ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
JULY 18, 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, Ralph Addonizio, Dominic Cinelli, Anthony
Rembiszewski, Mary DeSarno, first alternate Mark Brosnan, Attorney Thomas
Hirsch, Recording Secretary Betty Schinestuhl, Planning Coordinator Pam
D’Andrea, Engineer Glenn Gerken, Marty Truscott 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.
MINUTES TO BE ADOPTED:
Mr. Rembiszewski moved to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of
July 11, 2001. Mrs. DeSarno seconded
the motion which was unanimously approved.
CASE #BA15-2001 Date application complete: April 27, 2001
APPLICANT: THE RUGBY SCHOOL AT WOODFIELD, INC.
PROPERTY: Woodfield Avenue and Belmar Boulevard, Block 755, Lot 29, R-60
Zone..
RELIEF REQUESTED: Use Variance/Site Plan/bulk Variance.
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Timothy B.
Middleton, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Chairman
Noorigian announced there are only six members here this evening. Attorney Middleton said they would like to
proceed this evening.
Sworn by
Reporter Kane: Anthony Aquilino
Attorney
Middleton said this is a State approved school for handicapped children. Rugby has been open for over 25 years. The building is located on the corner of
Woodfield and Belmar Boulevard. It is
the site of the old Bible Baptist Church.
Rugby has occupied the south wing of the building since 1980. The Church occupied the sanctuary and the
north wing through 1996. In 1996 the
Rugby School purchased the entire building.
The school is occupied from 8:30 A.M. – 2:30 P.M. Monday thru
Friday. The school is proposing to use
the sanctuary for drama, music, graduation, etc. There are 98 – 99 children in the school. It is a beneficial use.
Mr. Aquilino
supplied the Board with his qualifications.
He attended Jersey City State.
He also has his masters degree.
7:45 P.M. Mr.
Grasso arrived.
July 18, 2001 Page
2
Mr. Aquilino
stated he is the Director of The Rugby School.
Mr. Aquilino
explained the children attending the Rugby School are disabled, hyperactive,
etc. The school is approved by the
State.
Attorney
Middleton asked how many schools like Rugby are in the New Jersey. Mr. Aquilino said about 120.
Attorney
Middleton asked where do the children come from. Mr. Aquilino said from the Monmouth County area. There are a few from Ocean and Middlesex.
Attorney
Middleton asked what ages are the children.
Mr. Aquilino said 7 – 8 years old in the elementary portion. 8 – 13 or 14 in the middle school right up
to high school. Mr. Aquilino said the
school is approved by the State to issue their own diplomas.
Attorney
Middleton asked how many children attend the school on an average. Mr. Aquilino said between 95 – 105.
Attorney
Middleton asked how many classrooms.
Mr. Aquilino said 10.
Attorney
Middleton asked how was the school going to use the sanctuary. Mr. Aquilino said they would use it as an
auditorium. They would have graduation
in there. They would use it for music
and drama classes.
Mr. Cinelli
asked where are those things being done now.
Mr. Aquilino said when the church was there they asked permission to use
it.
Mr. Aquilino
said they want to enhance the programs.
The children are very gifted and excel in the arts.
Attorney
Middleton asked what the hours of operation are. Mr. Aquilino said the staff starts to arrive at 8:00 A.M., the
students 8:45 A.M. They leave between
2:00 – 2:15 P.M. The staff leaves
between 3:00 – 4:00 P.M. There are no
weekends.
Attorney
Middleton said the church used the sanctuary Wednesday, Saturday and
Sunday.
Attorney
Middleton asked how many employees are on the premises. Mr. Aquilino said 45.
Attorney
Middleton asked how many square feet is the building. Mr. Aquilino said 32,000 s.f.
Mr. Aquilino
said the play court will be at the rear of the building, Mr. Aquilino said they need the play court
because they want more activities for the kids. He stated now they can only play on the front lawn. He said it would be safer at the rear of the
building.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Aerial photo taken May 20, 2001
July 18, 2001 Page
3
Attorney
Middleton asked if there are homes adjacent to the property. Mr. Aquilino said there are homes adjacent
to the school and homes across the street.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked if granted the play court there would be no children in the front
yard. Mr. Aquilino said they would like
to keep the kids at the rear of the building.
He said there may be some things they would do in the front yard
occasionally.
Mr. Brosnan
asked if there were any homes at the rear of the building. Mr. Aquilino said no.
Mr. Brosnan
asked if the school owns the wooded area in the rear. Attorney Middleton said no, they own to the tree line in the
rear.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if any lights would be erected.
Mr. Aquilino said no.
Mr. Cinelli
asked if any outsiders would be using the facilities. Mr. Aquilino said the neighbors have used the parking area.
Mr. Brosnan
asked if a fence would be erected. Mr.
Aquilino said no, they felt there is no need for a fence because it is heavily
wooded. Attorney Middleton said there
would be a 10’ fence around the play court to keep the balls in the court.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked why the play court could not be built closer to the building. Mr. Aquilino said because they need access
for emergency vehicles. Attorney
Middleton said there is a fire escape in the rear and they need to keep 18’
between the sports court and the building.
Kathleen Megill,
1603 Woodfield, asked if there would be some sort of buffer in the front to
keep the children out of the street.
Mr. Aquilino said no.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked if the children play in the street.
Mr. Aquilino said no, they have very good supervision. There are no regular activities in the
front. Mrs. DeSarno asked if they play
in the front now. Mr. Aquilino said
yes. Attorney Middleton said the school
would hold only special functions in the front.
Mr. Rembiszewski
said Belmar Boulevard is heavily traveled.
Why not erect a fence? Mr.
Aquilino said the parking lot is between the kids and Belmar Boulevard.
Mr. Brosnan
asked if the school would be willing to put in a row of trees in the
front. Attorney Middleton said they
would prefer to keep it an open field.
Mr. Grasso
stated he does not think they would want any sort of buffering in the front
because you could have a problem with oncoming motorists and the children
running out between the trees. He
stated there is no buffering in front of any of Wall Township schools. He also stated some buffering can work
against you.
Mr. Grasso asked
about supervision of the children. Mr.
Aquilino said there are three children to one supervisor. He also said when the children are outside
there are 8 – 10 children and 3 – 4 supervisors.
July 18, 2001 Page
4
Sworn by
Reporter Kane: Michael Geller,
Engineer
Mr. Geller gave
his qualifications which were accepted by the Board.
Mr. Geller
stated he prepared the site plan. Mr.
Geller stated the site consists of 3.27 acres.
It is in the R-60 zone. It was
occupied by a church since 1968. It was
a church and school since 1972. The
Rugby school moved on site in 1981. It
is a two story, 16,000 s.f. building.
There are 69 parking spaces on site.
There are three handicap spaces.
There is a wooded buffer on the southeast property line. He stated the site plan is for the continued
use of the shool and change of use of the sanctuary portion.
Entered into
evidence:
A-2 Page 1 & 2 of submitted plan
Mr. Geller,
using the submitted plan, showed that the sports court would be at the
southeast portion of the building. It
will be 60’ X 100’. He stated in the north
area the parking lot would be restripped and reconfigured for fire lanes.
Mr. Geller
explained a use variance is needed because it is an expansion of a
nonconforming use. This is a inherently
beneficial use. There would be no
lighting. The open space would remain
in its natural state. There would be no
detrimental effects.
Attorney
Middleton stated the neighbor on lot 47 would like the buffer to continue down
to the end of the building. He stated
the school has agreed to that.
Mr. Brosnan asked
if the sanctuary meets fire code. Mr.
Gerken stated that would be the responsibility of the building department. It would have to meet code before any CO’s
were issued.
Mr. Geller
stated this expansion would have no detriment to the public. If the Board denies the application the
school would still be there. The sports
court is a positive move. Any change
would not be detrimental.
Mr. Geller
explained a bulk variance is also needed because of expansion of the
school. He stated the site operates
seven days a week now, five days a week for the school and two days a week for
the church. There is a decrease in the
use.
Mr. Geller said
the rear yard setback requirement is 75’, we are proposing 28.74’. There will be a staggered row of white pines
along the southwest section. There is a
variance required for the height of the fence.
6’ is allowed, we are proposing 10’.
The 10’ fence would be safer.
The existing building coverage is 11.4% and is there is no new building
proposed. The impervious coverage in
the R60 zone is 6%, the existing coverage is 43.1%. With the removal of the concrete base there will be a credit to
the impervious coverage.
Mr. Geller went
over John Maczuga’s letter of June 20, 2001.
He stated he has addressed II Zoning and Surrounding Land Use. Variances have also been addressed. A EIS will be submitted. VI has been addressed. VII Site Plan, #2 has been addressed. 68
parking spaces and
July 18, 2001 Page
5
three
handicapped spaces will be provided. The
parking lot will be restripped. 50 s.f.
of pavement will be removed.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked if the church still meets at the site.
Attorney Middleton said they left in December 1999.
Mr. Geller,
regarding #4 of VII Site Plan, the answer is yes. The coverage for the sports court is equal to the proposed
pavement removal. #5, No lights are
proposed. #6, We agree the lights will
be removed. #7, This has been discussed
with the engineer. There is heavy
vegetation. #8 has been addressed. #9, That will be done.
Mr. Geller went
over Mr. Gerken’s letter of July 11, 2001.
Mr. Geller stated they will comply with everything in Mr. Gerken’s
letter. Mr. Gerken said there was a TRC
and they agreed with everything.
Mr. Cinelli
asked about the Police Department report of May 1, 2001 and the Fire Prevention
report of May 15. Attorney Middleton
said they will comply with the Fire Prevention letter. Regarding the Police Department report, the
applicant does not want to comply with the recommendation of erecting a fence
at the rear and sides of the school.
Regarding a “25 MPH School Zone” sign the applicant has made requests to
the County to reduce the speed limit to 25 MPH to no avail. Regarding the buses. The school will tell the bus drivers to shut
off the buses while they are waiting to enter the school parking lot so there
are no fumes.
Virginia Kolb,
asked if enrollment would be increased.
Mr. Aquilino said no.
Ms. Megill, 1601
Woodfield, asked how many buses the school had. Mr. Aquilino said about 30.
Ms. Megill asked if they could enter in a circular motion. Mr. Aquilino said he met with the Fire
Marshall. The problem is the buses
would come in on the wrong side of the road.
Doug Megill,
Woodfield, said the children cross the street over to the buses. Mr. Aquilino said they should not do
that. There will be no children getting
on the buses on Woodfield Avenue.
Attorney Middleton stated these are not school buses, they are
vans.
Mr. Megill
stated the children run across the street to chase the balls. There should be some sort of buffering to
keep the children back. Mr. Aquilino
said that would be a hazard.
K. Megill, 1603
Woodfield, asked if the parking lot would be reduced. Attorney Middleton said yes.
Ms. Kolb, 3803
Belmar Blvd., asked if the children were supervised when getting on the
buses. Mr. Aquilino said yes.
D. Megill was
sworn. Mr. Megill said the application
is a good thing. He said it was a
positive move. He just has a few
concerns. One of the concerns is the
play area in the front. He said Wall
Township does not have a school with a play area in the front. He asked for a fence to be put in.
July 18, 2001 Page
6
Attorney
Middleton said the application is straight forward. There will be less traffic.
Most of the activities will be held in the sports court. This will enhance recreation and education
of the school.
Mr. Addonizio
moved to approve the use variance application as applied for. Mrs. DeSarno seconded the motion, which was
approved by a roll call vote. (Messrs.
Addonizio, Cinelli, Rembiszewski, Brosnan, Noorigian and Mrs. DeSarno and Mrs.
Morrissey voted yes. Mr. Grasso cannot
vote.)
Mr. Addonizio
moved to approve the site and bulk variance application with all conditions in
the Professional’s report. Mrs.
DeSarno seconded the motion, which was
approved by a roll call vote. (Messrs.
Addonizio, Cinelli, Rembiszewski, Brosnan, Noorigian and Mrs. DeSarno and Mrs.
Morrissey voted yes. Mr. Grasso cannot
vote.)
9:30 P.M.
Chairman Noorigian and Mr. Addonizio left the meeting.
9:30 P.M. the
Board recessed.
9:45 P.M. the
meeting resumed.
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.
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,
Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Timothy Middleton, Esq. appeared for the objectors.
Mrs. DeSarno
chaired the meeting.
Attorney Landis
cross examined Mr. Montenegro. Attorney
Landis asked if Mr. Montenegro purchased his property in 1985 and built his
home in 1986? Mr. Montenegro said yes.
Attorney Landis
asked what did Mr. Montenegro’s investigation regarding Sunnyside include? Mr. Montenegro said it did not appear to be
erraneous. There was not a lot of
activity.
Attorney Landis
asked if Mr. Montenegro was aware it was a nursing home? Mr. Montenegro said yes.
July 18, 2001 Page
7
Attorney Landis
stated Mr. Montenegro knew there was through traffic, garbage disposal, change
of shifts, etc. Mr. Montenegro stated
he did not know the number of employees.
There was very little activity that would impact him.
Attorney Landis
asked Mr. Montenegro if he knew a large part of property at the south side was
undeveloped and sometime Sunnyside would expand. Mr. Montenegro said he did not think that was probable.
Attorney Landis
asked about the additional windows. Mr.
Montenegro said it was his understanding from the architect that there would be
an additional 140 windows.
Attorney Landis
asked if there was a buffer between Mr. Montenegro’s property and
Sunnyside. Mr. Montenegro said no. Attorney Landis said the buffer came about
after 1994.
Attorney Landis
stated Mr. Montenegro objected to the traffic and the early deliveries. Mr. Montenegro said the ordinance states no
noise before 7:00 A.M. Mr. Montenegro
stated Mr. Keane said he would put up a sign stating no deliveries before 8:15
A.M. He said deliveries come at all
times.
Attorney Landis
said this site needs garbage pick up, food delivery and laundry service. Attorney Landis said the applicant cannot
eliminate this traffic.
Attorney Landis
asked if Mr. Montenegro thought Sunnyside was commercial. Mr. Montenegro said yes. Attorney Landis stated these people live
there full time. Mr. Montenegro said
there is a difference.
Attorney Landis
asked how much of the building would Mr. Montenegro see from his property. Mr. Montenegro said he would see a portion
of the expansion.
Entered into
evidence:
A-26 Photos
A-27 Photos
A-28 Photos
Attorney Landis
asked Mr. Montenegro to explain the photos.
Mr. Montenegro said the photos were taken from his property line.
Attorney Landis
asked if the loading dock would have a negative impact on Mr. Montenegro’s
property. Mr. Montenegro said yes. Attorney Landis asked if the elimination of
the loading dock to the garage eliminate Mr. Montenegro’s concerns. Mr. Montenegro said no. Mr. Montenegro said relocating the loading
dock to the garage area is 30’ closer to his yard. Mr. Montenegro stated the ordinance required three loading
docks. Sunnyside has only one.
A-29 Letter stating Lyons has reduced the size of
their trucks. (For identification)
Attorney Landis
had no further questions.
July 18, 2001 Page
8
Anthony Sytko,
2380 , was sworn. Mr. Sytko had concerns regarding the
additional 25 air conditioners that would be installed on the building. He said the noise study was done in
September and that is a quiet time of the year. The sound of the air conditioners will reverberate. He stated the neighbors will have a constant
dronning sound.
Deborah Gallo,
1530 Lakewood Road, was sworn. Ms.
Gallo objected to the addition. She
stated she has attended the Board meetings regarding Shop-Rite, Four Seasons, etc. There is more traffic. There is a negative impact on the
neighbors. She stated she is concerned
about the impact of the increased traffic.
She said the traffic study was done before the Shop-Rite opened. She said Wall Township has approved three other
assisted living facilities in town. She
said Wall Township does not need this.
Attorney Landis
asked Mr. Keane to explain A-29. Mr.
Keane said it is a letter to his daughter from Bill Needell. The letter is dated July 2, 2001. Mr. Keane said it is an agreement that they
will use a 22’ truck. Delivery will be
once a month. They have used 28’ – 29’
trucks in the past.
Mr. Montenegro
asked if the trucks had back up beepers.
Mr. Keane said all trucks have them.
Tom Ross, 2407
Ramshorn Drive, stated Mr. Keane
testified that they agreed to use a 22’ truck.
They will make deliveries once a month.
Will they still get the same amount of product in a 22’ truck? Mr. Keane said yes.
Mr. Rembiszewski
stated if you have a 40’ truck vs. a 20’ box truck how can you get more product
in it. He also asked if they have
proposed a different route to the location.
Mr. Keane said no. Mr. Rembiszewski
asked if there was a reason they could not come down Atlantic or Paynters vs.
Lakewood Road. Mr. Keane said he does
not control the route they use. Mr.
Rembiszewski said Mr. Keane can control the deliveries and the way they
come.
Mr. Montenegro
said the problem is the time of deliveries and the noise is a problem. He said he does not see any agreement that
these deliveries will be after 8:15 A.M.
Mr. Keane said there deliveries are around noon.
Attorney
Middleton stated Mr. Keane has no control over the time of deliveries. Mr. Keane said he has control over the times
of deliveries. He said some of the
control is by doing laundry in-house and not having delivery service. He stated things are never going to be
perfect.
Attorney
Middleton stated he would like his planner to testify again. Mr. Montenegro said he has only two
questions for the planner. Attorney
Hirsch stated it is odd to bring back a witness. Attorney Hirsch asked what the two questions were. He said it was okay as long as Attorney
Landis had no objections. Mr.
Montenegro said he was going to ask Mr. Gemma if he has read the two transcripts
of August 5, 1998 and November 4, 1998 and if his opinion has changed. Attorney Hirsch asked if the Board had any
objections. The Board had none
Mr. Gemma is
still under oath. Mr. Montenegro asked
Mr. Gemma if he read the transcripts of August 5, 1998 and November 4, 1998 and
would it modify his opinion. Mr. Gemma
said he read the transcripts and it did not change anything.
Attorney Landis
rested.
July 18, 2001 Page
9
Attorney
Middleton rested.
Mr. Montenegro
stated he had nothing else to present.
Attorney Hirsch
said the hearing is closed.
Attorney Landis
said this application is on for August 1st and August 15th.
Attorney Hirsch
said the transcripts can be ready for August 1st. The only thing left is for the August 1st
meeting is the attorney’s summation.
The Board decided that each attorney would have 20 minutes for their
summation. It was decided that attorney
summations will be on August 1st and the vote on August 15th.
Mr. Grasso said
in the past the attorney’s have submitted briefs and he has read them. He would appreciate having the brief a week
ahead of time.
Mr. Brosnan made
a motion to limit the attorney’s summation to 20 minutes. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cinelli which
was unanimously approved.
RESOLUTIONS TO BE MEMORIALIZED:
KATHLEEN &
SALVATORE TARANTO – BA#13-2001
Block 136, Lot 5 Cinelli/Grasso
JAMES R. PERRINE
– BA#14-2001
Block 270, Lot
7.01 Grasso/Brosnan
There being no
further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and
unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 P.M.
Respectfully
submitted,
Betty
Schinestuhl
Acting Recording Secretary