ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
APRIL 10, 2002
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by
Chairman Clayton at 7:38 P.M. Members
present were Chairman Clayton, Vice Chairman DeSarno, Dennis Noorigian, Dominick
Cinelli, Ralph Addonizio, first alternate Mark Brosnan, second alternate Wilma
Morrissey, Attorney Hirsch, Planning Coordinator Pam D’Andrea, Recording
Secretary Betty Schinestuhl, Engineer Matt Zahorsky, Cheryl Bergalio and Court
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
announced two applications will be carried.
CASE #BA31-2001
– Date application
complete: December 31, 2001
APPLICANT: SAMANTHA
JACE
PROPERTY: 5213
Routes 33 & 34, Block 911, Lot 19, HB-40 Zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Use variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Chairman Clayton
announced the Samantha Jace application will be carried to April 17, 2002.
Chairman Clayton
also announced the Arthur J. Curta application will be carried to May 1,
2002. Attorney Hirsch explained that
Mr. Curta noticed the meeting to be April 8, 2002 instead of April 10,
2002. He stated Mrs. D’Andrea tried to
remedy the problem but it is a matter of law.
She posted a notice on the door on April 8, 2002 stating the Curta
application will be heard on April 10, 2002.
Attorney Hirsch said he cannot accept that. He stated the notice is deficient. The applicant must renotice.
Chairman Clayton said this application will be carried to May 1, 2002.
CASE #4-2002 – Date application complete: January 24,
2002
APPLICANT: NANCY AND ROBERT LEETE
PROPERTY: 1701 Atlantic Avenue, Block 810, Lot 7,
CR-10 Zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Use variance
April 10, 2002 Page
2
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Survey prepared by William Fury
A-2 Site Plan prepared by Paul S. Moore dated
January 23, 2002
A-3 Architectural prepared by Paul S. Moore
dated January 23, 2002
Michael Magee,
Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Nancy Leete was
sworn.
Mrs. Leete
explained she lives on the property where the school is. She explained their family room is long and
narrow. She is proposing to move the
wall out. She said they propose to move
out the wall to the parking lot.
Attorney Hirsch
asked how long they have been residents.
Mrs. Leete said 26 years.
Mr. Brosnan
asked if this was going to be used for the school. Mrs. Leete said no, just family living space.
Chairman Clayton
asked if the addition meets all setback requirements. Attorney Magee said the planner and architect will testify to
that.
Paul Moore was
sworn. The Board accepted his
qualifications as an architect and planner.
Attorney Magee
asked Mr. Moore to describe the application.
Mr. Moore explained the elevations.
The addition will be to the left of the residence. The property consists of 7.89 acres. The house is to the front right area. The addition will be to the left.
Mr. Moore
explained it will be a one story addition.
It will add 530 s.f. to the building.
Attorney Magee
asked Mr. Moore to review the Board Professional letters.
Mr. Moore said
the property is located in the CR-10 zone.
It does not allow a residence.
There are several residents in this area. He said they comply with all of the setbacks.
Attorney Magee,
regarding John Maczuga’s letter of April 3, 2002, asked Mr. Moore to give
testimony regarding N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2.
Mr. Moore said this addition enhances the look of the house. It will make it a nice residence. He said it will enhance the area. The property abuts Atlantic Manor. He said it blends in well. Mr. Moore said the impervious coverage is
13.4% and that includes everything. He
said 20% is allowed.
Attorney Hirsch
asked what is contiguous to this site.
Mr. Moore said to the east is Atlantic Manor Apartments and to the west
is a doctor’s office.
April 10, 2002 Page
3
Attorney Hirsch
asked if there were any other residences in the area. Mr. Moore said there are two residences across the street.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if they were in the same zone.
Mr. Moore said no, they are HB.
Mr. Zahorsky said OP-2 and OP-10 is across the street.
Mr. Maczuga said
he has no engineering concerns.
The application
was open and closed to the public.
Attorney Magee
said the applicant is proposing a one story addition. It will not impact the area.
It is a small addition.
Mrs. DeSarno
said she knows the property. The school
is one of the best run businesses in Wall Township.
Mrs. DeSarno moved
to approve the application as applied for.
Mrs. Morrissey seconded the motion which was approved by a roll call
vote. (Mrs. DeSarno, Mrs. Morrissey, Messrs.
Brosnan, Addonizio, Noorigian and Clayton voted yes.)
CASE #BA-5-2002 – Date application complete: January 30,
2002
APPLICANT: WAYNE GRONBERG
PROPERTY: 1618 n. Marconi Road, Block 87, Lot 5,
R-15 Zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Timothy B.
Middleton, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney
Middleton said the house is located on North Marconi Road. The applicant purchased the property 1˝
years ago. The house was partially
destroyed by fire. The applicant has
constructed a new home. He is proposing
to build a deck in the rear of the property.
The applicant exceeds building coverage by 1%. The deck is esthetically pleasing. It adds to the home.
There is no negative impact.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Photo of home
A-2 Photo of home
A-3 Architectural Plans prepared by T. Petersen
dated January 11, 2002
Tom Petersen was
sworn. The Board accepted his
qualifications.
April 20, 2002 Page
4
Mr. Petersen
said the home fronts on North Marconi Road.
It consists of 12,000 s.f. The
house was demolished after being damaged by a fire next door. Construction was started last year. Construction is about 80% complete. The applicant is seeking permission for a
deck on the back of the house.
Attorney
Middleton said because the deck is made from fiberglass and not wood it is
considered building coverage. Mr.
Petersen said that is correct. Mr.
Petersen said it is 20.1% building coverage.
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. Petersen if he suggested fiberglass instead of wood. Mr. Petersen said yes. Mr. Petersen said they ran into problems
with existing topography. He said water
could collect.
Attorney
Middleton asked because the deck is made of fiberglass the water would run away
from the home. Mr. Petersen said
yes.
Attorney
Middleton said the grade slopes toward the home. Mr. Petersen said the ground in the back is below grade. He said it could have been a problem with
water collecting in that area. It would
have required more drainage. He said
the lower area will be used as a screened in porch.
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. Petersen to describe the deck. Mr. Petersen said the house in the back has two turrets. The deck and screened in porch will be
between them. He said the deck is not
visible to anyone. He said it will be
esthetically pleasing.
Attorney
Middleton asked how much above grade would the deck be. Mr. Petersen said about 7’ – 8’.
Attorney
Middleton asked if Mr. Petersen believed this would cause any negative impact
on the neighbors. Mr. Petersen said
none.
Attorney
Middleton asked if there would be any negative impact on the neighborhood at
all. Mr. Petersen said none. He said the home next door also has the same
type of deck. It is very similar.
Attorney
Middleton asked if the variance is for only 1% over what is permitted. Mr. Petersen said yes.
Mrs. Morrissey asked
if this house was better built than the one next door. Mr. Petersen said this one is much
better. He said that house was not a
new house it was a renovation. Mrs.
Morrissey asked about the positioning of the new house. Mr. Petersen said this is a new house that
is why the positioning is different.
Chairman Clayton
asked if the porch on the lower level would be screened. Mr. Petersen said the lower level will be
enclosed. He said the story below grade
will be open.
April 10, 2002 Page
5
Chairman Clayton
asked Mr. Zahorsky if this lower level was existing. Mr. Petersen said the existing footprint is different than what
we have now. It is a new patio for this
construction. Mr. Zahorsky said the
decks are a new addition to the application.
Mr. Zahorsky
asked if there was any type of drainage.
Mr. Petersen said they do have drainage.
Mr. Petersen
said because they are making the deck fiberglass is the only reason they are
here tonight.
The application
was opened and closed to the public.
Attorney
Middleton said if the deck was going to be made of wood instead of fiberglass
we would not be here. The house is very
attractive. The deck will fit in with
the home. There is no negative impacts
on the neighbors or zone plan.
Mr. Addonizio
moved to approve the application as applied for. Mrs. Morrissey seconded the motion which was unanimously approved
by a roll call vote. Mr. Addonizio,
Mrs. Morrissey, Messrs. Brosnan, Noorigian, Mrs. DeSarno and Mr. Clayton voted
yes.)
MINUTES TO BE ADOPTED:
Mr. Noorigian moved to approve the minutes of the study sessions and
regular minutes of March 20, 2002. Mrs.
DeSarno seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
Mr. Brosnan and
Mr. Addonizio left the meeting.
RESOLUTIONS TO BE MEMORIALIZED:
JOSEPH AND
PATRICIA LAMB – BA#5A-2002
Block 716, Lot
22 Noorigian/DeSarno
WILLIAM AND
NANCY LYON – BA#2-2002
Block 864, Lot 12 Noorigian/Morrissey
RICHARD
THROCKMORTON AND MARUREEN KELLY
BA#2a-2002
Block 805, Lot 5 Noorigian/Clayton
There being no
further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and
unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 8:30 P.M.
Respectfully
submitted,
Betty
Schinestuhl
Recording Secretary