ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
OCTOBER 2, 2002
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by
Chairman Clayton at 7:30 P.M. Members
present were Chairman Clayton, Vice Chairman DeSarno, Wilma Morrissey, Ralph
Addonizio, Dominick Cinelli, first alternate Mark Brosnan, second alternate James
Gray, Attorney Rubino, Recording Secretary Betty Schinestuhl, Planning
Coordinator Roberta Lang, Engineer Glenn Gerken and Reporter Arnone.
Attorney Rubino
will be filling in for Attorney Hirsch.
Attorney Rubino
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.
CASE #BA24-2002
– Date application
complete: June 25, 2002
APPLICANT: SUSAN HARTER
There was no one
representing Ms. Harter. Attorney
Rubino said we will take the next application.
CASE #BA25-2002 – Date application complete: July 2,
2002
APPLICANT: DON BRAGG
PROPERTY: 537 Shark River Station Road, Block 901,
Lot 21.02, R-60 zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk Variance
Attorney Rubino
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Michael Geller,
Engineer and Planner, gave his credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Mounted
plan prepared by Geller Associates dated June 11, 2002, revised September 9,
2002
A-2 Minor subdivision plan dated February 25,
1994
A-3 Portion of tax map showing lot that are
equal in size or less
BOA-1 Review letter from Glenn Gerken
dated August 7, 2002
BOA-2 Review letter from Glenn Gerken
dated September 26, 2002
October 2, 2002 Page
2
Mr. Geller said
the site is on the north side of Shark River Station Road. It is 60,000 s.f. It is located in the R-60 zone.
The subdivision was created in 1994.
Mr. Geller explained this application meets all bulk requirements.
Mr. Cinelli
asked about the items in Mr. Gerken’s letter of September 26, 2002. Mr. Gerken said those conditions do not have
to be satisfied at this time. He said
they must meet those conditions when applying for the building permit.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked for the correct address of this site.
Mr. Bragg said 537 Shark River Station Road. Attorney Rubino said the notice is correct.
The application
was open and closed to the public.
Mrs. DeSarno
moved to approve the application. Mrs.
Morrissey seconded the motion, which was approved by a roll call vote. (Mesdames DeSarno and Morrissey, Messrs.
Gray, Brosnan, Cinelli, Addonizio and Clayton voted yes.)
CASE
#BA24-2002: Date
application complete: June 25, 2002
APPLICANT: SUSAN HARTER
PROPERTY: 2310 Ramshorn Drive, Block 831, Lot 72,
R-30 zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk variance
Attorney Rubino
reviewed the file and stated that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: Susan Harter
Seth
Harter
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Copy of plan
BOA-1 Review letter from Glenn Gerken
dated July 29, 2002
Ms. Harter
stated she purchased this property in 1993.
She said it was an approved buildable lot when she purchased it. She said the requirements for frontage and
width have changed since then.
Attorney Rubino
stated when this lot was created in 1989 there was a condition in that
resolution that no structure was to be built within 150’ from the front
property line.
Ms. Harter said
it meets all width and frontage requirements.
Attorney Rubino
asked Ms. Harter to submit a building envelop as to where she would set the
house.
October 2, 2002 Page
3
Ms. Harter said
she is going to sell the lot. Attorney
Rubino said they still need the building envelop and it will be memorialized. Mr. Gerken said they also need to show the
proper setbacks.
7:55 P.M. Mr. Rembiszewski arrived.
Mrs. Morrissey
said there is a fence along the two properties making it appear like there is
just one lot.
The application
was open to the public.
Doug Cooley,
2308 Ramshorn Drive, was sworn. Mr.
Cooley said the frontage required is 100’.
Chairman Clayton said that is correct.
Mr. Cooley said the lot is 76.9’.
Mr. Cooley asked
if this was a flag lot. Attorney Rubino
said no. Mr. Cooley said he believes
this to be a flag lot. Mr. Gerken
explained what a flag lot is. Attorney
Rubino said we have a flag lot ordinance in town. He said this is not a flag lot.
A flag lot has a stem.
Dennis Black,
2306 Ramshorn Drive, was sworn. Mr.
Black asked what the rules were about building a house behind a house. Chairman Clayton said they would have to
knock down one of the houses on the property.
You can only have one house on a piece of property.
Mr. Black said
the proposed house would be behind an existing house.
Mr. Black said
there is commercial property in the rear.
He asked if there were any setback requirements. Attorney Rubino said the commercial property
has a buffer requirement.
Mr. Black asked
Ms. Harter if she was going to sell the property. Ms. Harter said yes.
Mr. Black said
this is to recertify that the lot can be built on and then she can sell
it.
Mr. Brosnan
asked Mr. Cooley if was directly adjacent to Ms. Harter’s property. He asked if Mr. Cooley would be interested
in purchasing the property. Mr. Cooley
said he may if it was the right price.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked if there were trees along the property.
Ms. Harter said yes, the back is all trees.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked Ms. Harter if where she is proposing to build the house she can see Mr.
Cooley’s home. Ms. Harter said she is
sure she can.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked if there was a lot of buffering.
Ms. Harter said yes.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked why Ms. Harter extended the fence.
Ms. Harter said she did not, the original owner did.
October 2, 2002 Page
4
Mr. Brosnan
asked Ms. Harter if she asked any of the neighbors to purchase any frontage to
make her lot in compliance. Ms. Harter
said there is no extra property.
Entered into
evidence:
BOA-2 Minor subdivision prepared by Thomas
Stuart, Block 831, Lot 20
Chairman Clayton
asked for an additional 40’ setback on the north side. The Board agreed. Mr. Harter said he thinks 40’ is too steep.
Mr. Brosnan said
he does not think this application creates a hardship until the lot is offered
to the neighbors. Attorney Rubino said
to Ms. Harter whatever you think is a fair market price you can offer it to the
Smith’s and Cooley’s.
Attorney Rubino
said we are going to carry this application and you can offer this lot to the
neighbors.
Chairman Clayton
said this application will be carried to December 4, 2002. No noticing is required.
Attorney Rubino
said Ms. Harter should go to her neighbors within two weeks with a fair market
price. She should receive an answer
within two weeks. He said she should
come up with a reasonable price. Chairman
Clayton said if the neighbors refuse to purchase the property Ms. Harter can
come back to the Board. Mr. Brosnan
said if they do not purchase the property that creates a hardship.
The Board
recessed at 8:40 P.M.
The meeting
resumed at 8:55 P.M.
CARRIED APPLIATIONS
CASE #BA16-2002:
Date application
complete: April 23, 2002. Carried from
July 10, 2002
APPLICANT: HEATHER VANSAGHI
PROPERTY: 1526
Valley Drive, Block 146, Lot 19, $-7.5 zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk variance
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: Heather Vansaghi
Mark
Vansaghi
Andrew
French, Engineer
Entered into
evidence:
October 2, 2002 Page
5
A-1 Revised site plan
A-2 Plans of addition
BOA-1 Review letter from Glenn Gerken
dated June 6, 2002
BOA-2 Review letter from Glenn Gerken
dated September 26, 2002
Andrew French
gave his credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Mr. French said
the property is located on Lot 19, Block 146.
It is 10,000 s.f. It fronts on
Valley Drive. It is a one story
dwelling. It has a one car garage. The applicant is proposing to add a second
story and a two car garage. There is an
existing nonconformity on the side setback where 7.5’ is required and 5’ is
proposed. The addition is going to be
on the north side. A new driveway will
be installed and it will be conforming.
The building coverage proposed is 27.6%. It is less than 3% over what is allowed. 25% is allowed.
Mr. Cinelli
asked if the garage was included in the 1300 s.f. addition. Mr. French said 1389 s.f. is existing and
1380 s.f. addition is proposed including the garage. It is a total of 2748 s.f.
It will be in conformance with all setback requirements.
Attorney Rubino
asked why the applicant needs to exceed the 25%. Mr. Vansaghi said because he can’t live with a one car
garage. He said he needs a two car
garage.
Mr. Cinelli said
the applicant will be moving the driveway to the north side of the
dwelling. Mr. French said that is
correct.
Mr. Addonizio
said to Mr. Vansaghi that he is set on needing a two car garage. Mr. Vansaghi said he cannot fit anything
else in his one car garage. He said he
would like to put a car in the garage plus all his lawn equipment.
Chairman Clayton
asked if all setbacks would be met. Mr.
French said yes, the only one not conforming is existing.
Mr. Brosnan
asked about the proposed garage area.
Mr. French said the applicant is going to close the garage that is
existing and make it living space.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked why the applicant changed from having a basement to not having a
basement. Mr. French said the water
table was too high. He said if a
basement was put in they would have to put in an underground system.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked how many feet is the applicant’s addition from the neighbors. Mr. French said on the north there is 25’
between the garages.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked about the existing shrubs and trees.
Mr. French said some will be removed.
He said there will be four evergreen trees to buffer the proposed
driveway. There is a fence in the
rear.
October 2, 2002 Page
6
Chairman Clayton
asked if the front entrance is going to remain. Mr. French said the same entrance will be used.
Chairman Clayton
asked what the 2˝% is over in square feet.
Mr. Gerken said 250 s.f.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if there was any decking. Mrs.
Vansaghi said the decking will be removed.
She said the shed will also be removed.
Mr. Gray asked
if the bar set up will be removed. Mrs.
Vansaghi said it has already been removed.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if the decking under the bar be removed.
Mrs. Vansaghi said yes.
Mr. French said
they are going to provide positive drainage.
They will maintain the 2% slope.
Mr. Vansaghi
asked for the reason he cannot build a deck.
Attorney Rubino said that has not been decided.
Mr. Brosnan
asked for the difference between the deck and pavement. Mr. Gerken said decks and pavements are
impervious coverage. Chairman Clayton
said the applicant can install a deck as long as it meets impervious coverage.
The application
was open to the public.
Beth Byrne, 1525
Bay Plaza, was sworn. Ms. Byrne said
they are taking out the existing driveway.
She said the new garage will be 280 s.f. She asked why an oversized garage. Mr. Vansaghi said the garage is 22 X 20. You can only fit two full size cars in
there. Ms. Byrne asked the Board that
no commercial vehicles be permitted to be parked there. Mr. French said one commercial vehicle is
allowed by ordinance. Attorney Rubino
said they can make it a condition that they conform to the ordinance.
Entered into
evidence:
OB-1 Photo of back rear deck
OB-2 Photo of truck
OB-3 Photo of truck with phone number printed on
it
Mr. Comire, 1519
Bay Plaza, was sworn. Mr. Comire asked
if there was a permit for the electric going to the bar. Mr. Vansaghi said the bar has been
removed. There was no permit to add the
bar or take it down.
Mr. Comire asked
why the addition was so high. Mrs.
Vansaghi said because they are not putting in a basement so we went up. Attorney Rubino said any structure that goes
on the property needs a grading plan submitted to the Engineer’s office. If there is a problem it will be dealt
with. Chairman Clayton said 35’ high is
acceptable. They are only going up 29’.
October 2, 2002 Page
7
Mr. Comire asked
why they are proposing a bigger garage door.
Mr. Gerken said it is a standard size door.
Mr. Brosnan
asked how much they would have to reduce the addition to be in compliance. Mr. Gerken said 240 s.f.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked about the depth of the garage.
Mr. Gerken said the inside is 21’ X 21’. He said that is not an oversized garage. Most two car garages are at least 20’ X
20’.
Ms. Byrne asked
when the bar was taken down. Mrs.
Vansaghi said today.
Ms. Byrne said
she has concerns that the deck will not be taken down. Mrs. Vansaghi said they received a letter
from Bryan Dempsey today asking for the bar to be taken down and it was taken
down today.
Mr. Gray asked
where the photos of the vehicles were taken.
Ms. Byrne said at Mr. Vansaghi’s place of business.
Joanne Byrne,
1525 Bay Plaza, was sworn. Mrs. Byrne
said she is concerned about the deck.
She said she is against the deck because of this bar. She asked if the Board can make it a
condition that there is no lighting.
She is also concerned about the noise, which goes late into the night.
Mr. Vansaghi
said he was sorry he caused the neighbors any inconvenience. He said in the future they will try to keep
it down and keep it to a respectable hour.
Margaret Gray,
1516 Bay Plaza, was sworn. Ms. Gray
said she lives across the street. She
is concerned about flooding. She said
the fire department had to come three times to get the water out in the
basement of 1517 Bay Plaza. Mr. Gerken
said the flooding is caused by the ground water elevation.
Ms. Gray said
there was no permit for the tiki bar.
Mrs. Vansaghi said she spoke with Mr. Dempsey today and he knew we were
going to remove the bar today.
Mr. Gray asked
when they were going to remove the deck.
Mrs. Vansaghi said when they start construction but they can do it
sooner.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if they were proposing a 6’ fence along the back and sides. Mrs. Vansaghi said yes.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if they would be willing to plant evergreens along the property. Mr. Gerken recommended every 15’. He said 5’ – 6’ trees would be a good
start. He said white pines or
spruces.
Rosemary Comire,
1519 Bay Plaza, was sworn. Mrs. Comire
said her concern is the garage. She
said it is going to be on her side. She
said she has to close her windows because of the
October 2, 2002 Page
8
parties. She said she is sure this garage is going to
house their parties. She asked the
Board to reconsider the height of the addition.
Ms. Byrne said
her quality of life has been diminished since the Vansaghi’s moved in. Ms. Byrne said she has asked them to keep it
down. She said they have no respect for
the neighbors.
Mr. Brosnan
asked if there was anything on this plan that was acceptable.
Ms. Byrne said
the garage is too high. Mr. Gerken said
the garage is only 18’ at peak. Mr.
Brosnan said all heights conform.
Mr. Brosnan said
they do have an allowable portion of coverage for a deck.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if there was anyway the peak could be taken down a few feet. Mrs. Vansaghi said the height was added
because they could not have a basement.
Mr. Vansaghi said they are proposing cathedral ceilings. He said other homes in the neighborhood are
31’.
Mrs. DeSarno
said she would like to see the pitch taken down.
Mr. Cinelli
asked Mr. Gerken if this application was requesting 2.6% building
coverage. Mr. Gerken said that is
correct. Mr. Cinelli said the issue is
not the height.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if any part of the design could be made smaller.
Mr. Cinelli
asked for the square footage of 2.6%.
Mr. Gerken said 260 s.f. Mr.
Cinelli asked if it would be enough if they made the garage 20’ X 20’. Mr. Gerken said that doesn’t do it.
Mr. Gray asked
about code enforcement on Valley Road.
Attorney Rubino said we cannot do anything about that. He said this is not something this Board can
control.
Mr. Comire said,
regarding height and pitch of the roof, Mr. Vansaghi said some homes were 31’
in height. He said that is not correct,
most are 24’ – 25’. He said nothing is 31’
in the neighborhood.
Chairman Clayton
asked the applicant if they were willing to reduce the roof from 29’ to
25’. Mr. Addonizio said 25’ is
feasible. Mr. Addonizio said the
addition should be made to fit in with the neighborhood.
Mr. Brosnan also
suggested the applicant sit down with the neighbors and work things out.
Chairman Clayton
said this application will be carried to December 4, 2002. No further noticing is required.
Ms. Byrne asked
if they come back with a new application or plan will the residents be
notified. Chairman Clayton said no.
10:30 P.M. Mr.
Cinelli and Mr. Brosnan left the meeting.
October 2, 2002 Page
9
CASE #BA15-2001 – Date application complete: May 15,
2001. Carried from September 5, 2001,
December 5, 2001, June 5, 2002 and September 18, 2002
APPLICANT: CHRISTOPHER MECCIA
PROPERTY: 1640 Martin Road, Block 942, Lot 16,
R-60 zone
RELIEF REQUESTD: Bulk variance
Attorney
Middleton said this application was heard at two previous meetings. The engineer and planner have testified. Attorney Fox was at the last meeting. Attorney Middleton stated one neighbor
testified as an objector and another was in the process of testifying. That objector could not be here
tonight. He said tonight was to hear from
objectors. The meeting scheduled for December
4 was to discuss final issues and fair market value issues.
Joseph Dochney,
Esq. represented the objectors, Mr. & Mrs. Dudek.
John Buletza,
Engineer, was sworn.
Entered into
Evidence:
O-3 Tax map showing large area around property
O-4 Portion of tax map showing subject
property
O-5A Part of grading for development plan 1984
O-5B Grading plan
Mr. Buletza gave
his credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Mr. Buletza said
he was familiar with the Township Master Plan and local zoning ordinances.
Attorney Dochney
said Mr. Buletza is not going to testify to wetland lines. He is just showing he is familiar with the
property.
Mr. Buletza said
he has visited the site half a dozen times.
He has observed the property.
Attorney Dochney
asked if any properties around the property in question nonconforming. Mr. Buletza said no.
Attorney Dochney
asked if Mr. Buletza looked at the drainage.
Mr. Buletza said yes there are drainage easements for 6 – 7
properties. He said it travels from a
high grade to a low grade.
Attorney Dochney
asked how Mr. Buletza would characterize the land. Mr. Buletza said it has a natural drainage challenge. He said the water comes down a hill to a
flat area and slowly drains into a pipe to the wooded area. Mr. Buletza explained what a detention basin
was. He said it reduces the rate of
run-off for the property. He said there
is also an area of marsh on the site.
October 2, 2002 Page
10
Attorney Dochney
asked if the water would drain into the wetlands. Mr. Buletza said it would be detained and then it would be slowed
down because of vegetation and grade flattening out. It then slowly drains across to the stream.
Attorney Dochney
asked if there would be drainage problems.
Mr. Buletza said most definitely.
Attorney Dochney
asked what the water tables were in the area.
Attorney Middleton objected.
Attorney Middleton asked if Mr. Buletza had permission to go onto the
property.
Attorney Rubino
asked if Mr. Buletza had permission to go onto the property. Mr. Buletza said yes. He said the owner was notified by certified
mail.
Attorney Dochney
asked what the water table around the area was. Mr. Buletza said in the wetlands area between 0’ and 2’.
Attorney Dochney
asked if that would provide a problem with drainage. Mr. Buletza said yes.
Attorney Dochney
asked if it would be hard for the ground to absorb the water. Mr. Buletza said yes.
Attorney Dochney
asked if Mr. Buletza walked the premises.
Mr. Buletza said yes.
Attorney Dochney
asked if Mr. Buletza observed any standing water. Mr. Buletza said yes.
Attorney Dochney
asked if this application is approved can any drainage problems be alleviated
by underground drainage. Mr. Buletza
said it could be by a detention basin or underground drainage system.
Attorney Dochney
asked if Mr. Buletza has seen anything submitted by the applicant regarding
drainage. Mr. Buletza said no.
Attorney Dochney
asked if Mr. Buletza had any problems with this application from an engineering
standpoint. Mr. Buletza said yes,
absolutely. He said this is tough as
far as water. He said it is not a very
nice place to live even if you could put a house there.
Attorney Dochney
asked if building the house would increase the drainage. Mr. Buletza said the run-off would increase.
Mr. Addonizio
said it looks like the area is a decent size.
He asked how big the area where there was water was. Mr. Buletza said about 20’ X 40’.
Mr. Addonizio
asked when Mr. Buletza saw the water.
Mr. Buletza said May 29, 2002.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if Mr. Buletza had permission to go on this property to take
samples. Mr. Buletza said he did not
have permission, DEP did.
October 2, 2002 Page
11
Attorney Dochney
said the samples were not taken from this property they were taken from the
surrounding properties. He said no one
entered the property.
Attorney Rubino
asked if someone went on the property from DEP to the best of your
knowledge. Attorney Dochney said no.
Mr. Buletza said
all soil samples are created equal. The
soil plugs that DEP looked at were from a 1” diameter tube.
Attorney Rubino
asked where the test was done. Mr.
Buletza said on the subject property.
Mr. Buletza pointed to where they were taken from on the map.
Mr. Addonizio,
again, asked if Mr. Buletza had permission to walk around this site. Mr. Buletza said he asked Attorney Dochney
to notify the owner.
Attorney Dochney
said they did not give us the authorization to go on the property. He said he requested permission for a new LOI. He said it was not given by Attorney
Middleton.
Mr. Buletza said
no permission is required. He said the
property owner just needs to be notified.
Chairman Clayton
said this application will be carried to December 4, 2002. No further noticing is required.
Attorney
Middleton said he waives the time limits.
RESOLUTIONS
TO BE MEMORIALIZED:
STEPHEN KAMUDA –
BA#19-2002
Block 19, Lot
13.01 Addonizio/Rembiszewski
JAMES &
DOROTHY SMITH – BA#22-2002
Block 805.01,
Lot 68 Addonizio/Morrissey
VINCENT &
MARGARET MARRON – BA#26-2002
Block 285, Lot
18 Addonizio/Gray
MINUTES TO BE ADOPTED: Mr. Gray moved to approve the minutes of the study sessions
and regular minutes of June 9, 2002, July 10, 2002, August 7, 2002, September
4, 2002 and September 18, 2002. Mr.
Addonizio seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved.
There being no
further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and
unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 11:10 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Schinestuhl
Recording Secretary