Docstoc

BERNARDS TOWNSHIP

Document Sample
BERNARDS TOWNSHIP Powered By Docstoc
					                               BERNARDS TOWNSHIP
                              BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
                                    MINUTES
                                  Regular Meeting
                                  December 8, 2010

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

ROLL CALL:
Members present: Miller, Orr, Plaza, Ross, Schulenburg, Viola, Rhatican
Members absent:     Lasko
Members late:        none
Board Attorney Steven Warner, Esq., Board Engineer Peter Messina, and Board Planner
David Schley were also present.

OPEN MEETING STATEMENT
“In accordance with the requirements of the Open Public Meetings Law, notice of this
regular 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, Bernards-ville, NJ, the Courier News,
Bridgewater, NJ, and the Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ and was filed with the Township Clerk
all on January 11, 2010. We received no requests for 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.”

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The motion was made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Schulenburg to approve the
minutes of November 3, 2010 as drafted.
Roll call:
       Aye: Miller, Schulenburg, Rhatican, Orr
             (Mr. Ross and Mr. Viola were ineligible to vote)
       Motion carried

The motion was made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Schulenburg to approve the
minutes of November 3, 2010, closed session as amended.
Roll call:
       Aye: Miller, Schulenburg, Rhatican, Orr
             (Mr. Ross and Mr. Viola were ineligible to vote)



                                             1
      Motion carried

The motion was made by Mr. Schulenburg and seconded by Mr. Ross to approve the
minutes of November 11, 2010, special meeting, as drafted.
Roll call:
       Aye: Miller, Ross, Schulenburg, Rhatican, Orr
             (Mr. Viola was ineligible to vote)
       Motion carried

APPROVAL OF CHARGES AGAINST ESCROW ACCOUNTS
The motion was made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Rhatican to approve the charges
submitted by Dr. Eisenstein for November, 2010, Mr. Belardo for October 2010, Mr.
Warner for November 2010, Mr. Messina for October and November 2010, and Mr. Schley
for November 2010.
Roll call:
       Aye: Miller, Ross, Schulenburg, Viola, Rhatican, Orr
       Motion carried

APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS
RESOLUTION – Higgins, Daniel and Jamie – Block 5701, Lot 25 – Bulk Variances
The motion was made by Mr. Rhatican and seconded by Mr. Miller to approve the
resolution as drafted.
Roll call;
        Aye: Miller, Schulenburg, Rhatican, Orr
               (Mr. Ross and Mr. Viola were ineligible to vote)
        Motion carried

RESOLUTION – Moore, Marie and Cunniffe, Francis – Block 2904, Lot 4 – Bulk
Variance
The motion was made by Mr. Schulenburg and seconded by Mr. Miller to approve the
resolution as drafted.
Roll call;
        Aye: Miller, Schulenburg, Rhatican, Orr
               (Mr. Ross and Mr. Viola was ineligible to vote)
        Motion carried

RESOLUTION – Gussin, Christopher – Block 2901, Lot 7 – Bulk Variance
The motion was made by Mr. Miller and seconded by Mr. Rhatican to approve the
resolution as drafted.
Roll call;



                                          2
       Aye: Miller, Schulenburg, Rhatican, Orr
             (Mr. Ross and Mr. Viola were ineligible to vote)
       Motion carried

RESOLUTION – Hait, Megan and Da Silva, Jack – Block 11002, Lot 7 – Bulk Variance
The motion was made by Mr. Rhatican and seconded by Mr. Miller to approve the
resolution as drafted.
Roll call;
        Aye: Miller, Schulenburg, Rhatican, Orr
               (Mr. Ross and Mr. Viola were ineligible to vote)
        Motion carried

Mr. Orr announced that the continued public hearing on the application filed by Daphne I.
Woods-Kress for Block 2701, Lot 16, 69 Lake Road was carried by request of the applicant
to January 5, 2011.

COMPLETENESS & PUBLIC HEARING – KREITZ, Garret and Ann – Block 5001,
Lot 5 – 3 Clive Lane – Bulk Variance
Ann Kreitz, 3 Clive Lane, Mark Yarrington, AIA, Bridgewater, NJ, Mr. Schley and Mr.
Messina were sworn in. Mrs. Kreitz said that their house has a non-conforming rear yard
setback. She and her husband wish to add a second floor addition. Mr. Schley noted that
under current zoning there is no building envelope on this lot. Mrs. Kreitz said she talked to
their neighbors and none expressed any reservations.

Mr. Mark Yarrington clarified, as per Comments #1 of Mr. Schley’s December 3, 2010
memo, existing and proposed floor areas. He said that the existing house structure was
strong enough to support a second floor. He said the applicant would come back if more
than partial demolition was required.

Public hearing opened for questions and comments on this testimony. Hearing none, the
public portion of this hearing on this application was closed.

Board members noted that this addition would not encroach any further than the existing
house does and also noted the lack of a building envelope on this lot.

The motion was made by Mr. Schulenburg and seconded by Mr. Viola to deem the
application complete and to direct the Board Attorney to draft a memorializing resolution of
approval, including the following conditions: if the proposed demolition exceeds partial
destruction, the applicants will request further variance relief; and exterior materials and
colors will match the existing house.



                                              3
Roll call:
       Aye: Miller, Ross, Schulenburg, Viola, Rhatican, Orr
       Motion carried

Mr. Plaza joined the meeting

COMPLETENESS & PUBLIC HEARING – FREEMAN, Rodney – Block 11702, Lot 14
– 143 Darren Drive – Bulk Variances
Mr. Rodney Freeman, 143 Darren Drive, Mr. Arthur J. Henn, AIA, Roselle Park, Mr.
Schley and Mr. Messina were sworn in. Mr. Freeman said that he and his wife want to
construct a two-story addition to the rear of their house. He noted that the non-conforming
side yard setback was pre-existing. He said the addition would provide additional
bedrooms, a guest room and a study. Mr. Henn said that the roof would be slightly higher
than the existing roof line. Mr. Freeman stated that he was not aware of any additions to
the house built originally in the 1980s and did not know when the non-conforming gross
floor area was built. Mr. Schley said that when the house was built, its floor area was at the
limit allowed.

Mr. Freeman said that he and his wife have spoken to their neighbors. He said that one tree
would be removed. He agreed to plant two replacement trees.

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

Mr. Miller recused himself from voting on this application.

The following residents spoke:
   - Beverly Moore, 37 Darren Drive was sworn in. She submitted as Exhibit O-1, nine
       pages of photographs taken in October 2010, two of which used Photo Shop to show
       how the proposed addition would appear from her yard. She said that part of the
       value of her lot was her back yard. She said that the Freemans have already removed
       some trees. She said the addition would be an eyesore, would be seen from the
       street, and was inconsistent with the neighborhood.
   - Stacey Demas, 45 Darren Drive, was sworn in. She submitted as Exhibit O-2, a set
       of nine photographs showing the Freeman’s house from her property. She said her
       house was one of the smaller ones and was set back 150 feet from the front property
       line. She said the addition would make the Freemans’ house look like a warehouse
       and would create a house that was much larger than any others in the neighborhood.
       She said there were very few trees on the lot currently.



                                              4
Mr. Freeman said that they would plant more trees to screen the view from Mrs. Moore’s
side. He said that they would talk to their neighbors and revise their plans, possibly
proposing a one-story addition on one side. Mr. Schley asked that a landscaping plan be
submitted with any revisions. Mr. Freeman asked to carry the application to February 9,
2011 and extended the time to act to February 28, 2011. No further notice is required.

Mr. Miller re-joined the Board.

COMPLETENESS & PUBLIC HEARING – ABEL, LeRoy David and Pamela – Block
1202, Lot 7 – 173 North Finley Avenue – Bulk Variances
Mr. David Abel, 173 North Finley Avenue, Mr. Schley and Mr. Messina were sworn in.
Mr. Abel said that he wants to re-build his garage and make it a one and a half story
structure. He noted that this proposal created no new lot coverage and did not change the
non-conforming side yard setback. Mr. Abel said he would revise his plans to show the
correct side yard setbacks and would reduce the height of the new garage by one foot as per
the comments in Mr. Schley’s December 3, 2010 memo.

Public hearing opened for questions and comments on this testimony. Hearing none, the
public portion of this hearing on this application was closed.

The motion was made by Mr. Ross and seconded by Mr. Plaza to deem the application
complete and to direct the Board Attorney to draft a memorializing resolution of approval
conditioned upon the plans revisions discussed above and the applicant lowering the roof
line by one foot.
Roll call:
        Aye: Miller, Plaza, Ross, Schulenburg, Viola, Rhatican, Orr
        Motion carried

PUBLIC HEARING – METROPCS NEW YORK, LLC – Block 801, Lot 3 – 175
Morristown Road – Use Variance, Preliminary and Final Site Plan, and Bulk Variances
The applicant was represented by Michael Lavigne, Esq. Mr. Lavigne said MetroPCS was
proposing to install six antennas on an existing 110-ft pole with cabinets at the base. He
noted the variances requested and said this location was well suited for this use since it was
not located close to a residential zone.

Mr. Lavigne presented Mr. Gary Musciano, AIA, Herbst Musciano, Cedar Knolls, NJ who
was sworn in. Mr. Musciano described existing conditions and noted that the existing
monopole currently served three carriers. He discussed the comments in Mr. Schley’s
December 2, 2010 memo that pertained to the architectural features of the proposal. He



                                               5
said the applicant would plant two replacement trees as per Comment #6. He said the
applicant would comply with all of the other comments concerning architecture.

Public hearing was opened for questions of Mr. Musciano. Hearing none, the public
portion of this hearing on this testimony was closed.

Mr. Daniel Collins, Chief Technical Officer, Pinnacle Telecom Group, LLC, Cedar Knolls,
NJ was sworn in. He said that the radio frequency emissions for the proposed expansion
would be under FCC and New Jersey standards.

Public hearing was opened for questions of this witness; hearing none, the public portion of
this hearing on this witness was closed.

Mr. Fahd Kananeh, PE, Amirat Technologies, Fairfield, NJ was sworn in and testified as a
radio frequency engineer. He said that MetroPCS has four locations in Bernards
Township, three of which are currently on-air. He presented maps showing current
coverage and proposed coverage with this site on-air. He said this location would address a
current gap in coverage.

Mr. Kananeh addressed Comment #7 in Mr. Schley’s December 2, 2010 memo re the
mounting of antennas. He said the proposed mounting was designed to include capacity for
future needs, but this design was not necessary to address current needs. After discussion,
the applicant agreed to install three flush-mounted antennas.

Public hearing was opened for questions of Mr. Kananeh. Hearing none, the public portion
of this hearing on this witness was closed.

Mr. David Karlebach, P.P., 38 E Ridgewood Avenue, Ridgewood, NJ was sworn in. He
discussed the variances being requested. He noted that the cabinet pad would be
reconfigured, thus reducing the overall size of the cabinet compound by 30 sq ft. He said
that the impact of this expansion would be minimal and he saw no adverse visual impact.

Public hearing was opened for questions of Mr. Karlebach; hearing none, the public portion
of this hearing on 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.

Board members noted their support of the application.




                                              6
The motion was made by Mr. Schulenburg and seconded by Mr. Viola to direct the Board
Attorney to draft a memorializing resolution approving the application subject to the
comments in Mr. Schley’s December 2, 2010 memo.
Roll call:
       Aye: Miller, Plaza, Ross, Schulenburg, Viola, Orr
       Motion carried


Comments from Members –
Mr. Orr noted that this was the last meeting of the year and the last meeting for Mr. Miller
who will not be on this Board next year.

Comments from Staff
Mr. Messina said that this would be his last meeting with the Board as Township Engineer
but he would be available as a consultant on cell tower applications.

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that it is necessary in the public interest that pending
litigation concerning the Board be discussed in executive session and has estimated that, as
nearly as can now be determined, the results of the discussion can be disclosed to the public
when appropriate,

NOW THEREFORE, it is resolved that the public be excluded from the executive portion
of the meeting, during which only the aforestated matter will be discussed. No formal
action will be taken.

On motion by Mr. Plaza and seconded by Mr. Miller, the Board adjourned the public
hearing at 10:15 p.m. to go into Executive Session.

The public meeting was re-opened and adjourned at 10:25 p.m., there being no further
business to discuss.



                                                         Respectfully submitted,



                                                         Frances Florio
                                                         Secretary to the Board




                                              7
                           ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
                              TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS

                              DANIEL AND JAMIE HIGGINS
                                   Case No. ZB10-020

                                        RESOLUTION


       WHEREAS, DANIEL AND JAMIE HIGGINS (the “Applicants”) have applied to the

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

variances in connection with a 4 foot deep and 10 foot, 2 inch wide portico (open porch) and

approximately 144 square foot (12’ x 12’) shed on the west side of the existing dwelling, both of

which have already been constructed on property identified as Block 5701, Lot 25 on the Tax

Map, more commonly known as 64 Atlas Road:

              (1) A variance for a post-construction front-yard setback of 72 feet, whereas the
       pre-construction front-yard setback was 75 feet, and whereas the minimum required
       front-yard setback in an R-4 (1 acre) residential zone is 75 feet, pursuant to Section 21-
       15.1(d)(1) and Table 501 of the Land Development Ordinance;

              (2) A variance for a post-construction side-yard setback for a shed of 5.8 feet,
       whereas the minimum required side-yard accessory structure setback in an R-4 (1 acre)
       residential zone is 15 feet, pursuant to Section 21-16.1(c) and Table 507 of the Land
       Development Ordinance; and

              (3) A variance for a post-construction distance between buildings of 7.75 feet,
       whereas the minimum required distance between buildings in an R-4 (1 acre) residential
       zone is 10 feet, pursuant to Section 21-16.1(c) and Table 507 of the Land Development
       Ordinance; and


       WHEREAS, a public hearing on notice was held on such application on November 3,

2010, at which time interested citizens were afforded an opportunity to appear and be heard; and


                                               8
       WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the

Applicants 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 subject property is a slightly undersized (0.98 acre) corner lot on Atlas Road.

The property is improved with a two-story frame dwelling, with attached two car garage, an

approximately 144 square foot shed on the west side of the dwelling, an inground pool in the rear

yard and associated walkways and driveways.

       3.      The previous owners constructed the nonconforming shed prior to the current

owners purchasing same in November of 2005.               The Applicants’ contractor apparently

constructed the nonconforming portico without first obtaining the requisite approvals. The

Applicants now request the subject variance relief in order to maintain the portico and shed as

they currently exist.

       4.      The Applicants submitted a Survey prepared by Richard S. Zinn, N.J.L.S. of

Brunswick West, Inc., Licensed Land Surveyors, dated July 29, 2008, with colorized notations

depicting the “as-built” front portico and the shed to the west of the dwelling.

       5.      The property is located in the R-4 (1 acre) residential zone. The requested

variance relief for the front-yard and accessory side-yard setbacks and the distance between

structures falls within the criteria of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c).




                                                 9
       6.      By Memorandum dated July 19, 2010, the Environmental Commission noted that

it had no environmental concerns at that time.

       7.      David Schley, A.I.C.P./P.P., the Board Planner, was duly sworn according to law.

       8.      Daniel Higgins, one of the Applicants, residing at 64 Atlas Road, Basking Ridge,

was duly sworn according to law. Mr. Higgins testified that in late 2007 and early 2008 the

Applicants hired a contractor to construct the subject front porch and the contractor applied for a

building permit. However, instead of waiting for same, he constructed the porch prior to

receiving the permit and the permit was denied since the then-proposed front porch would

violate the front-yard setback requirement. Mr. Higgins testified that he asked the contractor to

remove or remedy the deviation, however, the contractor refused to do so and they parted ways.

Thereafter, the Township contacted Mr. Higgins in 2009 and he began to work with the

Township to remedy the situation.

       9.      Mr. Higgins further testified that when he and his wife purchased the home in

2005, the subject shed was pre-existing in its current location. He testified that it would be

impractical to relocate the shed further from the west side-yard property line, since there is an

existing deck to the rear of the home and such location would nevertheless be behind the kitchen

window. He also testified that there would be a very significant expense to even pursue such a

course of action.




                                                 10
       10.      Mr. Higgins testified that he discussed the application as to both the front porch

and the shed with his neighbors and that no one had an objection to either aspect of the

application.

       11.      Mr. Higgins testified that he took the photographs that were submitted with the

application materials in July, 2010 and that they accurately depict the existing conditions at the

subject property.

       12.      The Applicants stipulated, as a condition of approval, to the porch remaining “an

open porch”, i.e., covered with a roof but open on the sides except for columns/open railings, as

proposed. The Applicants further stipulated to matching the color and materials (siding) of the

shed with those of the dwelling such that same will be uniform, and also to installing landscape

buffering along the front and west side of the shed, subject to the review and approval of the

Township Engineer. The Applicants also stipulated to satisfying all conditions of approval,

including the landscape buffering, within 180 days of the date of the Resolution memorializing

the approval.

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

       14.      After reviewing the evidence submitted, the Board, by a vote of 5 to 0, finds that

the Applicants have satisfied their burden of proving an entitlement to the requested variance

relief under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c)(2).

       15.      First, with respect to the positive criteria for a “c(2)” or “flexible c” variance, the

Board finds that the Applicants have satisfied their burden of demonstrating that the purposes of




                                                  11
the Municipal Land Use Law will be advanced by the requested deviations from the zoning

requirements and that the benefits to be derived therefrom will substantially outweigh any

detriments associated therewith. The proposed development will provide a desirable visual

environment, enhance the visual compatibility of the property with adjoining properties and

otherwise promote the general welfare. The Board found that the front portico was a visual

enhancement to the neighborhood and that the evidence indicated that the shed provided privacy

to both the Applicants and the property owners immediately to the west of the subject lot. By

contrast to these substantial benefits, the Board finds that the detriments associated with the

proposed development will be minimal and will be alleviated by the conditions stipulated to by

the Applicants as set forth below, including the landscape buffering along the front and west side

of the shed.

       16.     The Board notes that the most effected neighboring property owner, the owner of

Block 5701, Lot 24 (58 Atlas Road) immediately to the west of the subject lot, does not object to

the development as-built, with the stipulated conditions, nor did any other member of the public

lodge any objection.

       17. Second, the Board finds that the Applicants have satisfied the negative criteria, that

is, they have 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.




                                               12
       WHEREAS, the Board took action on this application at its meeting on November 3,

2010, 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 November, 2010, that the application of Daniel and

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

conditions:

       (1)     The Applicants shall post sufficient funds with the Township to satisfy any
               deficiency in the Applicants’ escrow account;

       (2)     The Applicants shall maintain the front porch as an open porch, i.e., covered with
               a roof but open on the sides except for columns/open railings, as proposed;

       (3)     The side-yard setback variance relief granted herein shall be limited solely to the
               existing shed depicted as, and located, on the plans submitted with the application
               materials;

       (4)     The Applicants shall match the color and materials (siding) of the shed with those
               of the dwelling such that same shall be uniform, and also shall install landscape
               buffering along the front and west side of the shed, subject to review and approval
               of the Township Engineer;

       (5)     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;

       (6)     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

       (7)     All conditions of approval, inclusive of the landscape buffering set forth above,
               shall be completed within 180 days of this Resolution.




                                                13
ROLL CALL VOTE:

Those in Favor:      Miller, Plaza, Schulenburg, Rhatican, Orr

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 December 8, 2010 as copied from the Minutes of

said meeting.

                                                  ____________________________________
                                                  FRANCES FLORIO, Secretary
                                                  ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
                                                  OF THE TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS,
                                                  COUNTY OF SOMERSET,
                                                  STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Dated: _____________________, 2010




                                             14
                            ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
                               TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS

                        MARIE MOORE and FRANCIS CUNNIFFE
                                Case No. ZB10-019

                                         RESOLUTION


       WHEREAS, MARIE MOORE and FRANCIS CUNNIFFE (the “Applicants”) have

applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Bernards (the “Board”) for the

following bulk variances in connection with a one-story, 25’ x 25’ (625 sq. feet) master bedroom

addition to the west side of the existing single family dwelling located, on property identified as

Block 2904, Lot 4 on the Tax Map, more commonly known as 49 Peachtree Road:

              (1) A variance for a minimum side-yard setback on the west side of 28 feet,
       whereas the minimum side-yard setback requirement in an R-6 (3/4 acre) residential zone
       is 30 feet, pursuant to Section 21-15.1(d)(1) and Table 501 of the Land Development
       Ordinance; and

              (2) A variance for a combined side-yard setback of 51.41 feet, whereas the
       minimum required combined side-yard setback in an R-6 (3/4 acre) residential zone is 75
       feet, 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 November 3,

2010, 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

Applicants and the reports from consultants and reviewing agencies, has made the following

factual findings and conclusions:


                                                15
       1.      The Board reviewed the application and deemed it to be complete.

       2.      The subject property is a 1.5 acre irregularly shaped lot fronting on Peachtree

Road, near to the intersection with Woodstone Road. The lot is presently improved with a 2

bedroom, 1 bathroom approximately 1,200 sq. ft., one-story, framed dwelling with a one-car

garage and a wood deck in the rear-yard and asphalt driveway to the west side and the rear of the

dwelling.

       3.      The Applicants propose to expand the existing dwelling by constructing a one-

story, approximately 500 square foot master bedroom (with bathroom and walk-in closet)

addition to the west side of the existing dwelling.

       4.      The Applicants’ proposal is depicted on a Survey prepared by John J. Vida,

N.J.P.L.S. of True North Surveyors, P.C., dated October 19, 2009, and on handwritten

architectural plans (4 pages) and floor plans (1 page) prepared by the Applicants and undated.

       5.      The property is located in the R-6 (3/4 acre) residential zone. The requested

variances for the side-yard (west and combined) setback deviations fall within the criteria of

N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c).




                                                 16
       6.       The Township Environmental Commission, by memo dated July 19, 2010, noted

that it had no environmental concerns at that time.

       7.       David Schley, AICP/PP, the Board Planner, was duly sworn according to law.

       8.       Marie Moore, one of the Applicants, residing at 49 Peachtree Road, Basking

Ridge, was duly sworn according to law. Mrs. Moore testified that the Applicants purchased the

subject property/dwelling in 2009 and have since made substantial improvements to same. She

explained the need for the additional living space since they are a family of 3 currently residing

in a one-story home with only 1,200 square feet of living space. She explained that the

Applicants could not locate the addition to the rear of the dwelling since the one-car attached

garage is located at the rear of the dwelling and there is a wood deck also located to the rear of

the dwelling.

       9.       Mr. Schley, the Board Planner, testified that the nonconforming lot width of the

subject property is typical of lots along Peachtree Road. He further testified that the properties

in the neighborhood have the same or similar nonconformities as the subject property and that

the subject lot slopes down a few feet from the road so as to minimize any visual impact of the

proposed addition. Thus, Mr. Schley opined that the post construction dwelling would be

visually consistent with other homes/lots in the neighborhood.

       10.      Mrs. Moore testified that she took the photographs submitted with the application

materials, some in the Winter of 2009/2010 and the rest more recently, and that all of the

photographs accurately depict the present conditions of, and views from, the subject property.




                                                 17
       11.      The Applicants stipulated, as a condition of approval, to providing the Township

with a conservation easement, delineated with Township standard markers, for the

wetlands/wetlands transition area at the rear of the property.

       12.      On questioning by John Crane, a member of the public, Mrs. Moore reiterated her

inability to locate the addition to the rear of the dwelling in light of the location of the driveway,

the garage, and the deck to the rear of the dwelling.

       13.      Christopher Gussin, 60 Peachtree Road (Block 2902, Lot 7), a neighbor, testified

in support of the application. Mr. Gussin testified that he and his family have lived in the

neighborhood for 2 years and it is an evolving neighborhood wherein many of the residents are

renovating their homes and improving their properties. Mr. Gussin testified that the Applicants

have substantially improved the subject property since moving in approximately 1 year ago and

that, in his opinion, the addition would be an aesthetic benefit and would fit within the

neighborhood.

       14.      After reviewing the evidence submitted, the Board, by a vote of 5 to 0, found that

the Applicants have satisfied their burden of proving an entitlement to the requested variance

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

       15.      First, under the “(c)(1)” or “hardship” criteria, the Board finds that the Applicants

have satisfied their burden of demonstrating that strict application of the zoning regulations will

result in peculiar and exceptional difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, them

as the owners of the subject property. The Board finds that the Applicants’ dwelling is situated

on an irregularly shaped lot which is double the minimum lot area, but only 77% of the

                                                  18
minimum lot width, thus making it exceptionally difficult for the Applicants to comply with the

side-yard setback requirements without sacrificing the ability to reasonably utilize the property

as a residential dwelling. The Board recognizes that the proposed addition would have complied

with all zoning requirements prior to 2006 when the minimum side-yard requirements were

increased.

          16.    Second, with respect to the positive criteria for a “c(2)” or “flexible c” variance,

the Board finds that the Applicants have satisfied their burden of demonstrating that the purposes

of the Municipal Land Use Law will be advanced by the requested deviations from the zoning

requirements and that the benefits to be derived therefrom will substantially outweigh any

detriments associated therewith. The proposed development will provide a desirable visual

environment, enhance the visual compatibility of the property with adjoining properties and

otherwise promote the general welfare.

          17.    By contrast to these substantial benefits, the Board finds that the detriments

associated with the proposed development will be minimal. The Board finds that the potential

impact of the proposal on the neighborhood is lessened by the fact that the existing dwelling and

addition are only one-story high as viewed from the street, and are located downslope from the

street.

          18.   Third, and finally, the Board finds that the Applicants have satisfied the negative

criteria, that is, they have 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.

                                                  19
       WHEREAS, the Board took action on this application at its meeting on November 3,

2010, 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 November, 2010, that the application of Marie Moore

and Francis Cunniffe, for variance relief as aforesaid, be and is hereby granted, subject to the

following conditions:

       (1)    The Applicants shall post sufficient funds with the Township to satisfy any
              deficiency in the Applicants’ escrow account;

       (2)    The Applicants shall provide the Township with a conservation easement,
              delineated with Township standard markers, for the wetlands/wetlands transition
              area at the rear of the property. The easement shall be drafted by the Township
              Attorney and subject to review and approval by the Township Engineer, and must
              be recorded with the Somerset County Clerk, and the markers installed or bonded
              for, prior to the issuance of a building permit;

        (3)   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;

       (4)    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

       (5)    Pursuant to Section 21-5.10 of the Land Development Ordinance, the variance
              granted herein shall expire unless such construction or alteration permitted by the
              variance has actually commenced within one year of the date of this Resolution.


ROLL CALL VOTE:

Those in Favor:         Miller, Plaza, Schulenburg, Rhatican, Orr


                                                20
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 December 8, 2010 as copied from the Minutes of

said meeting.

                                                  ____________________________________
                                                  FRANCES FLORIO, Secretary
                                                  ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
                                                  OF THE TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS,
                                                  COUNTY OF SOMERSET,
                                                  STATE OF NEW JERSEY




Dated: _____________________, 2010




                                             21
                            ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
                               TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS

                                    CHRISTOPHER GUSSIN
                                      Case No. ZB10-025

                                         RESOLUTION


       WHEREAS, CHRISTOPHER GUSSIN (the “Applicant”), has applied to the Zoning

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

connection with the construction of an 8’ x 14’ (112 sq. ft.) storage shed to the rear of the

existing dwelling located on property identified as Block 2902, Lot 7 on the Tax Map, more

commonly known as 60 Peachtree Road:

       A variance for lot coverage of 25.2%, whereas the existing lot coverage is 24.7% and the
maximum permitted lot coverage in an R-6 (3/4 acre) residential zone is 18%, 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 November 3,

2010, 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 subject property is an approximately 22,426 square foot (0.52 acre)

undersized lot fronting on Peachtree Road. The subject property is presently improved with a 2




                                                 22
story, masonry and framed dwelling, with a front porch, two-car attached garage, brick paver

patio in the rear and associated walkways and driveways.

       3.      The Applicant proposes to locate an 8’ x 14’ (112 sq. ft.) storage shed to the rear

of the existing dwelling.

       4.      The Applicant’s proposal is depicted on architectural plans (front elevation)

prepared by Applicant, undated, and design specifications of the proposed shed prepared by Fox

Run Storage Sheds, LLC. The Applicant also submitted a Survey prepared by Doninick J.

Venditto, Jr., P.L.S., dated October 22, 2009.

       5.      The property is located in the R-6 (3/4 acre) residential zone. The requested lot

coverage variance falls within the criteria of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c).

       6.      By Memorandum dated July 27, 2009, the Environmental Commission

recommended that no additional impervious areas be created on this site, but that if the Board

does approve the application, the Commission would like to see no net increase in volume and

rate of flow for water runoff from the site, with this calculation being based on the total amount

of impervious surface versus the proposed increase in impervious surface.

       7.      David Schley, A.I.C.P./P.P., the Board Planner, was duly sworn according to law.

       8.      Christopher Gussin, the Applicant, residing at 60 Peachtree Road, Basking Ridge,

was duly sworn according to law. Mr. Gussin testified that he and his wife purchased the subject

property/home in 2007. He testified that since that time they have substantially improved the

property by, among other things, replacing the gravel driveway with asphalt, improving a

dilapidated red brick patio in the rear-yard with Belgian block pavers and repairing a partially

                                                 23
buried wall in the rear-yard which acted as a retaining wall in light of the slope of the property.

Mr. Gussin opined that these projects constituted both safety and aesthetic improvements.

       9.      Mr. Gussin testified that he and his wife have 2 young children (a 3 year old and

an 8 month old) and the family needs a storage shed for safety purposes, since the young

children can get into the garage where tools and machinery are kept. He further testified that,

due to the pre-existing layout of the dwelling and the property, the Applicants are required to

enter the garage from the rear, which necessitates a significant turnaround radius and

correspondingly an exceptional amount of additional paved driveway.

       10.     With respect to stormwater runoff issues, Mr. Gussin testified that the Applicants

already, over the past six months, have planted approximately 45 six-foot tall Leland Cypress

trees, as well as approximately 65 Korean Boxwoods, on the property, and that all of the gutters

and roof leaders are tied into an existing, functioning drywell, which is located on the west side

of the property to the front of the proposed storage shed.

       11.     Mr. Gussin testified that the proposed storage shed would sit on a gravel bed

without any foundation. He further testified that he had discussed the proposal with neighbors,

including the most effected neighbor immediately adjacent to the west of his property, and that

no one objected to the application.

       12.     Mr. Gussin further testified that all of the existing structures and impervious

coverage pre-existed his purchase of the property/home in 2007. Mr. Schley testified that his

review of a 1987 Survey maintained in the Engineering Department appeared to corroborate Mr.

Gussin’s testimony in this regard, since it showed the same layout and orientation of the

                                                 24
dwelling and the existence of all of the other impervious coverage, except for the rear-yard patio.

Mr. Schley opined that it is likely that the patio was constructed sometime between the 1987

Survey and the Applicant’s purchase of the subject property in 2007.

       13.      The Applicant stipulated, as a condition of approval, that:

                (a)    The Applicant and subsequent property owners shall continue to ensure

that all roof gutters and leaders are tied into a functioning drywell located on the subject

property; and

                (b)    The impervious coverage variance relief of the additional 0.5% (from

24.7% existing impervious coverage to 25.2% proposed impervious coverage) shall be limited

solely to the subject storage shed, and such variance relief shall be terminated upon the removal

of said shed.

       14.      John Crane, a member of the public, was duly sworn according to law. Mr. Crane

testified regarding his opinion that the “Homestead Village” section of the Township should be

designated as an R-7 (1/2 acre) residential zone rather than an R-6 (3/4 acre) residential zone.

Mr. Crane submitted substantial exhibits in support of his opinion, including Exhibit O-1 (a

compendium of a July 25, 2005 Memorandum from David Schley, A.I.C.P./P.P., Assistant

Township Planner to the Planning Board and a September 12, 2006 letter from Bill Allen to the

Mayor and Members of the Bernards Township Committee regarding Ordinance 1888), Exhibit

O-2 (a compendium of a portion of the Official Tax Map, certain aerial views of the subject

neighborhood, a July 25, 2005 study by David Schley and revised by John Crane regarding

certain residential zone characteristics, Ordinance Number 2006-26 of Bedminster Township,

                                                 25
and Ordinance 2006-14 of Chatham Township), and Exhibit O-3 (photographs of the subject

property and the immediately adjacent property, respectively).

       15.     After reviewing the evidence submitted, the Board, by a vote of 5 to 0,

finds that the Applicant has satisfied his burden of proving an entitlement to the variance relief

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

       16.     First, with respect to the “c(1)” or “hardship” criteria, 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 subject property. The Applicant’s 22,426 sq. ft. lot is

undersized for the R-6 zone, and, for comparison purposes, if the Applicant had a conforming lot

area of 32,670 sq. ft., the proposed lot coverage would be a conforming 17.3%. Moreover, the

Board finds that the existing layout and orientation of the dwelling, the rear garage and the

necessity of substantial impervious coverage by way of driveway in order to accommodate the

requisite turnaround radius for automobile ingress and egress, all require the Applicant to

maintain what constitutes an exceptional amount of impervious coverage.

       17.     Second, with respect to the “c(2)” or “flexible c” criteria, the Board finds that the

Applicant has satisfied his burden of demonstrating that the purposes of the Municipal Land Use

Law will be advanced by the requested deviations from the zoning requirements and that the

benefits to be derived therefrom will substantially outweigh any detriments associated therewith.

The proposed development will provide a desirable visual environment, enhance the visual

compatibility of the property with adjoining properties and otherwise promote the general

                                                 26
welfare. The Board is of the opinion that the Applicant’s stipulation to maintain existing

stormwater infiltration measures and the property owner’s inherent incentive to maintain the

substantial landscaping on the property will alleviate potential stormwater runoff concerns

associated with the proposed development. The Board further recognizes that there was no

public objection to the application, which the Board would expect if there were existing

stormwater runoff issues.

       18.     Third, and finally, in light of the conditions hereinafter set forth, the Board finds

that the Applicant has satisfied the negative criteria. Specifically, 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.




                                                 27
       WHEREAS, the Board took action on this application at its meeting on November 3,

2010, and this Resolution constitutes a Resolution of Memorialization of the action taken in

accordance with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10(g);

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

Township of Bernards, on the 3rd day of November, 2010, that the application of Christopher

Gussin, 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 and subsequent property owners shall continue to ensure that all
               roof gutters and leaders are tied into a functioning drywell located on the subject
               property;

       (3)     The impervious coverage variance relief of the additional 0.5% (from 24.7%
               existing impervious coverage to 25.2% proposed impervious coverage) shall be
               limited solely to the subject storage shed and such variance relief shall be
               terminated upon the removal of said shed;

       (4)     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;

       (5)     The Applicants also shall comply with all Federal, State, County and Township
               statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations and requirements affecting development in
               the Township, County and State; and

       (6)     Pursuant to Section 21-5.10 of the Land Development Ordinance, the variance
               granted herein shall expire unless such construction or alteration permitted by the
               variance has actually commenced within one year of the date of this Resolution.


ROLL CALL VOTE:

Those in Favor:        Miller, Plaza, Schulenburg, Rhatican, Orr


                                                28
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 of December 8, 2010 as copied from the Minutes of said
meeting.



                                           __________________________________________
                                           FRANCES FLORIO, Secretary
                                           ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
                                           OF THE TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS,
                                           COUNTY OF SOMERSET,
                                           STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Dated: ____________, 2010




                                              29
                           ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
                              TOWNSHIP OF BERNARDS

                           MEGAN HAIT AND JOHN DaSILVA
                                 Case No. ZB10-026

                                        RESOLUTION


       WHEREAS, MEGAN HAIT AND JOHN DaSILVA (the “Applicants”) have applied to

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

bulk variance in connection with a renovation/expansion of the existing single family dwelling,

including a new second floor above an existing one-story portion of the dwelling, on property

identified as Block 11002, Lot 7 on the Tax Map, more commonly known as 3 Deer Ridge Road:

              A variance for a front-yard (north) setback of 81.2 feet to the proposed addition,
       whereas the existing front-yard (north) setback is 48.8 feet to the existing dwelling, and
       whereas the minimum required front-yard setback in an R-1 (3 acre) residential zone is
       100 feet, 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 November 3,

2010, 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

Applicants 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.




                                               30
       2.      The subject property is a 5.8 acre irregularly shaped lot fronting on Deer Ridge

Road at the intersection with Mountain Road. The lot is presently improved with a one- and

two-story main house, a 2 ½ story carriage house, a one-story framed cottage, an outdoor

BBQ/patio area and an inground pool.

       3.      The Applicants propose to renovate/expand the existing main house, including the

construction of a new second floor above an existing one-story portion of the dwelling.

       4.      The Applicants’ proposal is depicted on a Site Plan and architectural plans

prepared by Scialla and Demarest Architects Incorporated, dated July 29, 2010 (3 sheets

including site plan, floor elevations and floor plans). The Applicants also submitted a Survey

prepared by Eric P. Silvestro, P.L.S., dated June 14, 2010.

       5.      The property is located in the R-1 (3 acre) residential zone. The requested

variance for the front-yard setback deviation falls within the criteria of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c).

       6.      The Township Environmental Commission, by memo dated September 21, 2010,

noted that it had no environmental concerns at this time.

       7.      The Applicants submitted a wetlands/transition area/riparian zone investigation

report by Environmental Technology, Inc., dated June 19, 2010, concluding that within the

proposed areas of disturbance for the additions there are no areas which are classified as

freshwater wetlands, transition areas or riparian zone.

       8.      David Schley, AICP/PP, the Board Planner, was duly sworn according to law.




                                                31
       9.      Jack DaSilva and Megan Hait, the Applicants, residing at 3 Deer Ridge Road,

Basking Ridge, were duly sworn according to law. Mr. DaSilva testified that due to the location

of the property at the intersection of Mountain Road and Deer Ridge Road and the existing

orientation of the dwelling with the front door facing Mountain Road, the property actually has

two front-yards. He further explained that if the north side of the property were considered a

side-yard rather than a front-yard, the existing dwelling would only be encroaching in the

setback 1.2 feet and the proposed addition would be fully conforming.

       10.     Mr. DaSilva testified that the renovation was necessary for both aesthetic and

safety purposes. The Applicants wanted to push back the kitchen approximately 12 feet and

increase the height of the main house so as to provide functional living space on the second floor

and render the first floor safer by increasing the height of the ceilings and doors and renovating

an existing staircase that is violative of the applicable Building Code provisions.

       11.     Mr. DaSilva introduced into evidence as Exhibit A-1, two pages of photographs

illustrating that the door heights upstairs measure only 5 foot 8.5 inches and that the staircase in

the kitchen is too steep and shallow for use.

       12.     Robert Scialla, of Scialla & Demerest Architects, Inc., 16 Woodland Road,

Brookside, New Jersey, was duly sworn according to law, provided his educational and

employment qualifications and experience and was accepted by the Board as an expert in the

field of architecture. Mr. Scialla testified that he believed that the front door of the subject

dwelling always faced Mountain Road when the main house was originally a farm house, to




                                                 32
which was added several segments over time. Mr. Scialla testified regarding the renovation

project.   He introduced into evidence as Exhibit A-2, a one-page schedule identifying the

existing and proposed floor areas of the dwelling, which Mr. Schley, the Board Planner,

confirmed constituted compliance with Mr. Schley’s comment no. 1 on his Memorandum of

October 25, 2010.

       13.     Mr. DaSilva testified that he took the photographs submitted with the application

materials in August of 2010 and that they accurately depict the existing structures located on,

and views of, the subject property.

       14.     The Applicants stipulated, as a condition of approval, to providing the Township

with a conservation easement, delineated with Township standard markers, for the wetlands and

wetlands transition area at the rear of the property.

       15.     The Applicants further stipulated, as conditions of approval, to the following:

               a.    The existing carriage house shall continue to be used only for permitted
accessory uses and may not be used as any type of dwelling unit, pursuant to the Planning
Board’s April 13, 2000 subdivision approval and a deed restriction recorded on November 26,
2001 in accordance therewith; and

               b.     The Historic Preservation Committee shall be permitted to inspect the
interior the main house for documentation purposes prior to the commencement of interior
demolition work.


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




                                                 33
       17.     After reviewing the evidence submitted, the Board, by a vote of 5 to 0, found that

the Applicants have satisfied their burden of proving an entitlement to the requested variance

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

       18.     First, under the “(c)(1)” or “hardship” criteria, the Board finds that the Applicants

have satisfied their burden of demonstrating that strict application of the zoning regulations will

result in peculiar and exceptional difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, them

as the owners of the subject property. The Board finds that due to the orientation of the existing

dwelling, which faces the north side property line, a 100’ front-yard (instead of a 50’ side-yard),

is required to the north side. While the majority of the existing dwelling is located within this

required front-yard setback area, the majority of the addition is actually conforming. A roughly

20’ x 30’ portion of the addition vertically extends the existing front-yard nonconformity, though

the addition does provide a greater front-yard setback (81.2’) than the existing dwelling (48.8’).

       19.     Second, with respect to the positive criteria for a “c(2)” or “flexible c” variance,

the Board finds that the Applicants have satisfied their burden of demonstrating that the purposes

of the Municipal Land Use Law will be advanced by the requested deviations from the zoning

requirements and that the benefits to be derived therefrom will substantially outweigh any

detriments associated therewith. The proposed development will provide a desirable visual

environment, enhance the visual compatibility of the property with adjoining properties and

otherwise promote the general welfare.




                                                34
       20.     By contrast to these substantial benefits, the Board finds that the detriments

associated with the proposed development will be minimal, if any.

       17.    Third, and finally, the Board finds that the Applicants have satisfied the negative

criteria, that is they have 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.

       WHEREAS, the Board took action on this application at its meeting on November 3,

2010, 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 November, 2010, that the application of Megan Hait and

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

conditions:

       (1)     The Applicants shall post sufficient funds with the Township to satisfy any
               deficiency in the Applicants’ escrow account;

       (2)     The Applicants shall provide the Township with a conservation easement,
               delineated with Township standard markers, for the wetlands and wetlands
               transition area at the rear of the property. The easement shall be prepared by the
               Township Attorney and subject to review and approval by the Township
               Engineer, and must be recorded with the Somerset County Clerk, and the markers
               installed or bonded for, prior to the issuance of a building permit;

       (3)     The Historic Preservation Committee shall be permitted to inspect the interior of
               the main house for documentation purposes prior to the commencement of
               interior demolition work;




                                                 35
       (4)      The existing carriage house shall continue to be used only for permitted accessory
                uses and may not be used as any type of dwelling unit, pursuant to the Planning
                Board’s April 13, 2000 subdivision approval and a deed restriction recorded on
                November 26, 2001 in accordance therewith;

       (5)      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;

       (6)      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

       (7)      Pursuant to Section 21-5.10 of the Land Development Ordinance, the variance
                granted herein shall expire unless such construction or alteration permitted by the
                variance has actually commenced within one year of the date of this Resolution.


ROLL CALL VOTE:

Those in Favor:        Miller, Plaza, Schulenburg, Rhatican, Orr

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 December 8, 2010 as copied from the Minutes of

said meeting.




                                                 36
                                           ______________________________
                                           ______
                                           FRANCES FLORIO, Secretary
                                           ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENT
                                           OF THE TOWNSHIP OF
                                           BERNARDS, COUNTY OF
                                           SOMERSET,
                                           STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Dated: _____________________, 2010




                            37 - 12/08/10 – BOA

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:23
posted:8/28/2012
language:Unknown
pages:37