ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
MAY 1, 2002
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by Vice Chairman
DeSarno at 7:30 P.M. Members present
were Vice Chairman DeSarno, Dennis Noorigian, Ralph Addonizio, Dominick
Cinelli, Anthony Rembiszewski, first alternate Mark Brosnan, second alternate
Wilma Morrissey, Attorney Hirsch, Planning Coordinator Pam D’Andrea, Recording
Secretary Betty Schinestuhl, Engineer Matt Zahorsky 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.
Vice Chairman
DeSarno said Plasti-Clad Metal Products has been carried at the applicant’s
request. They will renotice.
CASE #BA6-2002
– Date application
complete: February 4, 2002
APPLICANT: ARTHUR
J. CURTA
PROPERTY: 1068
Lorraine Court, Block 835, Lot 2, R-60 Zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Arthur Curta was
sworn.
Mr. Curta said
the proposed addition will be primarily to store a car.
Attorney Hirsch
asked how big the addition will be. Mr.
Curta said 527 s.f. for a total of 1,167 s.f.
Attorney Hirsch said 1,000 s.f. is permitted. He asked how many cars will be stored. Mr. Curta said three.
Attorney Hirsch asked if Mr. Curta had an antique car. Mr. Curta said he has a 1957
Thunderbird. Attorney Hirsch asked
about the height of the garage. Mr.
Curta said it is 17. The proposed
cupola is 6’. He said his house is a
raised cape. He said this is in keeping
with the house.
Attorney Hirsch
said Mr. Curta did not request a height variance. Mr. Curta said he did not know he needed one. He said he was told he just needed a bulk
variance.
Mr. Zahorsky
said there are two issues concerning this application. He said the height of the garage is 17’
where 16’ is permitted. He said that
cupolas are permitted but must be 4’ or under.
May 1, 2002 Page
2
He said the
cupola proposed is 6’. He said the
total will be over 20’. He said it
exceeds the variance by 3½ ‘.
Mr. Curta said
the roof line is not 17’ it is 15’7”.
Mr. Zahorsky said if the scale is wrong that would eliminate that
variance.
Attorney Hirsch
said Mr. Curta has not applied for a height variance. He said he will have to do that.
The Board cannot consider that variance. He explained more than a 4’ cupola you would have to apply for a
variance. He said the Board will just
deal with the size of the garage. Mr.
Curta said he would comply with the height.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if there would be any utilities in the garage. Mr. Curta said no.
Mr. Brosnan
asked if the vehicles stored there be only personal vehicles. Mr. Curta said yes.
Attorney Hirsch
asked how big Mr. Curta’s property was.
Mr. Curta said a little bit over an acre.
Attorney Hirsch
asked what the closest structure is to Mr. Curta’s property. Mr. Curta said there are homes on both
sides. Attorney Hirsch asked how close
is the neighbor’s house is to the garage.
Mr. Curta said their swimming pool is between them. He said approximately 90’ from him.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if there was any buffering. Mr.
Curta said no.
Mr. Cinelli
asked about the siding on the garage.
Mr. Curta said it will have the same finish as the house.
Vice Chairman
DeSarno asked about heat. Mr. Curta
said there will be no heat.
Mr. Zahorsky
asked if there was a concrete slab behind the garage. Mr. Curta said yes it is 24’ X 24’. Mr. Zahorsky asked if it will be removed. Mr. Curta said yes.
Mr. Zahorsky
said there are no issues with impervious coverage.
The application
was open and closed to the public.
Mr. Cinelli
moved to approve the application subject to the roof line not exceed 16’ and
the copula will not be more than 4’.
Mrs. Morrissey seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by a
roll call vote. (Mr. Cinelli, Mrs. Morrissey,
Messrs. Noorigian, Addonizio, Rembiszewski, Brosnan and Mrs. DeSarno voted
yes.)
CASE #BA-8-2002 – Date application complete: March 5, 2002
APPLICANT: TOM AND LORI IACONO
May 1, 2002 Page
3
PROPERTY: 5020 Martin Road, Block 914, Lot 6, RR
Zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk variance
Attorney Hirsch reviewed
the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Thomas Iacono
was sworn.
Mr. Iacono
explained he is proposing an addition on an existing structure.
Attorney Hirsch
asked about the side yard setback. Mr.
Iacono said he did not know there was a 30’ side yard setback requirement. Attorney Hirsch explained in that zone it is
30’
Mr. Iacono said
he would like to add a garage, master bath and a basement. He explained the existing garage is used for
storage. He said the proposed garage
would be used for vehicles.
Attorney Hirsch
asked Mr. Iacono to give the size of the proposed structure. Mr. Iacono said the addition would be 1,965
s.f. The basement would be 1,100 s.f.,
for a total of 3,065 s.f.
Attorney Hirsch
asked how big the garage is. Mr. Iacono
said 25’ X 27’.
Attorney Hirsch
said according to the engineer’s report the impervious coverage is 20.7% where
15% is allowed. He asked Mr. Iacono if
that was the variance he was requesting.
Mr. Iacono said yes.
Attorney Hirsch
asked Mr. Iacono to explain the driveway to the back of the property. Mr. Iacono said the existing driveway is
incomplete. He said it is 4.5’ from the
property line. He did not know the
setback was 5’. Attorney Hirsch said
even though the driveway is dirt it is still considered impervious
coverage. Attorney Hirsch suggested Mr.
Iacono comply with the 5’ setback.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if anyone has objected to the garage in the rear. Mr. Iacono said no he is within the
ordinance limits.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if Mr. Iacono submitted a grading plan.
Mr. Iacono said no.
Mr. Brosnan
asked what the use of the detached garage is.
Mr. Iacono said he stores his kid’s toys in there. He uses it for storage.
Mr. Brosnan
asked if he does any work out of there.
Mr. Iacono said there is a box truck back there now but it will be taken
out of there next week.
Mr. Rembiszewski
asked what a box truck is. Mr. Iacono
said it is just a cubed van.
Mr. Cinelli
asked Mr. Zahorsky if there was anything that can be done by the applicant to
meet the impervious coverage. Mr.
Zahorsky said he would have to reduce the addition. Everything else is existing.
Mr. Cinelli asked how much impervious is he over. Mr. Zahorsky said about
May l, 2002 Page
4
4,500 s.f. would
need to be reduced. He said he would
not only have to reduce the addition but also reduce what is there. Mr. Cinelli asked what would happen if the
basement was removed. Mr. Zahorsky said
that is about 1,080 s.f. Attorney
Hirsch asked about the s.f. of the driveway.
Mr. Zahorsky said that is about 4,200 s.f. Attorney Hirsch said that is what is giving him the problem. Mr. Zahorsky said that is just the dirt
driveway going to the back of the property.
Mr. Cinelli said
if the applicant were to put grass instead of a driveway that would eliminate
the need for a variance. Mr. Iacono
said there will be times he will need to go back there. He said he did not know dirt was impervious
coverage.
Attorney Hirsch
asked how often Mr. Iacono used the driveway.
Mr. Iacono said 3 – 4 times per week.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked how many cars are associated with the business. Mr. Iacono said three.
Mr. Zahorsky
said if the Board grants this approval Mr. Iacono will have to submit a grading
plan.
The application
was open to the public.
Pat Smith, 5019
Megill Road, said her property is directly across the street from Mr. Iacono’s
property. She said he has done a great
job landscaping. She stated she has a
number of concerns.
Mrs. Smith asked
where Mr. Iacono was going to put his garage.
Mr. Iacono said it will be added to the existing structure.
Mrs. Smith asked
if he was going to use the rear garage for storage. Mr. Iacono said yes.
Mrs. Smith asked
if the impervious coverage was based upon the new width of the circular
driveway and the dirt driveway. Mr.
Iacono said yes. He said 11.3% of his
coverage is driveway.
Mrs. Smith asked
what % of your property is impervious.
Mr. Iacono said he exceeds the allowable impervious by 1% with the
driveway, without the addition.
Mrs. Smith was
sworn. Mrs. Smith said she has lived in
her home for 28 years. She said Mr.
Iacono’s property is on a slight angle up hill. She stated when there is a storm of some magnitude the water runs
across the street to the back of her property.
She stated years ago she planted ivy to stop some of the erosion. She said her concern now is because she
feels this addition is going to increase the problem. She said the road is newly paved. She stated when they paved it they took away the crown on the
street. She stated 14” was unpaved on
both sides. She said that caused a
natural drain. She said the water would
run down and dissipate. She said now
the road is paved property to property.
She said there is no longer drainage on either side.
May 1, 2002 Page
5
She said she put
stone in her driveway to help the drainage.
She said she has a drainage problem in her driveway and near her mailbox
area. She said she has a concern with
any additional impervious coverage. She
stated this is strictly a residential area not a business use.
Attorney Hirsch
asked Mr. Zahorsky if there were any drainage issues. Mr. Zahorsky said this is the first time he has heard of any
problems. He said the street was paved
about three months ago. He said he will
look into any problems Mrs. Smith is having.
Attorney Hirsch
asked Mr. Zahorsky if the grade on the applicant’s property would cause a
problem across the road. Mr. Zahorsky
said they didn’t change the grade. He
said they did try to keep the crown. He
said he will look to see if the road has been flattened.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if some grading could be done to reduce the run-off. Mr. Zahorsky said the ideal thing to do
would be an underground recharge system.
Mr. Iacono said
the house is 90’ off the road. He said
his elevation is 1½‘ higher than the road.
He said he cannot imagine the run-off is coming from his property.
Mr. Cinelli
asked if Mr. Iacono would, as part of his grading plan, put some type of
drainage in. Mr. Iacono said he would
agree to put in a 500 gallon tank recharge pit. Mr. Zahorsky said that is fine.
Attorney Hirsch confirmed
Mr. Iacono would install a 500 gallon recharge pit. Mr. Zahorsky said that would be per roof leader. It would be something he would have to look
at.
Mrs. Smith
stated her only other concern is that when there is intense rains the water
does not have time to go into the ground.
Mr. Addonizio
asked Mr. Zahorsky if there would be a 500 gallon pit per each leader. Mr. Zahorsky stated it would depend on the
size of the house. He said he would
have to look to make sure it is designed properly. He said most houses have two 500 gallon tanks. Attorney Hirsch stated maybe some of the
grading will help. Mr. Zahorsky
agreed. Attorney Hirsch said the
combination of these things would improve the situation.
Mr. Rembiszewski
stated he keeps hearing about concerns regarding commercial vehicles. He asked if this was going to be used as a commercial
site. Mr. Iacono said he has a site
where he keeps his trucks. He said the
truck on the property, which he knows is an eyesore, will be removed. He had it there because his tools are in the
garage and it was easier to work on it there.
He stated he will not run his business out of there. Attorney Hirsch stated that would be a
condition of any approval. He said if
there are any complaints code enforcement would check on it.
The application
was closed to the public.
Mr. Cinelli
moved to approve the application subject to the following conditions: 1. no
need for a site yard setback variance; 2. grading plan prior to construction be
submitted for approval; 3. this site not be used for commercial and 4. the
installation of an underground detention system. Mr.
May 1, 2002 Page
6
Brosnan seconded
the motion, which was unanimously approved by a roll call vote. (Messrs. Cinelli, Brosnan, Addonizio,
Rembiszewski, Mesdames Morrissey and DeSarno voted yes.)
CASE #BA9-2002 - Date application complete: March 18, 2002
APPLICANT: LAWRENCE B. DIGHT
PROPERTY: 1099 Church Street, Block 322, Lots 12
and 13, R-7.5 Zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Lawrence Dight
was sworn.
Mr. Dight stated
his property is on a corner lot. He has
two front yards. He stated he had
considerable landscaping done. He said
he learned after the fact the shed was too close to the property line. He said the shed is 20’ from the
street. It is 12½‘ from the property
line. Mr. Zahorsky said he is within
the front yard area. Attorney Hirsch
stated it is a corner lot so there are two front yards. Mr. Zahorsky said the setback on Lenni
Lenape is 12½ ‘. He said the existing
dwelling is located 20’ from the street.
Mr. Zahorsky said the normal setback is 5’ from the side.
Attorney Hirsch
said if you look on the property line it goes on an angle, it narrows.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 8 photos of property
Mr. Dight said
there are four photos before the shed was built and four after.
Attorney Hirsch
asked about buffering. Mr. Dight said
there is a fence that would block the view from most of the neighbors. He said there are some bushes.
Mrs. Morrissey
stated the shed appears to be part of the house in color. She asked if it matches the house. Mr. Dight said it is sided the same color as
the house.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked what type of fence do you have.
Mr. Dight said it is board on board.
Mr. Brosnan
asked Mr. Zahorsky if this property did not have two front yards what the
setback requirement would be. Mr.
Zahorsky said 5’.
Mr. Brosnan
asked Mr. Dight what the setback was.
Mr. Dight said 12’.
The application
was open to the public.
May 1, 2002 Page
7
James Jones was
sworn. Mr. Jones stated he is the only
neighbor here tonight. He hopes the
variance will be granted. He said he
does not know of any neighbor that has any problem with this variance. He said the shed doesn’t look like it’s too
close to the street.
The application
was closed to the public.
Mr. Brosnan
moved to approve the application as applied for. Mr. Rembiszewski seconded the motion, which was unanimously
approved by a roll call vote. (Messrs.
Brosnan, Rembiszewski, Noorigian, Addonizio, Cinelli, Mesdames Morrissey and
DeSarno voted yes.)
RESOLUTIONS TO BE MEMORIALIZED:
SAMATHA JACE –
BA#31-2001
Block 911, Lot
19 Brosnan/Addonizio
MAUREEN C.
FRENCH – BA#7-2002
Block 751, Lot
50 Morrissey/Noorigian
WAYNE GRONBERG –
BA#5-2002
Block 87, Lot 5 Morrissey/Brosnan
NANCY AND ROBERT
LEETE – BA#4-2002
Block 810, Lot 7 Brosnan/Rembiszewski
The 2001 Annual
Report will be voted on at the next meeting.
There being no
further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and
unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 P.M.
Respectfully
submitted,
Betty
Schinestuhl
Recording Secretary