ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
JUNE 6, 2001
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by
Chairman Noorigian at 7:30 P.M. Members
present were Chairman Noorigian, Michael Clayton, Thomas Grasso, Ralph
Addonizio, Dominic Cinelli, Anthony Rembiszewski, first alternate Mark Brosnan,
second alternate Wilma Morrissey, Attorney Thomas Hirsch, Planning Coordinator
Pam D’Andrea, Engineer Glenn Gerken and Reporter Kane.
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 stated there are five applications for this evening. The Luis & Roseanne Donuts application
has been postponed.
Mr. Grasso made
a motion to dismiss the Luis & Roseanne Donuts application BA#3-2000
without prejudice. Mr. Clayton seconded
the motion, which was unanimously approved by a roll call vote. (Messrs. Grasso, Clayton, Addonizio,
Rembiszewski, Brosnan, Noorigian and Mrs. Morrissey voted yes.)
AMEND RESOLUTION:
CASE #40-2000:
APPLICANT: CHARLES
H. AND EILEEN C. D'ANGELO – BA#40-2000
PROPERTY: 2549
Jordan Way a.k.a. 2549 Ramshorn, Block 62.01, Lot 1, R-30 zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Request
to amend Resolution dated February 21, 2001 regarding 10’ setback granted for
inground pool wherein only 5’ can be provided.
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and accepted jurisdiction.
Attorney Hirsch
explained the original application indicated that the pool would have a 10’
setback. The applicant is now
requesting an amendment to the resolution granting a 5’ setback.
Peter Kearns,
Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney Kearns
stated this property is on a corner lot.
There are two front properties.
After the approval in February it was found that the location of the
pool just did not fit and it would not look as good as it could. The pool is not going to be visible to
anyone.
Sworn by Reporter
Kane: Eileen D’Angelo
Mrs. D’Angelo
explained when Aqua Land Pools came to stake out the property then they stated
they needed an extra 5’.
June 6, 2001 Page
2
Attorney Hirsch
asked Mrs. D’Angelo if they had a basement.
Mrs. D’Angelo stated they have a three level home with a full
basement. Everything for this pool was
put on that side of the house when the house was built. The home is only one year old. The house was built according to code.
Mr. Addonizio
asked how deep is the proposed pool.
Mrs. D’Angelo said 5’ – 6’.
There will be no diving board.
Mr. Addonizio
asked what end would be closest to the foundation. Mrs. D’Angelo said the 5’ would be north of the property.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if the 5’ setback included the 3’ concrete around the pool. Mrs. D’Angelo said no. Mr. Addonizio said the concrete would be 2’
from a three level house.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if the applicant considered putting in a smaller pool. Mrs. D’Angelo said Aqua Land Pools said this
was the smallest pool they can put in.
Attorney Kearns stated this is about the smallest inground pool you can
have. Attorney Kearns stated a
representative from Aqua Land Pools is suppose to be here this evening to
testify.
Chairman
Noorigian suggested going to another application and coming back to the
D’Angelo application when the representative from Aqua Land Pools arrives.
Mr. Addonizio
said the applicant wants the pool closer to the house because of
esthetics. Mrs. D’Angelo said Bay
Pointe Engineering suggested they move the pool a little to the north. Aqua Land Pools is not here to help us with
that.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if there was enough room in the backyard to have the pool 10’ from the
foundation. Attorney Kearns said there
is only 10’ from the property line to the pool. If we move the pool away from the house it would be closer to the
side setback.
Mr. Zahorsky
said it could be moved so it would maintain a 10’ setback. There is room to move it but he did not know
if there were any underground utilities.
Mr. Grasso asked
if the pool could be put anywhere on the lot without any variances. Mr. Zahorsky said no unless it was put on
the front yard area.
Chairman
Noorigian said we would put this application aside and go to another
application.
CASE #BA41-2000 Date application complete: October 5, 2000
APPLICANT: GEORGE MUELLER
PROPERTY:
1917 Atlantic Avenue, Block 819, Lots 17 & 18, OR-5 zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Interpretation/Appeal of existing use
June 6, 2001 Page 3
Attorney Hirsch
stated that the Board has already accepted jurisdiction. This is a request for an interpretation at
this time.
Thomas Butz,
Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney Butz
stated he went through the opening statement at the last meeting. He stated this is unusual because it goes
back 25 years. 90% of this application
is legal argument as to what the law was back then. He said he had a few things to present.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Application with attachments A- F
A-2 Copy of notice issued with the adoption of
the resolution dated December 23, 1975
Attorney Butz
said he had two witnesses.
Attorney Butz
stated he had one case, Lynch vs. Borough of Hillsdale. Attorney Butz read part of the case. He said that is the only one he could
find.
Attorney Hirsch
stated the law did not allow the Zoning Board to approve a variance at that
time. They could only recommend to the
Township Committee and the Township Committee would act on that recommendation. The Governing Body could approve or
disapprove.
The statute was
discussed.
Attorney Hirsch
said the Zoning Board, in this case, addressed the application and recommended
the use variance. As a condition there
were certain improvements that had to be done.
The Governing Body approved a temporary use permit. Attorney Hirsch said he could not find
anything in the Township ordinance that tells about a temporary use
permit.
Attorney Butz
said there was something in the ordinance.
It was a 1973 ordinance, Section 10.3-4. Attorney Hirsch said the Board was looking at a use variance and
made a determination that a temporary use permit be issued for a two-year
period. The Governing Body did not
grant a use variance. They granted a
temporary use permit. The Governing
Body resolution stated that the applicant could request an extension. It appears that the Governing Body
disapproved the use variance. Attorney
Hirsch suggested that the applicant apply for a variance and come back to the
Board for a use variance.
Attorney Butz
said the requirements for a use variance that existed in 1975 are different
from the requirements this Board uses in 2001.
He stated this is a strange case.
This use has existed for 26 years uninterrupted with never a complaint
from the town until the middle of 2000.
Attorney Hirsch stated there were some conditions required with the 1975
resolution. He stated he could not see
where the statute was met.
Attorney Butz
asked if this application could be carried to allow the applicant time to think
about it. He will confer with his
clients and notify the Board of their decision.
Attorney Hirsch
stated this application would be carried to August 15, 2001.
June 9, 2001 Page
4
Chairman
Noorigian asked if the Board had any questions. There were none. He stated this application will be carried to
August 15, 2001.
Mrs. D’Angelo
stated her witness has not showed up.
She would like to go back to Aqua Land Pools and see if they can conform
with the resolution. Chairman Noorigian
said this application can be carried to July 11, 2001. Attorney Butz said that would be fine. He stated if they can conform with the
previous resolution they would send a letter and notify the Board.
CASE BA#42-2000:
Date application complete:
October 18, 2000
APPLICANT:
SEELY EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY CO.
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Site Plan with Bulk Variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
David Shaheen,
Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney Shaheen
explained the applicant is asking to get site plan approval to formalize the
use of Lot 37 for storage and display of equipment and vehicles.
Attorney Shaheen
stated he had three witnesses.
Joseph S. Lalka was
sworn.
Chairman
Noorigian stated the Board will accept Mr. Lalka’s qualifications as an
engineer.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Colored rendering
Mr. Lalka stated
he was familiar with the plans. He said
he presented the original application.
This property is located at Block 913, Lot 13. It is located on the southbound side of Route 34 between
Collingwood and Wyckoff Road. The zone
has recently changed to Office Research 10 acre. The existing lot is approximately seven acres. The original application in 1991 was granted
for equipment rental, which was allowed.
A variance was granted for sales.
He stated Seely has operated successfully for the past 10 years.
Attorney Shaheen
asked what has transpired. Mr. Lalka
stated the business has grown. It has
burst out of the original lot. This is
a matter of an expansion of a pre-existing use.
Attorney Shaheen
asked Mr. Lalka to describe the property.
Mr. Lalka stated the site in question is 45’ from Route 34, 50’ from
wetlands. It is a rectangular
area. It is separated with a stockade
fence from Route 34. It is used for
storage and display of equipment.
June 6, 2001 Page
5
Attorney Shaheen
stated the Board had previously recommended consolidating the two lots to
eliminate some of the variances that now exist. When the property was subdivided the two lots met the
requirements.
Mr. Lalka said
the applicants concur with the recommendations that the lots be
consolidated. When the lots are
consolidated the bulk variance will be eliminated.
Attorney Shaheen
asked Mr. Lalka to go over the engineer’s letter. Mr. Lalka reviewed the letter from Bay Pointe Engineering dated
March 7, 2001 signed by Glenn Gerken.
Mr. Lalka said they will provide the thickness of the gravel and
containment. They will grade grass to
the outside and gravel on the inside.
The parking lot will be gravel and the outside will be soil and
grass.
Mr. Grasso asked
if something more permanent could be done for the containment of the stone
area. Mr. Zahorsky agreed with Mr.
Grasso. He stated the Board needs to be
assured that the parking lot is not expanded in the future. There should be an edge.
Attorney Shaheen
said he has spoken with his client and they will provide a border and the
details will be worked out with the engineer and Mr. Lalka.
Mr. Lalka stated
they did get an LOI. The wetlands will
be defined. He stated the LOI is not
required but he would like to use the LOI.
Mr. Zahorsky stated he had no objections.
Mr. Lalka said
the wetlands points would be documented.
He said he will provide the mapping and the Letter of Interpretation.
Mr. Lalka
stated, regarding the stormwater run-off, the water will be absorbed by the
gravel. The applicant will accept
restrictions against any oil changing, repairs, and disposals of fluids in this
area.
Attorney Hirsch
asked about traffic. Mr. Lalka said
this is large equipment. It either
remains on site or stays away for long periods of time. Mr. Zahorsky stated he has no objections to
that.
Mr. Lalka stated
Item 4 in Mr. Gerken’s letter is eliminated because of the combination of the
two lots. He stated they will receive
the permits granted by the soil conservation district.
Mr. Lalka went
over the second letter from Bay Pointe Engineering, dated June 4, 2001 signed
by John Maczuga. Mr. Lalka said the
owner will describe the operation of the business. The entire rear of the area is wetlands and will never be used. He said it is very wet in the back. He stated they will correct the setback from
125’ to 150’. The 125’ is still on this
plan but will be corrected. The
applicant will provide landscaping and screening to give it a street frontage
look. It will include low fencing, post
and rail, deciduous trees and hedge treatment.
Mr. Grasso asked if he was referring to the frontage. Mr. Lalka said yes.
Mr. Grasso said
he would like to hear from the owner of the property because he has some
concerns.
Mr. Brosnan
asked if there were any DOT amendments needed.
Mr. Zahorsky said no.
June 6, 2001 Page
6
Mr. Brosnan
asked if there would be any hazardous waste.
Attorney Shaheen said the applicant will answer that question.
There were no
questions from the public.
Clint Koch was
sworn. Mr. Koch is President of Seely
Equipment & Supply.
9:00 P.M. Mr.
Addonizio left the meeting.
Attorney Shaheen
asked Mr. Koch how long he has been with Seely. Mr. Koch said for 18 years.
He’s been at this site since 1992.
Attorney Shaheen
asked Mr. Koch to explain how this site is being used. Mr. Koch said the lot has been used for
storage since approximately 1992. The
business started taking off after that.
He explained they need more room for the storage of truck chassis. The business builds trucks for townships,
counties, states and government. The
chassis are stored for several months before the equipment arrives and they are
completed. There is not a lot of
traffic. Mr. Koch said they sell all
new equipment.
Attorney Shaheen
asked about hazardous waste and leakage.
Mr. Koch said there is no problem with new trucks and leakage. Trucks that come in for repair are done on
the paved area. If there is a leak it
is repaired inside. He stated they are
very busy in the winter. In the summer
it starts to slow down. The flow of
business goes up and down.
Attorney Shaheen
asked what size are the trucks on site.
Mr. Koch said they are single axle to a tri-axle. They are up to 32’ in length.
Attorney Shaheen
asked about long-term plans. Mr. Koch
said there is no future plans to change just to grow.
Attorney Shaheen
asked about landscaping. Mr. Koch said
they do need to show the equipment. He
said there is a wood guardrail that was approved. There are also some oak trees.
He said they will put more plantings in. He said it is also a security issue. He said they have had some trucks stolen. Mr. Maczuga suggested landscaping some and
leaving an area open for display. Mr.
Koch said from the road frontage back about 50’ from the backside of the
driveway entrance is where they store their vehicles. The front half is used for display purposes.
Attorney Hirsch
asked how many different vehicles need to be displayed. Can the display area be reduced? Mr. Koch said reducing the area is a
possibility. He said they could cut
down the display and add more screening.
Mr. Koch said
there will be no fencing in the front.
There will be no lighting.
Mrs. Morrissey
stated in the winter the leaves come down and the site looks baron. Mr. Koch said they will put landscaping on
either side.
Mr. Grasso
stated the front line is important. He
asked what could be done in the way of landscaping so the Board could put a
plan into effect. Mr. Grasso
recommended something
June 6, 2001 Page
7
low, maybe
evergreens. He suggested, on the south
side of the property, you could put something with height. He said he visited the site and it is
orderly and well kept. It is a credit
to that area.
Mr. Grasso asked
about the encasement of the parking area.
He asked if the applicant would be willing to put railroad ties in. Mr. Koch said they have agreed to railroad
ties. He said they will be properly
maintained.
Mr. Clayton
stated his concern is at night, when you pull in the main entrance there is no
place to park a vehicle. The driveway
is obstructed. He asked if the gate
could be pushed back so the emergency vehicles can park. Mr. Koch said the placement of the gates are
for security. He said moving it back
would give less area to park the vehicles in a secure area.
Mr. Brosnan
asked what the hours of business are.
Mr. Koch said 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM.
Mr. Brosnan
asked if the applicant wanted some lighting in the area. Mr. Koch said there is some lighting and
there is also some street lighting.
There were no
questions from the public
9:40 PM the
Board recessed.
10:00 the
meeting resumed.
Mr. Shaheen said
he has one more witness.
Jennifer Knill
was sworn. Ms. Knill is a licensed
planner in the State of New Jersey.
Chairman Noorigian said the Board will accept Ms. Krill as a witness in the
field planning.
Ms. Knill said
the proposed storage display area is an expansion of an existing use in the
OR-10 zone. She said when the original
application was made it was a permitted use.
This business has been on site for about 10 years. The issuance of a variance at this time for
an expanded storage equipment area would not alter the use of this
location. The existing commercial use
is consistent with the surrounding land uses in the area. Granting this variance would not alter the
existing character of the neighborhood.
It would not constitute a detriment to the neighborhood. The storage of this equipment is suited for
this lot. It is not located adjacent to
any residential property. It would not
create any substantial detriment to the intent of the zone plan.
Mr. Lalka,
already sworn, spoke about the landscaping.
The northerly half of the lot would be used as display and the southerly
portion would be landscaped. The
applicant would plant street trees. Low
shrubs would also be planted. The
equipment would be visible from Route 34.
The westerly side has enough buffers.
Attorney Hirsch
explained the Board can vote on the use variance aspect conditioned on the
amended site plan being submitted and approved by the Board. The Board can vote on the use variance
tonight or wait.
Mr. Grasso said
if the applicant comes back with a plan the site plan committee can review it.
June 6, 2001 Page
8
Chairman Noorigian said Mr. Grasso is suggesting the Board vote on the use tonight and vote on the site after the plan is submitted. The Board agreed to that suggestion.
There were no
statements from the public.
Mr. Grasso moved
to approve the use variance. Mr.
Brosnan seconded the motion.
Attorney Hirsch
said the condition being the applicant submit an amended site plan indicating
the landscaping detail and the detail for the fence. These will be reviewed by the Board Professionals. The use variance will not go into effect
until the plan is approved.
The motion was
approved by a roll call vote. (Messrs.
Grasso, Brosnan, Rembiszewski, Clayton, Noorigian and Mrs. Morrissey voted yes.
Chairman
Noorigian said the use has been granted.
The site will be voted on September 15, 2001. Attorney Shaheen agreed to a waiver of time.
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, May 2, 2001 and May 16, 2001.
APPLICANT: SUNNYSIDE MANOR, INC.
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk and use
variance along with site plan approval.
Chairman
Noorigian and Mrs. Morrissey stepped down.
Attorney Hirsh
said the Board is down to four members.
It is a quorum. It is not enough
to vote on a use variance. The Board
cannot vote. The Board can
proceed. Attorney Hirsch said he thinks
everyone has testified except Mr. Montenegro.
Mr. Montenegro
said there are some other people that want to testify. They will be at the next meeting. Attorney Hirsch said everyone will have a
chance.
Nicholas
Montenegro, 2500 Autumn Drive, was sworn.
Mr. Montenegro
stated he bought his property in 1985.
His house was built in 1986. His
children went to Allenwood School. He
stated prior to purchasing his property he found out about the conditions of
Sunnyside as to operation, zoning, etc.
He stated he lives right behind Sunnyside. He knew they were there when he purchased his property. He said in the beginning it was not
bad. It has become worse. This application will destroy the
neighborhood. This application cannot
be granted without a substantial detriment to the neighborhood. There is no public benefit. This facility will increase from 33,000 s.f.
to 88,000 s.f. It will be 256%
greater. It will go from 70 beds to 135
beds. This facility will be 37.9’ in
height. The main entrance is on the
lower level. With the additional beds
it will be 17 units per acre.
June 6, 2001 Page
9
Mr. Montenegro
said the Township increased the buffering from 50’ to 75’. Sunnyside provides 3’ of buffering. In 1994 he stated he did not object to the
addition. He just asked for a buffer between
Sunnyside and his property. The owner
refused. This Board ordered him to
provide a buffer. He refused. The buffer is inadequate and does not
comply. Within the last few weeks he
planted another row of bushes along the property line. It is seven years late.
Mr. Montenegro
said truck deliveries and garbage pick-up was not bad in 1986. Tractor-trailer deliveries have gotten
worse. There is much activity going on. The deliveries create a safety factor. Mr. Montenegro has two photos taken from the
driveway showing the visibility. It is
a safety hazard.
Entered into
evidence:
OM9 1999 photo from driveway
OM10 1999 photo from driveway
OM11 1999 photo of deliveries
OM12 1999 photo of deliveries
OM13 2001 photo of deliveries
OM14 2001 photo of deliveries
OM15 2001 photo of deliveries
OM16 2000 photo of deliveries
Mr. Montenegro
said he took OM11 and OM12. The last
four were taken by Mr. Goodfellow.
These photos are of tractor-trailer deliveries on site. Attorney Landis looked over the photos.
Entered into
evidence:
OM17 Photo of traffic
Mr. Montenegro
said the tractor-trailer deliveries are becoming a nuisance. These tractor-trailers have back-up beepers,
refrigeration, etc. These trucks
delivery pallets on a daily basis. The
deliveries take place before 8:00 A.M.
The applicant posted a notice that there would be no deliveries before
8:15 A.M. Mr. Montenegro said he has
sent Attorney Landis several letters regarding these deliveries being made
before 8:00 A.M. Mr. Montenegro said
deliveries are made before 7:30 A.M.
Deliveries are made as early as 5:00 A.M. They had a delivery at 6:30 A.M. last Christmas day. The Friday after Thanksgiving there was a
delivery at 7:30 A.M. Some of these
deliveries are made 70’ from my property line. On June 4, 2001 there was a delivery truck there for over two
hours. It was before 8:00 A.M. The average delivery time is 15 minutes. On October 3, 2000 garbage was picked up at
6:55 A.M. That lasted 12 minutes. The owner does not seem to be able to control
the delivery schedule, the amount of deliveries, etc. 17 different companies make deliveries. There are 24 a week, 122 a month. These deliveries are all next to my backyard.
Mr. Montenegro
said the width of the driveway is a safety issue. There is parking on the driveway during parties. On December 17, 2000 there was parking on
both sides of the driveway. If one car
is going in and one car is exiting they cannot pass each other. That is totally unsafe. It is even worse when they are trucks.
June 6, 2001 Page
10
Entered into
evidence:
OM18 January 2001 photo of cars parked on the
driveway
OM19 Letters to
Attorney Landis regarding deliveries
Mr. Montenegro
spoke about the parking in the rear. In
1994 two parking spaces in the rear were granted.
Entered into
evidence:
OM20 Site plan prepared by John A. Gross dated
August 24, 1993
Mr. Montenegro
stated that there are 6 – 8 vehicles parked in the rear. They even park on the grass. This violates the approved site plan. The applicant is proposing an additional
nine parking spaces in that area. That
is right next to my yard. This is in
addition to all the noise. In that same
area is the main focal point of the facility.
This is where everything takes place.
This creates a substantial impact now and with the addition it will be
worse. The applicant states the loading
zone has to be in the rear because of the way the products are distributed.
Entered into
evidence:
OM21 Packet of prior approvals for this location
Mr. Montenegro
stated there have been eight prior applications for this site.
Attorney Landis
said some of these pre-date my client’s ownership.
Mr. Montenegro
stated it went from a 12 bed to a 135-bed establishment.
Attorney Hirsch
stated the main focus is what is there today.
Mr. Montenegro
said this information demonstrates this facility began in 1922 as a rest care
for girls containing 12 beds. Mr.
Montenegro explained all the applications for this site.
Entered into
evidence:
OM22 Township records including applications and
construction permits
OM23 Zoning permit
Attorney Hirsch
announced the Board has three resolutions to approve this evening.
Mr. Montenegro
said the applicant, in May 2000, never obtained a site plan for additional
rooms. He has 60 rooms not 70.
Mr. Montenegro
said the lighting proposed is 10’ in height in the rear yard. The Sunnyside property is 6’ – 10’ higher
than my property. There is no lighting
there today.
June 6, 2001 Page
11
Mr. Montenegro
stated the proposed courtyard on the south side of the building is 13’
deep. It appears to be in a hole. There is no fence. There will be 81 residents with guests all in the rear yard next
to my property.
Mr. Montenegro
talked about patients wandering around outside the building. He said they did have a wanderer in the
neighborhood. There is a potential for
injury to the wanderer and the children in the neighborhood.
Mr. Montenegro,
regarding esthetics, can be significantly related to property values. They do affect property values. The additional air conditioning, 145 winds,
etc. will decrease our property values.
Doing in-house laundry for 135 beds that is an additional commercial use
for which he needs a variance. There
are odors from doing 3,000 lbs. Of laundry per week.
Mr. Montenegro
stated all of this will have a significant negative impact on his family,
property and the neighborhood.
RESOLUTIONS
TO BE MEMORIALIZED:
RAY & JULIE
CARPENTER – BA#12-2001
Block 811.05,
Lot 9 Clayton/Grasso
NEVER ASK MARCKS
– BA#44-2000
Block 911, Lot
13 Rembiszewski/Clayton
SHORE CHRISTIAN
CENTER CHURCH – BA#7-2001
Block 974, Lot 8
& 24 Grasso/Rembiszewski
MINUTES TO
BE ADOPTED: Mr. Grasso moved to approve the minutes of
the study session and regular minutes of May 16, 2001. Mr. Rembiszewski 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 11:15 P.M.
Respectfully
submitted,
Betty
Schinestuhl
Recording
Secretary