1 - 3/09/16 – BOA

BERNARDS TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES Regular Meeting

March 9, 2016 Mr. Rhatican called the meeting to order at 7:39 p.m.

OPEN MEETING STATEMENT “In accordance with the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Law, notice of this special meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Bernards was posted on the bulletin board in the reception hall of the Municipal Building, Collyer Lane, Basking Ridge, New Jersey, was sent to the Bernardsville News, Bernardsville,

NJ, and the Courier News, Bridgewater, NJ, and was filed with the Township Clerk all on January 11, 2016 and was electronically mailed to all those people who have requested individual notice. “The following procedure has been adopted by the Bernards Township Board of Adjustment. There will be no new cases heard after 10:00 p.m. and no new witnesses or testimony heard after 10:30 p.m.”

ROLL CALL: Members present: Baldassare, Breslin, Genirs, Lane, Mastrangelo, Zaidel, Surano,

Rhatican Members late: none Members absent: Nungester; on motion by Baldassare, seconded by Breslin, Ms.

Nungester’s absence was excused. Board Attorney Steven Warner, Esq. and Township/Board Planner David Schley were also present.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES The motion was made by Mr. Baldassare and seconded by Mr. Breslin to approve the minutes of November 4, 2015 as drafted. Roll call: Aye: Baldassare, Breslin, Zaidel, Rhatican

(Ms. Genirs, Mr. Lane, Ms. Mastrangelo & Mr. Surano were ineligible to vote.)

Motion carried The motion was made by Mr. Baldassare and seconded by Mr. Zaidel to approve the minutes of December 2, 2015, as drafted. Roll call: Aye: Baldassare, Zaidel, Rhatican

(Mr. Breslin, Ms. Genirs, Mr. Lane, Ms. Mastrangelo & Mr. Surano were ineligible to vote)

Motion carried

2 - 3/09/16 – BOA

APPROVAL OF CHARGES AGAINST ESCROW ACCOUNTS The motion was made by Mr. Baldassare and seconded by Mr. Breslin to approve the charges submitted by David Schley for February 2016, Steven Warner, Esq. for February 2016 and John Belardo, Esq. for January 2016. Roll call: Aye: Baldassare, Breslin, Genirs, Lane, Mastrangelo, Zaidel, Rhatican Motion carried

APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS RESOLUTION – DCI Homes, LLC (ZB15-023) – Block 1611, Lot 6 – 69 East The motion was made by Mr. Baldassare and seconded by Mr. Breslin to approve the resolution as drafted.

Roll call: Aye: Baldassare, Breslin, Genirs, Lane, Mastrangelo, Zaidel, Rhatican (Mr. Surano was ineligible to vote) Motion carried

RESOLUTION – Botros, Mark (ZB15-024) – Block 4701, Lot 9 – 60 Annin Road – Bulk Variances The motion was made Mr. Lane and seconded by Ms. Mastrangelo to approve the resolution as drafted. Roll call: Aye: Baldassare, Breslin, Genirs, Lane, Mastrangelo, Zaidel, Rhatican (Mr. Surano was ineligible to vote) Motion carried

Appointment of Landscape Committee Ms. Genirs, Ms. Mastrangelo and Mr. Zaidel volunteered to be the committee to inspect the landscaping for the Falcone application at 357 Mt. Prospect Road.

COMPLETENESS & PUBLIC HEARING – CHATTARAJ, ANYAN & ANURADHA (ZB 16-001) – Block 5402, Lot 8 – 6 Wharton Way – Bulk Variances Mrs. Anuradha Chattaraj, 6 Wharton Way, applicant, and Mr. Schley were sworn in. Mrs. Chattaraj said she wants to expand her kitchen, convert the garage into a family room, and build a new garage on the north side of the house. She noted that their lot is small and on the corner of Wharton Way and Lyons Road. She said the addition to the rear would extend no further than the existing enclosed patio. She said there is a fence in the ‘front’ yard facing Lyons Road. Mr. Schley clarified that the existing fences are pre-existing nonconforming structures. Mr. Anyan Chattaraj, 6 Wharton Way, was sworn in. He said that they will remove the nonconforming fencing and install conforming fences. He confirmed that both existing sheds will be removed. Mr. and Mrs. Chattaraj agreed to comply with Comment #3 of Mr. Schley’s March 4, 2016 review memo.

3 - 3/09/16 – BOA

Public hearing was opened for questions of Mr. and Mrs. Chattaraj and comments on the application; hearing no one, the public portion of this hearing on this application was closed. Board members noted the nonconforming aspects of the lot and the applicants’ proposal to remove the nonconforming fences. The motion was made by Mr. Zaidel and seconded by Mr. Breslin to deem the application complete and to direct the Board Attorney to draft a memorializing resolution approving the application subject to the comments in Mr. Schley’s March 3, 2016 memo including the removal of all nonconforming fencing.

Roll call: Aye: Baldassare, Breslin, Genirs, Lane, Mastrangelo, Zaidel, Rhatican Motion carried

COMPLETENESS & PUBLIC HEARING – BARONE, JAMES (ZB16-002) – Block 2201, Lot 6 – 17 Mt. Airy Road – Bulk Variances The applicant was represented by Raleigh Steinhauer, Esq. Mr. Steinhauer explained that the applicant wants to construct an addition. Due to the topography of the lot, presence of steep slopes, and the stream buffer conservation area, it is not possible to build a conforming addition. Mr. James Barone, applicant, Christian Kastrud, PE, applicant’s engineer, Steven Kowalski, applicant’s architect, and David Schley were sworn in. James Barone, 17 Mt. Airy Road, said he has lived in this house since 2001. He said the house was built in the 1940s. He wants to build an addition on the southwestern side of the house including a new kitchen and dining room, screened porch, and a portico over the front door. He said he will grant the Township stream buffer conservation easement. The shed in the rear yard will be demolished. Public hearing was opened for questions of Mr. Barone; hearing none, the public portion of this hearing on this witness was closed. Mr. Christian Kastrud, PE, Kastrud Engineering, Bound Brook, NJ was accepted as an expert in civil engineering. He described existing conditions on the lot and the constraints created by the watercourse, steep slopes, and Mt. Airy Road. He said that there is no conforming location for an addition to this house. Mr. Kastrud addressed the comments in Mr. Schley March 4, 2016 review memo. He said the disturbance to Zone Two of the stream buffer was minimal, the stream buffer management plan will be amended, and that the applicant’s environmental engineer has submitted a report to NJDEP to determine the resource value of the wetlands on the lot.

4 - 3/09/16 – BOA

Public hearing was opened for questions of Mr. Kastrud.

- John Crane, 39 Decker Street, asked about the rationale for the location of the garage.

Hearing no further questions, the public portion of this hearing for questions of this witness was closed. Mr. Stephen Kowalski, architect, Basking Ridge presented his credentials and was accepted as an expert in architecture. He described the existing house and the proposed additions. He said it would be similar to a house on the opposite of Mt. Airy Road. He said the roof over the breezeway was needed because the existing roof leaks. He noted that construction of a walk-out basement will require excavation.

Public hearing was opened for questions of this witness.

- John Crane, 39 Decker Street, asked about the setback requirements for the garage and addition.

Hearing no further questions, the public portion of this hearing for questions of this witness was closed. Public hearing was opened for comments on the application.

- John Crane, 39 Decker Street was sworn in. He presented Exhibit S-1, five pages of information about the neighborhood. He said that Mt. Airy Road was developed in the 1930s and this house is a 1940s ranch. He said that 17 of the lots in the neighborhood are currently nonconforming.

Hearing no further comments, the public portion of this hearing on this application was closed. The motion was made by Mr. Zaidel and seconded by Ms. Genirs to deem the application complete and to direct the Board Attorney to draft a memorializing resolution approving the application subject to compliance with the comments in Mr. Schley’s March 4, 2016 review memo, the removal of the shed, and the other conditions agreed to by the applicant at this meeting. Roll call: Aye: Baldassare, Breslin, Genirs, Lane, Mastrangelo, Zaidel, Rhatican Motion carried

COMPLETENESS & PUBLIC HEARING - STANICHEVSKI, BORIS & STOJNA (ZB16-003) – Block 3402, Lot 42 – 326 South Maple Avenue – Bulk Variance Mrs. Stojna Stanichevski, applicant, Ms. Afshan Vandal, Parsippany, NJ applicant’s architect, and Mr. Schley were sworn in. Ms. Vandal presented her credentials and was accepted as an expert in architecture. She described the proposed construction as an addition and a renovation. The Stanichevskis need more space and proposed to expand the master bedroom on the

5 - 3/09/16 – BOA

first floor and build a 2nd floor with two bedrooms and a bath over the front half of the house. The house needs work because the roof leaks. These additions will increase the lot coverage to 15.54%. The existing rear yard setback is 54 ft where 75 ft is required; this setback will not change. Public hearing was opened for questions of Ms. Vandal; hearing none, the public portion of this hearing for questions of this witness was closed. Mrs. Stanichevski, 326 South Maple Avenue, said that she had spoken to her neighbors and they had no objections. She said the exterior would be similar to what is there now. Public hearing was opened for questions of Mrs. Stanichevski; hearing none, the

public portion of this hearing for questions of this witness was closed. Public hearing was opened for comments on the application; hearing none, the public portion of this hearing on this application was closed. The motion was made by Mr. Baldassare and seconded by Mr. Breslin to deem the application complete and to direct the Board Attorney to draft a memorializing resolution approving the application subject to compliance with conditions discussed at this meeting. Roll call: Aye: Baldassare, Breslin, Genirs, lane, Mastrangelo, Zaidel, Rhatican Motion carried

Discussion & Adoption of the Annual Report and Recommendations of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Bernards for the period January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 Board members discussed previous recommendations from earlier Annual Reports. It was noted that only two applications during 2015 involved lot coverage issues and the Township Committee has not acted on the previous recommendation to study the impact of lot coverage requirements. Board members were not in favor of continuing to recommend a Historical Advisory Committee. The recommendation to amend the ordinance concerning pool location has been considered by the Township Committee but they decided to not act on this recommendation as well. Board members were in agreement to adopt the 2015 Annual Report with no recommendations. The motion was made by Mr. Baldassare and seconded by Ms. Mastrangelo to adopt the draft report as discussed at the meeting. Roll call: Aye: Baldassare, Breslin, Genirs, Lane, Mastrangelo, Zaidel, Rhatican Motion carried

6 - 3/09/16 – BOA

CLOSED SESSION –Pending Litigation (51 Holly Road Associates, LLC) On motion by Baldassare, seconded by Breslin, the Board adjourned the public hearing and went into closed session at 9:52 p.m.

On motion by Baldassare, seconded by Breslin, the Board went back into public session at 9:57 p.m. There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Frances Florio Secretary to the Board

7 - 3/09/16 – BOA

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS

DCI HOMES, LLC

Case No. ZB15-023

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, DCI HOMES, LLC (the “Applicant”) has applied to the Zoning

Board of Adjustment of the Township of Bernards (the “Board”) for the following bulk

variances in connection with the removal of an existing dwelling, and construction of a

two-story, 3,234 square foot dwelling with an attached two-car garage, on property

identified as Block 1611, Lot 6 on the Tax Map, more commonly known as 69 East

Lewis Street (the “Property”):

(1) A variance for a pre-existing lot area of 17,820 square feet (0.409

acre), whereas the minimum required lot area in an R-7 (1/2 acre)

residential zone is 21,780 square feet, pursuant to Section 21-

15.1.d.1 and Table 501 of the Land Development Ordinance;

(2) A variance for a pre-existing lot width of 100.37 feet, whereas the

minimum required lot width in an R-7 (1/2 acre) residential zone is

125 feet, pursuant to Section 21-15.1.d.1 and Table 501 of the

Land Development Ordinance;

(3) A variance for a pre-existing improvable lot area of 3,958 square

feet, whereas the minimum required improvable lot area in an R-7

(1/2 acre) residential zone is 5,000 square feet, pursuant to Section

21-10.4(b) and Table 401-A of the Land Development Ordinance;

and

(4) A variance for combined side-yard setback of 47 feet, whereas the

minimum required combined side-yard setback in an R-7 (1/2 acre)

residential zone is 60 feet, pursuant to Section 21-15.1.d.1 and

Table 501 of the Land Development Ordinance; and

8 - 3/09/16 – BOA

WHEREAS, a public hearing on notice was held on such application on February

3, 2016, at which time interested citizens were afforded an opportunity to appear and be

heard; and

WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the

Applicant and the reports from consultants and reviewing agencies, has made the

following factual findings and conclusions:

1. The Board reviewed the application and deemed it to be complete.

2. The Property is a pre-existing, undersized rectangular lot fronting on the

south side of East Lewis Street. The Property is improved with an older, 2-story, single-

family dwelling.

3. The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a

3,234 square foot two-story single-family dwelling with an attached two-car garage.

4. The Applicant’s proposal is depicted on engineering plans prepared by

Kevin G. Page, P.E., of Page Engineering Consultants, PC, dated November 24, 2015,

unrevised, same consisting of two (2) sheets, and architectural plans prepared by David C.

Washington, R.A., of Washington Architectural Group, P.A., dated November 5, 2015,

last revised November 25, 2015, same consisting of six (6) sheets.

5. The requested variances for the lot area, lot width, improvable lot area and

combined side-yard setback deviations are governed by the criteria of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-

70(c).

6. Vincent Bisogno, Esq., entered his appearance as Applicant’s counsel.

9 - 3/09/16 – BOA

7. David Schley, A.I.C.P./P.P., the Township/Board Planner, and Thomas

Timko, P.E., C.M.E., the Township/Board Engineer, both were duly sworn according to

law.

8. Vito Inghilterra, the Managing Member of DCI Homes, LLC (the

Applicant), was duly sworn according to law. Mr. Inghilterra testified that he was a

contractor and home builder and purchased the home approximately 6 months ago. He

further testified that the existing two-story colonial dwelling was not in habitable

condition and that the foundation had vertical cracks which severely compromised the

structural integrity of the dwelling and made it unsafe. Mr. Inghilterra introduced into

evidence, as Exhibit A-1, a compendium of four photographs (A through D). Mr.

Inghilterra testified that he took the pictures approximately three weeks ago and that they

accurately depict the dwelling as it currently exists.

9. Referencing Exhibit A-1A, Mr. Inghilterra explained that a portion of the

bathroom was sitting on a pier, rather than a sound foundation, and was, in his opinion,

unsafe. Referencing Exhibits A-1B, A-1C, and A-1D, Mr. Inghilterra testified that, as

shown in the pictures, the foundation was cracked and could not be repaired. He further

testified that the interior of the dwelling had no insulation, no sheet rock and was

crumbling.

10. Mr. Bisogno introduced into evidence, as Exhibit A-2, a sheet entitled,

“2015 Residential Property Square Footage Assessment Data,” dated February 6, 2015.

11. Mr. Inghilterra testified that he intended to construct an approximately

3,200 square foot dwelling which was comparable to existing dwellings in the

neighborhood.

10 - 3/09/16 – BOA

12. As to the proposed front-yard setback, Mr. Inghilterra contended that the

existing house was too close to the roadway and proposed a conforming 40.5 foot front-

yard setback. Mr. Inghilterra contended that the proposed 40.5 foot front-yard setback

would not be inconsistent with the neighborhood, despite that several adjacent lots had

lesser front-yard setbacks (i.e., Lot 5 (to the west) has a setback of 26.5 feet, and Lots 7,

8, and 9 (to the east) have setbacks of 17 feet, 16 feet and 14 feet, respectively). Mr.

Inghilterra testified that only those four lots had deficient setbacks (and several others

nearby had conforming front-yard setbacks), and that if those four neighboring lots were

purchased and redeveloped (as has been the trend), any proposed dwellings likely would

be larger with conforming setbacks (such as he was proposing). He further contended

that, because the proposed dwelling was slightly larger than the existing dwelling, a non-

conforming setback could make the dwelling appear more massive from the streetscape.

13. Mr. Inghilterra testified that the proposal eliminated the existing

nonconforming side-yard setback and gave the neighboring property owners more

privacy. He further testified that the existing driveway would be relocated to the front of

the Property.

14. As to the comments set forth in Mr. Schley’s January 27, 2016 Review

Memo, the Applicant stipulated to complying with all of the conditions set forth therein.

As to Comment 5, regarding historic preservation, Mr. Inghilterra testified that it would

be very difficult, if not impossible, to preserve the existing dwelling and, while it was

located in a historic district, it was not a historic structure, did not have historic

architectural elements, and was not located on South Maple Avenue where most of the

11 - 3/09/16 – BOA

historic dwellings have remained but rather it was located off of the main street where

several older homes already have been razed and replaced with new dwellings.

15. Michael Porr, residing at 10 Prospect Avenue (Lot 48) directly to the

south/rear of the Property, sought clarification as to the lot lines and whether the existing

fence would be retained (it will be).

16. Kevin G. Page, P.E., P.P., having a business address of P.O. Box 4619,

Warren, New Jersey, was duly sworn according to law, provided his qualifications, and

was accepted by the Board as an expert in the fields of both professional planning and

civil engineering. Referencing the engineering plans, Mr. Page described the Applicant’s

proposal. He testified that the existing dwelling was constructed in 1915, thus pre-

existing the Zoning/Land Development Ordinances. He opined that the Property was

located in a neighborhood in transition.

17. As to the proposed lot width of 100 feet, rather than the required width of

120 feet, Mr. Page testified that Lot 5 to the west was 75 feet wide and that Lots 7 and 8,

to the east, were 50 feet wide. He further testified that the Applicant could not eliminate

the lot width variance by obtaining additional property as the lots adjacent to the Property

are occupied by dwellings and are also nonconforming in lot area.

18. As to the proposed front-yard setback of 40.5 feet, Mr. Page opined same

was a better planning alternative as it brought the Property closer into conformity with the

Zoning Ordinance and also allowed for off-street parking. He explained that the existing

driveway was being replaced by a shorter driveway leading to a front loading two-car

attached garage, thereby minimizing impervious coverage and resulting in a more

efficient design.

12 - 3/09/16 – BOA

19. As to the lot area and improvable lot area variances, Mr. Page testified that

since the adjacent lots were already developed and also nonconforming, the Applicant

could not improve the proposed conditions. He explained that the deficient improvable

lot area was a result of the preexisting nonconforming lot size, rather than any

environmental constraints. He further testified that none of the variances sought were

self-created. Mr. Page opined that the proposed house was a reasonable size and fit on

the Property nicely.

20. As to the combined side-yard setback variance, Mr. Page testified that if

the Property had a conforming lot width of 125 feet, with a conforming combined side-

yard setback of 60 feet, the combined side-yard setback would comprise 48% of the lot

width and the dwelling would comprise the remaining 52%. He opined that the

Applicant’s proposal was consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance as a 47 foot

combined side-yard setback would comprise 47% of the lot width. He further opined that

if the 4 foot wide side entry, which is open and is only 1-1/2 feet high, was not included

in the width of the dwelling, the proposed combined side-yard setback would be 51 feet,

or 51% of the lot width.

21. Mr. Page introduced into evidence, as Exhibit A-3, a compendium of four

pages, each of which contained four photographs (16 photographs total), labeled A

through D. Referencing same, he described the dwellings in the neighborhood and

opined that this was a neighborhood in transition, given that many of the older homes

were razed and replaced with newer dwellings.

22. As to the drainage, after discussion regarding the proposed drywell system,

the Applicant stipulated to complying not only with Comment 7 in Mr. Timko’s January

13 - 3/09/16 – BOA

6, 2016 Review Memo, but also to complying with Comments 1 through 6 of same. The

Applicant further stipulated to complying with all of the comments set forth in Mr.

Schley’s January 27, 2016 Review Memo. Regarding Comment 12, Mr. Schley

explained that the Applicant was required to complete a lot coverage disclosure form to

be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit. Mr. Schley opined that the

proposed combined side-yard setback was appropriate as it resulted in sufficient open

space, thereby meeting the intent and purpose of the ordinance.

23. On questioning by the Board, Mr. Page testified that he did not believe the

proposal resulted in a substantial detriment to the public good or a substantial impairment

of the zone plan. He further opined that the increased distance between dwellings,

available off-street parking, and the elimination of the existing nonconforming front- and

side-yard (east) setbacks, mitigated any detrimental impact associated with the proposal.

24. Richard E. Japko, Jr., R.A., having a business address of 930 Mount

Kemble Avenue, Morristown, New Jersey, was duly sworn according to law, provided his

qualifications, and was accepted by the Board as an expert in the field of architecture.

Mr. Japko described the existing dwelling as a very simple colonial with small rooms.

He testified that the dwelling did not have a garage and confirmed that the foundation was

in poor condition due to the vertical and horizontal cracks.

25. As to whether the dwelling should be preserved, he opined that the

foundation made it impossible to do so. He further opined that the neighborhood was one

that was in transition and consisted of a variety of different style dwellings, and that the

existing dwelling did not have a unique architectural character worth preserving. Mr.

Japko, referencing his architectural plans, described the proposed dwelling.

14 - 3/09/16 – BOA

26. Referencing Sheet 1 of 6, he testified that the dwelling would be

constructed of clapboard style siding, trim boards and a flat roof. Referencing Sheets 2

and 3 of 6, he described the basic layout of the dwelling. He testified that the proposal

included a walk-up attic that would be habitable by definition. Referencing Sheets 5 and

6, he described the left, right, and rear elevations. Mr. Japko opined that the proposal was

in character with the neighborhood and would not result in substantial detriment to the

public good or a substantial impairment of the zone plan.

27. No member of the public objected to, or commented on, the application.

THE BOARD’S DECISION

28. After reviewing the evidence submitted, the Board, by a vote of 7 to 0,

finds that the Applicant has satisfied its burden of proving an entitlement to the requested

variance relief for the pre-existing lot area, lot width, improvable lot area, and combined

side-yard setback deviations under both N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(1) and N.J.S.A. 40:55D-

70(c)(2).

The c(1) Positive Criteria:

29. As to the positive criteria for “(c)(1)” or “undue hardship” variances, the

Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied its burden of demonstrating that strict

application of the zoning regulations will result in peculiar and exceptional difficulties to,

or exceptional and undue hardship upon, it as the owner of the Property, as a result of

unique conditions relating to the Property.

30. As to minimum lot area, the Applicant’s 17,820 square foot (.409 acre)

Property is a nonconforming lot in the R-7 (1/2 acre) zone. The Board notes that the

deficient improvable lot area is a function of the size of the lot rather than environmental

15 - 3/09/16 – BOA

constraints. Additionally, the Applicant’s 17,820 square foot lot became undersized

when a minimum lot area requirement of 20,000 square feet was established in 1947.

The lot likely remained conforming until 1982, when grandfathering provisions contained

in earlier ordinances were eliminated. The Applicant’s lot became further nonconforming

in 1999 when the minimum lot area and lot width requirements were increased, and

became even further nonconforming in 2006, when the side-yard setback requirements

were increased and the improvable lot area requirement was established. The 2006

minimum improvable lot area requirements were intended to ensure that adequate area

suitable for development (i.e., free of environmental or other constraints) is provided

within the building envelope on each lot.

31. The Board finds that the Applicant has established that no additional land

is available for purchase which would bring the lot area, lot width, and/or improvable lot

area into, or significantly closer to, conformity with the district standards of the Land

Development Ordinance. In this regard, the Board recognizes that the adjoining

properties to the west (Lot 5), east (Lot 7), and rear (Lot 48) of the Property are occupied

by dwellings and are also nonconforming in lot area. The Board finds that, since the

Applicant’s lot is surrounded by nonconforming lots, it is not possible for the Applicant

to purchase any adjoining land in order to create a more conforming lot area or

improvable lot area for the Applicant’s lot, without making an adjoining lot more

nonconforming. The Board further finds that the hardships that would be associated with

the lot area, lot width, and improvable lot area, were not self-created by the Applicant or

any predecessor-in-title.

16 - 3/09/16 – BOA

32. As to the proposed combined side-yard setback of 47 feet, the Board

recognizes that same is a function of the deficient lot width, and it would be exceptionally

difficult, if not practically impossible, for the Applicant to build a dwelling narrow

enough to result in a conforming, combined side-yard setback.

33. Based upon the foregoing, the Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied

the positive criteria for c(1) variance relief for all of the requested zoning deviations.

The c(2) Positive Criteria:

34. As to the positive criteria for “(c) (2)” or “flexible c” variances, the Board

finds that the proposed development will serve multiple purposes of zoning, as set forth

in the Municipal Land Use Law. These benefits include providing a desirable visual

environment, providing adequate light, air and open space, upgrading the housing stock,

promoting the general welfare, and enhancing the visual compatibility of the Property

with adjoining properties. In this regard, the Board recognizes that the proposed

dwelling, as compared to the existing dwelling, will improve the appearance of the

Property, promote additional open space on the Property, provide aesthetic and property

value benefits to the neighborhood, and otherwise improve the housing stock in the

community. The Board further recognizes that the proposal eliminates nonconforming

front-yard and side-yard (east) setbacks, thus adding additional benefits. Moreover, as to

the combined side-yard setback deviation, the Board recognizes that if the Property was a

conforming 125 foot width lot, the combined side-yard requirement of 60 feet would

ensure that 48% of the lot width will be open space (unoccupied by building). Here, on

the Applicant’s 100-foot wide lot, the Applicant’s proposed combined side yard of 47 feet

provides 47% open space. The Board further recognizes that the amount of proposed

17 - 3/09/16 – BOA

open space increases to 51% if the proposed side stoop, which is uncovered and only 1.5

feet high, is considered open space rather than part of the building. The Board further

finds that these benefits to be derived from the proposed development will substantially

outweigh any detriments associated with the variance relief sought, particularly given the

conditions stipulated to by the Applicant.

35. The Board concurs with the Applicant’s witnesses, particularly Mr. Page,

the engineer and planner, that a conforming front-yard setback as proposed would be

consistent with the trend associated with the construction of new homes in this area in

transition, and would be a better planning alternative, particularly given the increased size

of the new dwelling which could have a negative massing impact if located significantly

closer to the street (East Lewis Street). Moreover, the Board concurs with the

Applicant’s witnesses, particularly Mr. Japko, the architect, that the existing dwelling did

not have a unique architectural character from a historic perspective and, given its

location on East Lewis Street rather than South Maple Avenue, which is an area in

transition, there would be little, if any, benefit to preserving the existing dwelling. This is

particularly the case since the evidence revealed that preserving the dwelling would be

highly unlikely, if not impossible, given the severe damage to the foundation of the

existing dwelling, threatening its structural integrity and rendering it unsafe.

36. Based upon the forgoing, the Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied

the positive criteria for c(2) variance relief for all of the requested zoning deviations.

The Negative Criteria:

37. Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied the negative

criteria for the requisite variance relief. The Applicant has demonstrated that the

18 - 3/09/16 – BOA

requested relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and

without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning

ordinance. The Board considers, in this regard, that the relatively modest detrimental

impact is mitigated by the proposed landscape buffering/screening, improved stormwater

management system, and the other conditions stipulated to by the Applicant and set forth

below. The Board further considers, in this regard, the lack of any public opposition to

the proposal.

WHEREAS, the Board took action on this application at its meeting on February

3, 2016, and this Resolution constitutes a Resolution of Memorialization of the action

taken in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-l0(g);

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Adjustment of

the Township of Bernards, on the 3rd

day of February, 2016, that the application of DCI

Homes, LLC for variance relief as aforesaid, be and is hereby granted, subject to the

following conditions:

1. The Applicant shall post sufficient funds with the Township to satisfy any

deficiency in the Applicant’s escrow account;

2. The Applicant shall increase the number of proposed trees beyond the 3

replacement trees on the plans and shall include one Township standard

street tree and buffer plantings along the side property lines. The

Applicant’s tree protection, removal, and replacement plan shall be revised

to reflect same and shall be subject to the review and approval of the

Township Engineering Department prior to any land disturbance;

3. The Applicant shall comply with the comments set forth in Mr. Timko’s

January 6, 2016 Review Memo, including:

i. Correctly depicting the East Lewis Street curb-line and storm inlet;

ii. Correctly depicting the drop curb to include 18” transitions;

iii. Not removing topsoil from the site;

19 - 3/09/16 – BOA

iv. Removing from the site the soil from the foundation excavation,

unless the Applicant submits a grading plan showing were the soil

will be used on the site, subject to the review and approval of the

Township Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a

building permit;

v. Increasing the drywell in size for the tributary area and providing

that drainage only from the east side of the dwelling shall be

directed to the drywell; and

vi. Providing a swale along the east side of the dwelling out to the

street.

4. Soil erosion and sediment control measures and stormwater infiltration

measures shall be provided in accordance with Section 21-24.1.f.2. The

measures shown on the plans shall be revised and the plans shall be

subject to further review and approval by the Township Engineering

Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Perc test results in

support of the proposed stormwater infiltration measures shall be provided

at that time;

5. The Applicant shall make the site available to the Basking Ridge Fire

Company in the event that they wish to run drills on the site, with notice

given to the Fire Company at least 30 days prior to the demolition date of

the existing dwelling;

6. An engineering permit shall be obtained by the Applicant prior to work

with the Township right-of-way;

7. All utility services shall be underground and routed to minimize

disturbance to existing trees;

8. A completed Township standard lot coverage disclosure form shall be

submitted prior to issuance of a building permit;

9. A development fee shall be required in accordance with Section 21-86;

10. The aforementioned approval shall be subject to all requirements,

conditions, restrictions and limitations set forth in all prior governmental

approvals, to the extent same are not inconsistent with the terms and

conditions set forth herein;

11. The aforementioned approval also shall be subject to all State, County and

Township statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations affecting

development in the Township, County and State; and

20 - 3/09/16 – BOA

12. Pursuant to Section 21-5.10 of the Land Development Ordinance, the

variance relief granted herein shall expire unless such construction or

alteration permitted by the variance relief has actually commenced within

one year of the date of this Resolution.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

Those in Favor: Baldassare, Breslin, Genirs, Lane, Mastrangelo, Zaidel, Rhatican

Those Opposed: none

The foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of

Adjustment of the Township of Bernards at its meeting on March 9, 2016.

______________________________

______

FRANCES FLORIO, Secretary

ZONING BOARD OF

ADJUSTMENT

OF THE TOWNSHIP OF

BERNARDS, COUNTY OF

SOMERSET,

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Dated: __________________________, 2016

21 - 3/09/16 – BOA

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS

MARK BOTROS

Case No. ZB15-024

RESOLUTION

WHEREAS, MARK BOTROS (the “Applicant”) has applied to the Zoning Board

of Adjustment of the Township of Bernards (the “Board”) for the following bulk

variances in connection with the removal of an existing dwelling and detached garage,

and construction of a two-story, 5,260 square foot dwelling with an attached three-car

garage, on property identified as Block 4701, Lot 9 on the Tax Map, more commonly

known as 60 Annin Road (the “Property”):

(5) A variance for a proposed improvable lot area of 4,150 square feet,

whereas the existing improvable lot area is 3,059 square feet, and

the minimum required improvable lot area in an R-1 (3 acre)

residential zone is 25,000 square feet, pursuant to Section 21-

10.4(b) and Table 401-A of the Land Development Ordinance;

(6) A variance for a proposed front-yard setback of 75 feet, whereas

the existing front-yard setback is 86.3 feet, and the minimum

required front-yard setback is 100 feet in an R-1 (3 acre) residential

zone pursuant to Section 21-15.1(d)(1) and Table 501 of the Land

Development Ordinance; and

(7) A variance for a proposed side-yard setback (north) of 32 feet,

whereas the existing side-yard setback (north) is 28 feet, and the

minimum required side-yard setback is 50 feet in an R-1 (3 acre)

residential zone pursuant to Section 21-15.1(d)(1) and Table 501 of

the Land Development Ordinance; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing on notice was held on such application on February

3, 2016, at which time interested citizens were afforded an opportunity to appear and be

heard; and

22 - 3/09/16 – BOA

WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the

Applicant and the reports from consultants and reviewing agencies, has made the

following factual findings and conclusions:

38. The Board reviewed the application and deemed it to be complete.

39. The Property is improved with an existing dwelling and detached garage,

both of which will be razed, and a barn located within the required wetlands conservation

easement area, which will remain.

40. The Applicant proposes to demolish the existing dwelling and detached

garage and construct a 5,260 square foot two-story single-family dwelling, with five (5)

bedrooms and an attached three-car garage.

41. The Applicant’s proposal is depicted on engineering plans prepared by

Kevin G. Page, P.E., of Page Engineering Consultants, PC, dated November 24, 2015,

revised December 16, 2015, same consisting of three (3) sheets, and architectural plans

prepared by Douglas J. Coleman, A.I.A., P.P., dated August 5, 2015, last revised

November 30, 2015, same consisting of four (4) sheets.

42. The Property, with the exception of the most easterly portion, which is

approximately one half-acre, located mostly within the required front-yard setback area

along Annin Road, is constrained by wetlands, wetlands transition areas, and a stream

buffer conservation area. The stream buffer conservation area is due to the existence of

an unnamed tributary to the Dead River which flows along the north side of the Property

and then empties into said river at the rear of the Property. As such, the Applicant’s

building envelope is significantly constrained by wetlands, wetlands transition areas, and

a stream buffer conservation area.

23 - 3/09/16 – BOA

43. The Applicant received a transition area waiver (averaging plan) from the

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJDEP”) to allow disturbance of

3,561 square feet of wetlands transition area for construction of the proposed dwelling.

The approval from the NJDEP increases the improvable lot area. However, the Applicant

seeks to further increase the improvable lot area by requesting a Zone Two Waiver, which

would reduce the amount of building envelope constrained by the stream buffer

conservation area. If the Zone Two Waiver is granted, the improvable lot area would be

approximately 4,150 square feet; therefore the Applicant still would require a variance as

the required improvable lot area is 25,000 square feet.

44. The requested variances for the improvable lot area, front- and side-yard

setback deviations are governed by the criteria of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c).

45. Vincent Bisogno, Esq., entered his appearance as Applicant’s counsel.

46. David Schley, A.I.C.P./P.P., the Township/Board Planner, and Thomas

Timko, P.E., C.M.E., the Township/Board Engineer, both were duly sworn according to

law.

47. Kevin G. Page, P.E., P.P., having a business address of P.O. Box 4619,

Warren, New Jersey, was duly sworn according to law, provided his qualifications, and

was accepted by the Board as an expert in the fields of both professional planning and

civil engineering. Mr. Page testified that the Applicant had received permits from

NJDEP and a copy of same, dated September 23, 2011, was submitted with the

application.

48. Referencing the engineering plans dated November 24, 2015 and last

revised December 16, 2015, Mr. Page described the Applicant’s proposal. Referencing

24 - 3/09/16 – BOA

Sheet 1 (of 3), Mr. Page explained the location of the Property and compared the existing

and proposed dwellings to other dwellings located in the neighborhood. As to the two

lots north of the Property (Lots 10 and 11), he explained that prior to 1990, wetland

buffers of 50 feet, rather than 150 feet, were required, hence, explaining why Lots 10 and

11 had greater front-yard setbacks (i.e. the required buffers to the rear were smaller). He

also explained that Lot 8 contained a renovated, rather than newly reconstructed,

dwelling; hence that dwelling need not have been placed further from the rear, and closer

to the front, of the lot, despite the increased wetland buffer requirement.

49. Referencing Sheet 2 (of 3), Mr. Page described the existing improvable lot

area. He testified that the Applicant sought to construct the proposed dwelling in

essentially the same location as the existing dwelling.

50. Referencing Sheet 3 (of 3), Mr. Page testified that four trees will be

removed near the northwest corner of the dwelling. Mr. Page further testified that in

accordance with the Board’s request to vegetate the Property, 26 trees would be planted.

He explained that a special emphasis would be placed on planting trees near the Zone

One stream buffer so as to minimize erosion, and to increase water quality and shade

along the stream.

51. The Applicant stipulated to complying with Comment 4 of Mr. Schley’s

January 27, 2016 Review Memo and specifically to retaining a landscape architect to

select the plantings and same would be subject to the review and approval of the

Township Engineering Department. The Applicant also stipulated to complying with all

of the comments set forth in Mr. Schley’s Review Memo. As to Comment 11, the

Applicant testified that he may ask the NJDEP to reconsider their requirement for a fence;

25 - 3/09/16 – BOA

however, the Applicant also stipulated that, unless the NJDEP issues an amended

approval to this effect, the plans would be revised and the split rail fence would be

installed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the proposed dwelling.

52. The Applicant further stipulated to complying with all of the comments set

forth in Mr. Timko’s January 7, 2016 Review Memo. Mr. Page testified that the detached

garage was being removed and the existing barn, located in the wetlands buffer, would be

retained. The Applicant further stipulated that, since the detached barn will remain

within the wetlands conservation easement area, there will be no vehicular access to the

barn, nor will there be any vehicular storage therein, and the barn will be preserved in its

present condition, without any land disturbance, unless the Applicant obtains all

necessary permits and approvals from the Township and the NJDEP.

53. As to the proposed front-yard setback of 75 feet, Mr. Page explained that

wetlands and wetland transition areas cannot be disturbed and the Applicant proposed to

shift the dwelling 10 feet closer to Annin Road to provide a backyard. He opined that the

reduced setback would not be inconsistent with the neighborhood as many of the

neighboring lots also had nonconforming setbacks.

54. As to the proposed side-yard setback (north), Mr. Page testified that the

Applicant was reducing the magnitude of the variance as the existing side-yard setback

was only 28 feet, whereas the proposed setback is 32 feet.

55. Douglas J. Coleman, A.I.A., having a business address of 266 King

George Road, Suite C1, Warren, New Jersey, was duly sworn according to law, provided

his qualifications, and was accepted by the Board as an expert in the field of architecture.

Mr. Coleman described the existing dwelling as a ranch style dwelling built in 1940. He

26 - 3/09/16 – BOA

testified that the existing dwelling was in total disrepair. Mr. Coleman further testified

that the Property was unique due to the existence of numerous environmental constraints.

56. Mr. Coleman testified that the Applicant sought to locate the proposed

dwelling, which would have five bedrooms and a three-car garage, in essentially the same

location as the existing dwelling. He further testified that the dwelling would be

constructed using stone and clapboard siding, would have an asphalt/timberline roof, and

would be architecturally similar to other dwellings in the neighborhood.

57. Mr. Coleman opined the Property was unique as it is 4.26 acres, but due to

the required buffers given the river located to the west and the stream to the north, the

improvable lot area is only 4,150 square feet. He testified that, based on 2015 tax

assessment data obtained from the Township, there are several larger dwellings on

smaller lots and, in his opinion, from an architectural perspective, the proposal was

consistent with the character of the neighborhood.

58. Referencing the architectural plans, Mr. Coleman described the proposed

dwelling as having a series of gables, stone with clapboard siding (which wrapped around

the sides of the dwelling to provide a uniform appearance from the streetscape), shutters,

bay windows on the front and a chimney. Mr. Coleman opined that the proposal was an

improvement to the neighborhood and that there would be no detrimental impact on the

public good and no substantial impairment of the zoning plan.

59. Mark Botros, the Applicant, having an address of 329 Tammy Lane,

Bridgewater, New Jersey, was duly sworn according to law. Mr. Botros testified that he

was the owner of the Property since July 7, 2015 when he purchased it from an estate, and

27 - 3/09/16 – BOA

that he believed the dwelling had been vacant for months prior to the closing. Mr. Botros

further testified that he intended to live in the house.

60. As to the photographs submitted with the application materials, Mr. Botros

testified that he took them in September of 2015 and that they accurately depict the

Property and the structures thereon as they exist today. Mr. Botros testified that he spoke

with his neighbors and many advised that they believed the existing dwelling was an

eyesore and, therefore, supported his proposal.

61. No member of the public objected to, or commented on, the application.

THE BOARD’S DECISION

62. After reviewing the evidence submitted, the Board, by a vote of 7 to 0,

finds that the Applicant has satisfied its burden of proving an entitlement to (1) a “Zone

Two Waiver” under Section 21-14.4.b.3(d) of the Land Development Ordinance, and (2)

the requested variance relief for improvable lot area, front- and side-yard setback

deviations, under both N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(1) and N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(2).

The Zone Two Waiver:

63. If not for the wetlands and transition areas, the Property would contain a

conforming improvable lot area, the location of the proposed dwelling could be adjusted

to comply with all setback requirements, and the Applicant would not require any

variances or stream buffer relief. With respect to the “Zone Two Waiver,” the Board

finds that the stream buffer management plan submitted by the Applicant will eliminate

the need for Zone Two so that the side-yard setback can be measured from Zone One, and

same shall be waived consistent with Section 21-14.4.b.3(d) of the Land Development

Ordinance.

28 - 3/09/16 – BOA

64. Pursuant to Section 21-14.4b.3(d): “If the applicant submits a stream

buffer management plan, in consideration of Subsection 21-14.4a, that proves to the

satisfaction of the approving authority that a proposed vegetative or other enhancement to

Zone One will eliminate the need for a Zone Two or a portion of Zone Two, the

approving authority shall waive the requirement for a Zone Two or a portion of Zone

Two, provided that the approved stream buffer management plan is implemented by the

applicant.” The Board notes that the Applicant’s stream buffer management plan utilizes

the existing driveway, which is located on the opposite side of the dwelling from the

stream, rather than constructing a new driveway which would result in additional

disturbance of wetland areas. Additionally, the Applicant stipulated to enhancing the

stream buffer with additional vegetation, to be selected by a landscape architect, in

accordance with the stream buffer management plan and the direction of the Township

Engineering Department. The Applicant further stipulated that all details of his stream

buffer management plan would be subject to further review and approval by the

Township Engineering Department prior to any land disturbance.

65. The Board finds that the Applicant is entitled to a waiver of Zone Two

such that the side-yard setback shall be measured from Zone One and the improvable lot

area will be increased. The Board recognizes that the Applicant has proposed a stream

buffer conservation easement and a stream buffer management plan (to be supplemented

by a tree protection/removal/replacement plan and additional stream buffer plantings).

The Applicant also stipulated that all details of these plans shall be subject to review and

approval by the Township Engineering Department prior to any land disturbance.

29 - 3/09/16 – BOA

66. In sum, the Board finds that there are benefits to be derived from the

Applicant’s stream buffer management plan which would, inter alia, enhance the Zone 1

stream buffer conservation area sufficient to warrant the requested Zone Two waiver and

its resultant reduction in the magnitude of the improvable lot area and side-yard setback

deviation.

The c(1) Positive Criteria:

67. As to the positive criteria for “(c)(1)” or “undue hardship” variances, the

Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied his burden of demonstrating that strict

application of the zoning regulations will result in peculiar and exceptional difficulties to,

or exceptional and undue hardship upon, him as the owner of the Property, as a result of

unique conditions relating to the Property.

68. The Applicant’s lot became nonconforming in 2006, when the improvable

lot area requirements were first established. The 2006 minimum improvable lot area

requirements were intended to ensure that adequate area suitable for development (i.e.,

free of environmental or other constraints) is provided within the building envelope on

each lot. Here, the Property, with the exception of the most easterly one-half acre portion

of same, consists of wetlands and wetlands transition areas. If not for the wetlands and

transition areas, the Property would conform with the 25,000 square foot minimum

improvable lot area requirement and could be adjusted to comply with all setback

requirements.

69. The Board finds that the Applicant has established that no additional land

is available for purchase which would bring the improvable lot area into, or significantly

closer to, conformity with the district standards of the Land Development Ordinance.

30 - 3/09/16 – BOA

The Board further finds that the hardships that would be associated with the improvable

lot area and deficient front- and side-yard setbacks were not self-created by the Applicant

or any predecessor-in-title.

70. As to the proposed side-yard setback, the Board further recognizes that

same is a function of measuring the setback from the centerline of Zone Two of the

stream buffer. The required 75 foot wide stream buffer conservation area consists of a 25

foot wide Zone One located adjacent to the stream, plus a 50 foot wide Zone Two located

adjacent to Zone One. While the minimum required 50 foot side-yard setback would

typically be measured from the centerline of Zone Two, the Applicant requested a Zone

Two Waiver in order to eliminate Zone Two. The Board finds that it would be

exceptionally difficult, if not practically impossible, for the Applicant to build a

conforming dwelling that meets the side-yard setback due to the existing environmental

constraints on the Property.

71. Based upon the foregoing, the Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied

the positive criteria for c(1) variance relief for all of the requested zoning deviations.

The c(2) Positive Criteria:

72. As to the positive criteria for “(c) (2)” or “flexible c” variances, the Board

finds that the proposed development will serve multiple purposes of zoning, as set forth

in the Municipal Land Use Law. These benefits include providing a desirable visual

environment, providing adequate light, air and open space, upgrading the housing stock,

promoting the general welfare, and enhancing the visual compatibility of the Property

with adjoining properties. In this regard, the Board recognizes that the proposed

dwelling, as compared to the existing dwelling, will improve the appearance of the

31 - 3/09/16 – BOA

Property, and provide aesthetic and property value benefits to the neighborhood. The

Board further recognizes that the proposal reduces the magnitude of the existing side-yard

setback (north) and eliminates the accessory building (detached garage) location variance,

thus resulting in additional zoning benefits. The Board further finds that these benefits

derived from the proposed development will substantially outweigh the relatively modest

detriments associated with the variance relief sought, particularly given the conditions

stipulated to by the Applicant.

73. The Board concurs with the Applicant’s witnesses, particularly Mr. Page,

the engineer and planner, that the front-yard setback as proposed would be consistent with

the existing dwellings in the neighborhood, and would be a better planning alternative as

compared to disturbing environmentally constrained areas by moving the dwelling further

back.

74. Based upon the forgoing, the Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied

the positive criteria for c(2) variance relief for all of the requesting zoning deviations.

The Negative Criteria:

75. Finally, the Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied the negative

criteria for the requisite variance relief. The Applicant has demonstrated that the

requested relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and

without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning

ordinance. The Board considers, in this regard, that the relatively modest detrimental

impact is mitigated by the proposed stream buffer management plan, and the other

32 - 3/09/16 – BOA

conditions stipulated to by the Applicant and set forth below. The Board further

considers, in this regard, the lack of any public opposition to the proposal.

WHEREAS, the Board took action on this application at its meeting on February

3, 2016, and this Resolution constitutes a Resolution of Memorialization of the action

taken in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-l0(g);

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Adjustment of

the Township of Bernards, on the 3rd

day of February, 2016, that the application of Mark

Botros for variance relief as aforesaid, be and is hereby granted, subject to the following

conditions:

13. The Applicant shall post sufficient funds with the Township to satisfy any

deficiency in the Applicant’s escrow account;

14. The existing barn proposed to remain shall not have driveway access or be

used for the storage of vehicles;

15. The Applicant shall identify the actual proposed improvable lot area

(estimated to be 4,150 square feet), which shall take into account the

minimum 50 foot side-yard setback as measured from Zone One of the

stream buffer and the zoning schedule shown on the plans shall be revised

accordingly;

16. The Applicant shall submit a plan prepared by a landscape architect

showing proposed replacement trees and stream buffer plantings. The

final details of the Stream Buffer Management Plan and the tree

protection/removal/replacement plan shall be subject to the review and

approval of the Township Engineering Department, prior to any land

disturbance;

17. Since the proposed development involves construction within the 150 foot

wide riparian zone required pursuant to NJDEP Flood Hazard Area

Control Act Rules, all required NJDEP notifications/approvals shall be

served/obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit;

18. The Applicant shall grant to the Township a wetlands conservation

easement encompassing all wetlands and wetlands transition areas, based

on the boundaries approved by the NJDEP. The labeling of easements

33 - 3/09/16 – BOA

shown on the plans shall be clarified as to what easement, if any, exists,

and what is proposed. The proposed wetlands conservation easement,

which shall be deeded to Bernards Township, shall include the isolated

wetlands area near Annin Road. The proposed easement boundary shall

be delineated with Township standard markers, the locations of which

shall be subject to the review and approval of the Township Engineering

Department, and the installation of which shall be certified or bonded,

prior to the issuance of a building permit. The easement shall be drafted

by the Township Attorney, executed by the Applicant and recorded with

the Somerset County Clerk, all prior to the issuance of a building permit;

19. The Applicant shall grant to the Township a stream buffer conservation

easement containing the stream buffer conservation area not waived by the

Board. The easement shall be drafted by the Township Attorney, executed

by the Applicant and recorded with the Somerset County Clerk, all prior to

the issuance of a building permit. Alternatively, the Applicant may

include the stream buffer conservation area within the required wetlands

conservation easement, in which case a separate stream buffer

conservation easement shall not be required;

20. The Applicant shall a execute a deed of dedication for the proposed Annin

Road right-of-way which shall be prepared by the Township Attorney,

executed by the Applicant, and recorded with the Somerset County Clerk

prior to issuance of a building permit;

21. The Applicant’s plans shall be revised to show the split rail fence required

pursuant to condition 4 of the September 23, 2011 Freshwater Wetlands

Letter of Interpretation and Transition Area Waiver issued by the NJDEP,

and the fence shall be installed prior to issuance of a certificate of

occupancy for the new dwelling. In the event the NJDEP issues an

amended approval deleting or revising the fence requirement, the

Applicant shall only be obligated to comply with the NJDEP’s amended

requirement;

22. The Applicant shall comply with the comments set forth in Mr. Timko’s

January 7, 2016 Review Memo, including:

i. Not removing topsoil from the Property as a result of the project;

and

ii. Removing from the site the soil from the construction excavation,

unless the Applicant submits a grading plan showing where the soil

will be used on the site, subject to the review and approval of the

Township Engineering Department prior to the issuance of a

34 - 3/09/16 – BOA

building permit;

23. Soil erosion and sediment control measures and stormwater infiltration

measures shall be provided in accordance with Section 21-24.1.f.2 of the

Land Development Ordinance. The measures shown on the plans shall be

revised and the plans shall be subject to further review and approval by the

Township Engineering Department prior to issuance of a building permit.

Perc test results in support of the proposed stormwater infiltration

measures shall be provided at that time;

24. The Applicant shall make the Property available to the Liberty Corner Fire

Company in the event that it wishes to run drills on the site, with notice

given to the Fire Company at least 30 days prior to the demolition date of

the existing dwelling;

25. An engineering permit shall be obtained by the Applicant prior to work

within the Township right-of-way

26. All utility services shall be underground and routed to minimize

disturbance to existing trees;

27. A completed Township standard lot coverage disclosure form shall be

submitted prior to issuance of a building permit;

28. A development fee shall be required in accordance with Section 21-86;

29. The aforementioned approval shall be subject to all requirements,

conditions, restrictions and limitations set forth in all prior governmental

approvals, to the extent same are not inconsistent with the terms and

conditions set forth herein;

30. The aforementioned approval also shall be subject to all State, County and

Township statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations affecting

development in the Township, County and State; and

31. Pursuant to Section 21-5.10 of the Land Development Ordinance, the

variance relief granted herein shall expire unless such construction or

alteration permitted by the variance relief has actually commenced within

one year of the date of this Resolution.

ROLL CALL VOTE:

Those in Favor: Baldassare, Breslin, Genirs, Lane, Mastrangelo, Zaidel, Rhatican

35 - 3/09/16 – BOA

Those Opposed: none

The foregoing is a true copy of a Resolution adopted by the Zoning Board of

Adjustment of the Township of Bernards at its meeting on March 9, 2016.

______________________________

______

FRANCES FLORIO, Secretary

ZONING BOARD OF

ADJUSTMENT

OF THE TOWNSHIP OF

BERNARDS, COUNTY OF

SOMERSET,

STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Dated: __________________________, 2016