MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE BOROUGH OF
Chair Jill Gotthelf called the meeting to order and read the Open Public Meeting Advertisement: Notice of this meeting was given to the Citizen and the Daily Record, posted with the Borough Clerk and on the Bulletin Board and was made available to all those requesting individual notice and paying the required fee.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Gotthelf, Richter, Sheasby, Bolo, Max
Absent: Sullivan, Rusak, Moody, Kane Also Present: Attorney Michael Sullivan
REVIEW OF MINUTES: The minutes of the June 1 meeting were approved by voice vote.
MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
ERIC BECHT Appl. #06-480
Peter Bolo made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Bob Sheasby and carried by 5 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.
ERIC & TARA STRAUSS Appl. #06-486
Chris Richter made the motion to adopt the resolution of approval, seconded by Bob Sheasby and carried by 5 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.
TOMITZA & THEODORE BURLACU Appl. #06-488
Chris Richter made the motion to adopt the resolution, seconded by Arthur Max and carried by
5 - 0 roll call of eligible voters.
ORDINANCE
INTERPRETATION
Chapter 245-26
Board attorney Michael Sullivan stated that the Planning Board has determined that the Zoning Board should address this issue. This meeting was initiated by a vote at the June 29 meeting of the Planning Board, requesting the Zoning Board’s interpretation of the subject ordinance.
Arthur Max asked why the Planning Board referred the issue to this Board.
Roy Kurnos, attorney for the Weber application, said he had
raised the issue months ago to the Planning Board and there was no response at
that time. Borough Ordinance 01-05
placed this property in the RAH zone.
The conceptual Wildwood Meadow plan had all the affordable housing units
in one building. This current plan
reflects the same elements that the Wildwood Meadow plan proposed and the Borough
accepted. The ordinance states, “Within any inclusionary development, the
affordable units shall not be grouped or clustered separately from market rate
units…….”
Arthur Max asked if the Planning Board has refused to allow
this plan. Attorney Kurnos said the
Planning Board has asked the Zoning Board to interpret whether the affordable
housing units could be in one building or do they need to be dispersed. He noted that in
Chris Richter asked for testimony to answer questions about whether the units were segregated.
William Weber, developer under contract for this property, was sworn in. He used exhibits marked during previous Planning Board hearings.
Weber showed Exhibit A23 from the Wildwood Meadows plan, the conceptual plan for the agreement between the Borough and the land owner. This plan and the agreement formed the basis for the ordinance. He showed the location of the affordable housing building, noting it was in the same position as the current building, with all the units in a single structure.
The current proposed plan has the affordable units in
basically the same location as the WWM plan.
In the WWM plan, the affordable building had no covered parking
units.
Chris Richter asked whether the Planning Board had reviewed the Susan Kimball memos (7/07 and 7/20). No, they were sent after the Planning Board referred the interpretation to this Board. Richter pointed out that Susan Kimball clearly stated that these plans meet COAH regulations. Arthur Max asked for more detailed plans to know that the buildings would match. Weber testified that the materials on both sets of buildings would be equal. Richter pointed out that the Zoning Board routinely approves applications with this level of detail. Sheasby asked what would prevent the developer from changing the concept again. Gotthelf reminded him that the initial presentation was conceptual but this is an application with specific materials and designs.
Peter Henry, Planning Board attorney, stated that the Board asked that the Zoning Board should deal with whether all the affordable housing units in a single building satisfied the non-segregation requirements because they felt the ordinance was ambiguous. The question is looking at the language of the ordinance and looking at the underlying rationale. One of the requirements is that the units not be segregated; the question is, does that require interspersing units in each building or does it mean don’t place the units “across the river, down the road.”
Attorney Sullivan said it is a narrow issue. In light of the two memos provided, you can focus on the issue.
Roy Kurnos referred to the July 2004 memo from Susan Kimball stating that the units should be integrated in the development. Peter Henry noted that Susan Kimball is the Borough planner, particularly for COAH and housing requirements. Weber testified that landscaping and maintenance of the affordable units will be the same as the market rate units. He also testified that the parking spaces exceed COAH requirements.
Weber could not speculate on the price of the COAH units; that is controlled by the State. There will be both low and moderate level units. Sheasby and Max asked for price estimates. It was repeated that those numbers are not available at this time and are not within our control.
There were no comments from the public. Board discussion: Jill Gotthelf asked for discussion on Susan Kimball’s memos. Bob Sheasby asked Michael whether we needed to consider the Master Plan. What is the specific question we need to answer? Sullivan – we are not reviewing the site plan. The Planning Board has referred one issue to you. Under this proposal, does the plan violate the ordinance? Susan Kimball has determined that it does not. Richter – this is a simple issue. Ordinances cannot be looked at without considering the intent. When the ordinance was adopted, it was determined that the affordable units did not need covered parking. It was clear that the units would not be in the same building. They can be in a separate building with the same architectural treatment and materials. Kimball is our expert, so I don’t see how we can dispute that.
Gotthelf – The concept plan, the basis of the agreement, had all the units in a single building. If a separate building violated the ordinance, they would not have proceeded in this direction. Some of the wording in an ordinance is often based on ordinances in other towns where the conditions may be different. The units are on the same street, same access, same materials; the only significant difference is the outdoor parking.
Bolo – This is consistent with the spirit of the affordable housing, preventing those units from being stigmatized or excluded from the community.
Max – I am not as enthusiastic about Ms. Kimball’s interpretation but I think that it is close enough. What happens when you go back to the Planning Board – is the site plan approved? Kurrnos – Our case is finished; the architect, site and civil engineers have testified; we are 99% finished. We are bound to have the buildings appear as presented in this plan.
Sheasby – I am still concerned about the parking area. Attorney Sullivan – That is a Planning Board issue.
Chris Richter made the following motion: It is the Zoning Board’s interpretation that Jubilee satisfies the intent of the ordinance and a variance is not required, based on the July 20 memo from Susan Kimball as well as our own findings. Peter Bolo seconded the motion. Arthur Max asked that the motion be amended to include the applicant’s testimony that the architectural treatment, landscaping, etc. of the affordable housing building will be consistent with the rest of the development. The motion was approved by a 4-1 roll call vote (Yes – Gotthelf, Richter, Bolo, Max. No - Sheasby). A letter stating this decision will be forwarded to the Planning Board.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Carried to August 3:
DAVID WINTERS
Bl. 100.02, Lot 86 Appl. #06-483
FAR, ILC, front & shoreline RA zone
BRIAN & TARA NIELSEN 82 Briarcliff Rd.
Bl. 84, Lot 18 Appl.#06-485
Side, front RA zone
Other Matters /
Public Comment:
The meeting was adjourned at
Respectfully submitted,
Marge Jackson, Secretary