ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
SEPTEMBER 19, 2001
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by
Chairman Noorigian at 7:50 P.M. Members
present were Chairman Noorigian, Vice Chairman Clayton, Mary DeSarno, Thomas
Grasso, Ralph Addonizio, second alternate Wilma Morrissey, Attorney Hirsch,
Recording Secretary Betty Schinestuhl, Planning Coordinator Pam D’Andrea,
Engineer Matt Zahorsky, John Maczuga and 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
Noorigian announced the application for Christopher Stephen Enterprises has
been rescheduled for November 7, 2001.
They will have to renotice.
Mr. Grasso
requested a transcript of the previous Christopher Stephen Enterprises
hearing. He said he would like the
transcript a few weeks before the scheduled date.
CASE #BA21a-2001 Date application complete July 16, 2001
APPLICANT: ANISH PATEL
PROPERTY:
1998 Highway 34 and Allaire Road, Block 03, Lot 18, OB-120 Zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Timothy B.
Middleton, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney
Middleton explained the applicant is requesting permission to build a shed at
the existing Exxon Station. The station
has been there for many years. The
applicant would like to locate the shed behind the structure, behind the trash
enclosure. The rear setback required is
50’, 13.5’ is provided. The golf course
is behind the gas station. Building
this shed would help clean up the front of the station.
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone; Amish
Patel
Mr. Patel is the
owner of the Exxon station. He has owned the gas station for 14
months. The gas station is located at
the Allenwood Circle. Mr. Patel would
like to build a 12’ X 10’ shed.
Entered into
evidence:
September 19,
2001 Page
2
A-1 Photo of shed
Attorney Hirsch
asked what the shed would be made of.
Attorney Middleton said cedar.
Attorney
Middleton asked if Mr. Patel would store things that are now stored outside in the
shed. Mr. Patel said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. Patel to explain what was stored outside. Mr. Patel said soft drink cases, water
cases, oil cases, etc. He said he wants
to put all those things in the shed.
They are outside in front of the masonry building now.
Attorney
Middleton asked what else would be stored in the shed. Mr. Patel said brooms and shovels for winter
time.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if the shed would extend out to the curb. Mr. Patel said no.
Mr. Grasso said
he visited the site. He said the
outside is cluttered. Mr. Grasso asked
how much will be stored in the shed.
Mr. Patel said about 80%. Mr.
Grasso said he does not want this to become a code enforcement issue.
Mr. Patel said
they are open 24 hours a day. He said
one employee is inside running the register and the other employees are outside
pumping gas.
Mr. Grasso said
there is an abundance of signage. He
asked if these signs can be removed.
Mr. Patel said yes.
8:05 P.M. Mr.
Rembiszewski joined the Board.
Mr. Addonizio
asked what type of foundation would be under the shed. Mr. Patel said they would put it right on
the ground.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if Mr. Patel is going to take the banners off the fence. Mr. Patel said yes.
Mr. Clayton
asked where the door on the shed would be located. Mr. Patel said toward the rear.
Mr. Clayton
asked if there was grass there. Mr.
Patel yes.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if there would be electric run to the shed. Mr. Patel said no.
Mr. Clayton said
the shed might require a foundation.
Attorney
Middleton said it is just a case of bringing things you want indoors. It will not have a negative impact.
Mr. Clayton
asked if there would be any buffering around the shed. Mr. Patel said no. Mr. Patel said there is a fence, it is 6’.
September 19,
2001 Page
3
Mr. Addonizio
moved to approve the application subject to the removal of the banners, removal
of the large soda coolers and the only signage that would be on site is that
which is allowed by ordinance. Mr.
Grasso seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call vote. (Messrs. Addonizio, Grasso, Clayton,
Noorigian and Mrs. DeSarno and Mrs. Morrissey voted yes.)
CASE
#BA21-2001: Date
application complete: July 23, 2001
APPLICANT: DEBORAH KATZ
PROPERTY: 2025 Bailey’s Corner Road, Block 805,
Lot 42, RR-6 Zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Timothy B.
Middleton, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney
Middleton explained the property is located in the RR-6 zone. It is 1.71 acres. It is an undersized lot.
He said Mrs. Katz is requesting several variances. Attorney Middleton said he has a copy of a
letter to a neighbor requesting the purchase of part of their lot. They don’t have a large enough lot to sell.
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: Debrah
Katz
Mrs. Katz said
she is the owner of the property. The
property is located on Bailey Corner Road.
It is across the street from Wall Township’s open space.
Attorney Middleton
asked Mrs. Katz if she was asking for permission to build a home on this lot
and that her and her husband would live there.
Mrs. Katz said yes.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Architectural plans prepared by T. Stuart
(4 pages)
A-2 Survey
Attorney Middleton
asked if the plans in evidence is the house Mrs. Katz is going to build. Mrs. Katz said yes except the outside would
be brick.
Attorney
Middleton asked what the s.f. would be.
Mrs. Katz said 3600 s.f.
Attorney
Middleton asked if there would be a basement.
Mrs. Katz said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if Mrs. Katz was going to live in the house. Mrs. Katz said yes.
Entered into
evidence:
September 19,
2001 Page
4
A-3 Letter to Mr. & Mrs. Buser dated April
16, 2001
Attorney Middleton
asked if this home is consistent with the neighborhood. Mrs. Katz said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if this house would enhance the neighborhood. Mrs. Katz said yes.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if this property is adjacent to the property with the deep driveway. Mrs. Katz said yes.
Mr. Zahorsky
explained the grading plan must be submitted before building permits can be
issued.
Mr. Clayton
asked how long Mrs. Katz has owned the property. Mrs. Katz said about one year.
Mr. Clayton
asked if this property was originally part of Lot 26. Mrs. Katz said yes. It
was subdivided in 1984. She said her
husband owns Lot 26 and she owns lot 42.
Mr. Clayton asked if she purchased the property knowing the zoning was
six acres. Attorney Middleton answered
yes. Attorney Middleton said the
hardship runs with the land.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if Lot 42 was created in 1984.
Attorney Middleton said yes. He
said when they were subdivided they were conforming. Attorney Hirsch asked if Mrs. Katz purchased the lot one year
ago. Attorney Middleton said yes. He said the lot was owned by Mrs. Katz’
in-laws. Attorney Hirsch asked if they
owned the property when it was subdivided.
Attorney Middleton said it was one of the Katz family members.
Attorney Hirsch
explained the hardship. He said when
the lots were subdivided they met with the ordinance. The zoning was changed later.
Mr. Clayton
asked if, her husband, Sean Katz lived at 208 Colonial Drive, Brick. Mrs. Katz said yes. He asked if she also lived there. Mrs. Katz said yes. Mr. Clayton verified that Mr. Katz owns lot
26. Mrs. Katz said yes. Mr. Clayton asked if Mrs. Katz was going to
live in the new home. Mrs. Katz said
yes.
Mr. Grasso asked
if the two lots could be merged.
Attorney Middleton said no these are two legal lots.
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: Sean
Katz
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. Katz if his parents lived on lot 26. Mr. Katz said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if that lot abuts the school.
Mr. Katz said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if Mr. Katz’s parents deeded him their house. Mr. Katz said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if Mr. Katz’s wife owns lot 42. Mr. Katz said yes.
September 19,
2001 Page
5
Attorney
Middleton asked if Mr. Katz wanted to build a house on that property and live
there. Mr. Katz said yes.
Mr. Clayton
asked if Mr. Katz was willing to sell his property. Mr. Katz said no.
Attorney
Middleton said this is an undersized lot.
The law states that the applicant must try to sell the property or
purchase additional property. Mrs. Katz
has done that. The smaller the lot the
more you are allowed in building coverage and impervious coverage. The proposed house will fit in with the
area.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if there was a house on lot 26.
Mr. Katz said yes.
Mr. Clayton
asked the applicant to leave as much wooded area as possible. Mr. Katz agreed.
Mrs. DeSarno
moved to approve the application. Mrs.
Morrissey seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved by a roll call
vote. (Mrs. DeSarno, Mrs. Morrissey,
Messrs. Grasso, Addonizio, Rembiszewski, Clayton and Noorigian voted yes.)
The Board
recessed at 9:00 P.M.
The meeting
resumed at 9:12 P.M.
CASE BA#19-2001:
Date application complete: June
29, 2001
APPLICANT:
AMERADA HESS CORPORATION
RELIEF REQUESTED:
Use/Bulk variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Donna Jennings,
Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney
Jennings explained the variances requested.
The Hess station has been there for over 25 years.
Jeffrey Spalt,
P.E. gave his qualifications which were accepted by the Board.
Mr. Spalt
explained the site is located on Route 70.
It is on the north bound side.
Route 70 has recently been divided.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Site
Plans consisting of 10 sheets prepared by Bohler Engineering last revised May
3, 2001
September 19,
2001 Page
6
Mr. Spalt
explained the site. The ingress and
egress are located on Route 70. There
is a support building on site. There
are vending machines and an ice machine.
There is no access from the southbound side of Route 70. The applicant will demolish the existing
structure.
Entered into
evidence:
A-2 Colored rendering of site plan
Mr. Spalt said
the existing building will be demolished but the pumps will remain. The 1,660 s.f. store area will be toward the
rear of the site. There will be a small
shelter, 30’ X 132’ structure. There
will be a canopy. Parking spaces will
be in the rear. There will be a new
trash enclosure. It will be enclosed
with a vinyl fence. The driveway will
remain. The underground storage tanks
will remain. Handicapped parking spaces
will be provided. The impervious
coverage will decrease.
Entered into
evidence:
A-2 Computer generated truck circulation
Mr. Spalt said
fuel deliveries would not use the parking spaces. There will be grading and landscaping. This will reduce the run-off compared to the existing conditions. There will be landscaping, trees, shrubs
throughout the site. There will be 16
lighting fixtures. They will have 400
watt bulbs. There will be four
additional area lights at the corners.
They will be 16’ high. There
will be uniform lighting on the site.
Entered into
evidence:
A-4 Lighting chart illumination
Mr. Spalt said
there will be lighting at every driveway entrance.
Mr. Grasso
stated the applicant will be creating a hot spot of light. He asked why so much light. Mr. Spalt said it is very consistent with
the industry.
Mr. Grasso asked
if there would be lighting at the canopy.
Mr. Spalt said yes but they would not reach the perimeter of the site.
Mr. Grasso asked
Mr. Spalt if he has represented Hess before.
Mr. Spalt said yes.
Mr. Grasso asked
if Hess has used this set of plans before.
Mr. Spalt said yes.
Mr. Grasso asked
if the lighting could be reduced. Mr.
Spalt said it could be modified from 400 watts to 250 watts. Mr. Grasso said there is a large residential
neighborhood across the street. He said
the applicant is creating a hot spot.
Mr. Spalt said today there are two fixtures per island. There will be a total of five perimeter
fixtures and eight pump fixtures. Mr.
Grasso asked Mr. Spalt to come back with information showing what is there now and
what is proposed. Mr.
September 19,
2001 Page
7
Clayton said the
Board is concerned with the lighting.
Attorney Hirsch suggested some sort of mount lights.
Mr. Spalt
explained the front of the store would be glass. There will be white panels with green accents. Mr. Spalt said the Hess logo would be on two
sides. Attorney Hirsch asked if the
Hess sign on the store would be illuminated.
Mr. Spalt said yes.
Mr. Spalt said
the hours of operation would be 24 hours a day. There will be no more than four employees on site.
Mr. Grasso asked
if a sign variance was needed. Mr.
Zahorsky said no.
Mr. Spalt
explained there will be deliveries two to three times per week. Two in the winter and three in the
summer. Other store deliveries will be
once a week.
Mr. Spalt
explained the signage. The Hess sign
over the building was reduced to comply with the requirements. Mr. Grasso asked about window signs. Mr. Spalt said there was none proposed.
Mr. Rembiszewski
asked about self-service. Mr. Spalt
said self-service is not allowed in New Jersey. Mr. Rembiszewski asked if there would be coffee, chips, lottery,
etc. Mr. Spalt said yes.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if the signage on the pumps were in the total signage package. Mr. Spalt said there would be no signage on
the pumps. There will only be a 6’ long
Hess. Mr. Addonizio asked if the whole
façade would be considered signage. Mr.
Zahorsky said no just the letters, just the advertising portion. Mr. Addonizio said the green scheme is their
logo. Attorney Hirsch said no that is
not counted.
Mr. Addonizio
asked about the pavement. Mr. Spalt
said the whole site would be done over.
Mr. Addonizio
asked how old the tanks were that are in the ground. Mr. Spalt said they were recently updated. Mr. Addonizio asked how would you prevent
the tanks from being damaged. Mr. Spalt
said the tanks cost a fortune. The
contractors that would do the work are familiar with the tanks.
Mr. Grasso asked
if an EIS was done. Mr. Zahorsky said
one was submitted. Mr. Grasso asked if
there was remediation on this site. Mr.
Spalt said yes. Mr. Grasso said he is
going to request an EIS be supplied to the Board with more information such as
ground water status. He said he would
like a full EIS submitted to this Board.
Mr. Grasso said
the lighting has been addressed in the engineer’s letter. He said he is concerned about it.
Mr. Zahorsky
asked if the entire canopy would be lighted.
Mr. Spalt said yes. Mr. Zahorsky
said that might need to be included in the signage.
September 19,
2001 Page
8
Mrs. Morrissey
asked what the present s.f. of the building is. Mr. Spalt said approximately 1100 s.f.
Mr. Addonizio
asked how the signage was measured. Mr.
Zahorsky said the sign area would be measured.
Mr. Maczuga read the sign ordinance.
Mr. Spalt went
over Bay Pointe’s review letter of August 15, 2001. Mr. Spalt said they would comply with comments under site plan,
utility and miscellaneous. Mr. Clayton
asked if a revised site plan would be submitted. Mr. Spalt said yes. Mr.
Clayton recommended a sidewalk. Mr.
Spalt said it would be on the resubmitted plans.
Mr. Spalt said a
loading space would be provided. He
said the planner would address the rest of the letter.
Mr. Grasso said
there may be a parking problem. When a
gas station has a store people tend to stay.
Mr. Spalt
continued going over Bay Pointe’s review letter. He said they would provide additional delineation. A point-by-point isolux diagram will be
provided. A diagram regarding lighting
will be provided at the next meeting.
Sight triangles will be provided.
The applicant is still requesting the waivers for interior landscaping.
Mr. Spalt went
over the issues under Site Plan. He
stated the traffic engineer would go into detail regarding the parking
plan. It would be a detriment if there
were a one way. The truck circulation
was already discussed. The applicant
agrees to an off street loading space.
The traffic engineer will explain the existing curb.
Mr. Spalt said
they agree to relocate the trash and recyclables to the southeast corner. They will comply with everything under
trash.
Mr. Spalt said
they would prefer that the air station stay where it is proposed. Mr. Maczuga suggested putting the loading
area in the back.
Mr. Spalt stated
they would provide the finishes on the elevation plans. They agree with the proposed kiosk being
finished to be architecturally compatible with the main building.
Mr. Spalt said
he is against the landscaping suggestions.
Mr. Grasso said it is the best he has seen in a long time. It would prevent the applicant from putting
things back there. It would make it
look better. Regarding the 10’
landscaping strip in front of the property it would screen the parking and
service area. Mr. Grasso asked how much
right-of-way does DOT own. Mr. Maczuga
said 15’ – 20’. He said all landscaping
recommendations should be met.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked if the front was the only way to get into the building. Mr. Spalt said that is all that is
needed.
Mr. Spalt said
they would comply with Fire Prevention’s letter of July 16, 2001.
September 19,
2001 Page
9
Entered into
evidence:
BOA-1 Board Engineer review
letter of August 22, 2001
BOA-2 Board Planner’s review
letter of August 16, 2001
BOA-3 Fire Prevention review
letter of July 16, 2001
Mr. Addonizio
asked where are the larger trucks going to park. Mr. Spalt said the only truck traffic is the delivery trucks and
they come only once a week. They would
park along the south side. Mr.
Addonizio said there is parking for only one delivery truck. Mr. Spalt said yes.
Mr. Addonizio
asked when garbage would be picked up.
Mr. Spalt said he would have to check on that.
Mr. Addonizio
asked what signage was proposed for the window. Mr. Spalt said none.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if you could get subs, hot dogs, etc.
Mr. Spalt said the subs would be prepackaged. There will be a hot dog roller.
Chairman
Noorigian said the next date available would be December 5, 2001.
Attorney
Jennings waived the time limits.
RESOLUTIONS
TO BE MEMORIALIZED:
MICHAEL AND
KAREN DONAHUE – BA#17-2001
Block 755, Lot
46 Addonizio/DeSarno
JOSEPH M.
GISOLDI – BA#20-2001
Block 318, Lots
1, 2 and 3 Addonizio/Rembiszewski
CHIRSTOPHER
& BERNADETTE WILCOX – BA#18-2001
Block 804, Lot
36 Addonizio/Rembiszewski
KIM AND KATHLEEN
KAMARIS – BA#5-2001
Block 4, Lots 23
and 24 Clayton/DeSarno
Mr. Addonizio
could not vote on the Kamaris application.
There being no
further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and
unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 10:58 P.M.
Respectfully
submitted,
Betty
Schinestuhl
Acting Recording Secretary