Planners reorganize, address variance requests

PENNINGTON PLANNING UPDATE

By Marianne Hooker
   At its Jan. 8 meeting, the Pennington Planning Board approved a use variance for a commercial property on South Main Street.
   The board also heard initial testimony on a request for a hardship variance. If granted, the variance would allow construction of a single-family home on an undersized lot on East Curlis Avenue.
   The meeting began with the swearing in of Susan Porcella and Stewart Schwab as new members. William Meytrott was sworn in for another term as a member, and James Reilly was sworn in again as an alternate. Winn Thompson was re-elected chairman and Jeanne Donlon, vice chairman.
   The board voted to renew the appointments of Mary Mistretta as board secretary and Edwin Schmierer as board attorney. They reappointed the firm of Coppola and Coppola as planning consultants, and Don Fetzer as engineering consultant. Mr. Fetzer also serves as borough engineer.
   Use variance for a spa — The board heard a request for a use variance for the property at 250 S. Main St., where the Ashton-Whyte store is located. Those presenting testimony were James Morrison, the owner of the building, and Sandra Counts, who plans to use a portion of the building for a spa. Ms. Counts, a licensed cosmetologist, is now doing business in Princeton. However, she would like to move her operation to Mr. Morrison’s property in Pennington. This type of business would require a use variance.
   Ms. Counts said her business would have three full- or part-time staff members, and no more than three customers at a time. The customers would come by appointment. The staff members would provide body treatments only; no one there would be working on hair. The business would also sell a few products for skin care.
   Mr. Morrison said that he planned to restripe the parking lot on the property, and to mark a few spaces as reserved for the spa. He also intends to install a new light standard.
   Mr. Schmierer summarized the comments of planner Cindy Coppola in her memo reviewing the variance request. According to the memo, the proposed use is not normally permitted in the office residential zone. However, there are special circumstances in this case that might warrant granting the variance. In her memo, Ms. Coppola did not envision any negative impacts on the neighborhood from conducting business at the spa.
   There were no comments on this application from any members of the public. The board voted unanimously to grant the variance request.
   Hardship variances for an undersized lot — This application concerned a vacant lot between the properties at 17 and 19 E. Curlis Ave. Edward Bucci Builders would like to build a single-family home on this tract. The lot in question is 60 feet wide, whereas a lot width of 80 feet is required for a new house in the R-80 zone. The applicant was requesting hardship variances for lot width, side yard setbacks, and roof slope ratio. Attorney Gordon Strauss presented the case on the applicant’s behalf. Also testifying was surveyor and planner Frank Falcone.
   Mr. Strauss said the lot predates the current zoning ordinance. The property is long and narrow, with the shape of a parallelogram. He noted there are houses on several nearby properties that are also nonconforming from the standpoint of the ordinance. The house the applicant proposes to build would be 42 feet wide, with an area of about 2,800 square feet. Mr. Falcone said the proposed building would be in character with the rest of the neighborhood, and it would not create any detriment to the surrounding properties.
   Edward Bucci Jr. said the lot had been for sale for quite awhile. Any of the neighbors could have opted to purchase it. He said it would not be possible to expand the lot by buying land from the property owners on either side. In both cases, the existing house comes within 10 feet of the side property line.
   Ms. Coppola said if the width of the house could be reduced to around 30 feet, it would bring the proposed building into much closer compliance with the zoning ordinance. However, Mr. Bucci said a building that narrow would not fit in with neighborhood, nor would it be likely to attract many buyers. He said they would plant some natural-looking shrubbery around the property, and they would also try to preserve as many as possible of the existing trees.
   Mr. Bucci showed the board a drawing of the proposed building, and the members made a few comments about the design. Jeanne Donlon objected to the prominent two-car garage at the front of the building, which she said would be out of keeping with the neighboring houses. She noted that several new houses have been built in the borough without any garage. Chairman Thompson said the proposed height of 35 feet would appear very tall compared with the surrounding buildings. He also told the applicant that the board would need to see more detailed plans for such things as outdoor lighting.
   During the public comment period, both of the next-door neighbors addressed the board. Tom Ogren, of 17 E. Curlis, asked the board to deny the variance request, which he said would not be in the best interest of the borough. In response to a question, he said his lot is the same size and width as the property in question.
   The neighbor on the other side, Stephen Highcock, opposed the planned building as well. He said his own home was about 28 feet high, with an area of around 1,700 square feet. In his opinion, the proposed building would be too large, and it would dominate the surrounding area. He said he would be happy to see a house there, as long as it was in proportion with the other houses nearby. Mr. Highcock also said the area in question tends to be very wet. He thought it might require some special measures for drainage.
   Also testifying during the public comment period was Borough Council member Robert Di Falco. He restated the point he made at an earlier meeting, to wit, that he didn’t approve of building big new houses on small Pennington lots. At this point Mr. Strauss asked the board to postpone action on the application until next month’s meeting.
   Ms. Coppola said the size and height of the planned building are much larger than the neighboring houses. She thought the building as proposed would have a substantial impact on the adjacent dwellings, cutting off some of their light and air. Board member Susan Porcella said the proposed design was not appropriate for the location, and two other members commented that some other type of house would be a better fit.
   Mr. Thompson suggested that the applicant review the plans for some of the other new houses the board has approved for undersized lots. With that, the board agreed to continue this application until next month’s meeting.
   Route 31-West Franklin intersection — With regard to the ongoing question of whether and how the Route 31-West Franklin intersection should be rezoned, Ms. Coppola said that last month the subcommittee that has been reviewing this question did not meet. However, she has developed a draft with language describing a possible office business zone within the highway business district. Certain conditional uses already are permitted in the highway business district. However, Ms. Coppola would add some others to the office business zone, including banks with drive-through lanes, and limited retail uses subject to certain conditions.
   Ms. Coppola suggested that the allowable floor area ratio be specified for the proposed office business zone. She also said that if the board wanted to encourage the construction of buildings with peaked roofs, they should allow property owners in the area to build higher buildings. Ms. Donlon asked board members to review and consider the language in this initial draft.
   Bicycle trail — During the initial public comment period, David Gange, the president of the homeowners’ association in nearby Elm Ridge Park, made comments concerning the proposed 20-mile bicycle trail through Hopewell Township and Lawrence. A part of this trail will pass through Rosedale Park.
   Mr. Gange said the route of the trail does not quite connect with Pennington, although it comes fairly close. He said he and his neighbors would like to use the trail to obtain bicycle access to the borough. Mr. Gange noted that hearings will be held on the proposed route of the bike trail, and he asked the board to support the idea of extending it into Pennington. Several board members said they, too, would like to see the bike trail come into the borough. Board and Borough Council member James Lytle said he’d brought this up at a recent meeting of the council.
   ***
   In other business, the board adopted resolutions of memorialization to formalize its approval last month of applications by the Pennington Methodist Church, Joseph and Elizabeth Muoio, Mercer Mutual Insurance, and Michael O’Conner.