ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
JULY 16, 2003
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by Vice
Chairman DeSarno at 7:40 P.M. Members
present were Vice Chairman DeSarno, Dominick Cinelli, James Gray, Wilma
Morrissey, Anthony Rembiszewski, first alternate Bob Kerr, second alternate
Wayne Palmer, Attorney Hirsch, Planning Coordinator Roberta Lang, Recording
Secretary Betty Schinestuhl, Engineer 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.
Attorney Hirsch
stated the Martelli Development Corporation application is being carried to
September 17, 2003.
Attorney Hirsch
explained the Board accepted jurisdiction on the Martelli application in May
2003 when it was first listed. It was
announced at that meeting the application would be carried to tonight. Under statute they are not required to give
additional notice. The Board has felt
when an application is carried they ask for additional noticing. We had a TRC meeting. There is probably going to be some changes
to this application. If there are
changes they have to renotice. It is up
to the Board. Mr. Cinelli said he feels
they should renotice. The Board agreed.
CASE #BA18-2003
Date application
complete: April 14, 2003
APPLICANT: DAVID GARRISON
PROPERTY: 2408 Lenape Trail, Block 322, Lot 42
45, R-7.5 zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk
Attorney Hirsch reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction
to proceed.
Sworn by Reporter Arnone: David
Garrison
Mr. Garrison explained he is looking to expand the garage for additional
storage space. He is looking to go
within 5 of the setback. The
requirement is 7.5. He would like to
keep the number of structures on the lot the same. It would be connected to the house via the breezeway. He said he spoke to about 30 of his
neighbors and they have no issues. The
neighbor on the side where the addition will be has no problems. The addition will be sided and roofed to match
the house.
July 16, 2003 Page 2
Attorney Hirsch asked if the garage is one car. Mr. Garrison said it is a two car garage with a single door.
Attorney Hirsch stated Mr. Garrison wanted to make it 6 wider. Mr. Garrison said yes. He also stated there will be no addition to
the driveway.
Attorney Hirsch asked if there was a house on the lot adjacent to the
side of the proposed addition. Mr.
Garrison said yes. Attorney Hirsch
asked what the distance from the common property line is. Mr. Garrison said 10. Attorney Hirsch asked what was on that side
of the house. Mr. Garrison said there
is a kitchen in that area.
Attorney Hirsch asked for the height of the addition. Mr. Garrison said about 11.
Attorney Hirsch said the garage at its highest point will be 11. Mr. Garrison said the existing part is 16½
and the addition will be 11.
Mr. Cinelli said according to the construction plans the addition will be
12. Mr. Garrison agreed.
Mr. Cinelli asked what will be stored in the new portion. Mr. Garrison said lawn equipment, etc.
Mrs. Morrissey asked if Mr. Garrison was going to widen the
driveway. Mr. Garrison said everything
will stay the same.
Mrs. Morrissey asked if the trees were staying. Mr. Garrison said yes.
Mrs. Morrissey asked if Mr. Garrison ever widened his house before. Mr. Garrison said no.
Mrs. Morrissey asked how far the addition will be from the utility
pole. Mr. Garrison said it will be 27
back from the property line and then another 10 for a total of 37.
Mrs. Morrissey asked where the front entrance is for the house next door. Mr. Garrison said it is on the other
side. The kitchen is on the side of my
property.
Attorney Hirsch asked about a statement in Mr. Gerkens review letter
stating that the applicant should consider consolidating the four current lots
into one larger lot. Mr. Gerken said he
does not know why the assessor hasnt done that. Attorney Hirsch said once the house is constructed across the
lines they are merged.
Mr. Kerr asked if there were any type of sheds on the property. Mr. Garrison said no.
Mr. Kerr asked if there was any storage space in the breezeway. Mr. Garrison said no.
Mr. Gray asked what the distance was from the back of the garage to the
pool. Mr. Garrison said about 6
7.
Mr. Gerken stated there are no engineering issues.
July 16, 2003 Page 3
Vice Chairman DeSarno asked about lot coverage. Mr. Gerken said he is ok with that.
Mr. Gray asked if there was any place other than the side he could put
the addition. Mr. Garrison said
no. He said he cant go back because of
the pool.
Mr. Gray asked if he could put a shed on the property for storage. Mr. Garrison said he did not want to put
another structure on the property.
Mr. Garrison said he is adding 6 and he is only violating the ordinance by
2.
Attorney Hirsch said the closest part of the addition will be 5. Mr. Gerken said the front will be 6. Mr. Gerken said the impervious coverage
allowed is 40% and they will have 30%.
The application was open and closed to the public.
Mr. Cinelli moved to approve the application as applied for. Mr. Rembiszewski seconded the motion. (Messrs. Cinelli and Rembiszewski voted yes,
Mrs. Morrissey, Messrs, Gray, Palmer, Kerr and Mrs. DeSarno voted no.) The application was denied.
Vice Chairman DeSarno said the addition was too close to the
neighbors. She said the area is too
congested.
Mr. Cinelli recused himself on the Donahue application.
CASE #19-2003 Date application complete: May 30, 2003
APPLICANT: EDWARD & VILETTE DONAHUE
PROPERTY: 3423 Woodfield Avenue, Block 771, Lot
31, RR zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk
Attorney Hirsch reviewed
the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: Robert Stackles
Timothy B.
Middleton, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney
Middleton explained the property is located in the RR zone. The property is approximately 7.5
acres. The frontage is 170. The property opens up in the rear
significantly. The applicant purchased
the property about a year ago. There is
a 1½ story home on the site. There is
an in ground pool. There are two sheds
on the property. Each one is
approximately 500 s.f. 600 s.f. There
is a stream at the rear of the property.
It empties into Wreck Pond.
There is also a pond approximately 220 from the house toward the
westerly portion of the property. The
applicant is looking to construct a 22 X 28 structure. It will be located near the pond. It will be used to store fishing equipment,
ice skating equipment, etc. There will
be no heat or air conditioning. They would
like electric to illuminate the inside.
Attorney Middleton said in Mr.
July 16, 2003 Page 4
Gerkens review
letter he stated the structure would be constructed in the easement. The structure will be moved closer to the
house and out of the easement. Mr.
Donahue will remove the shed on the east side of the property.
Attorney
Middleton explained there was an application filed by the Woods in 1983. The property, at that time, was located in
the R-60 zone. The application was to
construct three horse structures. Those
structures violated the setbacks. They
also were asking permission to construct a picnic shelter. That application was denied. That application included three barns and a
picnic structure. This application is
different from that application. This
application is asking for one structure.
Attorney Hirsch
said the prior application was to construct structures that were already
built. Two of those violated the
setback requirements. The property was
9.9 acres at that time. He asked if
there was a subdivision. Attorney
Middleton said there may have been.
Attorney Hirsch
said the first application was requesting a baby sitting service and picnic
shelter. The Board denied that. The Board has to decide if this is res
judicata. The Board has to decide if
the applications are the same. If the
Board decides it is the same the applications cannot be made again. The Board has to decide if there has been a
change in the application. It is a call
that is made by the Board. The Board
needs to consider if there has been enough of a change in the application since
1983. The Board can deem this a new
application. Attorney Hirsch told
Attorney Middleton to go forward and at the end of the testimony the Board will
make a decision.
Edward Donahue,
owner of the property, was sworn.
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. Donahue when he purchased the property. Mr. Donahue stated he purchased the property
about one year ago.
Attorney
Middleton asked where is the property located. Mr. Donahue said the property is located at 3423 Woodfield
Avenue. It is 7.57 acres. There is a 1½ story home on the site. The house is about 285 from the road. To the rear is an in ground pool. Presently there are two sheds on site. There is a small shed at the back of the
pool. It is used for storage. They were there when he purchased the
property. To the rear of the property there
is a stream. It is approximately 30
wide. To the west of the sheds there is
a pond. It is approximately 90 X 60. There is wildlife in the pond such as fish,
big mouth bass, etc. Mr. Donahue stated
his family fishes in that pond in the spring and summer. He also stated his family ice skates on the
pond in the winter.
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. Donahue about the shed he is requesting. Mr. Donahue said he would like to build a
shed to store fishing equipment, sleds, ice skates and anything else that
cannot go in the garage.
Attorney
Middleton stated you would like the shed so you can sit there and watch your
children and grandchild fish. Mr.
Donahue agreed.
July 16, 2003 Page 5
Attorney
Middleton said there will be no bathroom, no heat and no air conditioning. Mr. Donahue agreed.
Attorney
Middleton asked about electricity. Mr.
Donahue said he would like electric to illuminate the site.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Plans prepared by Thomas Peters
Attorney
Middleton, utilizing A-1, asked Mr. Donahue if that was what he was going to
build. Mr. Donahue said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if there would be a small porch on the front. Mr. Donahue said yes.
Attorney
Middleton said the structure will be 16 high and one story. Mr. Donahue said yes.
Attorney
Middleton said the purpose of this structure will be to store equipment. Attorney Hirsch asked if there would be a
fireplace or anything like that. Mr.
Donahue said no.
Attorney
Middleton said one of the larger sheds would be removed. Mr. Donahue said the one to the east would
be removed.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if there would be any working facilities, such as a bathroom. Mr. Donahue said no.
Mr. Gray asked
where the structure is going to be.
Entered into
evidence:
A-2 Survey
Attorney
Middleton explained back on the property about 255 there is a home, to the
southeast portion of the property there is a shed that will be removed. The other shed will remain. The proposed structure will be at the
northwest portion at the rear of the pond.
The structure was to be located in a conservation easement. The applicant will relocate the shed to the
other side of the pond. It will be
closer to the house. It will be off the
easement.
Mr. Gray asked
about the picnic shed that is on the property.
Mr. Donahue said that was on the property. Mr. Gray asked if it was like that when Mr. Donahue purchased the
property. Mr. Donahue said yes and then
he started to build there and he stopped.
Attorney Middleton said the picnic shed was there and Mr. Donahue tore
it down. Mr. Donahue said he tore it
down and just left the telephone poles that were in the ground.
Attorney
Middleton said Mr. Donahue was contacted and told he needed a building permit
and variances.
July 16, 2003 Page 6
Vice Chairmen
DeSarno asked if Mr. Donahue could see the home on lot 33. Mr. Donahue said no. Vice Chairman DeSarno asked if the neighbor
could see him. Mr. Donahue said maybe
in the winter time.
Mr. Kerr said Mr.
Gerkens review letter said there are two sheds on the property. He said one will be taken down. Mr. Donahue agreed.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked what is stored in the shed. Mr.
Donahue said lawn equipment, etc.
Attorney Hirsch
asked what the distance is from the proposed building to the property
line. Mr. Gerken said 85 to lot 33 and
about 95 to lot 30. If they are going
to relocate the shed to the other side of the pond it will be about 200 from
lot 30.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if there was going to be any overnight sleeping in the proposed
shed. Mr. Donahue said no.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if there was going to be a refrigerator.
Mr. Donahue said no.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if the pond was heavily buffered.
Mr. Donahue said yes.
Attorney Hirsch asked
what is on lots 33, 30 and 31?
Entered into
evidence:
A-3 Photo
Mr. Donahue said
these photos were taken three days ago.
A-3 shows the pond on the north portion of the property. It was taken from about 30 from the
pond.
Entered into
evidence:
A-4 Photo
Mr. Donahue said
this photo is of the house on the westerly portion of the property looking at
the house. This photo also shows the
shed that is going to be removed.
Entered into
evidence:
A-5 Photo
Mr. Donahue said
this photo is looking toward the northern portion of the property where the
pond is. It was taken from the pool
looking toward lot 30.
Attorney Hirsch
asked, along the property line of lot 33, what is that buffered with. Mr. Donahue said hollies, oaks, etc. Attorney Hirsch what is lot 30 buffered
with. Mr. Donahue said the same type of
trees. Mr. Donahue said the trees start
about 20 from the pond. Lot 34 is also
treed with similar trees.
July 16, 2003 Page 7
Attorney Hirsch
asked what is on lot 33. Mr. Donahue
said a single family home. Attorney
Hirsch asked for the size of that lot.
Mr. Donahue said about 1.7 acres.
Attorney Hirsch
asked what is on lot 14. Mr. Gerken
said lot 14 and the others come off Misty Hollow. That is the rear of those lots.
There is a conservation easement there.
Vice Chairman
DeSarno asked if this would have any effect on the neighbors. Mr. Donahue said he would not put it up if
it did. He said it just enhances his
property.
The application
was open to the public.
Diane Teufel,
3425 Woodfield Avenue, asked when were the two sheds that are already on the
property constructed. Mr. Donahue said
he did not know. They were there when
he purchased the property.
Ms. Teufel asked
if the proposed shed is going to be used as a kennel. Mr. Donahue said no he has two dogs and no puppies.
Ms. Teufel asked
what is the shrine on the property. Mr.
Donahue said it is a statue of the Blessed Virgin.
Ms. Teufel asked
if Mr. Donahue has ever caught any fish.
Mr. Donahue said yes.
Ms. Teufel said
there is a chain link fence on lot 32 with a concrete platform what is on
it. Mr. Donahue said he did not
know. Mr. Gerken said lot 32 is not Mr.
Donahues it belongs to the Township.
Ms. Teufel was
sworn. Ms. Teufel said she does not
think the existing sheds were there before this year. This property has been a construction site. The picnic building was supposed to be taken
down. There are all kinds of drainage
ditches. Trees were supposed to be
replaced. She said she thinks the
proposed shed will be an eyesore. She
said she does not want to look at this big building back there. It makes more sense to put the shed closer
to the house. A storage shed cannot be
more than 120 s.f. Mr. Gerken said 180
s.f. is allowed. Ms. Teufel said she is
also concerned about the barbecue.
Attorney Middleton said the barbecue will go.
Ms. Teufel said
she does not have a basement or a garage.
He has a two car garage and storage sheds.
Attorney Hirsch
asked Ms. Teufel where her house was located.
Ms. Teufel said her house is more than half way back on her
property. It is more than 50% back on
the lot.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked if Ms. Teufel can see the pond.
Ms. Teufel said no.
Ms. Teufel said
she does not want that building in her backyard.
July 16, 2003 Page 8
Mr. Gray said
the existing sheds are a lot more than one year old. One shed looked more than 5 10 years old. Mrs. DeSarno agreed. Mrs. DeSarno said she only saw one dog when
she visited the site.
The application
was closed to the public.
Attorney
Middleton said the property is fairly large.
The site is unusual. It has both
a pond and a stream. There are two
sheds on site. Mr. Donahue is willing
to remove one of the sheds and the barbecue.
He is proposing something that is esthetically pleasing. It will compliment the pond. The pond is unique. The pond is used for fishing and ice
skating. Mr. Donahue is proposing
something that goes hand in hand with the pond. He is moving the structure out of the conservation easement. Mr. Donahue did not put up the other two
sheds. They were probably built many
years ago. The property is very
large. The closest neighbor is 200
300 away. The property is very well
buffered. Ms. Teufel will not be able
to see this structure.
Mr. Gray said he
thinks this application has nothing to do with the other one. This is totally different. There is no relation whatsoever.
Mr. Gray made a
motion stating this application has nothing to do with the other. Mr. Palmer seconded the motion which was
unanimously approved by a roll call vote.
(Messrs. Gray Palmer, Rembiszewski, Mrs. Morrissey, Mr. Kerr and Mrs. DeSarno
voted yes.)
Mr. Gray moved
to approve the application subject to the structure being built out of the
conservation easement and no heat or air conditioning in the shed. The barbecue must be removed. The second shed must be removed. Mrs. Morrissey also made a condition that if
the lot is subdivided this shed must be removed. Mr. Gray said that shed has to be on a piece of land that is four
acres. Mr. Kerr also made a condition
that where the shed is removed the ground must be restored. The trees that were removed are to be put
back. Mrs. Morrissey seconded the
motion, which was unanimously approved by a roll call vote. (Mr. Gray, Mrs. Morrissey, Messrs.
Rembiszewski, Palmer, Kerr and Mrs. DeSarno voted yes.)
RESOLUTIONS TO BE MEMORIALIZED:
JOSEPH &
RUTH GIUFFRE BA#17-2003
Block 110, Lot 4 Rembiszewski/Morrissey
NICOLE &
TIMOTHY DRAPER BA#16-2003
Block 837, Lot 5 Morrissey/Rembiszewski
JOANNE CILENTO
BA#13-2003
Block 112, Lot 3 Rembiszewski/Palmer
MINUTES TO BE ADOPTED: Mr. Rembiszewski moved to approve the minutes of the Workshop and
Regular Meetings of May 21, 2003 and June 4, 2003. Mr. Gray seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
July 16, 2003 Page 9
Mr. Palmer moved
to adopt the annual report. Mr.
Rembiszewski seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by a roll call
vote. (Messrs. Palmer, Rembiszewski,
Gray, Kerr, Mesdames Morrissey and DeSarno voted yes.)
There being no
further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and
unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 9:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Schinestuhl
Recording Secretary