Board OKs hardship variances and an application for a minor subdivision.
By Marianne Hooker
At its June 11 meeting, the Pennington Planning Board approved hardship variances that will allow construction of a new house between 17 and 19 E. Curlis Ave.
Members also approved an application for minor subdivision of the residential property at 136 King George Road. There are several environmental concerns affecting the rear portion of this lot, which any potential purchaser would need to resolve before building a house there.
New building on East Curlis Edward Bucci Builders, which is proposing to build a new single-family home on the lot between numbers 17 and 19 E. Curlis Ave., was represented by attorney Gordon Strauss. Initial testimony on this case was presented at the January meeting. Since that time, however, a new design has been developed for the house.
Daniel Ward, the architect who designed the proposed building, said the house would have four bedrooms, with a living area of about 2770 square feet. The height would be 32 feet, or slightly higher than the two adjacent houses. This is a totally different building plan from the one presented in January.
Frank Falcone, a surveyor and planner, said the property is 35 square feet below the minimum lot size for the R-80 zone. For this reason, the applicant was requesting a variance. Another variance is needed for the side yard setbacks, which would be 9 feet on the left and 12 feet on the right. Under terms of the zoning ordinance, the minimum side yard setback in this zone is 15 feet. Mr. Falcone said the proposed building would represent infill development in this part of Pennington. In his view, the benefits of the building would outweigh any possible detriments to the community or the zone plan.
During the public comment period, the only person to testify was Thomas Ogren, who lives next door at 17 E. Curlis. He said the soil in this area does not drain well. Since the lot in question is the lowest property around, he would like for the new building to be equipped with a sump pump. Mr. Ogren felt that groundwater on this site was a greater potential problem than drainage from the roof.
There was some discussion concerning landscaping and outdoor lighting on the property. The applicant plans to grant the borough a conservation easement at the rear of the lot.
In reviewing the application as a whole, board member Stewart Schwab said he was not comfortable with the proposed height of the roof. Jeanne Donlon said the new design was a vast improvement over the previous one. She thought it would fit in better with the streetscape. Ms. Donlon also said the side yard setback variances would be relatively modest. Board Chairman Winn Thompson agreed with Ms. Donlon that the proposed building would be an asset to the community.
The board voted to approve the variance request, subject to the following conditions: if the house is built with a chimney, it will be made of brick; the driveway on the property will be paved; all utilities will be placed underground; the drainage system for the new building will be approved by the borough engineer; if possible, the sump pump and downspout leaders will be connected to the borough’s stormwater drainage system; a 25-foot conservation easement will be granted at the rear of the lot; and a buffer of fencing or landscaping will be provided between the house and its neighbors.
The vote on the application was 4-3, with Jim Lytle, Jim Reilly, and Mr. Schwab casting the dissenting votes. Since the vote was for a hardship variance, a simple majority was sufficient to prevail.
Minor subdivision on King George Colon and Pauline Smith of 136 King George Road who bought the property 50 years ago as two separate lots, which subsequently were incorporated into one are now preparing to sell the property, and would like to divide it back into two lots. The lot with their existing home would have frontage along King George, and the lot behind it would front on Park Avenue.
Cindy Coppola, the board’s planning consultant, said the proposed subdivision would fit in well with the character of the neighborhood. It also would comply with all municipal requirements. However, she felt there were several important unknowns with regard to the environmental aspects of the property.
At issue is the question of whether the parcel fronting on Park Avenue would constitute a buildable lot. There is a drainage channel that runs parallel to the property line close to the road. Ms. Coppola said a stream encroachment permit may be needed in order to build a driveway over this stream. Edwin Schmierer, the board’s attorney, said a letter of interpretation concerning wetlands also may be required. These same points were raised in the review memo by the borough engineer.
Ms. Coppola said that if the subdivision was approved, and a new lot was created, the presumption would be that it was a buildable lot. If a buyer found that he was not permitted to build there, he could argue in court that he was entitled to a minimum use of the property.
John Flemming, borough zoning officer, took a different view of the situation. He felt the applicants should not be required to seek environmental determinations with regard to the property. Mr. Flemming said neighboring properties were affected by the same drainage channel, and they had not been subject to any special requirements. The channel in question appears to emerge from an underground pipe about a third of the way across the Smiths’ property.
There were no comments on this application from any members of the public. During board discussion, most members seemed to favor a policy of "let the buyer beware." Someone commented that whoever buys the King George property may choose to keep the rear parcel as a big back yard. Mr. Thompson said a consultant could prepare a wetlands study within a reasonable amount of time, and this could be submitted to the DEP to obtain a letter of interpretation.
Ms. Coppola said the DEP has detailed rules governing the proposed driveway and stream crossing. She also said the dry well and shed on the rear portion of the property should be moved before any subdivision takes place.
The board approved the proposed subdivision, subject to a list of conditions to be approved by the borough engineer. They did not want to require the applicants to go before the DEP, though they recognized that the engineer would probably recommend this step. In all probability, the DEP will have the ultimate say on whether or not the Park Avenue parcel could be a buildable lot.
Changes to the OB zone The board continued its ongoing discussion of the draft ordinance making changes to the office business zone. Mr. Thompson stepped down from his chairman’s role for this part of the meeting. However, he addressed the board on behalf of the Straube Center, which he manages. His main concern was the provision in the draft ordinance setting a maximum floor area ratio of 2.0.
The floor area ratio controls the intensity of development on a given site. Mr. Thompson said Straube Center had been granted approval for a new building with a floor area ratio of 3.0. This would be about the same scale as the existing buildings on the site. He said they would have planned to develop the site differently if a lower floor area ratio had been required at the time they applied.
Attorney Daniel Haggerty spoke to the board on behalf of Eugene Lorenzetti, the contract purchaser of the "Plaza 31" tract that adjoins the Straube Center. Mr. Haggerty said a 3.0 floor area ratio is quite low, and that much of the development in downtown Pennington exceeds this standard. He also recommended the board adopt the standard set by the Institute of Traffic Engineering with regard to the stacking of vehicles at drive-through lanes of banks.
Following these comments, the board decided to raise the floor area ratio limit to 3.0. Ms. Coppola said she would make this change in the draft ordinance, and then resubmit it to the board.
Other business In other business, the board voted to approve the draft affordable housing ordinance that was discussed at the May meeting. This ordinance already has been introduced by Pennington Borough Council. As the next step, the council returned it to the board for official approval. The ordinance will not become final until approved by council. An affirmative marketing plan for affordable housing units will be added in the future.