MINUTES - ZONING BOARD MEETING
September 23, 2013
The workshop portion meeting was called to order at 7:50 P.M. by Mr. Pistol.
COMMUNICATIONS:
1. Letter from Steven Hehl attorney for TG (Shoppes at Cranford) carry the meeting
to November 4, 2013 – client must re-notice.
RESOLUTIONS OF MEMORIALIZATION
Application #Applicant #Z26-13:
Jenna Laneham, Applicant
22 Windsor Place, Block 253, Lot 5, R-3 Zone
To permit construction of a rear yard addition with the following variances:
to exceed the maximum allowable impervious surface (§136-30.13); main
less than the minimum allowable side yard setback (§136-38B)
The Resolution of Memorialization approving the application (attached and made part of
these minutes) as amended was reviewed by the Board. After discussion, a motion to
approve the resolution was made by Mr. Montani, seconded by Mr. Bovasso and passed
with the following voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Pistol, Mr. Bovasso, Mr. Montani and
Mr. Higgins.
MINUTES:
Carried
OLD/NEW BUSINESS
Meeting of October 6, 2013 cancelled as application has been carried.
The workshop portion of the meeting concluded at 8:06 P.M.
PUBLIC MEETING:
A public meeting of the Cranford Board of Adjustment was called to order by Mr. Pistol on
September 23, 2013 at 8:15 P.M. in Room 107 of the Municipal Building, 8 Springfield
Avenue, Cranford, New Jersey. Mr. Pistol announced in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Open Public Meetings Act, the Cranford Chronicle, the Eagle and/or the
Star Ledger has been notified and the agenda posted in the municipal building as required.
Formal action may be taken.
Board of Adjustment
Meeting of September 23, 2013
Page 2
Mr. Pistol explained the protocol, purpose and procedure that will be followed during the
hearing.
ROLL CALL
Members Present:
Mr. Pistol
Mr. Bovasso
Mr. Higgins
Mr. Howard
Mr. Montani
Members Absent:
Mr. Marotta
Ms. Hay
Alternates:
Mr. Ruane
Mr. Mallon
Alternates Absent
None
Also Present
Ruthanne Della Serra, Scribe/Administrator and David P. Weeks, Attorney
Mr. Pistol reviewed the purpose, process and procedure of the Zoning Board.
Applicant #Z29-13:
Gregory Metchnik, Applicant
22 Collins Street, Block 551, Lot 1, R-4 Zone
To permit construction of a second-story rear addition and wrap around
porch with less than the minimum front yard setback (§136-30.6).
Gregory Metchnik, Applicant, appeared and was sworn in. He explained he is seeking to
construct a second story rear addition and wrap around porch. Has resided in Cranford
entire life, inherited the house and once married remained. Similar development has
occurred throughout the area and is seeking continuity with the neighborhood. Rear
addition is to increase kitchen with a master bedroom on the second floor. Only variance
sought is due to property being a corner lot and, therefore, 2 front yards.
Board of Adjustment
Meeting of September 23, 2013
Page 3
Arthur Henn, appeared on behalf of the applicant. His credentials were presented to the
Board and he was accepted as an expert in the field of architecture.
He described the variance relief as front yard setback with required being 25 feet –
proposing 4-foot projection into front yard resulting in a 10 inch deficiency due to porch.
Steps are essentially in same location with the platform carried straight across and will
wrap around the left hand side, which clips the setback by 10 inches. Photos of conditions
presented to the Board members for review (3 page package). First page is view of front
and side; will not interfere with street line; no negative impact; 3 rd page is view from
intersection looking down Collins Street and across the street depicting the neighborhood
character they are trying to maintain.
Questions by the Board ascertained the following information:
Confirmed no variances associated with the second-story addition, only front yard setback
for open porch. The front stoop line is already non-conforming in that respect. Will remain
open. Porch will be height of existing steps. Materials – base of porch will be of stone with
solid floor, columns and regular siding, standard traditional porch. Clarified impervious
surface, half of patio coming out to permit the addition.
Mr. Pistol opened the application to the public for questions of the witness with no one
appearing and this portion of the hearing was closed with the matter referred back to the
Board.
Summations presented by Mr. Henn and applicant.
Mr. Pistol opened the application to the public for comments with no one appearing and
this portion of the hearing was closed with the matter referred back to the Board.
DELIBERATION OF APPLICATION #Z 29-13
Applicant #Z29-13:
Gregory Metchnik, Applicant
22 Collins Street, Block 551, Lot 1, R-4 Zone
To permit construction of a second-story rear addition and wrap around
porch with less than the minimum front yard setback (§136-30.6).
Mr. Pistol reviewed the testimony.
Very minimal as less than a foot and no detriment to the neighbors. Well done, well
thought out. Nice addition to the neighborhood.
Motion to approve application #Z29-13 as made by Mr. Bovasso, with the condition
that the porch will not be enclosed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Higgins with the
Board of Adjustment
Meeting of September 23, 2013
Page 4
following voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Pistol, Mr. Bovasso, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Howard,
Mr. Montani, Mr. Ruane and Mr. Mallon.
Applicant #Z31-13:
Matthew and Judy Yau, Applicants
112 Hillcrest Avenue, Block 416, Lot 23 and R-4 Zone
To permit reconstruction of a garage and carport with the following
variances: less than the minimum required front yard setback (§136-30.6); to
permit an accessory structure in the front yard (§136-34(A)1); less than the
minimum required setback from any principal building (§136-34(A)1); and less
than the minimum required interior width and depth for a residential garage
(§136-23G(1)(3)(a).
Harvey Fruchter, Esquire appeared on behalf of the applicant. He explained they are
seeking to rebuild a garage and add a carport. Since corner lot relates to C variance. This
will permit the property to come into greater compliance with township ordinance. Clarified
variances that are being requested. Redrawn plans were distributed to the Board members
for clarification purposes.
Mr. Weeks confirmed front yard setback, one variance is for 1 inch short of the 25 foot
requirement and is pre-existing on Hillcrest Avenue; other front yard (corner lot) proposed
to be 17.8 as opposed to 25 foot required on New Street – 7.4 inches deficient. Accessory
structure in front yard is carport; accessory structure proposed at 5 feet from principal
structure where 10 feet is required. Interior width and depth of garage – garage itself
exceeds minimum requirements 10 X 20 constructing 13 X 22 and not requesting variance
on that aspect.
Matthew Yau, Applicant, appeared and was sworn in. Purchased property in 2009. Front
faces Hillcrest Avenue, side New Street, modified Cape. Existing driveway is off new
Street, corner lot. At time property was purchased, there was no garage, but a paved area
with existing footings. Discovered there used to be a garage that was destroyed by a fallen
tree, had since been repaved. Paved area goes to back of the garage and is the exact
area garage originally stood. Garage will not change the impervious surface in any way.
The carport does change the impervious surface by 182 square feet. Property area is
approximately 6,000 square feet and increase is approximately 3%. Construction of offstreet parking is in compliance with Township Ordinance. Currently does not have any.
Proposed parking will be further benefit as both vehicles will be protected and consistent
with the neighborhood. Has discussed proposal with neighbors. Photographs A-1 through
A-9 identified by the applicant. Accurately depict the area of the house and surrounding
properties. Houses of similar design in the area. Professional reports resulted in 4
additional photos being taken they were marked as Exhibits A-10 thru A-13 as follows: 10
Board of Adjustment
Meeting of September 23, 2013
Page 5
& 11 depict New Street looking into the driveway and area where carport will be built with
woods at end of driveway; 12 & 13 depicts the tree that needs to be removed, Township
tree that must be removed but is diseased and even if garage is not approved, the tree
must be removed - will plant a replacement tree, not exact location, but will replace.
Minimal nature of increase in impervious surface – water is not an issue even during Irene
and Sandy due to pitch of the property.
Questions by the Board ascertained the following information:
Garage was destroyed by tree prior to their purchase of the home. Deck was added about
10 years go prior to purchase. Does not know if both existed simultaneously. Mr. Fruchter
explained 5 foot deficiency relates to the carport not the garage and is from the deck. Did
not propose a two-car garage as will result in tight clearance on the property, however Fire
Department report indicates no comments. A small area will be added to the driveway for
the carport. No plan at this point to mediate increase in impervious surface, but applicant
is willing to mediate if required. Environmental Commission recommended that all trees be
replaced, but would not be open to that option, only replacement of the Township tree.
Finishes will match the existing house.
Mr. Pistol opened the application to the public for questions of the witness with no one
appearing and this portion of the hearing was closed with the matter referred back to the
Board.
Mr. Pistol opened the application to the public for comments with no one appearing and
this portion of the hearing was closed with the matter referred back to the Board.
DELIBERATION OF APPLICATION #Z31-13
Applicant #Z31-13:
Matthew and Judy Yau, Applicants
112 Hillcrest Avenue, Block 416, Lot 23 and R-4 Zone
To permit reconstruction of a garage and carport with the following
variances: less than the minimum required front yard setback (§13630.6); to permit an accessory structure in the front yard (§136-34(A)1);
and less than the minimum required setback from any principal
building (§136-34(A)1)
Mr. Pistol reviewed the testimony.
Board comments were as follows:
One of the variances for a garage setback is called a “front yard” but corner lot with dual
frontage. Setback between carport and deck, initially thought was a structure but has been
clarified as an open carport that will not present problem. Would be an improvement and
Board of Adjustment
Meeting of September 23, 2013
Page 6
does not impair the zoning ordinance. Would be beneficial if all the trees removed were
replaced. Mr. Weeks explained applicant must comply with storm water management
ordinance, one condition may be a topographical survey. Mr. Fruchter indicated applicant
would agree to use of pervious materials to eliminate the impervious surface issue. Design
is well thought out, only concern is impervious surface, however, applicant will comply and
is satisfied. Applicant has made a case for garage and carport on a large parcel of
property, not cramped. No adverse impact on the neighborhood.
Motion to approve application #Z31-13 as made by Mr. Bovasso with condition the
Applicant will comply with all recommendations of township professionals. Motion
seconded by Mr. Montani with the following voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Pistol, Mr.
Bovasso, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Howard, Mr. Montani, Mr. Ruane and Mr. Mallon.
Applicant #Z32-13:
Jamie Neville, Applicant
8 West End Place, Block 175, Lot 27, R-6 Zone
To permit placement of an outside air-conditioning condenser in the
front yard where not permitted (§136-34D(4).
Jamie Neville, Applicant, appeared and was sworn in. She explained she is seeking
a variance to place an air-conditioning unit in front yard which contractor explained is
necessary for proper efficiency. Property is a row house, no side yards for placement.
Low lying deck across the back of home that would be impacted if placed in rear yard.
Photos distributed for benefit of the Board.
Questions by the Board ascertained the following information:
Some neighbors have A/C units some in the rear and some on their decks. Confirmed zero
side yard, and only possible place to comply would be in the rear yard, but even that is
extremely narrow. Unit has been landscaped with foliage so cannot be seen from the
street as depicted in the photos. Has been installed with issuance of a permit, but no flags
were raised with need for variance discovered after installation - a year ago. Small square
compressor unit. Low lying deck so unit could be placed underneath, could have been on
the deck but most of neighbors spend time in rear yard and would have caused more
inconvenience to them. Also no shade in the rear yard, placing in front, which is shaded,
would provide more efficiency. Took photos 3 weeks ago and then plant died. Will replace
and plant additional shrubs to completely block view from all angles.
Mr. Pistol opened the application to the public for questions of the witness with no one
appearing and this portion of the hearing was closed with the matter referred back to the
Board.
Mr. Pistol opened the application to the public for comments with
Board of Adjustment
Meeting of September 23, 2013
Page 7
Anthony Fernandes, appeared and was sworn in. Lives at the residence and worked with
contractors. Ordinance is particularly challenging as requires 5 feet from all sides, which
does not work well with a row house. Shrubs will be replaced and additional landscaping
added. Cannot hear the condenser and have not received any complaints.
No one else appeared and this portion of the hearing was closed with the matter referred
back to the Board.
DELIBERATION OF APPLICATION #Z 32-13
Applicant #Z32-13:
Jamie Neville, Applicant
8 West End Place, Block 175, Lot 27, R-6 Zone
To permit placement of an outside air-conditioning condenser in the
front yard where not permitted (§136-34D(4).
Mr. Pistol reviewed the testimony.
See as a hardship, 15 foot wide lot, extremely limiting. Rear yard was not an option as per
the HVAC expert and unit has been installed for a year now with no complaints from the
neighbors and no one in attendance this evening. Concerns – aware that space is a
problem, but believes there were other issues - unaware of how expert determined best
location, not an opportunity for improved zoning code by placing in front of the house, has
not seen any evidence. Understands view, but in this particular not looking to change the
zoning in Cranford, rather a classic case of why the Board exists; generally prohibited, but
not all properties can comply. This case is a classic hardship. Such close quarters with 16
foot wide properties, no side yards and it would be more of a nuisance to neighbors if
placed in the rear yard. This is an appropriate hardship case based on the property, not
personal. Discussion on improved zoning, negative criteria as stands as unsightly,
however, applicant will be completely screening from all view. Zoning Officer will enforce
screening if there are any complaints. No neighbors in attendance to oppose, which
speaks volumes. Each applicant stands on its own, does not set precedent. Agrees, if
person was here from the neighborhood would feel differently, but no one in attendance,
generally would not be in favor of A/C units in front property.
Motion to approve application #Z32-13 as made by Mr. Bovasso with condition that
additional shrubs will be added to screen the unit from all angles. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Ruane with the following voting in favor of the motion: Mr. Pistol, Mr.
Bovasso, Mr. Higgins, Mr. Howard, Mr. Ruane and Mr. Mallon. Voting in opposition to the
motion: Mr. Montani.
PUBLIC PORTION:
None
Board of Adjustment
Meeting of September 23, 2013
Page 8
CONCLUSION:
There being no further business, a motion to adjourn the meeting was regularly made,
seconded and passed. The meeting concluded at 9:30 P.M.
Robert Bovasso, Alternate Secretary