ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
HELD IN THE MUNICIPAL MEETING ROOM
APRIL 11, 2001
The Regular Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chairman Noorigian at 7:35 P.M. Members present were Chairman Noorigian, Vice Chairman Michael Clayton, Mary DeSarno, Thomas Grasso, Ralph Addonizio, second alternate Wilma Morrissey, Attorney Thomas Hirsch, Recording Secretary Betty Schinestuhl, Acting Planning Coordinator Pam D’Andrea, Engineer Zahorsky, Special Planner Maczuga and Reporter Lofreddo.
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 Noorigian announced the Tower Lodge application will be carried to June 20, 2001.
Attorney Hirsch recused himself on the Jerald Development Group application. Attorney Francis Accisano took over.
CASE #BA6-2001: Date application complete: February 13, 2001
APPLICANT: JERALD DEVELOPMENT GROUP
PROPERTY: 1902 Lafayette Court, Block 804, Lot 25, RR-6 Zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk variance.
Attorney Accisano reviewed the file and stated that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Entered into evidence:
A-1 Application
A-2 Jurisdictional Items
A-3 Building Permit Plot Plan prepared by J.V. Morgan Engineering dated January 23, 2001
A-4 Tax map
A-5 Letter from Mr. Kayal
BA-1 Certificate from John Hoffmann
BA-2 Review letter from Bay Pointe Engineering dated April 3, 2001
April 11, 2001 Page 2
Timothy B. Middleton, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney Middleton said the property consists of 5.37 acres. It is zoned RR-6. It is an undersized lot. It is vacant.
Sworn by Reporter Lofreddo: John Vincenti
Jerry Cennaro
Mr. Vincenti gave his qualifications which were accepted by the Board. Mr. Vincenti explained the property has a 222’ frontage and is 555’ deep. Mr. Vincenti stated he designed the house. It is set back. He stated they will maintain the wooded area in the front.
Attorney Middleton asked about the zoning. Mr. Vincenti said it was rezoned from R-60 to RR-6.
Attorney Middleton asked if Mr. Vincenti believed it would have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Vincenti said no. He stated the lot is larger than most of the lots. It will not have a detrimental impact.
Attorney Middleton asked if there would be an impact on the Master Plan. Mr. Vincenti said no.
Mr. Vincenti stated the applicant will comply with Bay Pointe Engineering’s letter.
Mrs. DeSarno asked about the amount of trees that will be removed. Mr. Vincenti stated about ¾ of an acre will be removed. The rest would remain.
Mr. Clayton asked how far from the property line is the home on Lot 26.04. Mr. Vincenti said about 70’ – 75’.
Attorney Middleton asked Mr. Cennaro if he owned Jerald Development. Mr. Cennaro said yes.
Mr. Cennaro stated he would like to build a home on this property and move in.
Attorney Middleton asked if he tried to purchase additional property. Mr. Cennaro said yes, he tried to purchase property from Mr. Kayal. Mr. Kayal would not sell any portion of his property.
Mr. Grasso asked if Mr. Cennaro owned any contiguous property. Mr. Cennaro said yes. He owned it in 1983.
April 11, 2001 Page 3
The application was opened and closed to the public.
Mr. Addonizio asked if Mr. Cennaro was planning to put his house where it showed on the plot plan. Mr. Cennaro said yes.
Mr. Grasso asked if this application needed additional variances. Mr. Maczuga said no.
Mr. Grasso moved to approve the application subject to the applicant applying for a road opening permit, all requirements being met before any construction starts and complying with the review letter from Bay Pointe Engineering. Mr. Clayton seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by a roll call vote. (Messrs. Grasso, Clayton, Addonizio, Noorigian and Mrs. DeSarno and Morrissey voted yes.)
Attorney Hirsch returned to the meeting.
PROPERTY: 1710 Highway 71, Block 239, Lot 8, R-30 Zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bifurcated application. Site Plan
Sworn by Reporter Lofreddo: Thomas Quinn
Patricia Quinn
Robert Woodcock
Janice Venables, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Mr. Woodcock gave his credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Mr. Woodcock explained there exists a two story building on the property. It consists of the applicant’s residence and business. The applicant proposes to expand their residence and business. The applicant is proposing to construct a 1500 s.f. addition to the existing structure. The applicant proposes to add three 500 s.f. units downstairs. The existing site consists of an asphalt parking lot with seven parking spaces. The parking will be expanded to 16 spaces. The existing garage and grill will be removed.
Attorney Venables asked Mr. Woodcock to review Mr. Maczuga’s letter. Regarding the additional buffering, Mr. Woodcock explained the applicant is trying to keep the cost low and additional landscaping is not feasible at this time. He
April 11, 2001 Page 4
explained over time the applicant will add new plantings. Mr. Woodcock explained there will be two free standing signs. The applicant would like the wall mounted sign to remain.
Attorney Hirsch asked about signs on the individual doors. Mr. Woodcock said there will be no signs on the doors just on the main sign.
Attorney Hirsch asked about lighting. Mr. Quinn said there will only be a little landscape lighting. Mr. Grasso asked if the Board had a copy of the plans. Mr. Quinn stated 18 sets were submitted.
Entered into evidence:
A-1 Elevation dated February 4, 2000
A-2 Site plan
Mr. Grasso asked Mr. Maczuga if the sign package was in accordance with the township ordinance. Mr. Maczuga said yes.
Mr. Grasso asked Mr. Quinn asked about additional signage. Mr. Quinn said they are not proposing any additional signage. Mr. Grasso stated any signs on windows are unsightly.
Mrs. Morrissey asked about the additional landscaping. Mr. Quinn stated that would be an additional $10,000 - $20,000. He stated that is a lot of money for a small business. We will put some plantings in the front.
Mr. Addonizio asked if the signs were illuminated. Mr. Quinn said no, they are low voltage lighting.
Mr. Addonizio asked how big is the sign on the building. Mr. Quinn stated about 10’ X 4’ or 5’. Mr. Addonizio asked if that sign was in the total sign package. Mr. Quinn said yes. Mr. Maczuga stated that would conform with the ordinance.
Mr. Maczuga asked if there would be only one residence. Mr. Quinn said yes.
Mr. Maczuga asked about the access to the residence. Mr. Quinn said the access will be between the addition and the old building. There will also be a door on the north side.
Mr. Maczuga asked if the addition will be air conditioned. Mr. Quinn said the old portion has window air conditioners. Mr. Maczuga said he did not see any location for air conditioners. He asked where they would be located. Mr. Vincenti said they
April 11, 2001 Page 5
would be on the north side. They will be screened by some type of fencing.
Mrs. DeSarno asked what was surrounding the property. Mr. Quinn said across the street there is a boarded up building. He stated a telephone pole feel down a few weeks ago and it was just picked up. There is a 100 year old building and an old gas station. On the east side there are residences. On the other side there is a nail place that just opened.
Mr. Clayton asked about parking. Mr. Zahorsky said there should be no parking problems.
Mr. Clayton asked about lighting. He asked if it would be low intensity. Mr. Clayton stated there should be additional landscaping along Route 71. Mr. Quinn stated on the corner of Route 71 and Walling Avenue there is a wall. There is a fence all the way to the end of his property. Along that fence there is some landscaping. The existing trees will stay. On the corner there are existing plants and flowers.
Mr. Grasso asked why Mr. Quinn did not want the focal point of the building on Route 71. Mr. Quinn said the parking is in the rear. Mr. Grasso stated there are many businesses where the frontage of the business is on Route 71 and the parking is in the rear. Mr. Quinn said he doesn’t think that would be possible.
Mr. Grasso stated this neighborhood has the opportunity to become the focal point of the area. He stated he felt something could be done to have the front of the building on Route 71.
Mr. Vincenti said that will be too expensive.
Mr. Grasso stated good planning should come first. The cost feature is not a planning feature. He stated the landscaping has to be addressed.
Mrs. DeSarno said she is on the West Belmar Gateway Committee and stated this is a beautiful application. She stated she does not have a problem with it the way it is.
Mr. Addonizio stated he visited the site. Mr. Addonizio said he gives the applicant a lot of credit. He told the applicant since he has done upgrades other neighbors have also done some. He suggested a landscaping plan showing something being done each year.
April 11, 2001 Page 6
Mr. Addonizio asked when the lights will go off. Mr. Vincenti said 10:00 P.M.
Mrs. Morrissey commended the applicant but she agrees with Mr. Clayton some landscaping should be done.
Mr. Clayton suggested some plantings along Route 71 and the front of the building face Route 71. Mrs. Quinn said there is a building on Route 71 in Spring Lake just like the one they are proposing and it looks great.
Mr. Vincenti stated the applicant will comply with Bay Pointe Engineering’s letter of April 10, 2001.
The application was opened and closed to the public.
Mr. Clayton suggested making the windows in the front of the building larger to match the rear. He also suggested adding a fake façade. Mr. Quinn stated he can do that. Mr. Quinn said he is concerned with signage. If the windows are made larger the renters are going to put signs in the windows. Mr. Grasso stated the Board can make a condition in the resolution that no additional signs can be put in the windows.
Mr. Grasso asked if the applicant will comply with Mr. Maczuga’s letter regarding the additional landscaping. Mr. Vincenti said they would submit a plan to the Board. Mr. Grasso said the Board Site Plan Committee will review the plans. Attorney Hirsch said the landscaping plan will have to go to Mr. Hoffmann.
Mr. Addonizio said this site looks so much better than it did. The applicant is going to live there. He suggested leaving the landscaping up to the applicant.
Mr. Addonizio made a motion to approve the application as applied for. Mr. Clayton seconded the motion subject to the Route 71 side looking like the rear, larger windows and fake façade.
Mr. Addonizio stated he is going to leave his motion the way it was. Mrs. DeSarno seconded the motion. (Messrs. Addonizio, Noorigian and Mrs. DeSarno voted yes, Messrs. Grasso, Clayton and Mrs. Morrissey voted no.) There are three yeas and three nays the application is denied.
Mr. Clayton made a motion to approve the application subject to tree plantings and the submission of a landscaping plan over a three year period, the west first floor windows being the same
April 11, 2001 Page 7
as the windows on the east side, no signs in windows and fake facade. Mr. Grasso seconded the motion.
Attorney Venables asked if the Board was requiring plantings along Route 71 and the buffering in the engineer’s letter. Mr. Clayton said it does not have to be done immediately. Attorney Hirsch said a landscaping plan must be submitted to the Board.
Mr. Quinn stated the money involved in coming back before the Board is not worth it. He has to pay his attorney and his engineer again. Mr. Quinn said he and his family are going to live there, they are going to make it look as nice as they can afford.
Attorney Hirsch stated the application will be approved subject to plans being submitted with additional plantings fazed over three years, windows on the west side same as the east. The Board agreed. (Messrs. Clayton, Grasso, Addonizio, Noorigian and Mrs. DeSarno and Morrissey voted yes.) The application was approved.
The Board recessed at 9:25 P.M.
The meeting resumed at 9:39 P.M.
APPLICANT: SALVATORE V. SOLDANO
PROPERTY: 2082 Overbrook Drive, Block 771.01, Lot 5, R-30 Zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk variances with sketch plat
Attorney Hirsch reviewed the file and stated that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Martin McGann, Jr. Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Entered into evidence:
A-1 Survey dated December 28, 1998
A-2 Architectural plans dated May 5, 2000
A-3 Five pages of photos, two photos per page, of subject property
Sworn by Reporter Lofreddo: Salvatore V. Soldano
Attorney McGann stated Mr. Soldano is the owner of the property. He has lived there two years. Mr. Soldano is proposing to build
April 11, 2001 Page 8
a carriage house. Mr. Soldano explained that he would like to build the carriage house to house his Lionel trains. He works with handicapped children and he would like to make it accessible to them. He stated he also collects antiques cars and would like to store them in the carriage house.
Attorney McGann asked if Mr. Soldano’s carriage house would be in a wooded area. Mr. Soldano said yes.
Attorney McGann asked if Mr. Soldano would be willing to plant additional trees to screen the carriage house from the neighbors. Mr. Soldano said yes.
Attorney McGann asked if Mr. Soldano would use this as a second residence. Mr. Soldano said no. Mr. Soldano stated it would only house his antique cars and his train collection. There would be no repair of his vehicles done in the carriage house.
Attorney McGann asked Mr. Soldano to explain to the Board why the second floor has to be 19’ high. Mr. McGann said because the train layout is 4’ high. Additional height is needed to work on the trains. The carriage house will be heated and will have a ½ bath. Mr. Soldano stated the bathroom is needed because when the handicapped children visit it will be easier for them to use that bathroom.
Attorney McGann asked how far from the main dwelling would the carriage house be. Mr. Soldano said 52’. Mr. Soldano said he will take down a minimal amount of trees. The carriage house
will be in the woods. He said the carriage house will have landscaping just like a home.
Mrs. Morrissey asked why Mr. Soldano is not adding onto his home. Mr. Soldano stated it would not conform with the homes in the neighborhood. Mrs. Morrissey asked if the carriage house would be seen by the neighbors. Mr. Soldano said it will be in the woods. There is a buffer.
Attorney Hirsch asked how close is the closest structure looking east. Mr. McGann said a couple of hundred feet. It is heavily wooded. Lot 4 is a corner lot.
Attorney Hirsch asked about the carriage house and lot 4. Mr. Soldano said the carriage house is in the rear yard. There is a mulched area and then the neighbors fence.
Attorney Hirsch asked if all lots in the neighborhood are approximately the same size. Mr. McGann stated the planner will answer.
April 11, 2001 Page 9
Mr. Grasso asked if the wooded area to the rear is dedicated conservation easement. Mr. Soldano said no. Mr. Soldano stated it is basically an open area. Mr. Grasso asked how many lots encompass this area. Mr. Soldano said nine lots.
Mr. Clayton asked if there was a way Mr. Soldano could move the proposed carriage house further from the back line. Mr. Soldano stated he did not want to change the natural ambiance of the trees. If it is moved closer to the house more trees would have to come down.
Mrs. DeSarno asked if there were any plans for a cooking area. Mr. Soldano said no.
Mrs. Morrissey asked if there were any objections from the neighbors. Mr. McGann said no and some are here this evening.
Mr. Addonizio asked if the carriage house would be handicapped accessible. Mr. Soldano said yes.
Sworn by Reporter Lofreddo: Raymond Liotta
Mr. Liotta gave his credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Attorney McGann asked Mr. Liotta if he was familiar with Wall Township zoning ordinances. Mr. Liotta said yes.
Mr. Liotta said he looked at the property from a planning perspective. He stated the variances are justified. He said looking south at Lot 6 there are woods that extend to the rear property line. Lots 3 & 7 are also wooded. Structures on lots 3 & 7 are in the front half of the property. Lot 6 fronts on Overbrook. The house is 90’ – 100’ away from the proposed carriage house.
Attorney McGann said the variances applied for by the applicant comply with lot coverage. Mr. Liotta said 14% coverage is allowed, with the carriage house the coverage is 10.7%. Mr. Liotta stated the applicant will add some additional landscaping. Mr. Liotta said there is no negative criteria.
Linda Donohue, 2090 Overbrook, asked if the carriage house will be 10½’ from the property line. Mr. Liotta said it will be 10½’ off the property line.
Sworn by Reporter Lofreddo: John Pittenger
April 11, 2001 Page 10
Mr. Pittenger gave his credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Attorney McGann asked Mr. Pittenger if he built the existing house. Mr. Pittenger answered yes.
Attorney McGann asked if Mr. Pittenger was going to construct the carriage house. Mr. Pittenger answered yes.
Mrs. Morrissey asked Mr. Pittenger if the existing house could be squared off and not build the carriage house. Mr. Pittenger said if a two car garage was added to the existing house the house would be closer to lot 4. It would be a big house. There are no other houses in the neighborhood that would be that big. It would not look good. You would be looking at four bays.
Mr. Grasso asked Mr. Soldano why he wants to build a detached garage. Mr. Soldano said because if he adds to the existing house it would be closer to lot 4. The house would not conform with the neighborhood. The driveway would be right on the property line. Mr. Soldano said this will be a hobby house.
The application was opened and closed to the public.
Mr. Clayton to approve the application subject to the submittal of a landscaping plan, additional buffering, no repair work done on the premises, no commercial use and no trailers. Mr. Grasso seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by a roll call vote. (Messrs. Clayton, Grasso, Addonizio, Noorigian, Mrs. DeSarno and Mrs. Morrissey voted yes.)
CASE #BA9-2001 Date application complete: February 28, 2001
APPLICANT: Timothy J. Skinner
PROPERTY: 3105 Harrison Street, Block 258, Lot 7, R-10 Zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Variance for side yard setback
Attorney Hirsch reviewed the file and stated that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Sworn by Reporter Lofreddo: Timothy J. Skinner
Mr. Skinner said he is requesting a variance to add a 10 X 20’ attached garage. The side yard setback requirement is 10’. The garage will be within 3’ of the side property line.
Attorney Hirsch asked for the width of the property. Mr. Skinner said 50’.
April 11, 2001 Page 11
Attorney Hirsch asked if there was any other location to put the garage. Mr. Skinner said it could be placed at the rear of the property but he said he is trying to maintain the rear yard.
Attorney Hirsch asked what was on lot 6. Mr. Skinner said there is a house. It is on the corner. It faces Madison. Attorney Hirsch asked how far is that house from Mr. Skinner’s property line. Mr. Skinner said approximately 40’. There are trees and shrubs between the properties.
Entered into evidence:
A-1 Photos – trees along side property line
A-2 Sketch of garage
A-3 Photo of house next door (5)
Attorney Hirsch asked what is the distance from the side line to the house. Mr. Quinn said about 13’. Mr. Skinner stated the garage would be one story, about 17’ high. Attorney Hirsch asked if it will be a one car garage. Mr. Skinner said yes. Attorney Hirsch asked about the siding. Mr. Skinner said it would be the same as the house. Attorney Hirsch asked about the driveway. Mr. Skinner said it would be paved.
Mrs. Morrissey asked if the side steps will be removed. Mr. Skinner said yes.
Mrs. Morrissey asked if there were any objections from the neighbors. Mr. Skinner said no.
Mr. Clayton asked how many other homes in the neighborhood are that close to the property line. Mr. Skinner said there are quite a few. The lots are all undersized. There are about 4 – 5 in the neighborhood.
Attorney Hirsch asked where those houses are located. Mr. Skinner said within two blocks.
Mr. Clayton asked about the house to the left, how far is it from your garage. Mr. Skinner said about 40’.
Mr. Clayton asked if there was a shed on the property. Mr. Skinner said yes.
April 11, 2001 Page 12
Mr. Clayton stated there has to be a fire wall between the house and the garage. Mr. Skinner said that would be no problem.
Mr. Grasso asked if the garage was going to be used for storage. Mr. Skinner said yes.
The application was opened and closed to the public.
Mr. Addonizio made a motion to approve the application subject to the professional’s letter. Mr. Grasso seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by roll call vote. (Messrs. Addonizio, Grasso, Clayton, Noorigian, Mrs. DeSarno and Mrs. Morrissey voted yes.)
RESOLUTION TO BE
ADOPTED:
MARTIN ROAD DEVELOPERS – BA#45-2000
Block 942, Lot 68.06 Clayton/Noorigian
There being no further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 11:20 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Schinestuhl
Acting Recording Secretary