MOORESTOWN TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING May 16, 2017 MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT Peter D. Clifford, Board Secretary

Transcription

1 MEMBERS PRESENT: STAFF PRESENT Jamie Lyn Boren Peter D. Clifford, Board Secretary Mary Ann Fallows Peter Thorndike ESQ, Board Attorney Joseph Maguire Danielle Gsell, Recording Secretary Richard Koory Mara Wuebker P.P, Professional Planner Kimberly Fischel Absent: Mark Williams, Christopher Caulder, Alternate I, Steve Solomon Alternate members present for ZBA # A application: William Barker and Douglas Joyce Chairperson Maguire called the meeting to order in the Council Chambers at 7:35pm by reading the Open Public Meetings Act statement. A moment of silence was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Roll call is as listed above. RESOLUTIONS: Denise Siwinski Block: 4309 Lot: 15 Zone: R Newbold Ave Decision Due: July 11, 2017 Bulk variance to allow a 5' fence in the front yard area A motion to approve this resolution was made by Mr. Koory seconded by Ms. Boren. The roll call vote of eligible Board members was unanimous in favor. Motion Carried. ZBA# Amy Barton & Ed Vidal Block: 4101 Lot: 61 Zone: R West Maple Ave Decision Due: July 21, 2017 Bulk variance to reduce side yard setback and exceed impervious coverage for an addition A motion to approve this resolution was made by Ms. Fallows seconded by Ms. Boren. The roll call vote of eligible Board members was unanimous in favor. Motion Carried. MINUTES: A motion to approve the April 18th Meeting Minutes was made by Mr. Koory seconded by Ms. Fallows. The roll call vote of eligible Board members was unanimous in favor. Motion Carried. PUBLIC HEARING: ZBA# Lynn Marie Locatell Block 6400 Lot 24 Zone: R East Main Street Decision Due: June 30, 2017 Bulk variance to reduce side and front yard setback for a two-story addition and garage 1

2 addition. Ms. Locatell and Mr. Thomas Monahan, ESQ. her attorney was sworn in by Mr. Thorndike. Mr. Thorndike then individually asked whether all board members would be able to hear this case fairly and without prejudice since Ms. Locatell is the spouse of newly elected Town Council-Person Mr. Michael Locatell who has interest in the property; each board member did affirm that they would be able to fairly hear the case. Mr. Thorndike then reviewed the reasons that Ms. Locatell was coming before the board, also then verified her lot size and location. Additionally, Mr. Thorndike confirmed the size of the addition and the proposed setbacks from the respective property lines. Public Questions/Comments: Mr. Ron Giordano from 601 Oldershaw made a comment that the neighbors and utility company use Tiver Lane as access to their home and questioned when Tiver would be vacated since the conversation had been tabled by Town Council. Board Questions/Comments: Mr. Thorndike asked Ms. Locatell if the street known as Tiver Lane was an impassable street, Ms. Locatell stated that she does use Tiver Lane for access to her property. Mr. Thorndike asked Ms. Locatell and her attorney about the addition that she was planning on building, verifying that the addition that would be built on the back of the house would have the westside flush with the west side of the house and the east side would project out past the current east side of the house. Ms. Locatell will be replacing the existing garage with a new one since the current garage is too small to fit any cars. The applicant confirmed that the second floor of the garage will be used for storage and that there would be no appliances within it. There will also be a cement slab to have the kids play on so that she can watch them from inside the house. The first-floor addition will consist of a mud room and a family room. The second-floor addition will consist of the master bedroom with its own master bathroom. There will be a more attic space above the second addition. Mr. Maguire asked Ms. Locatell about the intended use for the garage attic, she stated that it is and will be continued to be used as storage. Ms. Boren confirmed that the space would be semi-finished space, Ms. Locatell confirmed that the space would remain semi-finished. Mr. Koory asked Ms. Locatell if she was the one that maintained Tiver Lane (i.e. plowing and grass cutting) Ms. Locatell said that she did maintain the road. At 8:10pm Chairperson Maguire broke for a deliberation. Mr. Thorndike summed up what hardships Ms. Locatell had testified about including the narrow rectangular shape of the lot and the existing house. Ms. Boren said that she supported the application and Ms. Fallows agreed saying that the house in the current size is too small for a family that size. The board confirmed the proposed materials would match the existing materials. A motion to approve this application for bulk variances was made by Ms. Boren seconded by Ms. Fischel. The roll call vote of eligible Board members was unanimous in favor. Motion Carried. 2

3 At 8:13pm Mr. Maguire called a short recess to give the members speaking for ZBA # A time to set up their exhibits. Meeting was called back to order at 8:21pm ZBA# A Fahd Riaz Block 7100 Lot 15 Zone: R Garwood Road Court Remand of Prior Appeal Denial Mr. Thorndike read a memo sent to all the board members recapping the procedural history of this application since originally submitted. Mr. Thorndike confirmed that the Township received signed certifications from Mr. Barker and Mr. Joyce regarding their reading all the prior materials in the file and being ready to participate on this application after it was remanded from the Superior Court, Mr. Thorndike then turned the meeting over to the attending professional planner Mara Wuebker, P.P. Board Questions/Comments: Mr. Thorndike swore in Mara Wuebker then proceeded to ask her professional opinion whether the pool should be in the front or the back yard since the backyard provides more privacy to those using the pool. Ms. Wuebker presented a photo of the remaining fireplace and old pool which had overgrown vegetation (Exhibit ZBA-3). Mr. Thorndike asked if the pool was in a desirable visual environment and Ms. Wuebker broke down what the Municipal Land Use law considered to be desirable visual environment. Mr. Thorndike then questioned if the pool would be violating the law and was told that it would not. She noted there were no other pools in the front yard area. Ms. Wuebker then presented the variance sketch (Exhibit ZBA-4) moving the pool to the backyard so that she could show that there was indeed room and it could be placed in the backyard even though there were geothermal wells placed in the back. Mr. Thorndike asked if placing the pool in the backyard would require any additional clearing of the vegetation, it was explained that no additional clearing would need to be made to place the pool and the pool house in the backyard. Ms. Wuebker did check with DEP to make sure the geothermal wells wouldn t be affected with placing the pool in the backyard since the Mr. Riaz (homeowner) stated that the pool needed to be placed in the front since the wells would be effected. Ms. Wuebker presented an aerial map (Exhibit ZBA-5) showing where the wells were placed in Mr. Riaz s back yard. The certified septic plan (Exhibit ZBA-6) was presented to the board. At the Board s request, Ms. Wuebker traced the lines of the wells on Exhibit ZBA-4 so they could clearly see the rear yard. Mr. Thorndike asked what the hardship was for the homeowner with being asked to move the pool to the backyard. Ms. Wuebker stated she was not sure what hardship the homeowner was facing with just being asked to move the pool to the backyard. Ms. Wuebker believes that the homeowner created his own hardship by installing the geothermal wells after the original application had been denied. Chairperson Maguire asked if it would be more cost effective to use the existing structures. Ms. Wuebker stated it may be, but there is only a minimal amount of the structure left for the pool house- cinder block walls, gravel, and a fireplace and it is uncertain 3

4 what the condition of the pool is, given its appearance. Ms. Boren said Mr. Riaz could build a smaller pool house. Mr. Thorndike stated that Mr. Riaz installed the wells at his own risk knowing that the pool application may be denied. Ms. Wuebker introduced the well records (Exhibit ZBA-7) and (Exhibit ZBA-8) she created showing the timeline of events since the purchase of the home by Mr. Riaz. The negative criteria of the application was presented, including that this property is not consistent with the rest of Garwood and that the rural zone mandates one house per lot. This would give the appearance of two houses on the lot. Mr. Thorndike asked where a typical pool is normally located on a property. Ms. Fischel followed that question by asking how far a pool is normally from a home. Mr. Riaz s attorney, Mr. Niall O Brien, ESQ asked Ms. Wuebker if she was qualified to give an engineering opinion about the pool or qualified to make decision about the pool. Ms. Wuebker stated that she was not qualified to give engineering opinions. Mr. O Brien questioned the board if when the application was taken out it should have been a C variance and not taken out as a D variance but Mr. Thorndike said it should have been a D variance due to two residential structures. Mr. O Brien asked about the privacy of the pool in the current location and Ms. Wuebker said that the adjacent neighbors could see the pool from their front yard. Mr. O Brien stated that his client could supplement the existing vegetation and discussed accessory structures in general. Mr. Scott Jarvis from Diamond Pools & Spas and Mr. Daniel Doran an engineer, were called and sworn in before the board to answer any questions about the pool. Mr. O Brien asked Mr. Jarvis about the structure of the current pool which he had seen for the first time in December 2015, Mr. Jarvis confirmed that the existing structure was sound. In March 2015 Mr. Jarvis meant with the builder to discuss the pool. After that meeting, Mr. Jarvis followed up with Mr. Riaz after he hadn t heard anything in a few weeks to see what was happening with the pool. In January 2017 Mr. Jarvis was called out to relook at the structure if the pool and found that the structure was still sound. He has also rechecked the pool in April 2017 and May Ms. Fischel asked if Mr. Jarvis knew what the bottom of the pool looked like, Mr. Jarvis said that if the bottom of the pool was not sound it would not be holding water. Chairperson Maguire asked what the typical life span of a pool this structure is, Mr. Jarvis said that there was no definite answer for that since there are so many variables that go into the life span of a pool. Mr. Koory wanted to know what need to be done to the existing pool, Mr. Jarvis listed that the pool would need to be drained, sandblasted, bonded, and refilled. Ms. Boren asked what the worst-case option would be on the damage of the pool and was told that there would only be minor structural repairs done to the pool. Mr. Jarvis was asked by the board what the cost would be to build the exact same pool in the backyard, he said that the cost would be between $125,000 to $ 140,000 but to refurbish the existing pool it would only be $ 25,000 to $ 30,000. Mr. Jarvis said that moving the pool to the backyard would be harder since the backyard would be complicated to get the equipment back there. Ms. Boren questioned Mr. Jarvis on how many pools he has built that were 250 feet from the house, he said that out of the approximant 1500 pools he has done only 3 or 4 have been that distance away. Mr. Koory asked if there would be decks and patios surrounding the pool and Mr. Jarvis said they had not discussed that. Chairperson Maguire questioned Mr. Jarvis on how many pools he has built in the front yard and Mr. Jarvis said he has done pools on corner properties but never done a front yard pool. Mr. Thorndike asked about the hardware for the existing pool and 4

5 if anything could be reused for the new pool, Mr. Jarvis said the quote included the basic hardware to be replaced. Mr. Riaz added that the pool quote also included having salt water. The cost of removing the old pool was quoted between $ 10,000 and $14,000, Ms. Wuebker raised the question about just filling in the existing pool and Mr. Jarvis stated that was not possible. Mr. Dan Doran, planner and engineer spoke to the various setbacks to the other homes on Garwood Rd. Mr. O Brien asked Mr. Doran his professional opinion about placing the pool in the backyard or leaving the pool in its current location. An as-built survey (Exhibit A-6) was presented to the board showing the top of the septic system and asked the board to consider the question of would you really want a pool to be built over top or near a septic system. Mr. Riaz stated that he purchased the home to see the abundant amount of wooded area behind his property and by placing the pool there he would not be able to enjoy the view any longer. Mr. Thorndike asked Mr. Doran if the soil in the backyard was the only soil on the property that would be able to accept a septic system and Mr. Doran said that he was not sure but he assumed all the soil had been tested and the backyard was the best fit for the septic system. Mr. Doran also discussed Exhibit A- 5, which was a wider aerial photo of the property. He noted the septic mound was raised six fee out of the ground due to an elevated water table. Mr. Doran presented 12 pictures (Exhibits A-71, A-72, and A-73) showing the septic system set up. Mr. Koory wanted Mr. Doran to tell him if the septic slope was just for the septic system or if the slope was all around the yard. Ms. Boren asked if it is typical to pump uphill for a septic system and Mr. Doran said yes it was, he then began to explain the difference between a mounted and lower septic system. Ms. Wuebker questioned that fact that the old septic system was removed due to problems in that area but then the new septic system was placed right back in the same location. Mr. O Brien then asked Mr. Doran to review the positive and negative criteria. Mr. Thorndike asked if Mr. Doran was a structural engineer and he said no but he had looked at the pool however could not testify to the foundation structure of the existing pool. Mr. Doran said that he disagreed with Ms. Wuebker, the planner, that the pool was a negative impact on the public since the pool has been there for an extended period with the public seeing it and with the current vegetation it should not be a negative impact. The question was presented to the applicant if he would be willing to build up the vegetation if required by the board or would he make sure to replace the current vegetation should it die, Mr. Riaz agreed to building up or replacing the vegetation if need be. This application was classified as a D variance since the pool house would be containing rooms that could be used to live in; there was discussion on the variances should the pool house only be used to store the pool equipment. There was some discussion about removing walls and heating and cooling to keep a place to change as well as a place to use the bathroom. Mr. Doran pointed out to the board that 2 houses on Garwood had garages in the front yard, he was asked if those garages were pre-existing non-conforming structures and he could not provide an answer for that. Mr. Riaz asked if there would be anything that he could provide as addition vegetation such as evergreens, he also was prepared to provide new floor plans that had a less extensive pool house to the board, however Mr. Thorndike stated they would need to be presented to the board as a new application. The New floor plans did include removing the heating/cooling system to make the pool house a less residential structure 5

6 Mr. Riaz then provided a closing statement saying that he has been waiting to have this pool since 2015 and he has placed every dime he has into this application. He asked the board again to grant him a relief that he was originally granted in Chairperson Maguire then asked the public if there was any questions or comments. Public Questions/Comments: Ms. Sara Clarke from 720 Garwood Rd stated that she knew the pool was last used in 2012 and that she has lived on her residence since She testified that the structure of the old pool house was very unsafe and that she feared her children would be hurt while playing outside should the pool house fall. She was in support of Mr. Riaz application to refurbish the existing pool structure and felt they were all unique lots. Board Deliberations: Chairperson Maguire called for board deliberation at 10:32pm. He stated that he had approved and supported the original application because the existing building was already there and considered it a hardship to raze an existing structure and to clear wooded land in the rear of the lot to conform with the MLUL. As the site stands today, there are remnants of the previous structure and in the interim the applicant has cleared sufficient land to place a pool and accessory structure in the rear yard in compliance with the MLUL without undue hardship. Ms. Boren agreed with the statement but also added she was worried about the current pool structure and that the variance stated that the building was good and there would no additional clearing of the backyard. Ms. Fallows stated that she has never seen front yard pools before and she does not see any hardships for Mr. Riaz. Ms. Fischel was worried that there was a safety concern since the pool is 250 feet from house and you cannot see what is happening in the pool, Ms. Boren agreed with Ms. Fischel s concern. Mr. Barker stated that he was having a hard time supporting this application. Ms. Boren asked for clarification regarding the interplay of the variance and Mr. Thorndike provided information and legal guidance. A motion to deny this application was made by Ms. Boren seconded by Mr. Maguire. The roll call vote of eligible Board members was unanimous in favor. Motion to deny was granted. Chairperson Maguire did inform that board the Peter Clifford would no longer be the board secretary after 19 years, Tony Zappasodl would now be the new board secretary, all the board members wished Peter the best. With no further business to discuss, Ms. Boren made a motion, seconded by Ms. Fischel to adjourn the meeting. The voice vote was unanimous in favor. The meeting was adjourned at 10:53pm 6