ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
NOVEMBER 13, 2002
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by
Chairman Clayton at 7:50 P.M. Members
present were Chairman Clayton, Vice Chairman DeSarno, Wilma Morrissey, Ralph
Addonizio, Anthony Rembiszewski, Dominick Cinelli, 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 BP application will be heard on December 18, 2002.
CASE #BA8-2000
– Date application
complete: February 7, 2000. Carried from May 17, 2000, September 20,
2000, January 10, 2001, April 11, 2001, June 20, 2001, September 5, 2001,
October 3, 2001, December 12, 2002, February 20, 2002, April 17, 2002, June 19,
2002, August 7, 2002 and October 16, 2002
APPLICANT: TOWER LODGE
PROPERTY: 1506 Gully Road, Block 239, Lot 8, R-30
zone.
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Expansion and
upgrade of existing nursing home. Site
plan. Use variance.
Thomas
Primavera, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney
Primavera said Tower Lodge was built in 1964 and it is old. He said the 60 people that live there are
the only ones the Board has not heard from.
He said it is about their future.
Most will not be going home. It
is important that the Board consider those people. It is their future. Tower
Lodge needs to be modernized. He said
this can only be done if the nursing home is granted approval for the additional
sixty beds. There are low
ceilings. It needs a new kitchen. It doesn’t have enough light. The residents do not have a place to visit
with their families. He said there
would no longer be three to four residents in a single room. He said they would have a separate dining
room, activity room, physical therapy area and a new kitchen. There will also be an outside patio. He said they will then be able to live like
we all live. He said many facilities
like this are on the highway. They
should be in a residential area. It
will be esthetically pleasing. He said if
this is approved it will be a nice looking building. He said the building will not be out of character in this
neighborhood. Tower Lodge is there and
it is not going away. They are proposing
to have a fully sprinkled facility.
There will be access for fire equipment and emergency vehicles around
the facility. There will be grass
pavers.
November 13,
2002 Page
2
Attorney
Primavera also explained Tower Lodge does not conform to the regulations of the
Board of Health. If approved the
facility will come in conformity.
Attorney
Primavera said the testimony of the witnesses said there is a staff of 45. There are no more than 32 employees on site
at any given time. If this is approved
the staff will increase to 70. There
will only be 41 employees at any given time.
He said that is not going to create a traffic problem on Gully
Road. There will be no increase in
delivery vehicles. There will be no
tractor trailer deliveries. He said the
applicant will accept that as a condition.
He said traffic will not be an issue.
He said there will only be 23 – 25 cars in the parking lot at one
time. Tower Lodge residents do not get
a lot of visitors. There will be no
traffic or noise problems. The
generator will be inside the building.
Attorney
Primavera stated six of the people at Tower Lodge are former Wall Township
residents.
Attorney
Primavera said John Rea testified regarding traffic. He said Mr. Rea said activity is at level B and it will not
change.
Attorney
Primavera said Mr. Gagliano provided investigation of other facilities in the
County that are larger. He stated there
was no diminution in property values.
Attorney
Primavera said there will be an increase in the buffer and berm.
Attorney
Primavera said Mr. Hanchen’s testimony was very important. He stated this building was designed to
create a safe environment.
Attorney
Primavera said this approval will bring the building into conformance with
Board of Health regulations.
Attorney
Primavera said Mr. Avakian went over the drainage, lighting and
landscaping. There will be shields on
the lighting in front of the building.
The detention area will be eliminated at the rear of the building. There will be an underground detention
basin. The applicant will comply with
the 75’ buffer for the building. The
parking will be increased. The trash
bins will be eliminated. The applicant
will bring in a compactor. Trash will
only be picked up three times a month.
The applicant has agreed to tree protection. Landscaping will buffer this building from the neighbors.
Attorney
Primavera said there will be a one way circular driveway. There will be
emergency access to the site. The
applicant has agreed to erect a fence.
There will be additional landscaping to create a buffer. He said they will comply with all Mr.
Gerken’s comments.
Attorney
Primavera said Mr. Higgins talked about the nature of this facility. He said this facility is a residential
facility. For the residents that live
there this is their home. Tower Lodge
has met all requirements for the CON.
Attorney
Primavera said there are no detrimental effects. There will be no traffic, no noise. He said this facility will be more esthetically pleasing than six
new homes. This will be a greatly
November 13,
2002 Page
3
improved
facility. He said there will be a
single story appearance from the front.
There will be no odors. He said
the applicant is prepared to accept any reasonable conditions.
Attorney
Primavera said there will be no out patient therapy, no early garbage
pick-up. There will be underground
drainage. The generator will be in the
building. The lighting in the evening
hours will be reduced. The applicant
will leave the circular driveway. There
will be additional landscaping. He said
they will do what the Board wants if they permit the expansion of Tower Lodge.
Attorney
Primavera said it will not cause substantial detriment to the
neighborhood. He said seven of the
neighbors came and addressed their concerns.
He said the applicant has addressed those concerns. He said think about the residents of Tower
Lodge. He said seven people came before
this Board to object, 60 people live at Tower Lodge. He said approving this application is the right thing to do. He said Tower Lodge has been there since
1964. He said Tower Lodge wants to be a
good neighbor. He said this will be a
very positive thing for the Township.
Attorney Hirsch
said this is a pre-existing, non-conforming use. He said there is no case law that this type of use is deemed an
inherently beneficial use. Attorney
Hirsch explained to the Board they should weigh and balance the information
they have heard. They should consider
what the benefits of this application are and if there are any detriments. He said the Board can impose
conditions.
Attorney Hirsch
explained the Board has only six voting members. To approve the application there must be five yes votes. Attorney Primavera said his client would
like a vote this evening.
Mr. Addonizio
said he will not be able to vote but he has a few comments regarding the
application. He said this application
was not about the residents but about a business proposition. He said the applicant has owned the facility
for years and could have made improvements at any time. He said he feels the proposed building is
too large for the property. He said if
this is approved the facility will be less conforming. It will increase impervious coverage and
building coverage.
Mrs. DeSarno
agreed with Mr. Addonizio and made a motion to deny the application. She said she may have been more inclined to
approve a smaller version. She said she
feels this will be a detriment to the neighborhood. She feels there is a negative impact.
Mrs. Morrissey
seconded the motion. She said the
application was over utilized in a residential area. (Mesdames DeSarno, Morrissey, Messrs. Gray and Clayton voted
yes. Messrs. Rembiszewski and Cinelli
voted no.) The application was
denied.
Mr. Cinelli
voted for the application. He said
everything the Board has asked of this applicant he has complied with. He said the applicant has presented a state
of the art facility. He said this would
have been a vast improvement.
NEW APPLICATIONS
November 13,
2002 Page
4
CASE #BA33-2002:
Date application
complete: September 6, 2002
APPLICANT: ROBERT L. AUMACK, JR.
PROPERTY: 1813 Carterville Road, Block 920, Lot
28, R-20 zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk variance
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated that the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Drawings showing addition
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: Robert
Aumack
Mr. Aumack
stated he would like to add a front porch.
He would replace the planter. He
said he does not meet the front setback of 30’. He said the porch would be approximately 8’ X 21’.
Chairman Clayton
asked for the dimensions of the existing porch. Mr. Aumack said it is 4’ X 15’.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if there would be a roof. Mr. Aumack
said yes but it would not be enclosed.
Attorney Hirsch
asked Mr. Aumack what was on lot 27.
Mr. Aumack said there is a dwelling there the same size as his.
Attorney Hirsch asked
what that setback was. Mr. Aumack said
his front porch will extend in front of that one. He said on the other side the house sits back further than
his. He said that house also fronts on
Carmerville Road.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if the trees in the front will come down. Mr. Aumack said they will stay.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked what materials will be used. Mr.
Aumack said it will be a wooden porch.
The decking will be mahogany and the railing will be plastic. He said he will plant some shrubs. The driveway will remain. The front door will stay where it is.
Chairman Clayton
asked how far the porch will be from the street. Mr. Aumack said the road is another 10’ from his property
line.
Mr. Gray said he
noticed some construction going on in the back of the property. He asked if he needed anything for that. Mr. Aumack said no. Mr. Gerken said nothing is needed for anything in the rear. There are no variances needed.
The application
was open and closed to the public.
November 13,
2002 Page
5
Mrs. Morrissey
moved to approve the application as applied for. Mr. Addonizio seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved
by a roll call vote. (Mrs. Morrissey,
Messrs, Addonizio, Gray, Rembiszewski, Cinelli, Mrs. DeSarno and Mr. Clayton
voted yes.)
The Board
recessed at 8:55 P.M.
Mr. Cinelli left
the meeting.
The meeting
resumed at 10:12 P.M.
CASE #BA32-2002 – Date application complete: August 30,
2002
APPLICANT: SOPHIA M. GARRETT
PROPERTY: 2569 Crestview Drive, Block 347, Lot 43,
R-10 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.
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: Sophia
Garrett
Attorney
Middleton explained the applicant is asking for approval to build on an
undersized lot. The lot is located on
Summit Road. It is block 347, lot
43. Mrs. Garrett purchased the lot in
1970. The lot is vacant. Mrs. Garrett owns the adjoining lot on
Crestview Drive. The lots are separate
and have been separate since the 1970’s.
Mrs. Garrett would like to give the lot to her daughter and
son-in-law. Mrs. Garrett is requesting
a variance for lot area, lot width and lot frontage. The property was offered to the adjoining property owners. Attorney Middleton said he did not get a
response from either neighbor. He said
Mr. Schweir did the appraisal.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Certified letter sent to Arthur Beck dated
August 15, 2002
A-2 Certified letter sent to Mr. & Mrs.
Richard Sieigler dated August 15, 2002
Attorney
Middleton asked Mrs. Garrett if she was the owner of lot 43. Mrs. Garrett said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if the property was located on Summit Road and vacant. Mrs. Garrett said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if the lot was purchased in 1970. Mrs. Garrett said August 1970.
Attorney Middleton asked if she also owned the lot on Crestview
Drive. Mrs. Garrett said yes. He asked if there was a house on the lot on
Crestview Driver. Mrs. Garrett said
yes. Attorney Middleton asked if she
received separate tax bills. Mrs.
Garrett said yes since 1970.
November 13,
2002 Page
6
Attorney
Middleton asked if Mrs. Garrett wanted to convey the vacant lot to her daughter
and son-in-law. Mrs. Garrett said yes.
Attorney
Middleton said there was an anonymous letter sent to the Board that was
unsigned. He said one of the issues in
that letter was a driveway located on lot 43.
Attorney Middleton asked Mrs. Garrett what she uses lot 43 for. Mrs. Garrett said she parks there when it
snows because she is on a hill.
Attorney Middleton asked where you normally park. Mrs. Garrett said on Crestview Drive. Attorney Middleton asked if there was a
driveway on lot 43. Mrs. Garrett said
no.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if Mrs. Garrett bought the two lots at the same time. Mrs. Garrett said yes.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if the prior owner used the vacant lot.
Mrs. Garrett said it was all overgrown when she purchased it.
Mrs. Morrissey
asked if the lot was conforming in 1970.
Attorney Middleton said he did not know.
Chairman Clayton
asked about side setbacks. Attorney
Middleton said they will conform to side yard setbacks.
Chairman Clayton
asked what type of house will be built on the lot. Attorney Middleton said a 2˝ story. There is a two story to the east and across the street.
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: Terrance
Hegel
Attorney
Middleton said Mr. Hegel is Mrs. Garrett’s son-in-law. He asked Mr. Hegel if he was going to build
a house on lot 43. Mr. Hegel said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. Hegel if he put together the plans for the new house. Mr. Hegel said yes. Attorney Middleton asked Mr. Hegel to
describe the plans.
Entered into
evidence:
A-3 Plans consisting of six sheets
Mr. Hegel said
it will be a 2˝ story Colonial house.
The first floor will have 1,100 s.f. and the second will have 1,100
s.f. There will be two dormers on the
roof. There will be a basement. On the right hand side there will be a one
car garage.
Mr. Hegel said
the house will have vinyl cedar shingles.
All the trim will be white.
There will be a mahogany porch.
He said it will be an improvement to the neighborhood.
Attorney
Middleton asked if the proposed house will fit in with the character of the neighborhood. Mr. Hegel said yes.
November 13,
2002 Page
7
Mr. Hegel said
they will tag the trees that will not be disturbed. He said he will try to keep as many trees as we can.
Attorney
Middleton stated Chairman Clayton had concerns regarding the 2˝ story. Mr. Hegel said the ˝ story is an attic. He said you will be able to stand up in
it. He said they need the storage
space.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked if it will have pull down stairs.
Mr. Hegel said there will be a staircase.
Attorney Hirsch
asked for the height of the proposed house.
Mr. Hegel said 32˝’.
Mr. Hegel said
he is going to landscape both sides of the property.
Mrs. Morrissey
said the lot is long and narrow. Mr.
Hegel agreed. Mrs. Morrissey asked when
the lot was subdivided. Attorney
Middleton said it was not subdivided.
It was just there.
Mr. Gray asked
where the garage is going to go. Mr.
Hegel said where the three windows are on the front.
Mr. Gerken said
the lots were created in 1931.
Richard
Lapinski, Planner, was sworn. Mr.
Lapinski gave his credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. Lapinski to describe the variances. Mr. Lapinski said the site is located in the
R-10 zone. The site is only 50’ X 100’. He stated all lots in the neighborhood have
single family residences on them. He
said all bulk requirements will be met.
He said they are proposing 5,000 s.f. lot area where 10,000 s.f. is
required. There is 50’ lot width where
75’ is required. He said the
neighborhood character is unique. He
said there are five lots 50’ X 100’ within 200’ of this site. He said there are 23 lots within a 200’
radius. He said there is a two story
residence to the north. He said the
house to the south is larger. He said
the acquisition of additional land is not possible. He said the proposed house is proportionally set to the lot. He said the house to the north is 33’ from
the proposed dwelling. The house to the
south is 38’ from the proposed dwelling.
He said this is consistent with the Master Plan. He said this will not alter the character of
the neighborhood.
Chairman Clayton
asked if this lot was ever conforming.
Mr. Lapinski said he did not think so.
Mr. Gerken said
the last Master Plan was done in the 90’s.
He said prior to that it was R-10 zone.
The application
was open to the public.
George Koch, 2573
Crestview Road, was sworn.
Mr. Koch said he
is a neighbor. He said he lives
southeast of the property. He said he
would like to go on record as supporting this application.
November 13,
2002 Page
8
Mr. Addonizio
said the Board received two anonymous letters opposing this application. He said he does not accept letters from
people who do not put their name on it.
Mr. Addonizio
moved to approve the application as applied for. Mrs. DeSarno seconded the motion, which was unanimously approved
by a roll call vote. (Mr. Addonizio,
Mrs. DeSarno, Mr. Gray, Mrs. Morrissey, Messrs. Rembiszewski and Clayton voted
yes.)
RESOLUTIONS
TO BE MEMORIALIZED:
JANE ALWELL/JOHN
MULRENAN – BA#27-2002
Block 915, Lot
15 Gray/Rembiszewski
CHRISTOPHER SPAGNOLI
– BA#28-2002
Block 25, Lot 76 Rembiszewski/Morrissey
There being no
further business to come before the Board, a motion was made, seconded, and
unanimously approved to adjourn the meeting at 9:55 P.M.
Respectfully
submitted,
Betty Schinestuhl
Recording
Secretary