unanimous voice vote followed except for an abstention due to absence by Mr. Drawbaugh.

Discussion – State’s Heating and Cooling, Shrewsbury, New Jersey:

Attorney Leckstein explained that State’s Heating and Cooling is located in Shrewsbury and has an application pending to expand their building as well as to use the road right-of-way for truck access.  At the behest of Shrewsbury’s Board, the applicant is questioning whether this Board has any interest in the application.  He advised the Board had he had reviewed the application and found that it has no impact on the Borough of Little Silver.  Discussion followed with it being determined that as long as there is no impact to the Borough, the Board had no interest in the application.  Mr. Drawbaugh Moved that Attorney Leckstein correspond with the applicant and advise of the Board’s determination.  Seconded by Mr. Scott.  There was no further Board or public discussion and a unanimous voice vote followed.

Application of Michael and Kimberly Schmanske, 8 Market Street, Red Bank, New Jersey to demolish the existing structures and construct an approximately 78’ by 98’ two story home with second floor balconies and a 3 car garage on  the  property  at 99 Rivers Edge Drive, Block 81, Lot 8, in the R-2 Zone which violates the minimum required improved road frontage for a corner lot of 150 feet on each road where 233.21 feet is existing on Rivers Edge Drive and 118.49 feet is existing on North Rivers Edge Drive and the maximum allowable building height of 30 feet and 2 ½ stories where *34 feet is proposed.  *Note:  A chimney larger than 2’ by 2’ in size is included in the height measurement:

George McGill, Esquire appeared on behalf of the applicant.

Attorney Leckstein stated that his review of service found it in order and the Board to have jurisdiction.

Kim Schmanske  and Christopher Rice, Architect, were sworn in. 

Mr. McGill stated that the property in question is located at the intersection of Rivers Edge and North Rivers Edge Drive and the variance sought is for a corner lot which requires 150 feet of frontage for each front where 118.49 feet and 232 feet is existing.  The proposal is to demolish the existing home and build a new home.

Mrs. Schmanske testified that she and her husband have owned the property for 2 ½ years, however, they are not living in it at present.  They hope for this to be their principal residence to be shared with their two children.  They wanted a small town to raise their children in.  The existing home is a single family, one story structure built in the early 1960’s and is an eyesore, in disrepair.  They propose to demolish it and rebuild.  On North Rivers Edge Drive there is a home located next door; from the proposal there is a yard, the neighbors driveway and then the home a good distance away.  On Rivers Edge Drive there is the existing side yard, the neighbors driveway and their home.  Mr. McGill pointed out that it is about 165 feet away as existing.  Mrs. Schmanske stated that she is familiar with the architectural plans as well as the landscape plan which is a minimum of what is proposed as well as that she is flexible as to plantings.

When questioned by Mr. Drawbaugh, Mrs. Schmanske explained that they currently reside in Middletown with a Red Bank mailing address and have been there two years. 

Mr. Drawbaugh noted the distance from the west side of the new home to be 15 feet to the property line, and questioned the distance to the north?  Mr. Rice responded that to the north it was almost 100 feet.  He pointed out that on the west there is the driveway, a garage and then the structure on the neighbors’ lot.  From the proposed home to the property line is 15.4 feet and from the property line to the neighbors garage 40 feet and about 65 feet to the structure.

Chairman Jacobi called for questions from the public.

Susan Mazzacco, 10 North Rivers Edge Drive, was sworn in.  She explained to the Board that she is located to the west of the proposal.  Her son, Jamie Mazzacco was also sworn in.  When questioned by Mr. Mazzacco, Mr. Rice again noted that the proposed home would be about 40 feet to the Mazzacco garage and 65 feet to their structure.  When questioned by Mrs. Mazzacco, Mr. Rice stated that the existing home is almost 50 feet to the property line.

David Laurance, 16 North Rivers Edge Drive, was sworn in.  He explained that he is two doors to the west and questioned the height of the proposed dwelling?  Mr. Rice responded that 30 feet and 2½ stories was allowed and that 30 feet and two stories was proposed.  The comment regarding the 2 by 2 foot chimney can be disregarded as the applicants will conform to the Ordinance.  In fact, the entire home is conforming; the applicant is present for a frontage variance, a feature of the lot which can’t be controlled.  On one road the frontage is short and on the other it is exceeded.

Mr. Laurance questioned the zoning for a corner lot?  Attorney Leckstein explained that generally a corner lot has two fronts and two sides; the Ordinance calls for a side to a side, the lot line mirrors that of the property next to it.  Mr. Rice pointed out that although 15 feet is required for each of the side yards, the applicant provides 15.4 feet and 63 feet.

Mayor Castleman questioned where the second floor balconies were located?  Mr. Rice responded that there are two small balconies located on the side elevation.  They are only big enough for a chair or two and within the footprint of the home.  Mrs. Schmanske added that the balconies face the home across the street.

When questioned by Attorney Leckstein, Mr. Rice advised that the proposed square footage was approximately 7,000 square feet, including the garage.  Attorney Leckstein questioned whether there were any other homes as large in the neighborhood?  Mrs. Schmanske responded that there was one on Carriage House Lane, a very old home.  Attorney Leckstein questioned whether there were any new homes this large to which Mrs. Schmanske responded, on the corner of Silverside Avenue and Seven Bridges Road.

When questioned further by Mr. Drawbaugh, Mr. Rice explained that there is 3,200 square feet of habitable space on the first floor and 3,900 square feet on the second floor.  Mrs. Schmanske added that the difference between the two is the rec room above the garage.

Mr. Schmanske was then sworn in.  He explained that the second floor is larger because of the living area above the garage; the garage is about 550 square feet and some of the first floor steps in. 

When questioned further by Board Members, Mrs. Schmanske stated that the existing home is about 2,400 square feet.  Attorney McGill pointed out that the structure meets the zoning requirements.  Attorney Leckstein responded that this is an exceptionally large house for Little Silver.  Mr. Rice pointed out that approximately 17% building coverage is proposed, under the 18% maximum allowed.  Attorney Leckstein stated that the proposal is nearly at the maximum and that with any amenity such as a swimming pool for example, a variance would be required on this non-conforming lot.  Attorney McGill responded that the lot is not undersized for the Zone and the house by its size doesn’t violate the regulations.  This may be the largest home for now, however as the neighborhood changes, there will be larger homes.  This plan is how the Schmanskes utilized the property, they did not want a pool and that issue would be for a subsequent homeowner.

Chairman Jacobi called for questions from the Board.

Mr. Olimpi stated that he is concerned with the size and mass of the proposal; he feels it is way too big.  He questioned the size of the surrounding lots and structures?  Mr. Rice responded that the homes probably have a 3,000 square foot footprint and if a second story were added would be 6,000 to 7,000 square feet.  The proposal is 7,000 square feet plus the garage.  The setback from the neighbor to the west is a little over 15 feet and on the other side, 63 feet.  Mr. Olimpi questioned the elevation in the rear, the neighbor to the west, what would be seen?  Mr. Rice stated that the westerly neighbor would see a one story room at the 15 foot line and then in another 10 feet, a porch and the house at the highest point of 30 feet.  The main roof pitches away and there is less than 20 feet at the 15 foot line and then the highest point back another 10 feet.

Mayor Castleman questioned whether the proposal could be cut down as it is enormous for this area?  Mr. Rice stated that no basement is proposed due to the high water table and that all of the living space and the garage is on the first and second floors.  He had not prepared an alternative plan as the only variance is for the existing lot frontage.

Mr. Drawbaugh questioned the drainage plan to which the Secretary responded that the plan was approved by the Borough Engineer.  She explained that as a matter of procedure, any ground disturbance over 200 square feet requires a grading plan.  If there are any comments regarding a grading plan, it would be a bolded item on the Agenda.

When questioned by Mrs. Montella, Mr. Rice confirmed that all of the porches were included in the lot coverage calculations.

Chairman Jacobi called for public testimony.

Mrs. Mazzacco stated that she has lived in the Borough 43 years and the 15 foot side yard will choke her; it is an infringement on her property.  She suggested that the house be pushed back.  She is upset with the size of the house as well and concerned for her property value as well as its curb appeal.  The proposal is way too big for the property and for the neighborhood.  Most of the homes are 2,500 to 3,000 square feet in size except for one that has recently been redone, however, it is not this big.

Nancy Lewis, 716 North Rivers Edge Drive was sworn in and noted that she and Mr. Laurance who had been previously sworn in agreed with Mrs. Mazzacco.  They, Ms. Lewis and Mr. Laurance, remodeled to 2,700 square feet, within one story although they had considered two stories but felt that it would not be in keeping with the neighborhood.  Mr. Lawrence added that there are neighbors with a second story on only part of their structure.  This proposal is massive.  It is true that the existing home is an eyesore, however, it has been neglected in the last two years, it was previously meticulously maintained.

Ed Card, 7 North Rivers Edge Drive, was sworn in.  He explained that he is located diagonally across from the proposal.  He has been in Little Silver since 1990 and lives in a one story, 1,900 square foot home.  He added a second floor in 2001 bringing the total square footage of his home to 3,000 square feet.  The homes in the neighborhood are nowhere near the size of this proposal which he felt to be out of scale for the neighborhood.

When questioned by Attorney Leckstein as to the number of bedrooms, Mrs. Schmanske replied that there would be five bedrooms and one additional room over the garage.

Mrs. Schmanske then explained to the Board that there are family reasons which brought about the design of the home.  It was not their intention to build a 7,000 square foot house, it was more the type of rooms and their use that created the home.  They have two children with intensive special needs that require open spaces, there are therapists who come into the home to work with her and the children and also the bathrooms are not the typical size for a child, they are much larger.  The home was designed accordingly.  They are already isolated as their children are so different and they did not have any intention of isolating themselves further; they did not want to overtake the neighborhood.  They have been living in a 3,200 square foot home longer than they had intended.

Attorney Leckstein suggested that they may want to discuss with their architect the possibility of cutting down the proposal.

Mr. Rice stated that he didn’t understand the reasoning as the structure conforms.  Attorney Leckstein responded that the reason is that a denial is possible and it would give the applicants an opportunity to save the application and make a better house for the neighborhood.  Mr. Rice commented that he didn’t realize that the home should be designed for the neighbors and pointed out that the lot line is existing and wasn’t created.  Attorney McGill began to argue the point and Attorney Leckstein stated that this is a practical matter, not a legal argument, to see if something can be done.

Mrs. Schmanske questioned, so that she was clear in her understanding, while the variance is for the existing frontage, the application may not be approved if it is not smaller?  Attorney Leckstein responded that he didn’t know.  Chairman Jacobi stated that the applicants were not required to make changes.  Attorney Leckstein pointed out that there is positive and negative criteria to granting a variance. 

Attorney McGill asked for time to speak with the applicants.  The Board granted the request and moved on to the next application.

Application of John and Jeannette Hall to construct a 55’ by 30’ in-ground swimming pool with 95’ by 60’ of decking and a 14’ by 20’ pool house with kitchen and bath on the  property  at 9 Paag Lane, Block 66, Lot 4, in the R-1 Zone which violates the minimum required improved lot frontage of 160 feet where 150 feet is existing and the pump of a filtration system of a private swimming pool shall be located not less than 20 feet from any side or rear property line where 15 feet is proposed:

Attorney Leckstein noted for the record that his review of service found it in order and the Board to have jurisdiction.

Mr. and Mrs. Hall were sworn in.  Mr. Hall testified that they purchased the property in September of 2006 and moved in in January.  They propose an in-ground swimming pool and cabana.  When questioned by Chairman Jacobi, Mr. Hall stated that the cabana will contain a shower, toilet and kitchenette.  Attorney Leckstein questioned whether someone could live in it?  Mrs. Hall responded no.  Chairman Jacobi questioned whether a condition that the cabana would contain no living space was agreeable?  Mr. Hall confirmed that it was and noted that there would be no heat.

Mr. Drawbaugh questioned the closet access.  Mr. Hall explained that access is from the outside and the area will be used for storage of pool equipment such as chlorine, pool toys and pool cover, it will not be used to change in.

Chairman Jacobi questioned the reason for the pool equipment being located 15 feet from the property line thereby requiring a variance?

Don Passman, Architect with Passman and Ercolino was sworn in.  He testified that he prepared the plans for the pool house.  The filter is located 5 feet closer than the required distance due to the positioning of the pool and patio which was laid out prior to his involvement.  If placed closer, the filter would be located on top of the patio.  Chairman Jacobi stated that as the patio is not currently existing, why can’t the proposal be redesigned to conform?

Helen White, Poolscapes, was sworn in.  She reviewed the grading plan with the Board as to elevation 6, the location of the cabana which is set at an angle and the pool and patio.

Attorney Leckstein questioned the hardship to redesigning the placement of the pump?  Mr. Hall stated that they felt the placement at 15 feet won’t impact the neighbor to the west as they have an enclosed pool.  Photos of the property line were reviewed which showed the large structure which Ms. White pointed out as being 40 feet from the filter.

Mr. Drawbaugh stated that he was concerned with noise and felt that 15 feet was too close to the property line.  He suggested that the equipment be repositioned or the project moved over.

Mr. Scott questioned the impact of moving the project over 5 feet to the east?  Mr. Hall responded that it would affect the rear of the house.  Ms. White reviewed the plan further with the Board and   Mrs. Hall pointed out the layout of the rear of the home, the steps to the existing walkway and dock which will all be affected by such a change.  Mr. Hall added that they plan to landscape to mitigate the visual and noise effect.  Mrs. Hall stated that they want a play area for their children and this is why the cabana was located as such as well as to not impede the view to the water for themselves and their neighbors.

Ms. White again reviewed the photographs submitted pointing out the plantings on the easterly side and the westerly neighbors’ enclosed pool noting that the project was placed toward that side due to that large existing wall enclosing the neighbors’ pool.  Fencing will be provided in the area of the filter.

Messrs. Nuara and Lindsey and Chairman Jacobi all agreed that they had no problem with the proposal due to the location of the adjacent property owners’ structure which houses the enclosed pool.

Mr. Olimpi noted that five trees were to be removed and he questioned whether they would be replanted?  Ms. White responded that the landscape plan is minimal so as not to interfere with the view of the water.  Mrs. Hall added that trees would be provided for privacy however.  Further discussion determined the need for a revised landscape plan.

Attorney Leckstein noted that the approval would be subject to a landscape plan which must be received in time for the next meeting so that a resolution can be prepared.  Mr. Drawbaugh suggested evergreen plantings on the westerly property line, that adjoining the Damien property, but no further than their rear deck and also a baffle for the pool equipment and landscaping.  Mr. Hall agreed to the plantings stating as long as Dr. Damien is in agreement.  He questioned whether this will hold up his project?  Chairman Jacobi confirmed that if received in time for the next meeting so that a resolution can be prepared, it would not.

When questioned by Mr. Passman as to tree type, Mr. Olimpi suggested that a plan be prepared and submitted for review and discussion.

Mr. Olimpi questioned the length of time required for construction.  Ms. White replied that she anticipated the project being completed within three months.  Mr. Olimpi noted that the Borough has experienced problems in that area with workers parking along the side of the road and creating depressions.  Ms. White assured him that a staging area had been provided.

Prompted by Ms. White discussion followed with regard to the existing treeline which would be continued.

Chairman Jacobi called for public questions or comments.  There were none.

Mr. Lindsey Moved to approve the application with the condition that a revised landscape plan to include baffling for the pool equipment be submitted for Mr. Olimpi’s review and approval.  Seconded by Mayor Castleman and on Roll Call, the following vote was taken:

Affirmative:    Mayor Castleman, Chairman Jacobi, Mr. Olimpi, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Scott,
        Mr. Drawbaugh, Mr. Chimento, Mr. Nuara, Mr. Neff and Mrs. Montella

Negative:    None

Abstentions:    None

The Application of Michael and Kimberly Schmanske regarding 99 Rivers Edge Drive, Block 81, Lot 8 was then continued:

Attorney McGill reappeared and advised the Board that he had discussed the issues with his clients and they were uncertain.  For that reason, they were withdrawing the application.

After brief discussion, Mr. Scott Moved to accept the withdrawal of the application without prejudice.  Seconded by Mr. Lindsey and a unanimous voice vote followed.

Application of Sue Onyskow to demolish a portion of the existing patio and construct a 33’1” by 35’6” second story addition consisting of a master suite and second floor balcony with a sunroom below, a 5’ by 10’4” one story entry addition, a 30’4” by 10’6” covered patio, a 14’9” by 10’4” covered rear porch, a 24’ by 5’ covered front porch and additional concrete walkways on  the  property  at 51 Queens Drive, Block 40, Lot 21, in the R-2 Zone which violates the minimum required lot area of 25,000 square feet where 20,184 square feet is existing; the minimum required front yard setback of 50 feet where 49.64 feet is existing; and the minimum required rear yard setback for a principal structure of 50 feet where 46 feet is existing and 36.5 feet is proposed:

Attorney Leckstein stated for the record that his review of service found it in order and the Board to have jurisdiction.

Richard Thompson, Esquire appeared on behalf of the applicant.

Christopher Rice, Architect and Sue Onyskow were sworn in.  Ms. Onyskow testified that she purchased the home 2 ½ years ago.  It is small, approximately 1,800 square feet and she proposed to add a second story.

Mr. Rice reviewed the plan with the Board noting that the second floor is proposed over the middle third of the home as well as a small addition in the rear consisting of a sunroom, pergola covered patio, covered porch and entry.  A front porch is being added to the home on the first floor.  The rear addition is the subject of the variance with the existing rear yard at 46 feet where 50 feet is required and it is being reduced to 36.5 feet.

When questioned by Chairman Jacobi, Ms. Onyskow confirmed that this property backs up to Cheshire Square; there is a fence along the rear property line.  Mr. Rice added that there is a large amount of landscaping on Ms. Onyskow’s property.  When questioned by Mr. Drawbaugh, Mr. Rice confirmed that the proposed balcony overlooks Cheshire Square’s lawn.  When questioned by
Mrs. Montella as to what appeared to be a balcony on the front of the home, Mr. Rice confirmed that it is a flat roof with decorative railing only, no doors for access.

Mr. Neff questioned whether any trees would be removed from the rear?  Ms. Onyskow replied in the negative and noted that she would be adding additional landscaping.  Mr. Rice reviewed the landscape plan as to existing and proposed plantings.

Mr. Scott questioned the height of the proposed home to the ridge and noted that no chimney was shown on the plans.  Mr. Rice responded that the height to the ridge would be 28 feet and that the chimney would conform.

Chairman Jacobi called for questions or comments from the public.  There were none.

Mayor Castleman Moved to approve the application on the condition that the chimney is conforming to the Ordinance.  Seconded by Mr. Scott and the following Roll Call was taken:

Affirmative:    Mayor Castleman, Chairman Jacobi, Mr. Olimpi, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Scott,
        Mr. Drawbaugh, Mr. Chimento, Mr. Nuara, Mr. Neff and Mrs. Montella

Negative:    None

Abstentions:    None

Application of Robert Susser, 4 Pompano Road, Rumson, New Jersey,  (property owner Drew O. Murphy) to demolish the existing one story home and construct a two story home on  the  property  at 38 Winding Way, Block 61, Lot 19, in the R-2 Zone which violates the minimum required lot area of 25,000 square feet where 20,754 square feet is existing:

Messrs. Nuara and Neff recused themselves from this application.

Attorney Leckstein noted that his review of service found it in order and the Board to have jurisdiction over the application.

Robert Susser was sworn in.  He testified that he is the contract purchaser of this property and a builder.  He explained that he proposed to demolish the existing home and construct a two-story structure with a footprint mostly within the existing footprint.  The home will be comprised of four bedrooms and 3½ baths, 4,289 square feet in size with a 613 square foot garage.

When questioned by Mr. Drawbaugh as to drainage to the south and southeast, Mr. Susser responded that the grade was relatively flat and that he had provided a plan which addressed the Borough Engineer’s concerns as well as having submitted to and received approval from Freehold Soil Conservation.  He proposes an underdrain system to collect runoff.  Materials will be consistent and top quality construction.

When questioned by Mr. Scott as to the fire hydrant located to the south of the driveway, Mr. Susser stated that he would be happy to explore its relocation, however, this was up to the town.  Mr. Scott suggested moving the driveway further from the hydrant to which Mr. Susser stated that he would deal with this issue in the field.  Attorney Leckstein advised that a change which deviates from the approved plan would require the applicant to return to the Board.

Chairman Jacobi called for questions or comments from the public.

Bernadette Jones, 32 Winding Way, stated that the existing homes on the outside of Winding Way are all single family and she was concerned that this huge home will dwarf the dwellings on the inner portion of the road.  She is also concerned that the proposed second story will block all sunlight to her existing pool.  She questioned why the Board would allow a builder to construct large homes on smaller lots; she didn’t understand the need.  A home should be built on the lot that fits the lot and the neighborhood.

Mr. Susser stated that the footprint is substantially the same.  On that side of Winding Way there is a two story house with more of a presence.  On the other side the frontage is narrower which gives the property a smaller look where this property has 150 feet of frontage and the building complies.

Ms. Jones stated that the lots on the inner side of Winding Way are much smaller than those on the other side.  Also, the footprint proposed is not the same, the house is being shifted and the driveway is being moved to the right side where all of the homes have driveways on the left.

Mr. Susser responded that moving the driveway will create more privacy for Ms. Jones.  He stated that he could move the structure over a few feet if desired.  As the lot gets deeper, the house gets closer to the property line due to the shape of the lot.

Attorney Leckstein questioned how far the home could be moved?  Mr. Susser stated that it could be centered.  Discussion determined that the home would be moved 3.5 feet, equidistant to both property lines.

Prompted by Ms. Jones, discussion followed with regard to the noise Ordinance and hours during which work could occur.  When questioned, Attorney Leckstein confirmed that the silt fence would remain up throughout the construction.

Michael Kelly, contract purchaser of 44 Winding Way, on the other side, was sworn in and questioned the reason for the variance?  Chairman Jacobi explained that it is that the lot is slightly undersized.   Mr. Kelly commented that Mr. Susser builds a quality home and that the proposal was good for the neighborhood.

Ms. Jones stated that she agreed but that consideration should be given to those already living in town.  Chairman Jacobi explained that the variance runs with the land, not circumstance.

After brief discussion, Mr. Scott Moved to approve the application with the condition that the home be moved 3.5 feet to make it equidistant from both property lines.  Seconded by Mayor Castleman and the following Roll Call was taken:

Affirmative:    Mayor Castleman, Chairman Jacobi, Mr. Olimpi, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Scott,
        Mr. Drawbaugh, Mr. Chimento and Mrs. Montella

Negative:    None

Abstentions:    None

Chairman Jacobi stated that he was sympathetic to Ms. Jones’ concerns but noted that in comparison, this home is 5,000 square feet where the last application was 7,000 square feet.

Attorney Leckstein discussed the Rumson Estates case where the Superior Court said that the town can maximize the size in zoning.  Certain size homes attract volunteers to fire and first aid and other size homes are owned by those of means who work in the city and have no time to volunteer.  The Court said that there should be some modest size homes.  Fair Haven adopted an Ordinance accordingly and suggested that Little Silver may want to consider doing the same.

At 8:34 P.M. Chairman Jacobi called a recess.  He reconvened the meeting noting that all Board Members were still present, at 8:40 P.M. and noted the Board’s 10 P.M. curfew.

Site Plan Application – Eastview Avenue Associates, LLC, Carriage Park at Little Silver – Kalian, Block 58, Lots 20.01, 25-40, 44-60 –  ARAH Zone:

Messrs. Nuara and Olimpi confirmed that they had read the transcripts of the April 2007 meeting.  Mr. Chimento and Mrs. Montella received their transcripts this evening.

Meryl Gonchar, Esquire appeared on behalf of the applicant noting that this is a continued hearing.  At the last meeting, the applicant provided an introduction for this 39 unit, age restricted, project consisting of 32 townhomes and 7 low and moderate income apartments.  Messrs. Heppe and Arsberger had testified and Mr. Ciliberto was qualified, however, he did not provide engineering testimony as the Board’s Engineer was not present.  Since that meeting they met with the Borough Engineer to review his report and most, if not all, of the outstanding issues are to be revised.  Lastly, she stated that she re-noticed for this meeting and submitted the proofs of same.

Attorney Leckstein confirmed that his review of service found it in order.

Ms. Gonchar provided Board Members with a set of aerial photos consisting of three sheets, marked A-4, A-5 and A-6.

Peter Ciliberto described the project to be located at the northeastern corner of Oceanport and Eastview Avenues with frontage on both streets and in the vicinity of Oceanport Avenue, Branch Avenue, Sycamore Avenue, Willow Drive and Silverside Avenue and within walking distance to the New Jersey Transit train station.  The property is located near both commercial and residential properties and consists of 14.2 acres and is comprised of many lots, with the portion to be developed within Lots 56 through 60 in Block 58, consisting of 4.5 acres leaving 9.7 acres or 68.3% of the parcel which is mainly wetlands to be donated to the Borough as open space.  The property is mainly wooded with a small area of open space at Eastview Avenue.  He reviewed the aerial photos noting that A-5 is the same aerial as A-4 with the site plan rendering imposed thereon. 

Proposed are four buildings containing 39 units.  Buildings 1 and 2 front Eastview Avenue, Building 3 is located in the northwest corner and Building 4 in the rear, adjacent to the entrance to Challenger Field.  Most of the residences in the area are adjacent to the open space area.  Pursuant to the aerial photos he reviewed access to the site from all directions.  Proposed on the site are 24, 9 by 18 visitor parking spaces and 1 handicapped space.  He reviewed the layout of the buildings and the entrance road which leads to the four separate courts.  The proposed driveways are 20 feet wide and 22 feet at the units.  The driveways are for access only and will be 8 to 10 feet in depth; they will not be parked in.  Sidewalks are provided within the development as well as on Eastview and Oceanport Avenues.  Proposed are 39 units in 4 buildings consisting of 32 three bedroom market townhouse units and 7 two bedroom low and moderate income garden apartments which will be located in Buildings 1 and 2.  All of the units will be age restricted.  The buildings are u-shaped, the townhouses will have two car garages.  The buildings meet the required setbacks and are located 85 feet from the property to be donated to the Borough with a density of 2.7 units per acre.  Height is measured from existing and proposed grade in the ARAH Zone, the average elevation of all four corners to the peak.  Building 4 has a height of 39.5 feet from existing grade; the second height requirement allowed is 35 feet and is provided.  That is what will be physically seen.  Parking is provided according to RSIS standards which require, for a three bedroom townhouse, 2.4 spaces per unit and for an apartment 2 per unit; 77 market spaces are required and 14 for the apartments, for a total of 91 spaces.  The applicant provides 64 spaces, two in each garage, three extra stalls in Building 2 as noted and 24 spaces in the common area parking lot which meets the requirement.  When questioned by Mrs. Montella, Mr. Ciliberto stated that one handicapped space is provided as required.

When questioned by Mr. Nuara as to whether the common spaces would be dedicated to the condos, Mr. Ciliberto was unsure.

Mr. Chimento confirmed that parking was not allowed within the driveways and questioned their size?  Mr. Ciliberto responded that the driveway area is 20 by 20 feet.  Mr. Chimento questioned whether this was adequate for unloading groceries, etc.?  Mr. Arsberger stated that 20 by 20 feet is the standard garage size.

Mr. Blash commented that in reviewing the application he was not aware that three of the garages were proposed to be sold to the market units.  If put to the COAH units, they would be applied as a full count but that is not what is proposed and therefore, the applicant doesn’t get the full count of 2.4 spaces per unit.  Attorney Leckstein noted that it had been suggested that the applicant look into allowing the indoor spaces to the COAH units.

Ms. Gonchar stated that the two car garage with two drivers gets a credit of 3.5.  This is the only area they are able to identify and she feels the applicant is entitled to the full 91 spaces.

Attorney Leckstein stated that he had raised the issue of whether it was appropriate not to provide inside parking for the COAH units.  Ms. Gonchar stated that they are not aware this is required.  Attorney Leckstein responded that the issue is not what the applicant is required to do but whether as a policy it is appropriate to deny the COAH units indoor parking.  Ms. Gonchar stated that the issue would be reviewed and addressed.  Attorney Leckstein commented that the Borough Engineer has raised an issue of a technical nature with the parking which gives the Board more of an impetus to consider the issue.

Mr. Ciliberto continued his testimony stating that of the 2.2 acres the impervious coverage is 16% of the total project area.  Attorney Leckstein noted that the numbers should take the entire parcel into consideration.  The majority of the parcel after the project is built will no longer be part of the project.  The density is based on the Ordinance but in the end the project will be owned by the townhomes and will be substantially smaller than 14 acres.  He stated that he felt it was important for the public to understand the reality of the Ordinance, that the finished project will have a lot more impervious coverage than 16%.

Mr. Scott questioned the number for the project area only.  Mr. Ciliberto responded that it would be about 50% coverage.

Attorney Leckstein noted that he felt the reality should be shown.  Ms. Gonchar stated that the Ordinance is the reality.

Chairman Jacobi questioned whether this was a site plan application only or was there a subdivision involved?  Ms. Gonchar responded that the wetlands portion would be dedicated to the Borough and that no subdivision was required; the parcels exist separately and in separate ownership as well.

Mr. Ciliberto continued his testimony discussing the utilities as follows:  The project will generate 8,400 gallons of sewer per day, the service to be provided by Two Rivers Reclamation Authority for which there is adequate service.  Water will be provided by New Jersey American Water Company for which there is adequate service to provide for the 7,900 gallons of use per day.  The site will be serviced by New Jersey Natural Gas, Jersey Central Power and Light, for cable by Comcast Cable and phone, Verizon.  Verizon’s FIOS is also available which would provide phone, internet and television.  Comcast also provides these services.  A detention basin will be located along Eastview Avenue, adjacent to Building 1.  It will be a dry basin, to be planted with wildflowers for aesthetics and to provide water quality.  The location will be 330 feet away from residential Lots 41, 42 and 43 off Riverview Avenue and a natural wooded buffer will be provided.  He discussed water quality of which 80% will be removed by the basin and a vortex unit.  The basin is to provide water quality off site as well.  The runoff which comes from the road and parking areas will drain to an inlet at the intersection for the same 80% TSS removal where it currently discharges to wetlands and is untreated.  He discussed the detention basin which was designed to meet Stormwater Management Regulations.  The basin discharges to a ditch and is picked up by the drainage system at the end of Edgewood Avenue and then on to Town Neck Creek.

Trash and recycles will be handled by a private hauler and storage for same will be provided in the garages.  For the 7 affordable garden apartments storage will be provided in the kitchen and an area for same outside on each trash day.  A temporary two-side sign will be erected, 4 by 8 in size, at Oceanport and Eastview Avenues for construction purposes.  Two types of lighting are proposed.  Along the road, lighting such as is existing on Prospect Avenue, 150 watt, on a 12 foot high mounting to meet the Ordinance.  Chairman Jacobi questioned whether shielding would be provided?  Ms. Gonchar stated that the applicant would confirm that there would be no spillage. 

Mr. Ciliberto continued his testimony as to the lighting stating that the proposed lighting on Eastview would be 150 watt, 14 feet high and three lights on Oceanport Avenue, 250 watt at a mounting height of 18 feet.  Lighting internal to the sight will be of a colonial, decorative nature, 100 watts at a mounting height of 10 feet.  Landscaping is proposed to enhance the development which will include  plants to soften the corners and accent the architecture of the buildings and street trees will be planted according to the Ordinance.  Outside approvals are required from the Monmouth County Planning Board, Freehold Soil, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, CAFRA and Freshwater Wetlands, a permit from Two Rivers Reclamation and NJDEP Treatment Works, New Jersey American Water and the NJ DEP Bureau of Safe Drinking Water. 

Two variances are required as follows:  The applicant proposes four free-standing monument signs to be set back 5 feet from the road right of way, two signs containing a street name and the other two, the project identification.  The monument signs are 3 by 3 in size, 6 feet high with the top foot being decorative and the other two signs 2 by 1.5 or 3 square feet for a total square footage on the signs of 12 square feet where the Ordinance allows 1 sign 18 square feet in size.  A variance is required for the parking for Challenger Field where 25 spaces are required within the open space area and the applicant proposes 13 spaces located near Edgewood Avenue.  The Mayor and Council had concerns regarding the number of stalls and their location and wanted the 25 spaces closer to the development and field.  The applicant has met with the Council and its Committee and the revised plan reflects their thoughts.  A 50 foot buffer is required in relation to the wetlands which would extend into the right of way on Eastview Avenue making it impossible to provide 25 spaces.  The applicant has reduced the width of Eastview Avenue from 35 to 30 feet and pulled in the north curbline to provide a row of 20 parking spaces that they feel meets the wetlands.  A right of way expansion will be granted.  Therefore, there are 20 spaces proposed on the side closer to Challenger Field instead of 13 where the Ordinance requires 25 spaces.  100 feet of clearance will be provided from the end of the last stall to the first house with a landscape buffer.  The plan is subject to NJ DEP approval.

Attorney Leckstein questioned whether the 13 spaces could be put on the other side?  Mr. Ciliberto stated that the spaces would be in one place or the other, not both due to the buffering averaging.

Mrs. Montella questioned whether the plan shows the wetlands and buffer averaging?  Mr. Ciliberto responded that no, the Board did not have that on their plans.  Mrs. Montella questioned whether there were wetlands on the portion of the property to be developed?  Mr. Ciliberto responded that there were.  Attorney Leckstein questioned whether a plan had been provided?  Mr. Ciliberto responded that they could provide a plan.  Chairman Jacobi stated that it should be provided. 
Ms. Gonchar stated that it is in the book, the Environmental Impact Statement.

Mr. Ciliberto continued his testimony stating that the proposed parking would be linked to Challenger Field through a nature trail 400 to 500 feet in length, the location of which would be determined in the field with a Borough representative.  In installing the trail they will work to avoid the vegetation and keep it in dry areas.  When questioned, Mr. Ciliberto stated that the trail would not be lit.  Attorney Gonchar added that a waiver would be required for the 13 or 20 spaces as cars will have to back up into the road where a car backing into the road right of way is not allowed.

Mr. Olimpi questioned who would provide maintenance for the trail?  Mr. Ciliberto stated that the town would own it.

Mr. Drawbaugh questioned whether underground services would be provided for the development to which Mr. Ciliberto stated that this was correct.  Mr. Drawbaugh questioned the depth of the basin?  Mr. Ciliberto responded that the bottom is at elevation 10, the top at elevation 17, a 7 foot depth but not all water.  The DEP requires that by 72 hours after a rain the basin must be dry.  Mr. Drawbaugh commented that it would be wet.  Attorney Leckstein questioned this stating that the Environmental Commission also says it will remain wet and the testimony is that it will dry as required.  These issues must be addressed.  Mr. Drawbaugh stated that he wanted to see the outflow from the basin to the Edgewood Avenue take-up.  Mr. Ciliberto then reviewed the drainage which flows over clay material, downhill.

Gregory S. Blash, Borough Engineer, was sworn in.  When questioned by Attorney Leckstein as to the drainage issue, Mr. Blash testified that he reviewed the report and had spoken to Mr. Ciliberto and had advised that he wanted to meet with the applicant’s soils engineer as he has the same concerns.  The report doesn’t talk about the lateral movement of water and it is his feeling that additional testing will be needed.  Basements and the basin are of concern and the outcome of that testing could change the design as it is critical to the design.

When questioned by Mr. Olimpi, Mr. Ciliberto provided the following testimony:  No improvements were proposed to the ditch and pointed out that the applicant must reduce runoff from the pre-development value.  The Borough would own the parking spaces proposed for Eastview Avenue.  It was not the applicant’s intention to move the spaces closer to provide more residential parking. Parking on Eastview is now limited to two hours.  Concerning snow removal, a plow with a plastic blade would be used to pull the snow away from the units and then transported to an open space on the property such as the detention basin.  For every 3 square feet of snow covered area 1 square foot of open space would be needed.  Gates are not proposed at the entrance. As to holiday parking, that would take place in the 24 dedicated common spaces.  Recreational vehicles, boats, etc. would be prohibited from the development.  Ms. Gonchar added that this is included in the homeowner documents.  Prompted by Mr. Olimpi discussion followed with regard to enforcement of parking with Ms. Gonchar noting that Title 39 would not be given, the homeowners’ association would deal with the parking.  Attorney Leckstein stated that someone going to Challenger Field may park in the common area.  Mr. Ciliberto stated that there would be no direct route to the field.  Chairman Jacobi noted that the commuters may pose a parking problem as well.

Mr. Olimpi reported that the Shade Tree Commission reviewed the landscape plan and had some issues with regard to planting along Oceanport Avenue due to electrical wires.  Discussion determined that the plan would be revised accordingly after discussion.  Mr. Olimpi questioned whether fencing was proposed to which Mr. Ciliberto responded no.

Mr. Blash pointed out that internal signs may be needed to direct pedestrians and prevent them from walking between buildings.  He also suggested that the applicant review the issue of the mailboxes to be located at the common parking; if the lot is full, how will mail delivery be provided? 
Mr. Ciliberto confirmed that he would look at these issues.

Mrs. Montella questioned access for garbage trucks?  Mr. Ciliberto responded that this is testimony for the traffic engineer.

When questioned by Mr. Blash , Mr. Ciliberto stated that the width between the walls located at the courts was 20 feet and 1 foot off the curb.

Mr. Neff stated that he understood the variances required for parking and signs as discussed and questioned the need for the height variance?  Mr. Ciliberto stated that he did not feel a variance was required for the height.  Mr. Blash stated that he reviewed the applicant’s calculations and agrees that the height is 39’10” where 40 feet is permitted; this alleviates the need for the height variance.

Chairman Jacobi called for questions or comments from the public.

Chester Apy was sworn in.  He stated that he has reviewed the Borough Engineer’s 27 page report and questioned whether the items contained therein would be addressed?  He suggested that as the report points out 13 missing items, 3 variances, 10 design waivers and stormwater information, discussion should be continued until all has been addressed.  Mr. Blash advised that between the issuance of the report and now, most of his concerns have been discussed and met although the applicant has not resubmitted the revisions and therefore, as of this time, that letter stands.  He noted that the applicant had contacted him and wanted to submit revisions, however, he felt it was not appropriate as the submission would not have been within the required 10 days.

Chris Foard, 65 Edgewood Avenue, was sworn in and questioned the Board’s procedure.  Chairman Jacobi explained that there are first questions of each expert that testifies, in this case, Mr. Ciliberto, and comments after all expert testimony is complete.  Attorney Leckstein pointed out that there is a transcript available for review from the last hearing.

Robert Oswandel, 91 Church Street, was sworn in.  He stated that the Board was at its curfew and questioned whether it shouldn’t stop in time to allow other public discussion or matters?  Chairman Jacobi responded that the Board would honor its public portion and allow him time to speak.

Caralee Johnson, Eastview Avenue, was sworn in.  She questioned whether the units would have sump pumps?  Mr. Ciliberto replied that they would, to drain to the drainage system.  Ms. Johnson discussed drainage in the area and felt that the detention basin would still contain water after 72 hours.  Mr. Ciliberto stated that they will be looking further into this issue.

Chairman Jacobi noted the late hour and discussion followed with it being determined to carry this application to June 19, 2007.  Attorney Gonchar confirmed that the applicant was waiving the time within which the Board must act through the end of June and Mayor Castleman Moved to carry the application to June 19th with no need for further notice.  Seconded by Mr. Scott and a unanimous voice vote followed.

Mr. Drawbaugh adjourned from the meeting.

Resolutions:

Attorney Leckstein reviewed the following Resolutions for the Board’s consideration:

Interpretation, Coastal Wetlands and Variance Application of Paul and Kathleen Napoli for a permit to place approximately 100 to 150 cubic yards of fill 6 to 12 inches in depth on the  property  at 740 Little Silver Point Road, Block 63, Lots 6 & 7, in the R-1 Zone where no building, structure, improvement and/or development which increases the footprint of any existing structure or building or which enlarges the ground area of development currently existing on the subject property or which is new development shall be permitted in the Coastal Flood Zone where fill is proposed below the six foot contour.  A Coastal Wetlands Application is required.  A CAFRA and/or Freshwater Wetlands (DEP) Permit is required

Application of Glenn Geardino to demolish the existing 7’2” by 6’4” covered porch and construct a 10’8” by 7’4” covered porch on  the  property  at 18 Rustic Terrace,  Block 25, Lot 39, in the R-3 Zone which violates the minimum required lot area of 20,000 square feet where 15,203.7 square feet is existing; the minimum required rear yard setback for a principal structure of 50 feet where 34 feet is existing; the maximum allowable lot coverage of 18% where 19.6% is existing and 19.8% is proposed; an outdoor private swimming pool shall be located not less than 15 feet from the rear of the residence where 4 feet is existing; and pool equipment shall be located not less than 20 feet from any side or rear property line where 10 feet is existing to the side property line.

Mr. Scott Moved to approve the Resolution as presented.  Seconded by Mayor Castleman and the following Roll Call was taken:

Affirmative:    Mayor Castleman, Chairman Jacobi, Mr. Olimpi, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Scott,
        Mr. Chimento, Mr. Nuara, Mr. Neff and Mrs. Montella

Negative:    None

Abstentions:    None

Copies of the within Resolutions are attached hereto and made a part hereof in their entirety.

Mrs. Montella noted for the Board that she would be moving in the near future and requested an informal presentation at the next meeting to review the possibility of a pool being constructed on her property by the prospective owner.  Discussion determined that the Board was agreeable.

Chairman Jacobi reviewed the sign application of Sports Care and Physical Rehabilitation noting that two wall signs are proposed, blue on white, unlit.  Discussion noted that the Zoning Officer found the signs conforming.  Mayor Castleman Moved to approve the signs as presented.  Seconded by
Mr. Lindsey and the following Roll Call was taken:

Affirmative:    Mayor Castleman, Chairman Jacobi, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Chimento, Mr. Nuara,
        Mr. Neff and Mrs. Montella

Negative:    Mr. Olimpi and Mr. Scott

Abstentions:    None

There being no further business to come before the Board, Mr. Olimpi Moved to adjourn at 10:15 P.M.  Seconded by Mr. Lindsey and followed by a unanimous voice vote.

                        For Chairman K. Edward Jacobi

                        ___________________________________
                        Diane L. Ramsey, Secretary

Dated:  May 9, 2007








         
Click on photos to view larger photos

Borough of Little Silver
480 Prospect Avenue, Little Silver, NJ 07739
732-842-2400 phone      732-219-0581 fax




Powered by Zumu Software
Websites at the speed of thought.
www.zumu.com