ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
NOVEMBER 6, 2002
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by
Chairman Clayton at 8:00 P.M. Members
present were Chairman Clayton, Vice Chairman DeSarno, Wilma Morrissey, Ralph
Addonizio, Anthony Rembiszewski, second alternate James Gray, Attorney Hirsch,
Recording Secretary Betty Schinestuhl, Planning Coordinator Roberta Lang,
Engineer Glenn Gerken, Special Planner 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 Clayton
announced the Shibla application will be carried to December 18, 2002.
CASE #BA31-2002
– Date application
complete: August 23, 2002
APPLICANT: DANIEL & KATHLEEN SINNOTT
PROPERTY: 2314 Philadelphia Avenue, Block 306, Lot
17
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk Variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: Daniel Sinnott
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Photo of fence
Mr. Sinnott
explained they are in the process of installing an in ground pool. He said there is an existing 4’ fence. He said he is on a corner lot. He said they would like to erect a 6’ wooden
stockade fence.
Attorney Hirsch
asked what the setback was on Pennsylvania Avenue. Mr. Sinnott said 10’.
Attorney Hirsch
asked what was on lot 16. Mr. Sinnott
said a single family home. He said it
faces Pennsylvania Avenue.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if the setback was the same as Mr. Sinnott’s. Mr. Sinnott said it is set back further. He said it is about 25’ from Pennsylvania
Avenue.
November 6, 2002 Page
2
Attorney Hirsch
asked how many homes were between Mr. Sinnott’s and the next corner. Mr. Sinnott said three and the setbacks are
the same.
Attorney Hirsch
asked what was across the street. Mr.
Sinnott said from his house you would be looking at the front yard of a house. Mr. Sinnott said he is trying to create a
uniform look on his property. He said
there are a lot of children in the neighborhood. He feels a 6’ fence would be safer and it would be harder to
climb.
Attorney Hirsch
asked about buffering. Mr. Sinnott said
there is none at this time.
Mr. Rembiszewski
said he does not see the logic in erecting a 6’ fence. Mr. Sinnott said he would like prevent a
problem with the children in the neighborhood.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked how many feet is the proposed 6’ fence to the blue house. Mr. Sinnott said about 4’. Ms. Morrissey asked if there were other
fences like this in the neighborhood.
Mr. Sinnott said yes. He said
the neighbor next door and across the street have a 6’ fence on a corner
lot.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if the fence in the rear was 4’.
Mr. Sinnott said no it is a 6’ fence.
Chairman Clayton
asked how far the road from the fence is.
Mr. Gerken said it is 20’ from the edge of the pavement to the fence.
Chairman Clayton
said it should be dressed up a little with some shrubbery.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if Mr. Sinnott would consider a picket fence that is 50% open. Mr. Sinnott said he would consider
that.
Mr. Gerken said
they are keeping the fence out of the site triangle. He said there is plenty of room for additional landscaping.
The application
was open and closed to the public.
Mr. Addonizio
asked what the code was for a fence around a pool. Mr. Gerken said 1½ - 2’ open space. Mr. Addonizio asked if Mr. Sinnott was talking about a regular
stockade fence. Mr. Sinnott said yes.
Mrs. Morrissey
moved to deny the application. Mr.
Rembiszewski seconded the motion. (Mrs.
Morrissey voted yes, Mr. Rembiszewski voted yes, Messrs. Addonizio, Gray and
Clayton voted no.) The motion was
denied.
Mr. Addonizio
moved to approve the application subject to the fence being 10’ off the
property line and approximately 20’ off the road. The applicant must also submit a landscape plan to the Board
Engineer for approval. Mr. Gray
seconded the motion which was approved by a roll call vote. (Messrs. Addonizio and Gray voted yes, Mrs.
Morrissey and Mr. Rembiszewski voted no and Mr. Clayton voted yes.) The application was approved.
November 6, 2002 Page
3
CASE #BA34-2002:
Date application
complete: October 28, 2002
APPLICANT: A T & T
PROPERTY: 2404 Tilton’s Corner Road, Block 806,
Lot 7
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk/Use/Site
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Judith Bavinski,
Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney
Bavinski explained the applicant is proposing to replace the existing monopole
located at 2404 Tilton’s Corner Road. She
explained every time a wireless carrier decides to co-locate or share a pole
with another company a structural assessment of the pole is performed. She said this monopole failed that
assessment. Attorney Bavinski explained
it will be replaced at the exact same height.
She said the proposed monopole will hold antennas for three carriers, A
T & T, Verizon and Omnipoint. She
said the Township’s Police Department has been offered space to place its own
antenna on the pole.
Jenny Yerra, a
radio frequency engineer hired by A T & T, was sworn.
Ms. Yerra gave
her credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 A T & T coverage map
Ms. Yerra said
she prepared the map in evidence. Ms.
Yerra explained A T & T has a two mile gap in service in Wall
Township. She said that gap runs along
Route 35, Tilton’s Corner and Allaire Roads.
She said that gap prohibits customers from maintaining, receiving or
calling while they are in that area.
Ms. Yerra said A
T & T has a number of antennas throughout the surrounding areas. She said there is a pole along the Garden
State Parkway and on the Spring Lake Heights water tower. She said there is an additional pole under
construction along the Parkway. Ms.
Yerra said A T & T will be before the Board with an application for a new
tower at the junction of routes 70 and 35.
Attorney Bavinski said they don’t know if they are going to use that
site or what the zoning is.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked what the total number of sites in Wall Township is. Ms. Yerra said there are a total of
six. She said three are under
construction, two are approved and the other is here before the Board
tonight.
Mr. Gray asked
why they are replacing the tower.
Attorney Bavinski said because it failed.
Dominic
Villecco, a radio frequency engineer for Verison, was sworn.
November 6, 2002 Page
4
Mr. Villecco
gave his credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Entered into
evidence:
A-2 Map showing Verizon existing coverage
A-3 Map showing proposed Verizon coverage
Mr. Villecco
said Verizon is licensed with the FCC.
He said they have a problem along Route 34, Atlantic Avenue and roads
toward the parkway. He said they have a
number of existing sites. They have
sites in Wall Township, Spring Lake Heights water tower, Brielle water tower, a
pole at exit 98 and a pole at mile marker 95 on the parkway. Mr. Villecco, using A-3, showed the area
that would be filled in.
Mr. Villecco
stated Verizon also has a gap near Monmouth Executive Airport, around the
Manasquan Circle and Camp Evans. He
said they have a problem closing the gap around Monmouth Executive Airport
while complying with FAA regulations.
He said this application will fill a significant gap.
Mr. Villecco
explained there are approximately 3,200 call failures every day due to current
coverage gaps.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked what would be the negative impact regarding this monopole. Attorney Bavinski said she doesn’t think
there are any because they are just replacing an existing monopole.
Zemichael
Geziabiher, a radio frequency engineer with Omnipoint, was sworn.
Mr. Geziabiher
gave his credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Entered into
evidence:
A-4 Omnipoint coverage map
Mr. Geziabiher
said Omnipoint is FCC licensed. He
explained Omnipoint is unable to provide service to all its customers in the area
during peak times. He said Omnipoint
currently has six antennas on the existing monopole. He said they plan to increase that to 12 once the new pole is
erected.
Attorney
Bavinski explained there are 12 Cingular antennas on the existing monopole and
they will be moved to the new pole as well.
Alice
Fahy-Elwood, health physicist consulting for A T & T, was sworn.
Ms. Fahy-Elwood
gave her credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Ms. Fahy-Elwood
said they comply with FCC regulations.
She testified that when all four companies are operating their antennas
the emissions is less than 1% of the FCC limits.
November 6, 2002
Page 5
Attorney Hirsch
asked if there was any adverse impact on TV’s, telephones, etc. Ms. Fahy-Elwood said the chances of the
antennas interfering with equipment in neighboring homes are slim.
Todd Hay, civil
engineer, was sworn.
Mr. Hay gave his
credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Attorney
Bavinski asked Mr. Hay to explain why this monopole needs to be replaced.
Entered into
evidence:
A-5 Zoning information Sheet 2
A-6 Site Plan, Sheet 24
A-7 Site Plan, Sheet 25
Mr. Hay testified
that the existing monopole is overstressed.
He said it cannot take any more antennas. He explained the new monopole will be placed about 10’ from the
existing one. He said the ingress and
egress to the site will still be from Tilton’s Corner Road. He said the proposed pole will be used for all
four carriers.
Mr. Hay
explained each carrier sends a technician to the site once every four to six
weeks to check the equipment. He said
the visits last between two and four hours.
Mr. Hay
explained you would notice no difference with the new tower. The new monopole will be located to the
west. He said the new pole is 1’ thicker
at the base and 6” thicker at the top.
The base of the pole will measure 6’ in diameter.
Mr. Hay
described the equipment the carriers will have on site. He said A T & T will have four cabinets
located on a concrete pad. He said each
will be 2½’ square by 5’ in height.
Verizon will construct a one room building measuring 11’ in height. Omnipoint will have a total of three
equipment cabinets on site.
Mr. Hay
explained the existing pole will be removed.
He said it will not be removed until the new pole has been erected and
is operational.
Attorney Hirsch
asked Mr. Hay to go over the engineer’s letter of November 6, 2002. Mr. Hay said they will comply.
Mr. Hay said two
70 watt lights are being proposed at the two entrances. They are motion detectors.
Mr. Maczuga
asked if the pole can be lower. Mr. Hay
said the pole cannot be any shorter than 120’ if the carriers are to gain the
coverage areas they need.
Mr. Maczuga
asked the color of the pole. Mr. Hay
said it is galvanized steel.
November 6, 2002 Page
6
Attorney
Bavinski said the applicant will comply with both the Planner and Engineer
review letters.
Chairman Clayton
asked if there was a concern with the existing pole. Mr. Hay said not now. He
said you could see visually that there is something wrong with it. In the foundation there are some hairline
cracks. It does need attention. He said it should be replaced.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if the pole was sound would a new pole be needed. Mr. Hay said the existing pole is not able
to support any additional carriers.
Mr. Rembiszewski
asked about construction. Mr. Hay said
the amount of construction is minimal.
Peter Tolischus,
project planner, was sworn. Mr.
Tolischus gave his credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Entered into
evidence:
A-8 Aerial photo of proposed site
A-9 Photo of surrounding area
Mr. Tolischus
said the new pole will have very little visual impact on the surrounding
area. The height will be almost the
same as the existing structure. He said
the existing pole is lower than the Little League field lights. He said the tree line totally blocks the
view of the tower. He said they are
replacing a tower not building a new tower.
There will be no traffic impact.
Landscaping will be added to the site.
The pole will be galvanized gray.
The antenna will also be gray.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if they received any comments from Colfax. Attorney Bavinski said no.
Mr. Gerken said
there will be no effect on drainage.
The application
was open and closed to the public
Mr. Addonizio
moved to approve the application as applied for. Mr. Rembiszewski seconded the motion which was unanimously
approved by a roll call vote. (Messrs. Addonizio,
Rembiszewski, Mrs. Morrissey, Messrs. Gray and Clayton voted yes.)
The Board
recessed at 10:00 P.M.
The meeting
resumed at 10:12 P.M.
CASE #BA29-2002 – Date application complete: August 14,
2002
APPLICANT: B.P. PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA INC.
PROPERTY Route 71 & 18th Avenue,
Block 12, Lots 1, 2 & 3, HB-20 zone
November 6, 2002 Page
7
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk, Use, Site
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Christine D.
Hardman, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney Hardman
said she represents the contract purchaser.
The station is located on Route 71 and 18th Avenue. It is located in the HB-20 zone. It was formally a Gulf Station. It is now an auto repair shop. The site consists of three lots.
Jeffrey Spalt,
Engineer, was sworn. Mr. Spalt gave his
credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Mr. Spalt
explained the site consists of 1½ acres.
It is located at the southwest corner of 18th Avenue and
Highway 71. There are currently three
structures on the property now.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Boundary topographic survey
Mr. Spalt said
the site was previously a gas station. The
underground tanks have been removed.
There is a one story garage structure, one story auto repair structure
and a two story dwelling. All
structures will be demolished.
Entered into
evidence:
A-2 Colored rendering – Site plan page 4
Mr. Spalt
explained the applicant is proposing to construct a new gas station with a
convenience store. It will be a one
story structure. Mr. Spalt went over
the dimensions of the building and the canopy.
The convenience store will be 4,224 s.f. The convenience store will measure 96’ X 44”. The proposed canopy will be 151’ X 34’ or
5,204 s.f. The canopy will be over ten
gas pumps. There will be two rows of
five. There will be two 4’ X 6’ kiosks
under the canopy. The convenience store
will contain a café with limited counter space and three café tables.
Mr. Spalt said
it will improve the front of both Route 71 and 18th Avenue. Application for access is before DOT
now. 18th Avenue is a County
road and is currently under their review for access. There will be a full access driveway to and from on Route
71. 18th Avenue access will
not allow drivers to make a left turn to enter the site. There will be no aerial lighting. There will be new underground storage
tanks. They will be 12,000 gallons
each. There will be 30 new parking
spaces including two ADA spaces. Each
space will be 9 X 19.
Mr. Spalt said a
number of building mounted signs are proposed.
A BP Connect sign will be located on the east side and a 27½ s.f.
display panel will be located on the east side of the building. The building mounted signs include a 3 s.f.
BP sign. A logo on the building will be
30 ¼ s.f. The freestanding sign will
have two parts, the ID component and the gas prices for a total
November 6, 2002 Page
8
of 50.75
s.f. There will be a 20’ sign located
near the entrance of Eighteenth Avenue and Route 71. There will also be two 9 s.f. logos on the north and south sides
of the canopy.
Mr. Addonizio
said he could not find some of the signs on the plan. He asked if they will be illuminated. Mr. Spalt said yes.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if logos were being proposed at the dispensers. Mr. Spalt said yes. Mr.
Addonizio asked if they were added in the total signage package. Mr. Spalt said no.
Entered into
evidence:
A-3 Photo of similar site
Mr. Addonizio
asked if they would be selling merchandise outside the store. Mr. Spalt said no.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if there was any window signage proposed. Mr. Spalt said no.
Mr. Spalt
explained there will be small logos at each dispenser. There will be lighting at the so fit over
the entrance to the convenience store.
The lighting at the canopy is recessed in the roof structure. The lights point down.
Attorney Hirsch
asked how many lights are proposed under the canopy and the wattage. Mr. Spalt said 20 downward fixtures. Each fixture will be 320 watts.
Attorney Hirsch
asked Mr. Spalt to explain the setbacks.
Mr. Spalt said the building is setback 25’. The façade is 24.6’ from Camp Meeting House. He said 50’ is required. He said this property has frontage on three roads. Route 71 setback is 124’, Eighteenth Avenue
setback is 50’.
Mr. Spalt said
the use proposed by BP is a conditional use in other zones in Wall Township but
it is not permitted in the HB-20 zone.
Mr. Spalt said
the building coverage is 7.6% and if the canopy is added it is 15.7%. He said 10% is permitted.
Mr. Spalt said
there is no designated loading space.
He said it is not needed.
Mr. Spalt said
there are 30 parking spaces proposed, Wall Township requires 69 spaces.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if there was going to be on site seating. Mr. Spalt said there would be three small tables in the
building. There will be no table
service.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if there would be any food prepared on site. Mr. Spalt said there would be no cooking on site. He said they make subs and sandwiches.
Attorney Hardman
stated at the next meeting she will have their planner and the owner.
November 6, 2002 Page
9
Mr. Rembiszewski
asked if this was a franchise. Attorney
Hardman said BP is the contract purchaser.
Mr. Addonizio
asked Mr. Maczuga if this falls under convenience store or restaurant. Mr. Maczuga said there are provisions for
this type of use. He would have to look
it up.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if this would be 24 hour a day business.
Mr. Spalt said it may be. He
said it would depend on economics.
Attorney Hirsch stated
the applicant is going to have to address what variances the applicant deems
are necessary. He said the size of this
operation will be a critical issue at this location.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if the applicant planned on using a traffic engineer. Attorney Hardman said yes. There will be a traffic engineer, planner
and the owner at the next meeting.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if the applicant was planning on installing a filter to catch the oil and
sediment. Mr. Spalt said the engineer
also recommended a filter. He said they
agree to that.
Mr. Gray said he
would like to see photos of the same building at night.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if there was some place near that the Board could go see. Mr. Spalt said the closest one was in Tinton
Falls or in Edison on Route 1S. There
is also one in North Brunswick.
Chairman Clayton
said this application will be carried to December 18, 2002. Attorney Hardman waived the time limits.
Attorney Hirsch
said no further noticing is required.
Mr. Splat asked
if there was a deadline to submit amended plans. Attorney Hirsch said 15 days before the meeting.
MINUTES TO BE ADOPTED: Mr. Addonizio moved to approve the minutes of the study
sessions and regular minutes of March 7, 2001, May 2, 2001 and October 16,
2002. Mr. Rembiszewski seconded the
motion, which was unanimously approved.
RESOLUTIONS
TO BE MEMORIALIZED:
DON BRAGG – BA#24-2002
Block 901, Lot
21.02 Morrissey/Gray
There being no
further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and
unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 11:05 P.M.
November 6, 2002 Page
10
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Schinestuhl
Recording Secretary