ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 16, 2003
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by
Chairman Clayton at 7:30 P.M. Members
present were Chairman Clayton, Vice Chairman DeSarno, Wilma Morrissey, Anthony
Rembiszewski, Dominick Cinelli, James Gray, first alternate Bob Kerr, second
alternate Wayne Palmer, Attorney Hirsch, Planning Coordinator Roberta Lang, Recording
Secretary Betty Schinestuhl, Engineer Glenn Gerken and Reporter Arnone.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
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 the Risa Halprin application will be carried to May 7, 2003. They have to notice.
CASE #BA6-2003
Date application
complete: March 17, 2003.
APPLICANT: BERNADETTE COATES
PROPERTY: 1811 Murray Road, Block 804.01, Lot 6,
R-60 zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: Bernadette
Coates
Michael DiCicco,
Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board has jurisdiction to proceed.
Attorney DiCicco
stated the applicant is the owner of the property. The ordinance allows for a 4 fence in the front of a
property. The applicant is asking for
approval to erect a wrought iron gate 8, at its highest point. It will create an esthetically pleasing
environment. It is a striking
gate. There are similar gates in the
area.
Ms. Coates
stated she has lived at 1811 Murray Drive for 12 years. She is the owner of the property. The property is almost two acres. There is a five bedroom house on the
property.
Attorney DiCicco
asked why an 8 gate. Ms. Coates said
it will make the house look nicer and also for privacy.
April 16, 2003 Page
2
Mrs. Morrissey,
referring to Mr. Gerkens review letter, asked if there is ample room for cars
to pull in off the street. Attorney
DiCicco said the engineer will testify to that.
Chairman Clayton
asked what the existing fence is made of.
Attorney DiCicco said aluminum.
Mr. Kerr said
the gate itself has a slope to it.
Attorney DiCicco, referring to A-3, said that is what the gate is going
to look like. At the center of the gate
it will be 8. The height of the fence
is 4. The gate slopes down to meet the
4 fence.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Site Plan survey of dwelling prepared by
Passman & Ercolino dated March 13, 2003
A-2 Plans for gate
A-3 Elevation of the gate
Mr. Gerken asked
if the gate would open by remote. Ms.
Coates said yes.
Mr. Palmer asked
if the existing fence would be removed and why is the gate so high. Ms. Coates said the fence will not be removed
and the gate is decorative. Attorney
DiCicco said it will be more esthetically pleasing.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked if there was a problem with people coming onto the property. Ms. Coates said no.
Chairman Clayton
asked if there was a problem with the light fixtures on top of the gate. Mr. Gerken said light fixtures are
exempt.
Chairman Clayton
asked if emergency vehicles are going to be able to override the code so they
can open the gate. Ms. Coates said it
is manual as well as remote.
John Desio, 1211
Gully Road, asked if the gate will obstruct the view of the motorist. Ms. Coates said no.
Mr. Desio asked
if there are other gates similar in the township. Attorney DiCicco said there are a few on Campbell Road. Mr. Desio asked what the reasons were for
them. Attorney DiCicco said he doesnt
know.
Mr. Gerken said
the gate is not in the site triangle.
The existing fence, at the intersection, is in the site triangle.
Jim Higgins,
Planner, was sworn. Mr. Higgins gave
his credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Mr. Higgins stated
he has visited the site. The applicant
has a partial fence around the property.
There is a 4 fence in the front.
At the point where the fence meets the gate there is a 4 high column
and there is a lion on top. That lion
and column is less than 8. It is
closer to 5. The gate will be lower
than the column with the light. The 4
fence runs into the masonry structure.
April 16, 2003 Page
3
The ordinance
allows a 4 fence in front. I think this
gate is a benefit. It does not block
the view of the property or the street.
It is an enhancement to the neighborhood.
Mr. Higgins
explained there will be 22 from the curb to the beginning of the gate. When leaving the car can extend out and
there is plenty of site distance.
Entered into
evidence:
A-4 Photo from southerly direction
A-5 Photo from northerly direction
Mr. Higgins said
A-4 was taken from the inside of a vehicle.
A-5 looking north on Murray Street was also taken from a vehicle.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked how wide the entrance way is. Mr.
Higgins said 12 14. It is about 16
from pillar to pillar.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if the fence was located in the site triangle. Mr. Higgins said if it is it is very minor. He said if it is it will be moved.
Entered into
evidence:
A-6 Photo of similar structure
Mr. Higgins said
A-6 is a photo of a similar gate which is located on Campbell Road. It is about 8.
Attorney DiCicco
asked Mr. Higgins if the benefits would outweigh the detriments. Mr. Higgins said there are no detriments
whatsoever.
The application
was open and closed to the public.
Chairman
Clayton, referring to page 2 of Mr. Gerkens review letter, asked about the
fence being located in the site triangle.
Mr. Gerken said after listening to the testimony and looking at the
evidence I do not see any problems. The
gate is not in the site triangle. Part
of the 4 fence is and it should be removed.
The map should be amended.
Chairman Clayton
also stated the map should be amended showing the lion on the column.
Attorney DiCicco
said the gate will be esthetically pleasing and there is no detriment.
Mrs. Morrissey
moved to approve the application subject to the fence in the site triangle be
removed and the map being amended. Mr.
Rembiszewski seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by a roll call
vote. (Mrs. Morrissey. Messrs.
Rembiszewski, Cinelli, Mrs. DeSarno, Messrs. Gray, Palmer and Clayton voted
yes.)
Mr. Cinelli
stepped down on the Palughi application.
April 16, 2003 Page
4
CASE #1-2003 Date application complete: January 9,
2003. Carried from February 5, 2003
APPLICANT: JOSEPH PALUGHI
PROPERTY: 1604 & 1610 M Street, Block 60,
Lots 77 & 79, R-7.5 zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk variance
Attorney Hirsch stated
jurisdiction was accepted at the last meeting.
Timothy B.
Middleton, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney
Middleton explained the applicant is requesting permission to construct a
residence on an undersized lot. The
property is located at block 60, lots 77 & 79. The property is located on M Street. It is near the intersection of 18th Avenue and Route
35. It is in the West Belmar section of
Wall. Lots 77 & 79 were created in
1926 through a subdivision known as Shark River. They were cut into 25 X 100 sections. They were sold as 50 X 100 lots.
Lots 77 & 79 remained vacant.
In 1951 Mrs. Stromp bought lot 77.
In 1966 she bought lot 79. They
were merged. The lot still remained
vacant. This is a hardship. If the Board does not grant this application
the Township will have to condemn it.
Notices were sent to the two adjoining property owners offering the
property for $115,000. That is what the
applicant has agreed to pay the owner.
The applicant is under contract.
We have not had any response from the adjoining property owners. We have not heard from the neighbors. There are no negative criteria. It is consistent with the lots in the
neighborhood. The proposed home will
not have a negative impact. It is in keeping
with the neighboring homes.
John McDonough,
appraiser, was sworn. Mr. McDonough
gave his credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Map prepared by Charles Widdis
Mr. McDonough
said lots 77 & 79 were created by a subdivision on October 11, 1926.
Attorney
Middleton asked if since 1926 there was a point in time where lots 77 & 79
were owned by the same person. Mr.
McDonough said yes. Mrs. Stromp bought
lot 77 in 1951 and lot 79 in 1966.
Attorney
Middleton asked if between 1966 and 2000 both lots were owned by the Stromp
family. Mr. McDonough said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if in 2000 they were deeded to Mark Steets. Mr. McDonough said they were deed to Mr.
Steets October 11, 2000.
Attorney
Middleton asked if Mr. Steets took title to both lots. Mr. McDonough said yes.
April 16, 2003 Page
5
Attorney
Middleton asked if Mr. Steets owned lot 75 or lot 4. Mr. McDonough said no.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if there was anything in the title search showing those lots were
merged. Mr. McDonough said yes. The lots created were 25' X 100'. They were sold in groups of two lots. When DEP came in and purchased property they
were 50 X 100. He said that was in
1971. He has a title report prepared.
Entered into
evidence:
A-2 Title report
Chairman Clayton
asked why the cul de sac was added.
Attorney Middleton said because of the widening of Route 35. Mr. Gerken said that was done because of the
ramp work on Route 138.
Anthony Palughi
was sworn.
Mr. Palughi
stated he is a builder. He has lived in
Wall for 17 years. He is requesting
approval to build a single family dwelling on this property. Mr. Palughi said the house will be 1800 s.f.
2000 s.f. It will be a two story,
Colonial type, with three bedrooms, 2½ bathrooms and a basement. There will be a two car garage. The exterior will be vinyl siding.
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. Palughi if he was familiar with the neighborhood. Mr. Palughi said yes. Mr. Palughi said the neighborhood consists
of older homes. The newer homes have
vinyl siding. The neighborhood is
upcoming. This is the only lot left on
the street. The lot is an eyesore. It is a dumping ground now.
Attorney
Middleton asked if Mr. Palughi will clean up the property and remove the two
sheds. Mr. Palughi said he will remove
the sheds and clean up the lot.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked Mr. Palughi if he planned on living in the house. Mr. Palughi said he is building the house to
sell.
Attorney Hirsch
asked what type of house is on lots 21 & 19. Mr. Palughi said he thinks they are two story homes.
Attorney Hirsch
asked what is on lot 4. Mr. Palughi
said that is a two story home.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if the proposed home would be between 1800 s.f. and 2000 s.f. Mr. Palughi said yes. Attorney Hirsch asked if that was consistent
with the character of the neighborhood.
Mr. Palughi said yes.
Mr. Gray asked
if the proposed home would be a Cape Cod or Colonial style. Mr. Palughi said Colonial style.
Mr. Gerken asked
if where the garage is will there be living space over it. Mr. Palughi said yes. Mr. Gerken said that will be over 1800 s.f.
2000 s.f. Mr. Palughi said if he has
to cut it back he
April 16, 2003 Page
6
will. There will be no living space over the garage. Mr. Gerken said the 2000 s.f. does not
include the garage.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked Mr. Gerken if 100 is required for lot depth and they have 48, how do
you get a 15 setback. Attorney
Middleton explained it is an irregular shaped lot.
Andy Thomas,
Planner, was sworn. Mr. Thomas gave his
credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Mr. Thomas said
he is familiar with this application and property. He has visited the site.
Entered into
evidence:
A-3 Aerial obtained from Monmouth County Planning
Board dated 1997
Mr. Thomas said
the location of the lot is at the end of M Street. There are all single family homes in the area. There are some one, one and one-half and two
story homes. The lot to the north is in
Belmar. That lot has a two story
home. The lot to the south has a 1½
story home.
Entered into
evidence:
A-4 Photos of site and sites adjacent to
subject property
Mr. Thomas said
these photos were taken on April 14, 2003.
The evidence consists of four photos.
The first photo is a view of the cul de sac from north of the site. The second, top right is a view of the site
showing a broken fence and garage. The
bottom left is a view of the cul de sac looking south. The bottom right is a photo of the residence
next to this lot.
Mr. Thomas
explained there are 31 lots in the area, 21 are 50' X 100' and the remaining 10
vary. Only five meet the zone. He said this is one of the larger lots on
the block.
Mr. Thomas said
this project will be an added benefit to the neighborhood. The applicant will take out the over-growth
and clean up the lot. The house will
fit in. It will meet rear and side
setbacks.
Attorney
Middleton stated 25% building coverage is allowed and this is 24.2%. Mr. Thomas agreed.
Mr. Thomas said
this home will fit in with the other homes on M Street. There are other two story houses within the
block. It will be consistent with the
surrounding neighborhood.
Attorney
Middleton asked if the proposed house will have any impact on the air, light,
etc. Mr. Thomas said no, it will not
cast any shadows. Mr. Thomas said if
this lot was squared off it would meet all requirements.
Attorney
Middleton said if the applicant complied with all setbacks it would be
impossible to build a house. Mr. Thomas
agreed.
April 16, 2003 Page
7
Mrs. Morrissey
asked what the total square footage of the proposed house will be. Attorney Middleton said the foot print is
1,520 s.f. on the first floor. The
applicant has agreed that there would be no more than 2000 s.f. of living
space.
Entered into
evidence:
A-5 Letter
to P. Greenwood dated January 21, 2003 offering the property for $115,000
letter was sent certified mail
A-6 Letter
to D. McInerney dated January 21, 2003 offering the property for $115,000 letter
was sent certified mail
Attorney Middleton stated the contract
price is $115,000.
Mr.
Gray asked Attorney Hirsch if they had to offer the lots separately for
sale. Attorney Hirsch said they are now
one lot.
Mrs.
Morrissey asked Attorney Hirsch if there is a time limit on offering the
land. Attorney Hirsch said they
received proper notice. They received
it in January 2003. They also received
notice of the meeting tonight.
Mr.
Gerken explained the lot depth is 48.83.
He explained when you go down to the two side lot lines you are up to
90+.
Entered
into evidence:
A-7 Letter
to Hilliard & Ann Bucholz, Belmar, offering the property for $115,000
letter sent certified mail
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. Palughi if he had a contract to purchase this lot from Mr.
Steets for $115,000. Mr. Palughi said
yes subject to approval.
Mr.
Gerken said there is an encroachment from the rear. There is a concrete pad going onto this property. Attorney Middleton said that has been
removed.
Mr.
Gerken said part of this lot is in Belmar.
Attorney Middleton said he spoke to the Planning Board Attorney in
Belmar and he said the Borough of Belmar had no interest in this
application. Attorney Hirsch asked if
the property owners in Belmar were notified.
Attorney Middleton said yes.
Attorney Hirsch asked Attorney Middleton to provide a letter to the
Board from Belmar stating they have no interest in the property and that you do
not have to apply to Belmar. Attorney
Middleton agreed.
The
application was open and closed to the public.
Attorney
Middleton stated the testimony was clear stating the lots have been one since
1966. They have been vacant since
1926. It is a dumping ground. The applicant is proposing a 2000 s.f. home. This is one of the larger lots on the
block. In 1971 DOT condemned a portion
of the
April
16, 2003 Page
8
lot
because of the extension of Route 35.
It meets building and lot coverage.
It will not impact the neighbors.
Mrs. DeSarno moved
to approve the application subject to the square footage of the house not to
exceed 2,000 s.f., no living space over the garage and a letter from Belmar
stating they have no interest in the property.
Mr. Gray seconded the motion which was unanimously approved by a roll
call vote. (Mrs. DeSarno, Messrs. Gray,
Palmer, Kerr, Mrs. Morrissey, Messrs. Rembiszewski and Clayton voted yes.)
9:00 P.M. The
Board recessed.
9:10 P.M. the
meeting resumed.
Mr. Cinelli
returned to the meeting.
NEW APPLICATION
CASE #7-2003 Date application complete: March 20,
2003.
APPLICANT: MICHAEL OPPEGAARD
PROPERTY: 1208 Gully Road, Block 355, Lot 4, R-60
zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: Michael
Oppegaard
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Six photos on a Board showing property
Mr. Oppegaard
said the property is located at 1208 Gully Road, block 355, lot 4. He said he is asking relief to install an in
ground pool. The property is located
in the R-60 zone. It was previously
R-10. If it was still R-10 he would
meet all requirements. He stated he is not
proposing anything out of the ordinary.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if the property was still zoned R-10 you would meet all
requirements. Mr. Oppegaard said yes.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if structures meet all setback requirements. Mr. Oppegaard said yes.
Attorney Hirsch
asked what other structures are on the lot.
Mr. Oppegaard said there is a 16 X 22 detached garage.
April 16, 2003 Page
9
Attorney Hirsch
asked Mr. Gerken if there would be any drainage problems. Mr. Gerken said no.
Mr. Oppegaard
said the lot is heavily buffered on three of the four sides. There are large trees and bushes. The pool will be almost unseeable.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if Mr. Oppegaard was going to move the trampoline. Mr. Oppegaard said yes, it has been moved
closer to the garage.
Mr. Gray asked
what is the reason for the pool. Mr.
Oppegaard said his daughter is the only under teenage child in the area. He would like the pool so he could provide
some recreation for her.
Chairman
Clayton, referring to Mr. Gerkens letter of April 8, 2003, asked if the pool
filter will be 5 from the rear and side property lines. Mr. Oppegaard said it will not be closer
than 5 from the property line.
Chairman Clayton
said the building coverage is over 1%, what is that in square feet. Mr. Gerken answered approximately 100 s.f.
Mr.
Rembiszewski, referring to Mr. Gerkens letter of April 8, 2003, asked if Mr.
Oppegaard had any problem with the fence.
Mr. Oppegaard said there is a fence already on the property. Across the back it is 4 off the property
line. The 6 fence belongs to the
neighbor. The whole yard is fenced
in. He said he does not have a problem
with putting a fence next to his neighbors.
He will check with the Building Department.
The application
was open and closed to the public.
Mr. Rembiszewski
moved to approve the application. Mrs.
DeSarno seconded the motion which was unanimously approved by a roll call
vote. (Mr. Rembiszewski, Mrs. DeSarno,
Messrs. Palmer, Cinelli, Gray, Mrs. Morrissey and Mr. Clayton voted yes.)
Attorney Hirsch
read the resolution naming the Asbury Park Press as an official newspaper for
the Board of Adjustment. Mrs. DeSarno
moved to adopt the resolution. Mrs.
Morrissey seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
There being no
further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and
unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 9:25 P.M.
Respectfully
submitted,
Betty Schinestuhl
Recording
Secretary