MINUTES
OF THE
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CRANBURY TOWNSHIP
CRANBURY, NEW JERSEY
MIDDLESEX COUNTY
APPROVED ON JUNE 8, 2005
TIME AND PLACE OF MEETING
The regular meeting of the Cranbury Township was
held at the Town Hall (Old School Building) Main Meeting Room, 23-A North Main
Street, Cranbury, New Jersey, on May 11, 2005, at 8:30 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Dale Smith, Chairperson, of the Cranbury Township Planning
Board, called the meeting to order and acted as the Chairman thereof, and,
Josette C. Kratz acted as Secretary of the meeting.
STATEMENT OF ADEQUATE NOTICE
Pursuant of the Sunshine Law adequate notice in
accordance with the Open Public Meeting Act was provided of this meeting=s date, time, place and agenda was mailed to the
news media, posted on the Township Bulletin Board, mailed to those requesting
personal notice, and filed with the municipal clerk.
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE
Mr. Gerberich (7:40 p.m.), Mr. Hebert, Mr. Glenn Johnson, Mr. Richard
Johnson, Ms. Kemp, Mr. McCarville, Mr. Shea, Mr. Smith
PROFESSIONALS IN ATTENDANCE
Richard Preiss, Planner; Cathleen Marcelli;
Engineer; Jeffrey Green, Esquire, Zoning Board Attorney; Richard Guinta, Court
Reporter; Josette C. Kratz, Zoning Secretary
QUORUM ANNOUNCEMENT
The Secretary announced that a quorum of the members
was present, and that the meeting, having been duly convened, was ready to
proceed with its business.
MINUTES
There were no changes
made to the minutes February 9, 2005.
Upon a motion of the approval of the minutes and seconded the motion
passed. Motion carried.
RESOLUTIONS
ZBA 069-04 Anthracite Leasing Co/Steve Fiebus
Block 26, Lots 4 & 5.01
2661 Route 130
Denial of Detailing Portion of Appeal/Interpretation
Mr. McCarville motioned for the approval of the resolution of
memorialization. Ms. Kemp seconded the
motion.
VOTE ROLL CALL
AYES: Mr. R. Johnson, Ms. Kemp, Mr. McCarville,
Mr. Shea, Mr. Smith
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Mr. Hebert, Mr. G. Johnson, Mr. Patterson
ABSENT: Mr. Gerberich, Mr. Patterson
MOTION CARRIED
APPLICATIONS
ZBA
086-05 Sandra Majeski
Block 20, Lot
44
20 Ryan Road
Bulk Variance
for Fence
REPRESENTATIVES: Sandra Majeski, Owner/Applicant
Sandra Majeski, under oath, explained that she was
seeking a bulk variance to install an 8 ft stockade fence at the rear of the
property that would abut to the adjacent property owner=s fence. Her
property dropped 3 to 4 ft down, so she was trying to have her fence even
across the rear as the neighbors, which was 6 ft high. The fence would help block the noise and
garbage from Route 130.
Ms. Majeski has lived in Cranbury for 30 years and all her landscaping
has grown above a height where it can block the view of Route 130. The length
of the fence would be 98 ft. She does
not want to disturb the evergreens on the right side. The fence would be up to 20 ft off the rear
property from Route 130, running parallel to Ryan Road. The style of the fence would be the same
stockade as the neighbor=s.
At the crown of the property she had spent approximately $2,000
planting viburnum and now only has three left.
The Ews can not grown fast enough.
The Forsythia and azalea are now gone.
Several of her plantings have been destroyed by accidents.
There was no public comments made.
Mr. R. Johnson had asked if there were any returns on the fence. Ms. Majeski said there were none.
The board gave a positive straw vote.
Mr. Green read a resolution memorializing the decision.
Mr. Shea motioned for the approval of the resolution as read. Mr. Hebert seconded the motion.
VOTE ROLL CALL
AYES: Mr. Gerberich, Mr. Hebert, Mr. R. Johnson, Ms. Kemp, Mr.
McCarville, Mr. Shea, Mr. Smith
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Mr.
G. Johnson
ABSENT: Mr.
Patterson
MOTION CARRIED
ZBA 087-05 Donna
Ritter
Block 33, Lot 13.03
6 Benett Place
Addition to residence
REPRESENTATIVES: Vincent
A. Piacente, AIA
Steven Halgas
Donna Ritter, Owner/Applicant
Mr. Piacente, under oath, explained that the applicant was requesting a
variance for the required lot area. They
had two adjacent lots to combine. There
would also be a rear yard setback variance needed.
Ms. Ritter under oath, explained that she had lived here all of her
life. She bought the home 7 to 8 years
ago. They have had a lot of work done
and have bought the adjacent property from the Township. Last year she married and has acquired a
larger family which needs additional living space. There is no more property for her to buy,
adjacent to the existing property and would like to stay in Cranbury.
Ms. Marcelli asked if there was a survey performed for the property to
the west. There was an 8 ft difference.
Ms. Ritter said that they had not done an additional survey. Ms. Marcelli said that she wanted to clarify
that the house was not on the property line.
They would be enclosing the existing porch and creating a new one. The right side elevation had a 2-story
element. Seven years ago they found out
there was a covered porch out 7 to 8 ft.
The garage would be a simple one.
The applicant has discussed application with the neighbor and had spoken
with the Chairman of the Parks Commission.
Mr. Smith said he did get a message from Ms. Judy Dossin saying there
was a negligible impact.
There were no public comments made.
Ms. Marcelli agreed with the argument for relief on the garage, but
that it should not be compared to the A-100 zone. The front yard setback was measured to the
structure at the foyer. Sixteen feet was
the average front yard setback and the application would be amended to reflect
that.
There was discussion, suggested by Mr. R. Johnson, of the roof line
making it hard to determine the old from the new. That the projection of the roof should be
broken up, visually.
Mr. Smith suggested turning the ridge on the garage may help too.
It was mentioned that there was a detention basin to the east with
landscaping and a path giving a considerable buffer. There is a large Maple behind the garage that
the Ritter=s had hope they would not lose the tree.
Mr. Preiss said that the property was different and that it took two
lots and consolidated, bring it closer to conformity.
Mr. Johnson said the consolidation should be a condition of the
resolutions.
The Board voted favorable on a straw vote.
Mr. Green read the resolution memorializing the application.
Mr. McCarville motioned for the approval of the the resolution as
read. Mr. R. Johnson seconded the
motion.
VOTE ROLL CALL
AYES: Mr. Gerberich, Mr. Hebert, Mr. R. Johnson, Ms. Kemp, Mr.
McCarville, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Shea, Mr. Smith
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Mr.
G. Johnson
ABSENT: Mr.
Patterson
MOTION CARRIED
ZBA 069-04 Anthracite
Leasing Co/Steve Fiebus
Block 26, Lots 4 & 5.01
2661 Route 130
Appeal/Interpretation on FAR/Basement Definition
REPRESENTATIVES: Donald
S. Driggers, Esquire
Steve Fiebus, Owner/Applicant
Geoffrey Brown, Engineer
Noted that the witnesses were sworn at the last hearing.
Mr. Driggers said that he saw that the Board adopted a resolution on
the use of the detailing shop, but they still had an issue from last month that
was coming back on the FAR issue. They
had put in testimony earlier and there had been a request that they submit
architectural plans and calculations. He
believed that those documents had been submitted and reviewed by the Township=s professionals.
They await the decisions of the Board.
Ms. Marcelli said that she had slightly different numbers than Jeff
Brown had calculated for the square footage of each component. She looked at the architectural plans from
Dick Schroeder and then she scaled them.
She said that she had also gone to the building department on what was filed
for the building permits. In the
building that burned, there was a 2-story addition constructed, there is no
differential on the elevations so that the second story is smaller than the
first story.
Ms. Marcelli said that the ordinance was clear that everything was
included; stair tower, exterior wall to exterior wall. It led her to the conclusion that the square
footage of the first floor and the second floor are equal. Ms. Feibus agreed with that statement.
Ms. Marcelli said that her calculations based on the plans that were
submitted to the construction office was that the first and second floor of
that building 2,427.625 SF for each floor making it a total building area
4,855.25 SF. She mentioned that it was
in the exact same location as the prior building. It was not enlargement of the foot
print. It was changed from a one-story
building to a two-story building. He
doubled the SF of that area. As far as
the calculations for the existing Star Ledger warehouse building, there has
never been a contention of 7,500 SF. As
far as the Quick Lube facility, on the prior application, whereas the upper
level was consistent with what was approved on site plan and what was in the
construction office was 3,482 SF and lower level was 3, 541 SF, total area
7,023 SF.
The total area of the buildings for the upper and lower level of the
Quick Lube; the first and second floor of the newly created office facility and
warehouse, the total SF is 15,837.25 SF.
Mr. Richard Johnson asked if that should not be 19,378.25 SF. Ms. Marcelli said she had taken out the lower
level of the Quick Lube. To include the
lower level he was correct. The total
was 18, 319.25 SF.
Mr. Smith asked what was permitted with the FAR. Ms. Marcelli said that if they were to count
the upper and the lower level of the Quick Lube facility, the new two-story
office and the warehouse it would make the FAR 23.14% and if you do not count
the lower level of the Quick Lube it would 18.97% FAR, 15,837 SF.
Mr. Smith then said the issue before the board was whether it still
remains whether that lower level of the Quick Lube is counted in the FAR.
Mr. Driggers said that if it is one-story it should be 20% and if it is
two-story is should be 25%. Ms. Marcelli
said that she agreed with Mr. Driggers.
The other building has no contention it is a two-story building, so
therefore they are right. It would make
their FAR requirement increase to 25% on this lot.
Mr. Richard Johnson asked about the Star Ledger. Ms. Marcelli explained that if they had a
partial one-story and two-story they would get the credit. She added that by creating the two-story they
went from 20% to 25% allowed.
Ms. Smith said no matter which way the Board turns on this he has a
legal lot.
Mr. Richard Johnson asked what does he need to change a one-story
building into a two-story building. Ms.
Marcelli said he needs a site plan approval. Mr. Richard Johnson said that was
correct, one can=t just do something without getting a site plan
approval that allows you into the higher FAR.
It was a consequence of what happened but does not justify it.
Mr. Driggers said that they did not have approval and still needed to
get the approval. It is an
intensification of the use and they are not sure what was going to go in there
so they conceded that when they determine a tenant that goes in there they have
to come back and get site plan.
Ms. Marcelli said that there was no reference made other than the
applicant=s plans that it was a basement or a cellar. Mr. Smith said, that being the case, that the
Board was bound by the Code of Cranbury.
Mr. Driggers said that if there was a change in use they have to go for
a site plan approval. They have many options.
They have negotiated with the tenant to see what they are going to
do. The other option is leave. They have had some parameter on the ability
to leave, and had discussions with the Township Administrator and Jeff
Graydon. They are trying to work that
out and as soon as he knows the answer he would inform whomever they wanted him
to inform.
Mr. Smith said that the vote would be on whether the Board is saying,
according to the definition of the Code it is a cellar and therefore not
calculated as FAR. Mr. Green said that
he did not know if they could come to any other conclusion. Either it is a one-level building with a
cellar that is not included or a two-level building with one level below which
is included but increases the FAR to 25% instead of 20%.
Mr. Smith said that they would be voting on the clarification, since
the Board was not specified in the prior use variance and did find it was a
cellar and not an active part of the building and therefore should not be
included in the FAR.
The straw vote was unanimously in favor that by definition the lower
level was considered a cellar.
Mr. McCarville motioned that the resolution memorializing that the
cellar was not to be included as part of the FAR in accordance with the definition
as read by Mr. Green. Mr. Richard
Johnson seconded the motion.
VOTE ROLL CALL
AYES: Mr. Gerberich. Mr. Hebert, Mr.
Richard Johnson, Ms. Kemp, Mr. McCarville
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: Mr. Glenn Johnson
ABSENT: Mr. Patterson
MOTION CARRIED
CLOSED SESSION
Mr. Green read a resolution so that the Board could
go into closed session to discuss future litigation regarding Omnipoint was
approved.
ADJOURNMENT OF
MEETING
There being no
further business, on motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting was
thereupon adjourned at 9:30 p.m.
CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY
I, undersigned, do hereby certify;
That I am duly elected and acting secretary of the Cranbury Township
and,
That the foregoing minutes of the Zoning Board of Adjustment Meeting,
held on May 11, 2005, comprised of 2 pages, constitute a true and correct copy of the
minutes of the said meeting.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto subscribed, my name of said this
June 8, 2005.
Josette C. Kratz, CPS
/jck
Attachment