ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
AUGUST 15, 2001
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by
Chairman Noorigian at 7:45 P.M. Members
present were Chairman Noorigian, Vice Chairman Clayton, Mary DeSarno, Thomas
Grasso, Ralph Addonizio, Dominick Cinelli, Anthony Rembiszewski, first
alternate Mark Brosnan, Attorney Hirsch, Planning Coordinator Pam D’Andrea,
Engineer Glenn Gerken, Matt Zahorsky 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: Mrs. DeSarno moved to approve the minutes of
the Workshop and Regular Minutes of July 18, 2001. Mr. Brosnan seconded the motion which was unanimously approved.
Chairman
Noorigian said there are four applications for this evening. Chairman Noorigian said George Mueller will
not be on this evening. It will be
carried to October 17, 2001.
Chairman
Noorigian said Sunnyside will be heard first.
Chairman Noorigian stepped down for the Sunnyside application. 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, July 18, 2001 and August 1,
2001.
APPLICANT:
SUNNYSIDE MANOR, INC.
PROPERTY:
Ramshorn Drive and Lakewood Road, Block 819, Lot 16, R-30 Zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk and Use Variance
Attorney Hirsch
stated the parties concluded their summations at the last meeting. He said a legal brief was received from Mr.
Landis, Mr. Montenegro submitted a supplement to his summation and a response
from Mr. Montenegro was received.
Attorney Hirsch
stated Mr. Landis pointed out the Fair Housing Act in his brief. Attorney Hirsch explained this act. Attorney Hirsch said the records reflect
there are certain assisted living and nursing home facilities that have been
approved in Wall Township. Attorney
Hirsch listed all the facilities in Wall Township. Attorney Hirsch went over the legal criteria that needs to be
considered by the Board in weighing the evidence. He said this is a use variance application.
August 15, 2001 Page
2
There is a
non-conforming use at the site. The
facility has been expanded. The
application is applying to add assisted living to the use. Attorney Hirsch explained the moratorium on
nursing homes and assisted living facilities.
He said in 1997 legislation amended the Municipal Land Use Act. He explained the changes. Attorney Hirsch explained inherently beneficial
uses. He went over similar cases.
Mr. Grasso
stated after 3˝ years the Board has arrived at the day of decision. Mr. Grasso went over his concerns. His concerns included the additional noise,
loading zone, doubling the size of the facility, the unsafe driveway, parking
deficiencies, traffic, buffering, conformity, the structure will look out of
place, commercial activity, potential failure.
He said Wall Township is saturated with assisted living facilities. He said this is a self-imposed hardship. The
owner sold off land. He created the
deficiency. There has been conflicting
testimony. He said in his formal motion
to deny the application he is relying on all the testimony given to this
Board. He said the applicant has not
proven his case by the definition of
the standards required by New Jersey Municipal Land Use law. The negative aspects are out weighed by the
public good. He said the negative
aspects substantially out weigh any public benefit.
Mr. Grasso moved
to deny the application.
Mr. Brosnan
stated his concerns regarding traffic, doubling the population density,
doubling vehicle traffic, inadequate parking, inadequate and unsafe site
access, inadequate buffering between neighbors.
Mr. Brosnan
seconded the motion which was unanimously approved by a roll call vote. (Messrs. Grasso, Brosnan, Addonizio,
Cinelli, Rembiszewski, Clayton and Mrs. DeSarno voted yes.)
Mr. Addonizio
went over his concerns. He said
Sunnyside has not been an ideal neighbor.
It is not consistent with the neighborhood. It is not in the best interest of Wall Township or the neighbors.
Mr. Cinelli said
this application creates a significant negative impact. He went over his concerns including traffic
and noise.
Mrs. DeSarno
said the negative aspects far out weigh the positive.
Mr. Clayton
echoed his fellow Board members. He
said the property is not zoned for this use.
It exceeds the impervious coverage, there are buffering deficiencies,
parking deficiencies. He has concerns
regarding real estate values. There
will be additional noise and light pollution from the site. The project is too over whelming.
There are seven
yeas and no nays. The application has
been denied.
Chairman
Noorigian returned to the meeting.
CASE
#BA18-2001: Date application complete: May 17, 2001
August 15, 2001 Page
3
APPLICANT:
CHRISTOPHER AND BERNADETTE WILCOX
PROPERTY:
2819 Concord Drive, Block 804, Lot 36, R-40 Zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Timothy B.
Middleton, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney
Middleton said the property is owned by the applicant. This lot was included in a previously
approved subdivision. There was a
change in zoning regarding lot width.
The lot width is deficient by approximately 3˝”. It is located in the R-40 zone. The lot is 78,000+ s.f. It is double the size required in the zone.
Sworn by
Reporter Kane: Christopher Wilcox
Mr. Wilcox
stated he is the owner of the property.
He has owned the property for the last year. It is located in the R-40 zone.
The lot width is 146.46’. The
lot widens as it goes to the rear. The
lot is twice the size required. He is
proposing to construct a house on the property similar to those in the
vicinity. They are upscale homes.
Attorney Hirsch
said the Board Engineer’s letter of August 9, 2001 states any approval by the
Board should be conditioned upon the property being developed in accordance
with the approved major subdivision plans.
Mr. Wilcox said that is not a problem.
Mr. Clayton
asked if the site meets the square footage for the property area. Mr. Wilcox said yes.
Mr. Clayton
asked if the site meets the rear and side yard setbacks. Mr. Wilcox said yes.
Attorney
Middleton explained the property is pie shaped.
Mr. Clayton
asked if the site is deficient by only 3˝’. Mr. Wilcox said yes.
Chairman
Noorigian asked if there were any questions or statements from the public. There were none.
Mrs. DeSarno
moved to approve the application as applied for. Mr. Clayton seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by
a roll call vote. (Messrs. Clayton,
Grasso, Addonizio, Rembiszewski, Brosnan, Noorigian and Mrs. DeSarno voted
yes.)
Chairman
Noorigian said the application is approved and the Resolution will be read at
the next meeting.
CASE
#17-2001: Date application complete: May 22, 2001
August 15, 2001 Page
4
APPLICANT:
MICHAEL AND KAREN DONAHUE
PROPERTY:
1618 Woodfield Avenue, Block 755, Lot 46, R-60 Zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk variance
Timothy B.
Middleton, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Attorney
Middleton stated this is an undersized lot.
It is located at 1618 Woodfield Avenue.
It is between Belmar Boulevard and Allenwood Road. It is 51,000+ s.f. The site does contain some wetlands. There has been some delineation done by ESP Associates. Mr. Zahorsky has reviewed that
information. Mr. Petersen, Architect,
is here this evening to testify.
Attorney Middleton said two variances are required. A variance for lot width and lot area are
required.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Architectural Plans (3 pages) prepared by
T. Petersen Architect
A-2 Transition Area Waiver Plans prepared by
ESP Associates dated July 25, 2000
Mr. Petersen
gave his qualifications which were accepted by the Board.
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. Petersen to describe the architectural plans. Mr. Petersen said these are preliminary
plans. The house will be similar to the
other homes in the area. Mr. Petersen
said he would call it a country farmhouse.
It will be a traditional home.
The house will be positioned on the property in compliance with all the
setbacks. Lot coverage and building
height also comply. The house will be
in keeping with the other homes in the area.
It will be approximately 4,000 s.f.
Mr. Petersen said the size of the house may be reduced.
Attorney
Middleton asked if Mr. Petersen worked with the engineer regarding
wetlands. Mr. Petersen said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if the location of the house was in conformity with the permits
issued by the DEP. Mr. Petersen said
yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. Petersen to go over the elevation. Mr. Petersen said the front faces Woodfield
Avenue. There is a covered porch area
proposed. In the rear there is a small
covered patio proposed. The family room
sticks out from the balance of the house.
Mr. Grasso asked
what special care was implemented where there is such a large amount of
wetlands. Mr. Petersen said the
engineer gave them a number of recommendations on how to deal with the
runoff. He said there are also certain
buffers required by the State.
Mr. Grasso asked
what type of foundation is proposed.
Mr. Petersen said a simple spread footing with concrete block
foundation. He said this is not a flood
zone. There will not be a basement.
August 15, 2001 Page
5
Mr. Grasso
commented on how wet the area gets. He
cautioned the applicant to take all precautions possible.
Mr. Grasso asked
if there were any problems regarding the driveway because of the wetlands. Mr. Petersen said no, there are some
drainage and runoff issues that must be taken care of. He said nothing precludes them from putting
the driveway in one spot or another. He
said they intend to comply with all the requirements in the engineer’s review
letter. The driveway will exit onto
Woodfield Avenue. He said there are
some drainage issues that will have to be taken care of with the final grading.
Mr. Brosnan
asked Mr. Zahorsky if the saw any need for surcharge process that is utilized
at times to compact the marshlands. Mr.
Zahorsky said it may be possible. He
said the applicant did not provide any soil boring information or high water
table information. Mr. Zahorsky said
his review letter suggests that they provide his office with this
information. He said it would be up to
the architect and the applicant’s engineer to decide the bearing capacity of
whatever soil the foundation is going to lay on.
Mr. Brosnan said
he concurs with Mr. Grasso that the applicant should be fully aware of what the
soil conditions are in that area.
Mr. Clayton
stated this site is not in a flood zone but a wetland. Attorney Middleton said part of the property
is in an area designated as wetlands.
The wetlands were delineated before the application was filed. He said a permit from DEP was obtained to
construct in that area. He said they
are not going to build in any area that is wet. The transition area was explained by Attorney Middleton. He said they cannot construct a house in any
area that has not been approved by the DEP.
Mr. Zahorsky said the required buffer would be the 50’ which runs
through the proposed dwelling. He said
the applicant proposed to reduce the buffer in that area and increase the
buffer area in the rear. He said they
are just moving the buffer from one area to another.
Mr. Clayton
asked why couldn’t the house be moved out of the transition area. Mr. Petersen it could have been but the
whole part of the tradeoff was so the house would not have to be a narrow house
on a 150’ lot. The DEP allowed the
tradeoff. The DEP has approved the
plans as submitted.
Mr. Clayton
asked if there was going to be a lot of fill.
Mr. Petersen said not a significant amount. Mr. Petersen said Mr. Zahorsky is requiring a grading and plot
plan. He would make sure the grading
and drainage is adequate.
Mr. Clayton
asked if there was going to be any detention or retention area. Mr. Petersen said it would be a normal
residential lot.
Mr. Clayton
asked about putting money in escrow because of the drainage. Mr. Petersen said there will be minimal
drainage because of the house. The
sheet flow will allow the drainage to
run across the
front of the property. Mr. Zahorsky
said the applicant may consider putting a drainage pipe under the driveway so
that would allow the drainage to continue down the front of the driveway. The applicant agreed.
August 15, 2001 Page
6
Mr. Zahorsky
said he did a site inspection and there is a 6’ pipe connecting the two wetland
areas.
Mr. Grasso asked
Mr. Zahorsky if wetlands have the ability to grow. Mr. Zahorsky said if maintained property they will not grow. He said he does not see the wetlands growing
on this property.
Mr. Rembiszewski
asked if a permit for a ROW is necessary.
Mr. Petersen said the ROW is pretty uniform. It would not be required.
Mr. Clayton
asked if the driveway was going to be stone.
Attorney Middleton said Mr. Donahue will testify to that.
Sworn by
Reporter Kane: Michael Donahue
Mr. Donahue said
he is the applicant. He has a contract
to purchase the property. He is
proposing to build a house on this site.
He will move into the house. If
approved he plans on starting construction in October.
Attorney
Middleton said he sent letters to the adjoining property owners regarding
purchasing this property or selling a portion of theirs.
Mr. Zahorsky
said there is no water service available on this site. Water will be extended but not at this
time. Attorney Middleton said they
would put in a well with Board of Health approval.
Mr. Clayton
asked if they would hook up to sewers or have a septic tank. Mr. Donahue said they would be hooked up to
sewers.
There were no
questions or statements from the public.
Attorney
Middleton said he had three letters to adjoining neighbors indicating the lot
would be available. He did not get a
response to any of the letters.
Entered into
evidence:
A-3 Letter to surrounding property owner
A-4 Letter to surrounding property owner
A-5 Letter to surrounding property owner
Attorney Middleton
said Lot 18 is 16 acres. He contacted
that owner. They were not interested in
selling or buying any property.
Attorney
Middleton said Lot 30 was contacted to purchase our property. They did not have sufficient property to
sell. That lot is 1.5 acres. The house is fairly close to the side yard
setback. The lot on Belmar Boulevard is
not contiguous. It would not solve the
lot width issue.
August 15, 2001 Page
7
Attorney Hirsch
suggested when the Board votes on this that it would be contingent on providing
an answer from the property owners of Lot 13 regarding the selling of their
property or purchasing of this property.
Mr. Clayton
asked if there were other properties in the area that are deficient. Attorney Middleton said yes there are
several in this area that are deficient.
Attorney Middleton listed the properties.
There were not
questions or comments from the public.
Mr. Brosnan
moved to approve the application subject to Attorney Hirsch’s suggestion and
compliance with the Board Engineer’s report.
Mr. Clayton seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by a
roll call vote. (Messrs. Brosnan,
Clayton, Grasso, Addonizio, Rembiszewski, Noorigian and Mrs. DeSarno voted
yes.)
Chairman
Noorigian said the Resolution will be read at the next meeting.
There being no
further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and
unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting.
Respectfully
submitted,
Betty
Schinestuhl
Acting Recording Secretary