ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
AUGUST 1, 2001
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by
Chairman Noorigian at 7:35 P.M. Members
present were Chairman Noorigian, Michael Clayton, Thomas Grasso, 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 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 stated there are five cases listed for this evening. Two will be carried. The Plasti-Clad application will be carried
to September 5, 2001. They are to
re-notice. The Meccia application will
also be carried to September 5, 2001.
Attorney Hirsch reviewed the Meccia file and stated the Board had
jurisdiction to proceed. They do not
have to re-notice.
CASE #BA20-2001 Date application complete: May 16, 2001
APPLICANT: JOSEPH M. GISOLDI
PROPERTY:
2416 Algonkin Trail, Block 318, Lots 1, 2 and 3, R 7.5 zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk Variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Sworn by
Reporter Lofreddo: Joseph M. Gisoldi
Mr. Gisoldi
explained he is proposing to add a two story addition to an existing single
family dwelling. Attorney Hirsch asked
what was next to his property. Mr.
Gisoldi explained there is a home there.
Mr. Gisoldi explained his garage is not attached to the house. He is proposing to connect the home to the
detached garage. The garage will remain
a garage. Attorney Hirsch asked how far
is the garage from the side setback.
Mr. Gisoldi said he did not know.
He said approximately 10’ – 15’.
Mr. Gerken stated if the garage is detached the side setback required
is 5’.
If it is attached a 7.5’ setback is required. Mr. Gerken also stated one corner of the garage conforms, the
other corner does not because of the lot line.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Photo of home
A-2 Elevation
Mr. Cinelli
asked for the s.f. of the addition. Mr.
Gisoldi said he does not know the actual s.f.
August 1, 2001 Page
2
Mr. Brosnan
asked how many homes in the neighborhood have second stories. Mr. Gisoldi said there are some homes in the
neighborhood that have the same addition.
Mr. Clayton
asked if there were other homes in the neighborhood with similar setbacks. Mr. Gisoldi said yes.
Mr. Clayton
asked if there would be any changes to the garage. Mr. Gisoldi said no.
There will be no living space above the garage.
The application
was opened and closed to the public.
Mr. Clayton
moved to approve the application as applied for. Mr. Grasso seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call
vote. (Messrs. Clayton, Grasso,
Cinelli, Rembiszewski, Brosnan, Noorigian and Mrs. DeSarno voted yes.)
RESOLUTION TO BE MEMORIALIZED:
Block 755, Lot
29 DeSarno/Rembiszewski
Case #BA5-2001: Date application complete: March 8,
2001. Carried from April 4, 2001 and
June 20, 2001.
APPLICANT: KIM AND KATHLEEN KAMARIS
PROPERTY: 807 Pine Road, Brielle, Block 4, Lots 23
and 24, R-7.5 zone.
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk variance
Mr. Kamaris,
still under oath, stated he has made revisions to the plans. He said they applied for a variance for a
garage 3’ from the property line. He
will add a mud room instead of a garage.
The only variances needed are for lot coverage and building
coverage.
Entered into
evidence:
A-9 Copy of site plan and elevation
Mr. Kamaris
explained A-9. He said he now conforms
with the 7.5’ side setback. The rest of
the application stands as before. He
will add a front porch and a second floor across the front of the house. The porch will have a roof.
Attorney Hirsch
asked for the s.f. as it exists now.
Mr. Kamaris said 2400 – 2500 s.f.
He said that includes everything even the basement. Mr. Gerken said the basement should not be
added in the s.f..
Attorney Hirsch
asked for the size of the porch. Mr.
Kamaris said 22’ X 9’.
August 1, 2001 Page
3
Attorney Hirsch
asked what other structures were on site making up building coverage. Mr. Kamaris said there is a pool, shed and a
driveway. The shed is 8’ X 8’. The pool is 28’ X 14’ inground. There is 3’ concrete around the pool.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if there was a home to the right.
Mr. Kamaris said yes. Attorney
Hirsch asked if the setback of that home is the same as Mr. Kamaris’. Mr. Kamaris said he is not sure. It is 11’+ from the property line. The neighboring home is one story.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if that home had a pool and garage.
Mr. Kamaris said it has a two car detached garage and a pool. He said that lot is 100’ X 100’. It is larger than his. Attorney Hirsch asked where the garage was
located on the neighbor’s property. Mr.
Kamaris said on the rear of the property along the property line. He said it lines up next to his shed. Mr. Kamaris said the driveways are right
next to each other.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if there was a home on the opposite side. Mr. Kamaris said yes. That
house is approximately 7’ from the property line. Attorney Hirsch asked if that lot was larger than Mr.
Kamaris’. Mr. Kamaris said it was the
same size. The house is one story. It is closer to the street. Attorney Hirsch asked for the size of Mr. Kamaris’
lot. Mr. Kamaris said 50’ X 100’. He said his house is 11’ 8” from the
Cramer’s property. Attorney Hirsch
asked about buffering. Mr. Kamaris said
there is a fence around the property on the property line. It goes around the house and stops just
before the front of the house.
Mr. Grasso asked
Mr. Gerken what the ordinance is regarding the pool and fence. Mr. Gerken said a 4’ fence is required with
a certain type of latch.
Mr. Grasso asked
if Mr. Kamaris intends to remove the shed.
Mr. Kamaris said no.
Mr. Clayton
asked what the building coverage was.
Mr. Kamaris said the existing building coverage is 24%. It would go to 26.5%. He said he needs a variance for 1.5% of
coverage. The lot coverage is
approximately 27%. Mr. Gerken said by
his calculations the building coverage is about 27%. Mr. Clayton asked if this coverage includes everything. Mr. Kamaris said yes.
Mr. Rembiszewski
asked if the fence had to be approved.
Mr. Gerken said before they give a CO for the pool it must be inspected. They will not issue a CO if the fence is not
in place. There is no issue this
evening regarding the fence.
Mrs. Kamaris
said the existing fence is going to be replaced. It will be replaced with another 6’ fence.
Diana Anderson,
Esq. appeared for the objector.
Attorney
Anderson asked if this was a new application.
She stated the new survey does not have all the structures on it. Attorney Hirsch said the applicant has
indicated that instead of a garage he is proposing a mud room. Attorney Anderson said the survey is missing
the existing shed. That would add to
the impervious coverage.
Attorney
Anderson asked what is the size of the proposed porch. Mr. Kamaris said 5’ X 28.4”. She asked the
size of the shed. Mr. Kamaris said 8’ X
8’. Attorney Anderson asked if the shed
August 1, 2001 Page
4
was going to be
removed. Mr. Kamaris said if the
variance for the garage was approved he was going to remove the shed.
Attorney
Anderson asked who prepared the exhibits.
Mr. Kamaris said his architect.
He said he was told all he needed were sketches.
Attorney
Anderson said the Cramer’s garage is 3’ from the property line. She asked if that was there when Mr. Kamaris
moved in. Mr. Kamaris said yes.
Attorney
Anderson asked if there was any problem with drainage. Mr. Kamaris said no. Attorney Anderson asked if there are any
water problems or flooding problems.
Mr. Kamaris said he knows of no water or flooding problems.
Mr. Gerken said
the building coverage is 28.8%.
Sworn by
Reporter Lofreddo: Lorett
Cramer
Ms. Cramer
stated she owns the property to the right of Mr. Kamaris.
Attorney
Anderson said they have some photos to show the Board. Ms. Cramer said they are photos of homes on
the street.
Entered into
evidence:
OC-1 Cramer/Kamaris house – relationship of the
two houses
OC-2 Homes on Pine Road with lot sizes
OC-3 Photos taken since the last meeting
Attorney
Anderson asked Ms. Cramer how long she has owned her home. Ms. Cramer said since 1978. Attorney Anderson asked if there was a home
to the left. Ms. Cramer said yes. Attorney Anderson asked Ms. Cramer to
describe that home. Ms. Cramer said it
was a two bedroom, one bath bungalow.
It was approximately 780 s.f.
Attorney Anderson asked how big is that home now. Ms. Cramer said it is 2½ times the original size. Ms. Cramer said the property is small. She said the backyard has a pool, an
addition and a shed now. There has been
removal of trees and grass. There is no
buffer. She said she can hear
everything that goes on in the Kamaris’ home.
She said her wood siding is being destroyed. She also stated there is no air flow. She cannot open the windows on that side of her house. She said there is no privacy.
Attorney
Anderson asked if the proposed addition would increase the adverse effect on
Ms. Cramer’s property. Ms. Cramer said
yes. Their property is developed from
wall to wall.
Ms. Cramer said
the only backyard space is taken up by the pool. The kids play in the street because there is no space on their
lot.
Attorney
Anderson asked about traffic hazards.
Ms. Cramer said when they back out of their driveway they have to be
very careful. She said the children
playing in the street is a great concern.
August 1, 2001 Page
5
Attorney Anderson
asked if the Kamaris house is in keeping with the neighborhood. Ms. Cramer said there are 16 houses on the
street. There are only two other homes
with a second story. They are on larger
lots.
Attorney
Anderson said the Kamaris’ have amended the application. Ms. Cramer said all the additions on that
home have been done by the Kamaris’.
Attorney
Anderson asked if there were any drainage problems. Ms. Cramer said the water that comes from their driveway settles
in front of her house. Attorney
Anderson asked if any of the other neighbors have problems. Ms. Cramer said there are a number of homes
that need sump pumps.
Mr. Cinelli
asked if there were any two bedroom bungalows still existing on the
street. Ms. Cramer said there are still
a few on Pine Road.
Mr. Cinelli said
the 7.5’ side yard setback has not been disturbed. The Kamaris’ have not encroached on the property line.
Mrs. Kamaris
asked Ms. Cramer if she just put in a concrete driveway. Mrs. Kamaris said if Ms. Cramer was so concerned
why did she put in a concrete driveway.
Ms. Cramer said her property does not have an impervious coverage
problem.
Mrs. Kamaris
asked why the proposed addition was such a concern. Ms. Cramer said because of the height. There is also no sound absorbing buffer. The standing water is also a problem.
Mrs. Kamaris
asked if her children were the only ones playing in the street. Ms. Cramer said there is one other family
that plays in the street..
Mrs. DeSarno
asked about Item OC3. Ms. Cramer stated
that is Mr. Kamaris’ property. It shows
the lack of grass and trees.
Mr. Clayton
asked if Ms. Cramer was saying that the flooding property was caused by Mr.
Kamaris’ property. Ms. Cramer said
anytime a property owner has more than 50% impervious coverage it is a
concern. She said it is not caused by
them alone but they contribute to the problem.
Mr. Gerken
stated where the addition is proposed there is already a concrete
driveway. They are not adding anymore
impervious coverage. He said the building
coverage, including the shed, would be 30.1% and the impervious coverage would
be 43.2%. If you add the pool the total
would be 51%. Mr. Kamaris said the
addition will be where the concrete driveway is.
Mr. Kamaris said
the coverage is less than the original plan because he is not adding a garage
he is just adding a mud room.
Mr. Grasso asked
how old the driveway is. Mr. Kamaris
said 8 – 9 years old. Mr. Grasso asked
if the driveway is in its original state.
Mr. Kamaris said it used to be gravel.
It is the same size. Mr. Grasso
asked how far apart are the two driveways.
Mr. Kamaris said they have always be side by side.
August 1, 2001 Page
6
Mr. Grasso said
there would be no problems if these homes were built by today’s ordinances.
He said the
Kamaris’ driveway looks like a double driveway. Mr. Kamaris said it is not.
He said he squeezes two cars on it.
Mr. Grasso asked
if he could reduce some of the driveway.
Mr. Kamaris said anything is possible.
9:20 P.M. Mr.
Addonizio joined the Board
Mr. Kamaris said
there is a small strip between the Cramer’s driveway and his. He said he would be willing to plant some
shrubs there. Mr. Kamaris also stated
there has never been a drainage problem on his side of the street.
Mr. Grasso said
he would like to see a reduction in the width of the driveway so there is a
separation of property. There is a lack
of greenery and a lack of shrubbery.
Mr. Clayton
asked if there could be any plantings between the two houses. He said trees and
shrubs soak up a lot of water.
Mr. Cinelli
asked if there was room to plant some trees.
Mr. Kamaris said yes. Mr.
Cinelli recommended avervidies trees as a condition. Mr. Kamaris said he would plant them along the property
line.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked for the width of the driveway.
Mr. Kamaris said it is 12’ wide.
9:30 P.M. the
Board recessed.
9:45 P.M. the
meeting resumed.
Edith Stanford,
803 Pine Road, was sworn. Ms. Stanford
stated she has lived on Pine Road for 43 years. She said she has never experienced any flooding problems.
Ted Finkenauer,
804 Pine Road, was sworn. Mr.
Finkenauer said Robert Swamp Brook is behind his home and he has never
experienced any flooding.
Ann Yerks,
Lenape Trail, was sworn. Ms. Yerks
stated all children play in the road.
She lives around the corner and she brings her children over to Pine
Road to ride their bikes.
Ms. Anderson
explained how this application came before the Board. She said the property is
on the Wall-Brielle border but is physically in Wall Township. The property is 50’ X 100’. The home has more than doubled in size. This was done under Brielle ordinances not
Wall Township ordinances. She stated
this property is already over built. It
impacts the Cramer property and she asked the Board to deny this
application. She also stated there are
discrepancies in this application.
Mr. Clayton
moved to approve the application with the condition of the planting of 6’
avervidies from the front going to the shed.
Mr. Cinelli seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call
vote. (Messrs. Clayton, Cinelli,
Grasso, Rembiszewski, Noorigian and Mrs. DeSarno voted yes.)
August 1, 2001 Page
7
10:05 P.M.
Chairman Noorigian left the meeting.
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, May 2,
2001, May 16, 2001, June 6, 2001 and July 18, 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.
Nicholas Montenegro, Esq. appeared for the objectors.
Attorney Landis
stated the residents that live at Sunnyside are just as much residents of the
area as the neighbors. Sunnyside has
been there for 82 years, since 1919. It
blends in with the neighborhood. It is
not something new coming in from the outside.
It is inherently beneficial.
There is a lot of impervious coverage because of the large
driveway. The driveway can be made
smaller to meet the impervious coverage requirement. He said that reducing the driveway is not a good idea. The noise, because of the air conditioners,
will be within the decimal allowed by ordinance. It is a tranquil setting.
The nature of the use will be the same.
The property values will not decrease because of the addition. There will be 75 windows not 140. Three loading docks are permitted. The applicant requested only one. The addition would not increase the
traffic. The size of the trucks can be
limited. The Board can impose
conditions. Tarten no longer services
the property. They have in-house
laundry. The pros of this application
out way the negative. The applicant has
made a effort to try and control the delivery times. As far as an assisted living not belonging in a residential zone,
Sunrise is in a residential zone. All
applications are different. The people
who live at Sunnyside are just as much residents as the other neighbors.
Attorney
Montenegro stated Sunnyside is tranquil as a nursing home. Assisted living is a different type of
use. He stated there was a 53’ tractor
trailer there today. The residents have
a right to live there. We are not
saying they have to leave. The issue is
65 new beds. This case is about
money. There is the problem of a 3’
buffer where 75’ is required. There is
a problem with tractor trailers making deliveries at 5:30 A.M. They make noise. There is a parking problem.
There are 24 deliveries a week, 112 a month. There is a danger with the loading area. The tractor trailers going in the rear have
to back up. The lighting is a
problem. The building would be 465’
long. It would have three levels. There will be 25 air conditioners on the
roof. There will be 145 windows. There is commercial laundry in
operation. That is not residential in
nature. This would be a negative impact
on the neighbors. This property was
once much larger. It is now 6.3
acres. This is a R-30 zone. In December 2000 there was parking on both
sides of the driveway. In 1994 I asked
the applicant to put in a buffer. He
refused. The buffer was
inadequate. He has just done it in
April of this year.
August 1, 2001 Page
8
He cannot
control the deliveries now. They will
increase. There is not enough parking
when there are parties. He does 1½ tons
of laundry a week. That is another
commercial use in the R-30 zone. The
traffic expert testified on the traffic before Four Seasons and Shop-Rite.
Attorney Hirsch
explained that Attorney Middleton had a family emergency. He advised the Board to proceed. He had no objection to the Board concluding
tonight.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if the Board had to disregard the testimony of the landscape
architect. Attorney Hirsch stated there
were no objections at the time of his testimony. He does not have a problem with his testimony.
Attorney
Montenegro added that Sunnyside is short 25 parking spaces. They are short parking.
Vice Chairman
Clayton said the Board will vote on this application on August 15, 2001.
There being no
further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and
unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 10:50 P.M.
Respectfully
submitted,
Betty
Schinestuhl
Acting Recording Secretary