ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
FEBRUARY 6, 2002
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by
Chairman Clayton at 7:45 P.M. Members
present were Chairman Clayton, Vice Chairman DeSarno, Dennis Noorigian, Ralph
Addonizio, Dominick Cinelli, first alternate Mark Brosnan, second alternate
Wilma Morrissey, Attorney Hirsch, Planning Coordinator Pam D’Andrea, Recording
Secretary Betty Schinestuhl, Engineer Matt Zahorsky, Planner John Maczuga and
Reporter Arnone.
Attorney Hirsch
announced that all requirements under the Open Public Meetings Act had been
complied with for this meeting and read the purposes of the Board of
Adjustment.
Chairman Clayton
said the Board would like to present Mr. Noorigian with a plaque for his 10
years of service as Chairman on the Board of Adjustment. He said Mr. Noorigian has been on the Board
since 1982. He has been Chairman from
1991 – 2001.
CASE
#BA19-2001 – Date
application complete: June 29, 2001,
carried from September 19, 2001 and December 5, 2001.
APPLICANT:
AMERADA HESS CORPORATION
PROPERTY:
2630 Highway 70, Block 817, Lot 6, OP-10 Zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Use/Bulk Variance
Donna Jennings,
Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney
Jennings asked if everyone present this evening was available to vote. Mrs. D’Andrea said yes.
Attorney
Jennings said the Board’s concerns have been addressed. She said she has received the new reports
from the Board Professionals.
Entered into
Evidence:
A-5 EIS
A-6 Map
A-7 Revised rendering of site plan, sheet 3
BOA-4
Review letter from John Maczuga, Bay Pointe Engineering, dated January
28, 2002
BOA-5 Review letter from Matt Zahorsky, Bay Pointe
Engineering, dated January 31, 2002
BOA-6
Letter from Wall Township Fire Prevention dated December 4, 2001
February 6, 2002 Page
2
Mr. Spalt,
previously sworn, explained Item A-7.
He said the site plan has been revised since the last meeting. He said there will be a 10’ wide landscape
on Route 70. The canopy will be moved
back. The front of the building will be
landscaped. Four shade trees will be
added, 124 shrubs, and a total of 110 deciduous trees. Two of the dispensers will be eliminated. There will be six where previously there were
eight. The sign package has been
reduced. The building sign will be
reduced. There will be a reduction in
lighting. Two fixtures will be
eliminated. The total wattage will be
reduced.
Entered into
evidence:
A-8 Existing lighting plan
A-9 Proposed lighting plan
Mr. Brosnan
asked if the shrubs at the north exit are in the site triangle. Mr. Spalt said no. Mr. Brosnan asked if the shrubs will affect the oncoming
traffic. Mr. Spalt said no.
Mr. Addonizio
asked about the canopy lighting. Mr.
Spalt said it is difficult to compare the lighting. The total wattage will be reduced.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if there was a Hess station in the area that is similar. Mr. Spalt said they all have 400 watts. He said no one has 250 watt. He said he can tell the Board where there is
a station with 400 watt lighting but not what they are proposing in Wall
Township.
Mr. Addonizio
asked about the pylon sign. Mr. Spalt
said the total is 64 s.f. Mr. Spalt gave
the s.f. of all the signs.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if there was a station in the area that would be comparable. Mr. Spalt said the Exxon on the circle is
larger. He said the price sign is very
similar. Mr. Addonizio said he is not
happy with 62 s.f. over on the signage allowed. He asked what could be done to bring it down. Mr. Spalt said they can eliminate the word
Hess on the dispenser altogether. He
said the sign on the building cannot be any smaller. He said they can eliminate the pump sign. He said that would bring them down to approximately
180 s.f.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if it was necessary to have the Hess Express sign. Mr. Spalt said it is an identification
sign.
Mr. Brosnan said
the Hess Express is a brand name. He
asked if the letters or the entire length of the sign is included in the calculation. Mr. Spalt said the box.
Mr. Brosnan
asked for the size of the letters. Mr.
Spalt said the word Hess letters are 8’.
The sign is approximately 3’ X 8’.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if there were lights around the Hess Express sign on the building. Mr. Addonizio asked if that sign could be
reduced. Mr. Spalt said it already has
been.
Mr. Addonizio
asked for the size of the pylon price sign.
Mr. Spalt said they are about 10”.
February 6, 2002 Page
3
Attorney
Jennings said it is important to have the sign, Hess Express, on the
building.
Mr. Maczuga
asked if Hess Express was illuminated.
He also asked if the canopy signs were illuminated. Mr. Spalt said yes.
Mr. Maczuga asked
if there was a reason why they had to be lit on the back. Mr. Spalt said all the major oil companies
are like that. He said it is the trend.
Attorney Hirsch
asked how big is the fascia of the canopy.
Mr. Spalt said 3’ – 3½’. He
said that is normal.
Mr. Brosnan
asked if the canopy constitutes signage.
He asked if the entire canopy was being calculated. Mr. Maczuga said he read the definition into
the record at the last meeting. The
lettering and any background could be considered part of the sign.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if they calculated the whole sign on the canopy. Mr. Maczuga said they did not include the
Hess lettering.
Mr. Addonizio
asked what the actual s.f is. Mr.
Maczuga said 3½ X 99 twice.
Attorney
Jennings asked if they eliminate the green stripe would they consider the
calculations correct. She said if the
Board wants them to eliminate the green stripe then their calculations are
correct.
Chairman Clayton
asked the applicant to go over the engineer’s report. Mr. Spalt said they will comply with the engineer’s letter of
January 31, 2002. He said he will come
back to the section regarding the lighting.
Mr. Spalt
explained the lighting at the ingress and egress. He said they are there for the safety of the motorist. Attorney Hirsch asked if they were
shielded. Mr. Spalt said they are
directed away from traffic.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if they have received approval from DOT.
Mr. Spalt said no.
Attorney Hirsch
asked Mr. Spalt to go over the site plan issues in the engineer’s letter. Mr. Spalt said regarding the dispensing
units they have reduced them by two.
Mr. Maczuga
asked about the one way arrows. Mr.
Spalt said he agrees with the arrows going in and out of the station. He said limiting the flow to one way can
cause a problem. He said motorist with
a fuel tank on the other side of the car will turn around. He said they should accommodate this
problem. He said one way is not a good
idea. Mr. Spalt, regarding the curbing,
said the curbing shown on the plan is the best way on one way approach. He said they function safely.
Mr. Spalt said
there will be sufficient area provided for recycled materials. Mr. Spalt said the trash enclosures will be
white.
February 6, 2002 Page
4
Mrs. DeSarno asked
Mr. Maczuga about the curbing. Mr.
Maczuga said he has no problem with this type of curbing.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked how many underground tanks there were.
Mr. Spalt said four and they have all been replaced recently. He said they were replaced in about
1991. Mrs. Morrissey asked if there was
any reason to believe there may be seepage.
Mr. Spalt said no.
Mr. Spalt said
they will comply with the landscaping requirements.
Mr. Spalt said
they will secure all approvals necessary.
Chairman Clayton
asked if the canopy lighting will be recessed.
Mr. Spalt said it will be shielded.
He said they are shoe box criteria.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if the glare would be blocked.
Mr. Spalt said the canopy lights extend down 6”. The pole lights are flush.
Mr. Maczuga
asked about the façade lighting. Mr.
Spalt said it is florescent lighting.
Mr. Maczuga
asked about lighting in the rear of the building. Mr. Spalt said there is no lighting proposed. He said a 100 watt bulb will be over the
emergency door.
Chairman Clayton
asked if some of the lighting could be reduced. Mr. Spalt said they are reducing the bulbs from 400 watt to 250
watt.
Attorney Hirsch
asked how many freestanding lights are proposed. Mr. Spalt said five are proposed, three 250 watt and two 400
watt.
Mr. Zahorsky
asked if the lighting over the canopy can be reduced. Mr. Spalt said there are requirements made by Hess
insurance. He said they are going to
have to provide additional analysis.
Mr. Spalt asked
if there has been a previous application in Township that was acceptable. He would like to compare.
Mr. Brosnan
asked how this compares to the Exxon and Sunoco. Mr. Spalt it is less lighting than Exxon or Sunoco.
Mr. Spalt
explained the insurance company requires a certain amount of lighting. The employees take cash, credit cards,
etc. They, sometimes, go under the hood
to check oil.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked what precautions have been taken regarding the gas tanks that were
replaced. Mr. Spalt said they have an
expert here this evening. He said the
old tanks corrode.
The new tanks
are monitored. The new tanks have
double walls. If there was seepage
going between the two walls an alarm would go off.
February 6, 2002 Page
5
Mrs. DeSarno
asked when they expect the letter from DEP.
Mr. Spalt said they expected to have it this evening.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked about the contaminated ground water.
Mr. Spalt said that has been taken care of. Mrs. DeSarno asked about the contaminated soil. Mr. Spalt said both issues have been
addressed. He said they are looking for
a no further action letter from DEP.
Mr. Addonizio
asked where the run-off water goes. Mr.
Spalt said it goes into on-site seepage pits and onto Route 70. Mr. Addonizio asked Mr. Zahorsky what would be
appropriate for this site. Mr. Zahorsky
said filters should be installed. Mr.
Spalt said they will comply with that.
John Rea,
Traffic Engineer, was sworn.
Mr. Rea gave his
qualifications, which were accepted by the Board.
Mr. Rea
explained this project is on a State Highway.
Mr. Rea said this project will not generate additional traffic. He said the curb cuts are
grandfathered. He said there is no need
to get a DOT permit. He said there will
be no additional traffic because of the mini mart. He said the site has been found to work safely and
efficiently. He said the number of
fueling pumps has been reduced. 17
parking spaces will be provided. He
said this is a mini mart not a convenience store. He said Route 70 has been reconstructed and there will be a right
turn only leaving the site. He said
there is a shoulder in front of the station.
He said it will run safely and efficiently because you cannot make a left
hand turn. He said there is more than
adequate room to move around on the site.
Attorney Hirsch
asked about the number of employees.
Mr. Rea said there will be two employees under the canopy and two more
in the mini mart.
Mr. Maczuga
asked Mr. Rea to confirm that 1660 s.f. would not need DOT permit. Mr. Rea said that is correct. He explained mini marts above 2800 s.f. need
a permit.
9:23 PM the
Board recessed.
9:35 PM the
meeting resumed.
James Higgins
was sworn. Mr. Higgins went over the
variances needed. This site is in an
OB10 zone. He said the impervious
coverage would be reduced. The amount
of landscaping on site will be increased.
The esthetics of the site will improve.
He said the proposed site will be more in conformance with the
area. He said the bulk variance is an
existing condition. He said the site is
more than adequate for the station. The
frontage is 276’. There is no detriment
because of the frontage. It is esthetically
appropriate. The rear of the site is a
large open piece of land.
Attorney
Jennings said they were asked if they wanted to purchase the adjacent
property. They denied.
February 6, 2002 Page
6
Mr. Higgins said
the impervious coverage will be reduced to 67%. He said, regarding the signage, it is how you interpret the
ordinance. He said they now have 138
s.f. including the canopy. He
said the canopy
looks better with the stripe on it. The
illumination is appropriate. He said
the lighting on the site is being reduced.
He said the master plan designates this as an OP zone. He said this facility will remain for a long
time. It will continue to be a gas
station.
Attorney Hirsch
asked about the adjacent property. He
said the owners were interested in selling the property. Mr. Higgins said it is a narrow strip of
land. He said it has no function. He said it will not change the site plan at
all. This plan is appropriate for the
site. He said there is no reason to
purchase that land.
Attorney Hirsch
said there are two issues remaining, signage and lighting. He asked if there were any other issues that
needed to be addressed.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if they agree to eliminate the back lighting on the canopy going around
the top to bring the lighting down closer to ordinance. Attorney Jennings said the canopy signage
and the signs on the pumps will be eliminated.
Mr. Addonizio
said he does not think eliminating the canopy lighting makes a difference. He would like to see the illumination
removed. He said the Hess portion can
be lit.
Mr. Brosnan said
he disagrees with Mr. Addonizio. He
said most of the Hess stations have a specific look. He said he does not think the Board should treat this station any
different. He said he is in favor of
lighting the Hess signs. He said the
lighting should be able to stay. He
said the applicant has met as many requirements as they possibly can.
Mr. Addonizio
said this is the first application the Board can explore all the aspects of a
gas station.
Mr. Noorigian
said he agrees with Mr. Brosnan. He
said he is pleased with the revised changes.
He said the Hess Corporation has a good track record in Wall
Township. He said this station has been
kept very nice.
Mr. Maczuga said
he is suggesting that the Board know the intensity of the lighting.
Mr. Brosnan
asked about the color of the lettering.
Attorney Jennings said the Hess letters have to be green.
Andy Lautenbacher,
Hess representative, was sworn.
Mr. Lautenbacher
said the canopy has three florescent tubes, three in a row. He said they can remove one and that would
reduce the intensity. It would make it
softer. He said they would prefer to
have it illuminated but they would tone it down.
February 6, 2002 Page
7
Mr. Brosnan said
he believes that the canopy lighting not does light the entire site. He said the Board should allow the Hess
station to compete. He said the Board
should not put standards on the station that may hurt business.
Mrs. Morrissey
said she agrees with Mr. Brosnan. She
said she goes with just reducing the lighting.
Mrs. DeSarno said she goes along with just reducing the lighting. Chairman Clayton said he agrees with just
reducing it. He said just take one of
the bulbs out. Mr. Cinelli said to
reduce the lighting by taking out one tube.
Chairman Clayton
asked about the recessed lighting in the canopy. Mr. Lautenbacher said it is surface mounting. He said they would put a flat lens in. It would reduce the glare. He said they can also contain the entire
fixture and recess it into the canopy deck.
Chairman Clayton
said the bulbs are being reduced from 400 watts to 250 watts. Mr. Lautenbacher said he is not happy with
that but he agrees.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if they would be flush. Mr. Lautenbacher
said yes.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked about the environmental problems.
She asked if DEP has given them a clean bill of health. Attorney Jennings said they have done soil
and water remediation. Mrs. Morrissey
said she will not be satisfied until DEP says it is okay. Attorney Jennings said the Board can approve
this subject to DEP report. Mrs.
DeSarno said the Board will make it a condition.
Mr. Maczuga said
he wants his landscape architect to look at the plans. He said the Board can approve subject to the
landscape architect review.
Attorney Hirsch
asked Attorney Jennings if they agree with this. Attorney Jennings said yes.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if they will install filters for the water run-off. Attorney Jennings said yes.
The application
was opened and closed to the public.
Attorney Hirsch
said for the record, regarding the availability of adjacent land, Davis vs.
Karpf, this case is not exactly on point dealing with undersized lots. This case only deals with residential
lots. It has never been used for a
commercial lot. He said purchasing this
land would not add to the application.
Mrs. DeSarno moved
to approve the application for use variance subject to the landscape architect
reviewing the landscape plan, report from NJDEP saying there is no further
action needed and reducing the lighting by 1/3. Attorney Hirsch also added the conditions that 250 watt
bulbs will be
used under the canopy and one florescent bulb will be taken out. Mrs. DeSarno also added the conditions; a
filter will be installed for the run off, remove the signage from the pumps and
not purchasing the adjacent property.
Mr. Brosnan seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by a
roll call vote. (Mrs. DeSarno, Mr.
Brosnan, Mrs. Morrissey, Messrs. Cinelli, Addonizio, Noorigian and Clayton
voted yes.)
February 6, 2002 Page
8
Mrs. DeSarno
moved to approve the application for bulk variance. Mr. Brosnan seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved
by a roll call vote. (Mrs. DeSarno, Mr.
Brosnan, Mrs. Morrissey, Messrs. Cinelli, Addonizio, Noorigian and Clayton
voted yes.)
MINUTES TO BE ADOPTED:
Mr. Noorigian moved to approve the minutes of the study sessions and
regular minutes of December 5, 2001 and January 9, 2002. Mr. Addonizio seconded the motion, which was
unanimously approved.
RESOLUTION TO BE MEMORIALIZED:
PROCTOR &
NANCY BAKER – BA#29-2001
Block 806, Lot 7 Noorigian/Brosnan
There being no
further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and
unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 10:25 P.M.
Respectfully
submitted,
Betty
Schinestuhl
Recording Secretary