ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 4, 2002
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by
Chairman Clayton at 7:35 P.M. Members
present were Chairman Clayton, Mary DeSarno, Anthony Rembiszewski, Dominick
Cinelli, Wilma Morrissey, second alternate James Gray, Attorney Hirsch,
Planning Coordinator Roberta Lang, Recording Secretary Betty Schinestuhl,
Engineer Gerken, Planner Bergailo and Court Reporter Arnone.
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 Clayton
announced there are three applications on the agenda for this evening.
CASE #BA22-2002
– Date application
complete: May 28, 2002
APPLICANT: JAMES
& DOROTHY SMITH
PROPERTY: 1600
Tiltons Corner Road, Block 805.01, Lot 68, R-30 zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Use variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: James
Smith
Mr. Smith
explained he would like to construct a deck at the rear of his home. It would be a maximum of 16’ X 27’. He would also like to construct a storage
shed. It would be a maximum of 180
s.f. He said his property is 2.16
acres. The nearest property line is 37’
from the deck. He said the deck would
not be seen by the neighbors because of shrubs and buffering. He said the property on one side belongs to
the Township. It is landlocked. It is open space. The house to the north is approximately 700’ from his property
line. The house to the west is
approximately 60’ from his property line.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Photo taken from the street down his
driveway
A-2 Photo taken from the rear towards where
the deck will be
A-3 Photo same as A-2
A-4 Photo taken from the north
A-5 Photo taken from the west
A-6 Photo taken from the east
September 4,
2002 Page
2
Attorney Hirsch
asked if the proposed shed is going to be 180 s.f. Mr. Smith said that would be the maximum. It would probably be 10’ X 12’. Attorney Hirsch asked if the shed would be
setback so it could not be seen by the neighbors or from the road. Mr. Smith said you will not be able to see
the shed from the street. He said it
will conform to all setback regulations.
Attorney Hirsch
asked about the two homes on the property.
Mr. Smith said he purchased the property in 1974. Mr. Smith said the newer house was built in
the 1950’s. The bungalow was built
earlier. Attorney Hirsch asked for the
size of the two homes. Mr. Smith said
the bungalow is 700 s.f. and the main house is 1500 s.f. Attorney Hirsch asked if the bungalow was
rented out. Mr. Smith said yes. Attorney Hirsch asked if it was rented out
year round. Mr. Smith said yes.
Attorney Hirsch
asked Ms. Bergailo if the property could be subdivided. Ms. Bergailo said even though it is over two
acres if subdivided it would be insufficient.
It is a long and narrow piece of property. It would require a number of variances.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked what material the shed would be built with. Mr. Smith said he does not have any specific plans. He was just going to buy one. He said it will conform to all township
regulations.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked what would be kept in the shed.
Mr. Smith said lawn equipment, snow removal equipment.
Chairman Clayton
asked how close is the neighbor’s house to the road. Mr. Smith said they are both closer to the road. He said his house is L-shaped. The deck would be in the L.
Mr. Gerken asked
for the size of the deck. Mr. Smith
said the maximum size would be 16’ X 27’.
The application
was open and closed to the public.
Mr. Rembiszewski
moved to approve the application. Mrs.
Morrissey seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by a roll call
vote. (Mr. Rembiszewski, Mrs.
Morrissey, Messrs. Gray, Cinelli, Mrs. DeSarno and Mr. Clayton voted yes.)
CASE #BA26-2002 – Date application complete: July 3, 2002
APPLICANT: VINCENT & MARGARET MARRON
PROPERTY:
2203 Christie Lane,
Block 283, Lot 18, R-30 zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk Variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: Vincent Marron
September 4,
2002 Page
3
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Photo taken from upstairs window from left
to right showing fence
A-2 Photo taken from deck showing fence
A-3 Photo taken from across the yard showing
where the fence would have to go if moved
A-4 Photo taken from other side of pool
showing fence
Mr. Marron said
the original permit had the pool running parallel. He stated it took up too much of his yard. He said they moved it closer to the property
line. He said he would have to move the
fence in. He stated it would go through
his basketball court. He said he does
not feel there is a safety issue. Mr.
Marron said the fence is 105’ from the middle of the pool to the fence in one
place and 119’ in another.
Mr. Gerken said
it should be measured from the corner of the pool not the middle. He said it is only 10’ in violation. Attorney Hirsch asked Mr. Gerken what
percentage is in violation. Mr. Gerken
said approximately 20%. He said he does
not have any concerns or problems with this.
Chairman Clayton
asked if the fence was metal. Mr.
Marron said it is aluminum.
Mrs. Morrissey
said there is a 4’ wood fence on the left of the property. She asked who that fence belonged to. Mr. Marron said it is his neighbor’s fence.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked what is behind the Marron property.
Mr. Marron said a lot of bamboo and Waterview Gardens.
The application
was open and closed to the public.
Mrs. Morrissey
moved to approve the application. Mr.
Cinelli seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by a roll call
vote. (Mrs. Morrissey, Messrs. Cinelli,
Gray, Rembiszewski, Mrs. DeSarno and Mr. Clayton voted yes.)
CASE #BA19-2002 – Date application complete: May 3, 2002
APPLICANT: STEPHEN KAMUDA
PROPERTY: 1606 “L” Street, Block 19, Lot 13.01,
R-7.5 zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk Variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: Stephen Kamuda
William
Eckert
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Photo of shed
September 4, 2002 Page
4
A-2 Photo of fire
A-3 Photo of shed and where deck is located
A-4 Photo of where hot water heater and
furnace is located
A-5 Same as A-4
A-6 Letter confirming there was a fire
Mr. Eckert
explained he is proposing to put a 10’ X 36’ addition on the side of his
house. He is proposing to put in a
basement so he can move his furnace and hot water heater there. He said it is located in the shed now.
Mr. Gerken asked
if the house was formerly a bungalow.
Mr. Eckert said he believed so.
He said he has lived there for seven years.
Chairman Clayton
asked how far from the property line is the neighbor’s house in the rear. Mr. Eckert said approximately 200’. He said their garage is closer. He said the garage is about 40’ from his
property line.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if there was heavy buffering between the structures. Mr. Eckert said there are lot of trees and
bushes. There is also a fence. Attorney Hirsch asked whose property the
buffering was on. Mr. Eckert said it
was on the neighbor’s property. He said
the fence is his. He said it is a 6’
stockade fence.
Chairman Clayton
asked how far the neighbor’s house is from the property line on the left. Mr. Eckert said at least 40’.
Chairman Clayton
asked about the proposed pool. Mr.
Eckert said the pool is existing. It is
located in the corner of the property.
It is 5’ from the property line.
Chairman Clayton
asked how far from the property line are the neighbor’s on the side of the
pool. Mr. Eckert said about 35’.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if they are going to add additional buffering to shield the pool. Mr. Eckert said the stockade fence goes all
the way around the property. He said he
would plant white pines.
Attorney Hirsch
asked about the height of the pool. Mr.
Eckert said it is 50”. Attorney Hirsch
asked if it goes over the fence. Mr.
Eckert said no.
Mr. Gray asked
what is going in the addition. Mr.
Eckert said they are planning to add a dining room, half bath and expand the
kitchen.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked Mr. Eckert if he planned on purchasing the property. Mr. Eckert said someday.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if he had heard any objections from the neighbors. Mr. Eckert said no.
September 4,
2002 Page
5
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if there were any drainage issues.
Mr. Eckert said the drainage will go out to the street.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if there is going to be additional landscaping. Mr. Eckert said yes.
Attorney Hirsch
asked Mr. Gerken if the impervious coverage variance needed is due to the long
driveway. Mr. Gerken said that is a big
part. Mr. Gerken said they are
proposing an impervious coverage of 52% where 40% is allowed. Two-thirds of the impervious coverage is
taken up by the driveway. Mr. Gerken
said when the applicant applies for a building permit a plot plan and grading
plan will be required.
Chairman Clayton
asked if one shed will be removed. Mr.
Eckert said yes.
Chairman Clayton
asked what the highest point of the addition would be. Mr. Eckert said 16’ at the highest point and
it will slope in the rear to approximately 10’.
The application
was open and closed to the public,
Mrs. DeSarno
moved to approve the application. Mr.
Rembiszewski seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by a roll call
vote. (Mrs. DeSarno, Mr. Rembiszewski,
Mrs. Morrissey, Messrs. Gray, Cinelli and Clayton 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 8:30 P.M.
Respectfully
submitted,
Betty Schinestuhl
Recording Secretary