ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
HELD IN THE MUNICIPAL MEETING ROOM
MAY 16, 2001
The Regular Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by Chairman Noorigian at 7:40 P.M. Members present were Chairman Noorigian, Vice Chairman Michael Clayton, Mary DeSarno, Thomas Grasso, Ralph Addonizio, Dominick Cinelli, Anthony Rembiszewski, first alternate Mark Brosnan, Attorney Thomas Hirsch, Recording Secretary Betty Schinestuhl, Acting Planning Coordinator Pam D’Andrea, Engineer Zahorsky, Mr. 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 Arthur J. Dube Agency application will be carried to July 11, 2001. First application will be Sunnyside Manor.
Chairman Noorigian disqualified himself and left the dais. Vice-Chairman Clayton chaired the meeting.
CASE #BA10-1998: Date application complete: March 31, 1998. Carried from May 20, 1998, August 5, 1998, November 4, 1998, January 6, 1999, March 3, 1999, May 19, 1999, July 21, 1999, November 3, 1999, February 2, 2000, May 3, 2000, May 31, 2000, June 7, 2000, September 6, 2000, October 4, 2000, December 13, 2000, February 7, 2001, April 4, 2001 and May 2, 2001.
APPLICANT: SUNNYSIDE MANOR, INC.
PROPERTY: Ramshorn Drive and Lakewood Road, Block 819, Lot 16, R-30 Zone.
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk and use variances requested along with site plan approval in order to expand an existing nursing and personal care facility to include assisted living units.
Michael Landis appeared for the applicant.
Timothy Middleton, Esq., appeared for the objectors.
May 16, 2001 Page 2
Attorney Landis asked Mr. Gemma, previously sworn, if he believed Sunnyside was commercial or another use. Mr. Gemma said it is primarily commercial.
Attorney Landis asked if Mr. Gemma has reviewed the Sunrise application. Mr. Gemma said no.
Attorney Landis asked if Sunrise was the only assisted living in Wall Township. Mr. Gemma said there is also Spring Lake Gardens.
Attorney Landis asked what Mr. Gemma’s relationship was with the Sunrise application. Mr. Gemma said he took care of the Certificate of Need.
Attorney Landis compared Sunrise with Sunnyside. He asked if Sunrise was in a residential zone. Mr. Gemma said he did not know.
Mr. Landis stated Sunnyside is in R-30 zone. Mr. Gemma agreed.
Attorney Landis asked if any residential properties adjoin Sunrise. Mr. Gemma said he did not know. He said he was just involved with the CON. Attorney Landis stated Sunrise does abut residential zones.
Attorney Landis asked if Sunrise and Sunnyside were similar. Mr. Gemma said Sunrise is completely assisted living, Sunnyside is both assisted living and nursing home.
Attorney Montenegro objected to Mr. Landis’ questioning. Attorney Hirsch stated Attorney Landis is challenging the opinion of this witness regarding the impact Sunrise has on the residential area.
Mr. Grasso stated he felt the questioning was appropriate and he would like to hear it.
Entered into evidence:
A-25 Board of Adjustment Resolution dated August 9, 1998
Attorney Landis read from the resolution. He stated the Board determined that Sunrise was residential. Mr. Gemma said he had no opinion.
Mr. Montenegro stated Mr. Gemma does not know what testimony was presented to the Board for the Sunrise application so he cannot compare.
May 16, 2001 Page 3
Mr. Montenegro stated Mr. Gemma has only attended one meeting for Sunnyside. Mr. Gemma said that is correct.
Mr. Montenegro asked how does the Department of Health issue CON’s. Mr. Gemma explained the procedure.
Mr. Montenegro asked if there was a need in this area. Mr. Gemma said there is not.
Mr. Montenegro said Sunnyside is increasing the s.f. 256%. He asked if this would have an impact. Mr. Gemma said an increase of 256% will have an impact on the zone and on the neighboring residents. Increasing the number of beds provides the need for additional services.
Mr. Montenegro asked if the additional deliveries would have a negative impact. Mr. Gemma said yes.
Mr. Montenegro asked if the additional parking would have a negative impact. Mr. Gemma said yes, it would have a substantial impact.
Mr. Montenegro asked about the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Gemma said Sunnyside does not make the character of the neighborhood, the resident’s homes do.
Mr. Addonizio asked if Mr. Gemma felt residential homes would have less of an impact. Mr. Gemma said yes.
Mr. Addonizio stated residential homes have an impact on the entire Township. There are more children in the school system.
Mr. Addonizio asked what does Mr. Gemma consider Sunnyside. Mr. Gemma said it is an institutional use.
Mr. Grasso asked Mr. Gemma if he has read the transcripts of the Sunnyside meetings. Mr. Gemma said he read the transcripts concerning the planner.
Mr. Grasso asked, when did Sunnyside apply for their CON? Mr. Gemma said they applied December 1, 997 and it was approved February 13, 1998.
Mr. Brosnan asked if an applicant has to have a specific site in mind when applying for a CON. Mr. Gemma said no. Mr. Brosnan asked how many applications for CON have been turned down. Mr. Gemma said none unless they have found someone with an unsafe record. Mr. Gemma explained the application process.
May 16, 2001 Page 4
Mr. Addonizio asked Attorney Landis if he gave testimony as to why you wanted this facility. Attorney Landis said Mr. Kearns testified to that.
Mr. Addonizio asked Mr. Gemma if he reviewed Mr. Kearns testimony. Mr. Gemma said no.
Mr. Grasso asked if Mr. Gemma thought it would have been better if he read all of the testimony. Mr. Gemma said it may have been appropriate.
Mr. Grasso asked how Mr. Gemma can make assumptions and not read all of the transcripts. Mr. Grasso asked if he read all the testimony of the applicant’s planner. Mr. Gemma said yes.
Mr. Grasso asked if Mr. Gemma read all the transcripts would his testimony be different. Mr. Gemma said he did not think so.
Mr. Addonizio said on September 6, 2000 Mr. Casey testified that there would no negative impact on the neighborhood. Mr. Gemma said his testimony is not based on valuations. Some planners look at the nature of the neighborhood.
Attorney Hirsch stated that Mr. Casey and Mr. Gemma have two different expertise.
Tom Ross, 2407 Ramshorn Drive, asked Mr. Gemma if he looked at the character and impact of the neighborhood. Mr. Gemma said yes.
Entered into evidence:
OR-1 Photo of Lakewood Road at the stop light toward Sunnyside
Mr. Ross asked if there would be a detrimental impact on Lakewood Road because of additional traffic. Attorney Hirsch stated Mr. Gemma is not a traffic expert.
The Board recessed at 9:05 P.M.
The meeting resumed at 9:25 P.M.
After the recess it was announced the Board would hear the Carpenter application and the Never As Marcks application then would go back to the Sunnyside application.
CASE #BA12-2001 Date application complete: April 16, 2001
APPLICANT: RAY & JULIE CARPENTER
May 16, 2001 Page 5
PROPERTY: 1415 Winesap Drive, Block 811.05, Lot 9, ML-25 Zone.
RELIEF REQUESTED: Replace existing 4’ fence with 6’ fence in front yard setback. Variance requested.
Attorney Hirsch reviewed the file and stated that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Ray Carpenter was sworn.
Mr. Carpenter stated this is a simple application. He purchased his home 8 years ago. He stated the existing fence is deteriorating. He said there are now 10 children within a few homes under 5 years old.
Attorney Hirsch asked if Mr. Carpenter had a safety concern because of the children in the neighborhood. Mr. Carpenter said there is a pool. There is a 6’ fence along the pool, then the fence reduces to 4’. He would like the fence to be the same height.
Attorney Hirsch asked where the fence was located. Mr. Carpenter said it is along Spartan Drive. No house fronts on Spartan Drive.
Mr. Carpenter explained he would like to put up a 6’ stockade fence with an arched top. Attorney Hirsch asked if there was a house on Spartan Drive. Mr. Carpenter said yes, but it fronts on Pippin.
Attorney Hirsch asked how close the driveway is to the property line. Mr. Carpenter said approximately 25’.
Attorney Hirsch asked Mr. Zahorsky if the driveway is 25’ from the property line and the fence is 10’ from the property line would that be a problem. Mr. Zahorsky said it might have some impact but the 6’ fence would have the same impact as the 4’ fence.
Attorney Hirsch asked how many houses are on Spartan. Mr. Carpenter said four. Attorney Hirsch asked if it was a heavily used road. Mr. Carpenter said no. He said the fence would not even be seen because of the large trees.
Entered into evidence:
A-1 Photo – fence across the street with the same style
A-2 Photo – fence in front yard set back in same neighborhood
A-3 Photo – fence on Winesap
May 16, 2001 Page 6
A-4 Photo – fence on Lot 8
Mr. Cinelli asked if the set back on the existing fence is now 5’. Mr. Carpenter said it is at least 8’ from the property line.
Mr. Cinelli asked about the landscaping. Mr. Carpenter said it is greater on his property.
Mr. Brosnan asked if there was another safety issue Mr. Carpenter wanted to address. Mr. Carpenter said his son can climb the existing fence. He said putting up a 6’ fence he would have peace of mind and it would be better for the neighborhood.
Mr. Brosnan asked if Mr. Carpenter’s lot was a corner lot. Mr. Carpenter said yes.
Mr. Rembiszewski asked if Mr. Carpenter installed the pool. Mr. Carpenter said it was the first thing they did after they moved in. Mr. Rembiszewski asked if there were any problems. Mr. Carpenter said he had no concerns until he saw other children climb the fence. Mr. Carpenter said there are ten children within three houses of his property under 5.
The application was opened and closed to the public.
Mr. Cinelli moved to approve the application as applied for. Mr. Grasso seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call vote. (Messrs. Cinelli, Grasso, Addonizio, Brosnan, Clayton and Mrs. DeSarno voted yes. Mr. Rembiszewski voted no.) There were six yeas and one nay.)
CASE #BA44-2000 Date application complete: November 15, 2000. Carried from March 21, 2001
APPLICANT: NEVER AS MARCKS
PROPERTY: 5119 Routes 33 & 34, Block 911, Lot 13, HB-40 Zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Use variance
Gerald Sonoblick, Esq. appeared for the applicant
Attorney Sonoblick stated at the March 21st meeting the Board requested that a landscaping plan be submitted.
Entered into evidence:
May 16, 2001 Page 7
A-5 Landscape plan
A-6 3 photos (A, B & C) showing landscaping already done
Attorney Sonoblick stated some members have visited the facility. He said he is here to respond to any questions. He
stated he has copies of the report from the Board professional. Attorney Sonoblick stated there are no more than 10 trucks on site. He stated gravel has been put down to clean up the property.
Mr. Marcks said he would like to put up a split rail fence across the front. He stated cars pull off the road onto his property.
Attorney Hirsch asked about the trucks on the property. Mr. Marcks said they will park in the rear. Mr. Marcks said his workers come to the site in the morning and do not return until the end of the day. No customers come to the site.
Mr. Maczuga asked what occurs in the fence within a fence. Mr. Marcks said that encloses the dogs. They never run loose.
Mrs. DeSarno stated she visited the site in Howell. It was extremely well kept. She said she was concerned the dogs were outside. She said she does not have any of those concerns now.
Mr. Grasso stated he has been to both sites. Mr. Grasso stated he was concerned how many cars would be parked in the front. Mr. Marcks said two. Mr. Marcks stated the tenant put a car outside for sale. He did not know he could not do that. He apologized.
Mr. Grasso asked if the tenant would engage in any other business. Mr. Marcks said no.
Attorney Sonoblick said there will not be two way traffic in the driveway. Mr. Zahorsky said it does not have to be 25’. It should be 20’.
Mr. Grasso said he appreciates the fact that this site looks like a residence. It looks residential in nature. He said the driveway looks commercial. He said he has concerns giving the site a commercial look.
Mr. Brosnan asked Mr. Zahorsky if there were any DOT requirements. Mr. Zahorsky said a street access permit or a letter of no interest is required.
May 16, 2001 Page 8
Attorney Hirsch asked Mr. Maczuga if he had an opinion as to waiving the site plan. Mr. Maczuga said there is not a full scale site plan needed. He suggested a survey showing where the lot lines are. Attorney Sonoblick said they would submit the survey and an as built. Attorney Sonoblick said they will give, to the Board, a site plan that will include what is on this plan. It will be done by a surveyor. Attorney Sonoblick said the fence is the only thing being added. There is no other change. The applicant is not going to do any more to the site than what we have explained this evening.
Mr. Maczuga explained that the site plan will show the Board what they are approving.
Mrs. DeSarno stated she has no problem with the plan that has been submitted to the Board.
Mr. Addonizio said he has no problem with the plan. He stated he has driven by the site many times over the years and this is the best it has looked. He said the site has a nice look to it.
The application was opened and closed to the public.
Mrs. DeSarno moved to approve the application subject to the applicant obtaining DOT street opening permit and submitting a plan. Mr. Rembiszewski seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call vote. (Mrs. DeSarno, Messrs. Rembiszewski, Addonizio, Cinelli, Brosnan and Clayton voted yes. Mr. Grasso abstained.)
The Sunnyside application was continued.
Statements were taken.
Tom Ross, 2407 Ramshorn Drive, was sworn. Mr. Ross said he has lived in Wall Township for 4 years. He said he has seen a lot of changes in the area; removal of trees, flashing lights, Four Seasons, Shop-Rite, increased traffic, etc. He feels the addition to Sunnyside is not good for the town. He said it will not make the quality of life better for the residents. He said he is urging the Board to turn down this application. He said change is good sometimes but not in this case.
John Goodfellow, 1602 Lakewood Road, was sworn. Mr. Goodfellow said he has lived in Wall longer than 4 years. He said he has lived here for 41 years. He said commercial vehicles have to be in the wrong lane to make the turn into Sunnyside. There will be extra traffic. He said the driveway is another safety hazard. He said when Sunnyside has an affair they park on both
May 16, 2001 Page 9
sides of the driveway. He said the problems he sees now will only get worse. He said the facility does not enhance the neighborhood. It will just create more problems. He said he is urging the Board to defeat this application.
Dennis Malanga, 2520 Autumn Drive, was sworn. Mr. Malanga said the first time Mr. Kearns asked him to come and see the plans for the addition he told Mr. Kearns he did not go against the last plans he will not go against these. After he saw the new plans he told Mr. Kearns that he was going to be the biggest objector. He said when he bought his house Sunnyside looked like a house and it was peaceful. He said he was wrong it is not peaceful. He hears noise at 7:00 A.M. He hears deliveries, shift changes, etc. He said 145 new windows 40’ from his house is going to impact him. He said he feels the Board is here to protect his zoning rights and he is asking the Board to deny the application.
Entered into evidence:
OMA-8 Variance issued May 6, 1987
Vice Chairman Clayton announced this application will be carried to June 6, 2001. The time limits are waived.
There being no further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 11:00 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Schinestuhl
Acting Recording Secretary