ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 3, 2003
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, Vice Chairperson Mary DeSarno, Dominick Cinelli, Wilma
Morrissey, Anthony Rembiszewski, Ralph Addonizio, Jim Gray, first alternate Bob
Kerr, second alternate Wayne Palmer, Attorney Hirsch, Planning Coordinator
Roberta Lang, Recording Secretary Betty Schinestuhl, Engineer Hoover and
Reporter Arnone.
SALUTE TO THE FLAG
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.
CARRIED APPLICATIONS
CASE #BA18-2003 – Date application complete: May 21,
2003
APPLICANT: DAVID GARRISON
PROPERTY: 2408 Lenape Trail, Block 322, Lot 42-45,
R-7.5 zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Bulk
Attorney Hirsch said
jurisdiction was previously accepted.
This is a rehearing. The
applicant asked for the Board to hear additional testimony. The Board can vote however way it
feels. It is not bound by their last
vote.
Sworn by
Reporter Arnone: David
Garrison
Tom Peterson, Architect
Mr. Garrison
thanked the Board for hearing this again.
The architect reduced the addition.
The variance is less.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Photo of home on Ivanhoe Path showing a
3½‘ side setback
A-2 Photo of home on Ivanhoe Path showing the
existing garage 4’ from side yard
A-3 Photo of home on Algonkin Trail showing a
6’ side setback
A-4 Photo of home on Hillcrest showing a5’
side setback
Mr. Peterson
gave his qualifications which were accepted by the Board.
December 3, 2003 Page 2
Mr. Peterson
said there is an existing two car garage.
It is not very large. The
applicant would like to park cars and store lawn furniture in the garage. The existing garage setback is closer in the
back than the front. The original
application was to expand 6’. It would
have been 5’ from the property line in the rear to about 6’ in the front. We were able to cut back. The addition would be 5½‘ from the property
line in the rear and 6½‘ in the front.
7½‘ is required. It is an
attached garaged. If this was a
detached garage the requirement would be 5’ from the property line. Because of the position of the house on the
other side the setback is 19’ – 19½‘.
We are only asking for 36 s.f.
The neighbors have no problems.
Mr. Peterson
explained the alternative to this addition would be a shed. It would take away from the backyard. The other setbacks are well below the
requirements. The hardship is the
position of the house on the property.
It doesn’t allow the applicant to put the addition anywhere else. This addition would have no impact on
anyone.
Attorney Hirsch
asked what the setback of the adjoining property from the property line is and
what buffering is between those two properties. Mr. Peterson said that house is 10’ off the property line. There is landscaping between the
houses. There is a fence on the
neighbor’s property. It is a chain
link.
Entered into
evidence:
A-5 Photo
from just over the subject property line showing the neighbor’s house, fence
and shrubs
Attorney Hirsch asked,
referring to A-5, if that was a doorway on the neighbor’s house? Mr. Peterson yes, they have a side door and
there is a window next to it.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if Mr. Garrison will be planting any buffering on the side. Mr. Peterson said yes. He will plant shrubs along the fence. They will be the height of the fence.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if he would plant trees and aver vides.
Mr. Peterson agreed.
Mr. Cinelli
asked for the total square footage of the addition. Mr. Peterson said it will be 5½‘ X 24 for a total of 132 s.f.
Mr. Cinelli said
if Mr. Garrison were to get a shed it would be at least 10’ X 12’. Mr. Peterson agreed.
Chairman Clayton
asked how many homes in the neighborhood you surveyed that had violations. Mr. Peters said if you drive through the
neighborhood the homes are closer than 7½‘ in many instances.
Chairman Clayton
asked if Mr. Garrison was staying with the same garage doors. Mr. Peterson said yes.
Chairman Clayton
asked what is the height at the slopes.
Mr. Peterson said about 10’ – 11’.
Chairman Clayton said the existing is about 12’. Mr. Peterson said no, about 16’.
December 3, 2003 Page 3
Chairman Clayton
asked if there will be access to the space above the garage. Mr. Peterson said yes. Chairman Clayton asked if it would be used
for storage only. Mr. Peterson said
yes.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if they were expanding the driveway.
Mr. Peterson said no.
Attorney Hirsch
asked what is in the breezeway. Mr.
Garrison said it is just an entranceway from the garage to the main house. It just connects the two structures
together.
Attorney Hirsch
asked for the size of the breezeway. Mr.
Peterson said about 10’ – 12’.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if there was any way for the breezeway to be combined with the garage
area. Mr. Peterson said not
easily. It has glass on each side. Mr. Addonizio said if you used the breezeway
as storage you would not need a variance.
Mr. Peterson said that is correct.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked how high the space above the garage is.
Mr. Peterson said about 5’ – 6’.
It slopes down.
Entered into
evidence:
A-6 Photo of existing side of garage
Mrs. DeSarno
asked if there is anything with a double garage and an addition in the
neighborhood. Mr. Peterson said there
was nothing that was an exact match.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if the applicant had a photo of what the house looks like now.
Entered into
evidence:
A-7 Photo from the Coast Star showing the
existing home
The application
was open to the public.
Joe Belko, 2409
Lenape Trail, was sworn.
Mr. Belko said
he is the neighbor across the street.
He said there is no one in the neighborhood that opposes this. We have no concerns. This really isn’t that big of an issue. He said the addition would be
camouflaged. This will look like part
of the home. Anybody would rather have
an architect design something that would be added to the house rather than a
shed.
The application
was closed to the public.
Mr. Gray said
the house is now 11’ from the property line after the addition it will be
5½’ Mr. Gray suggested some aver vides
on the side. He said it would be an
improvement.
Mr. Cinelli
moved to approve the application subject to two conditions: no shed in the back
yard and aver vides be planted along the property line. Mr. Rembiszewski seconded the motion which
was unanimously approved by a roll call vote.
(Messrs. Cinelli, Rembiszewski, Gray,
December 3, 2003 Page 4
Addonizio and
Clayton voted yes. Mesdames Morrissey
and DeSarno voted no.) The application
was approved.
Mr. Cinelli
recused himself from the Deceasre and Defeo applications.
CASE #BA21-2003
– Date application
complete: June 16, 2003
APPLICANT: ALISON DECESARE
PROPERTY: 4120 West Eighteenth Avenue, Block 952,
Lot 6, R-R zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk
Attorney Hirsch reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction
to proceed.
Timothy B. Middleton, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney Middleton said the applicant is proposing to raze the existing
home that is on West Eighteenth Avenue.
The property is in the R-60 zone.
It is a little over one acre.
The property is unique. It is
triangle in shape. Brisbane is to the
north. There are residents to the
south. The existing setback is 17.8’,
the requirement is 50’. A variance for
25’ will be needed. The other variance
is for the size of the lot. This
property is in a two acre zone. The
property is 1.1 acres.
Attorney Middleton described the proposed house. It will be 4,400
s.f. 2,300 s.f. on the first floor and
2,100 s.f. on the second floor. There
will be no basement. There will be a
three car garage. It will be used for
storage. The entrance to the garage
will be located to the rear. It is more
prudent to locate the house back further because cars speed down West
Eighteenth Avenue. Other homes in the
neighborhood are 80’ – 90’ from the road.
This house would be about 60’ from the road. The lot is located right next to state property. It is wet and will never be developed.
Entered into evidence:
A-1 Plot plan
A-2 Photo of neighbor’s
property across the street to the south
A-3 Photo of neighbor’s
property across the street to the south
A-4 Photo of subject property
A-5 Copy of architectural plans
Attorney Hirsch said the engineer’s report states there are two other
variances. Attorney Middleton said they
were eliminated.
Mr. Gray said a variance is needed for rear setback and lot area. Attorney Middleton said that is correct.
December 3, 2003 Page 5
Stuart Challoner, Engineer and Planner gave his credentials which were
accepted by the Board. Mr. Challoner
was sworn.
Attorney Middleton asked Mr. Challoner if he was familiar with the
property. Mr. Challoner said yes.
Attorney Middleton asked if he designed the plans. Mr. Challoner said yes.
Attorney Middleton asked if he prepared the grading plan. Mr. Challoner said yes.
Attorney Middleton asked Mr. Challoner to describe the subject property.
Mr. Challoner said the property is triangle in shape. It is 1.1 acre. It is in the RR zone. There
are existing variances. There is an
existing one story dwelling on site. To
the rear is state owned property. It is
Brisbane. There are wetlands on that
property. There is a 50’ buffer to the
wetlands. 50% of the existing home
violates the setback. The property
drains toward the wetlands. The front
drains toward the roadway. The property
in the rear is vacant. There are
residential homes across the street.
Mr. Challoner stated the applicant is proposing a two-story frame
dwelling. The entrance for the garage
will be in the rear. The driveway will
be in the front and go around the left side.
The house will be positioned closer to the road to make the rear setback
28’, 50’ is required. The garage is
about 90’ back from the road. There is
an irregular paved footprint along the rear.
The property in the rear will remain vacant.
Attorney Middleton asked Mr. Challoner to describe the other homes and
their setbacks. Mr. Challoner said on
West 18th, across the street, they have a front yard setback of
approximately 90’.
Attorney Middleton said if this home is moved forward it would not be in
keeping with the other homes. Mr.
Challoner said that is correct.
Attorney Middleton asked if this home was in keeping with the others in
the neighborhood. Mr. Challoner said
yes. Some of the houses are 3,000 –
5,000 s.f. This will be 4,200 s.f. There are multi-stories in the neighborhood.
Attorney Middleton asked about Allaire Woods. Mr. Challoner said the homes in Allaire Woods are similar.
Mr. Challoner said this home will be in keeping with the
neighborhood.
Attorney Middleton asked if the existing wetlands on the property
contribute to the variances. Mr.
Challoner said yes. He said the lot is
irregular.
Attorney Middleton asked about the negative criteria. Mr. Challoner said there is no negative criteria.
December 3, 2003 Page 6
Mrs. Morrissey asked if the applicant is planning on keeping as many
trees as possible. Attorney Middleton
said yes and the applicant will testify.
Chairman Clayton asked about the existing height. Mr. Challoner said the existing dwelling is
a one story. It is about 15’. Chairman Clayton asked about the proposed
structure. Mr. Challoner said the
proposed structure is 35’ in height.
Mr. Gerken asked if that was from around the perimeter of the
house. Mr. Challoner said it was taken
from the grade. Attorney Middleton said
the available grade was taken for the four corners of the house.
Chairman Clayton said in the rear of the property there has been some
clearing between the proposed structure and the wood line. Attorney Middleton said about 25’ has been
cleared.
There were no questions from the public for Mr. Challoner.
Dan Deceasre was sworn. Mr.
Deceasre said he has lived at this site for 30 years. He said he will live in the new dwelling. This design is very comfortable. It consists of four bedrooms, three bathrooms,
etc. It is a standard colonial.
Attorney Middleton asked if the garage will be used for storage. Mr. Deceasre said yes.
Attorney Middleton asked if this new structure will be in keeping with
the neighborhood. Mr. Deceasre said
yes.
Mrs. Morrissey asked if there were any problems with the septic
tank. Mr. Deceasre said no.
Attorney Middleton said the septic tank will be moved from the rear to
the front right.
Chairman Clayton asked how close is the house on lot 8 to the property
line. Attorney Middleton said about
500’.
There were no questions from the public for Mr. Deceasre.
Attorney Middleton said the lot is irregular. There are wetlands on the property. Brisbane is in the rear and that necessitates the variances. Other homes in the neighborhood are 90’ from
the road. It will be a nice home. It is very much in keeping with the other
homes in the area. The positive
criteria has been met. The variances
will have no negative impact.
The application was open and closed to the public.
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, Palmer, Mrs. DeSarno and Mr. Clayton
voted yes.
The Board
recessed at 8:45 P.M.
The meeting
resumed at 9:00 P.M.
Case #36-2003 – Date application complete: October 1,
2003
December 3, 2003 Page 7
APPLICANT: SAM DEFEO/CHRIS DEFEO
PROPERTY: 1726 Highway 35, Block 78, Lots 2 &
3, HB-40 zone
RELIEF REQUESTED: Use/Bulk/Site
Attorney Hirsch
reviewed the file and stated the Board had jurisdiction to proceed.
Timothy B.
Middleton, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney
Middleton said the applicant is seeking permission to erect a building for sale
of automobiles. The site is located on
Route 35. It is bound by Foodtown to
the south and a car wash to the north. It
is the Jost/Ziebart property. This is a
pre-existing, non-conforming use. The
property has been used for a variety of things. One of the aspects of the business was the sale of cars and
trucks. The applicant is proposing to increase
the size of the building and increase the number of automobiles to be
sold. It is located in the HB-40
zone. It does not meet two of the
conditions. One of the conditions is
there could not be a car dealer within two miles of each other. There is a car dealership across the
street. The other is no storage of cars
or display of cars within 25’ of the street line. We are proposing 10’ from the street line. This variance should be granted.
Attorney
Middleton explained the site is cluttered with cars now. This applicant will eliminate those
problems. Parking will be within the
parking area. The existing site was
built in the 1960’s. There is no
drainage on site. The water is
completely unfiltered. It runs toward
Route 35 to Shark River. The applicant
is proposing an underground detention system.
Water leaving the site will be fairly clean.
Attorney
Middleton said the existing business works outside creating noise. The proposed business will have no work
outside. It will have less impact on
the neighbors. There is a 50’ buffer
proposed. It is 25’ now. There is a chain link fence. There is storage of cars in the rear. A 4’ berm 50’ wide will replace the 6’
fence. The berm will be heavily
landscaped. The building in 4 – 5 years
will be complete obscured. The berm
will also create a noise barrier. There
is no landscaping now. The applicant
will plant 600 trees and bushes on site.
It will be heavily landscaped.
Barry Jost was
sworn. Mr. Jost said his family owns
the property.
Attorney
Middleton asked when did your family purchase the property. Mr. Jost said in 1971. We have operated there since that time.
Attorney
Middleton asked what was it being used for.
Mr. Jost said the property was being used for car and truck sales. It also serviced vehicles.
Attorney
Middleton asked if after the Jost family purchased the property you continued
to sell trucks. Mr. Jost said yes. We do so many things there. We do car and truck sales and also service.
December 3, 2003 Page 8
Attorney
Middleton asked if there was a used car license on site. Mr. Jost said yes. Attorney Middleton asked when did that license start. Mr. Jost said it started in 1986 to
present. He said his family has
additional documents going back further than that. Attorney Middleton said there was a used car license prior to
1986. Mr. Jost said yes because we have
been operating since 1971.
Attorney
Middleton asked besides the sales do you also rent. Mr. Jost said yes.
Attorney Middleton asked for how long.
Mr. Jost said 29 – 30 years.
Attorney
Middleton asked how many cars, trucks and Winnebago’s do you rent. Mr. Jost said 65 - 75. Attorney Hirsch asked what they are. Mr. Jost said Hertz, Ryder, etc. Attorney Hirsch asked if they are stored on
site. Mr. Jost said the Hertz vehicles
go out and they often go one way. We
rent, sometimes, 15 – 20 per day.
Attorney
Middleton asked if body work was done on site.
Mr. Jost said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if they do general repairs.
Mr. Jost said yes, we do auto repairs, tune-ups, tire rotation,
etc. No heavy work.
Attorney
Middleton asked if detailing was done on site.
Mr. Jost said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked about rust proofing.
Mr. Jost said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if there was a paint booth on site. Mr. Jost said yes, it is a small paint booth.
Attorney
Middleton said you also store vehicles in the rear. Mr. Jost said yes as far back as he can remember.
Attorney
Middleton asked if some repairs were done outside. Mr. Jost said the shop has eight bays. At times we run out of space and work outside.
Attorney
Middleton asked if they use air tools, etc.
Mr. Jost said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked how many employees on site.
Mr. Jost said eight.
Attorney Middleton
asked for hours of operation. Mr. Jost
said Monday thru Friday, 8:00 A.M. – 5:00 P.M. and on Saturday 8:00 A.M. –
noon.
Entered into
evidence:
A-1 Used car license issued 1986
Attorney Hirsch
asked how long has the storage of vehicles occurred. Mr. Jost said as far as he can remember, since his family
purchased the property. Attorney Hirsch
asked how many cars are stored on site.
Mr. Jost said it fluctuates, generally, 35 – 65. Attorney Hirsch asked if any were
disabled. Mr. Jost said no the vehicles
on site are being worked on. Attorney
Hirsch asked
December 3, 2003 Page 9
how long have
you been doing body work. Mr. Jost said
since his father and uncle purchased the property.
Attorney Hirsch
said you sell cars and trucks. Mr. Jost
said yes. Attorney Hirsch asked how
many used cars are sold within one year.
Mr. Jost said 15 – 20 cars. He
said they did sell new cars at one time.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if the Winnebago’s were new or used.
Mr. Jost said generally used.
Attorney Hirsch asked how many do you sell. Mr. Jost said 5 – 10.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if Mr. Jost maintains and services the rental cars. Mr. Jost said Hertz does that.
Chairman Clayton
asked how many cars are on site at one time.
Mr. Jost said 45 – 50. Mr. Gray
said Mr. Jost said there were about 65 cars in the rear. Mr. Jost said the total number of cars on
site with repairs, storage and rentals is about 75.
Mr. Gray said he
went out to the site. He said there
were some disabled cars in the back. He
asked how many are old and undriveable.
Mr. Jost said between 5 – 6. Mr.
Jost said there is a certain procedure he has to go through before he can get
rid of the cars.
The application
was open to the public.
Jim Gorman, Esq.
represents Foodtown. Attorney Gorman
asked if there was a used car license before 1986. Mr. Jost said there have been dealer plates and licenses since
its inception, which was 1971.
Attorney Gorman
asked how long Mr. Jost has worked with the business. Mr. Jost said since he was a little kid, since 1969. He said he left in the 1980’s to go to
college and he has been back since 1994.
Attorney Gorman
asked if detailing was the bulk of the business. Mr. Jost said yes.
Attorney Gorman asked what percentage.
Mr. Jost said 50%. Attorney
Gorman asked for the percentage of used car business. Mr. Jost said 10% - 15%. Attorney
Gorman asked if there was any franchise.
Mr. Jost said no. The business
has a license for Hertz and motor homes.
Attorney Gorman
asked how much of the business is body work.
Mr. Jost said very little.
Attorney Gorman asked what was going on on the site in 1971. Mr. Jost said his family was trying to build
up the rust proofing, general auto repairs, and small auto body work. We did whatever we needed to.
Attorney Gorman
asked about before 1971. Mr. Jost said
he did not know.
Attorney Gorman
asked if the business has been cited for any violations. Mr. Jost said he doesn’t think so.
December 3, 2003 Page 10
Attorney Gorman
asked Mr. Jost if he knew about zoning in the town. Mr. Jost said not to any extent.
Attorney Gorman
asked about new car sales licenses. Mr.
Jost said the business was approved for the sale of new cars. He said he is not sure of the license
requirements.
Attorney Gorman
asked where and when did the business apply.
Mr. Jost said he did not know.
Mr. Jost said they did have a new car dealer license on site. He said he did not know if the contracts
were drawn up on site. That was in the
early 1980’s. Attorney Gorman asked Mr.
Jost if he was working there then. Mr.
Jost said he was at college.
Attorney Gorman
asked how many new cars were sold in the 1980’s. Mr. Jost said he did not know.
Attorney Gorman asked how many full time employees were selling new
cars. Mr. Jost said he did not know.
Attorney Gorman
asked if there were new cars on site now.
Mr. Jost said yes, cars from Sea Coast.
Attorney Gorman asked if new car customers come to the Ziebert site. Mr. Jost said yes. Attorney Gorman asked if there were sales people on site
now. Mr. Jost said yes, we rent space
to them. Attorney Gorman asked how
often there are sales people on site.
Mr. Jost said once or twice a day.
Attorney Gorman asked if the cars were locked. Mr. Jost said yes. The
ones in the rear are not locked.
Attorney Gorman
asked about the sales of Winnebago’s.
Mr. Jost said they sell about one or two a year. Attorney Gorman asked how many do you sell
on your own account. Mr. Jost said we
are mainly an agent.
Attorney Gorman
asked if they sell cars for other people.
Mr. Jost said yes.
Leanne Hoffman,
Engineer and Planner, gave her credentials which were accepted by the Board.
Entered into
evidence:
A-2 1996 aerial of existing site
A-3 Photos of existing site
A-4 Photos of existing site
Ms. Hoffman
described the site. She said the
Foodtown is to the south and there is a car wash to the north. There is a one story structure on site. There are two access driveways onto Route
35. There is storage of vehicles
throughout the site. It is part paved
and part dirt and gravel. The rain
water enters Route 35. The drainage
system has no water quality. The
existing buffer in the rear is a natural wooded area mostly underbrush.
Attorney
Middleton asked Ms. Hoffman to describe the parking. Ms. Hoffman said cars are parked haphazardly in the rear. They are in the right-of-way.
Attorney
Middleton asked Ms. Hoffman to describe the site as it exists. Ms. Hoffman said, using A-3, these photos were
taken at various locations. They were taken
within the pass two weeks.
December 3, 2003 Page 11
The pavement is
in a state of disrepair. Looking north
onto Route 35 there is an existing guardrail.
You can see some signage. Using
A-4, you can see cars parked up against the fence. You can see the existing buffer and underbrush. A-4 also shows the storage of vehicles on
site.
Entered into
evidence:
A-5 Rendering of proposed building
A-6 Rendering of proposed site plan
showing improvements
A-7 Rendering of full site plan
Ms. Hoffman said
Sea Coast Chevrolet will sell new and used cars. The proposed building will be a two story glass building. The building will have a 2,680 s.f.
showroom. In the rear of the building
there will be 16 service bays, parts area, and personal locker rooms for a
total of 18,000 s.f. The applicant is
proposing two new ingress and egress driveways. The curbing along Route 35 will be removed. New curbing will be installed. You will enter at the southerly most
driveway and proceed to the service area to the customer parking area.
Entered into
evidence:
A-8 Rendering – Identifies the parking
area on site
Ms. Hoffman said
the applicant is proposing 38 customer parking spaces. The handicap spaces have been relocated to
the north side of the building. The
spaces along the north will be delineated with numbers. There will be 25 employee spaces. The stalls will be 8½’ wide X 18’ long. When deliveries come to the site they will
come from the southerly driveway and proceed to the south side of the building
turn at the rear of the building and park by the employee’s spaces. The car carrier will come in the same
way. Employees will help take cars off.
Entered into
evidence:
A-9 Rendering of automobile turn plan
Ms. Hoffman said
the vehicles can make the necessary turns within the site.
Ms. Hoffman said
there is one sign proposed on the front façade. It will show the emblem and Chevrolet. It will be 100 s.f.
Entered into
evidence:
A-10 Proposed pylon sign
Ms. Hoffman said
there will be a sign at the southerly most portion of the site. It will be 25’ high. It will be 64 s.f. for a total of 164
s.f. There will be a service sign for
direction. It will be 20 s.f. Mr. Addonizio asked about the directional
sign. Ms. Hoffman said it is a service
sign. Mr. Addonizio asked if it was to
draw people to get their car serviced.
Ms. Hoffman said it is letting people know where to go to have their car
serviced. Ms. Bergailo said the signage
package needs a variance. Ms. Hoffman
said the total signage package is 180 s.f.
December 3, 2003 Page 12
Ms. Hoffman said
the run-off will be collected in an underground detention system. It will be under the north parking lot. At the end will be a manhole. The existing site is not graded. Some parts hold water. There is no drainage system. This run-off is going to the Route 35
drainage system. It is unfiltered.
Entered into
evidence:
A-11 Line of site
Ms. Hoffman said
there will be two light poles in the rear portion of the property. They will be 12’. The pole is 40’ off the back of the building. The two light poles at the rear will have
house shield. There will be no spillover
at the property line. There will be a
building mounted light in the rear. Those
lights will only go on after other lights have been turned off. Hours of operation are Monday thru Friday
until 9:00 P.M. and Saturday until 6:00 P.M.
Attorney Hirsch
asked for the distance of the light poles to the rear property line. Ms. Hoffman said approximately 65’.
Attorney Hirsch
asked how they are shielded. Ms.
Hoffman said if you stand at the back of the closest house which is 225’ away
the lights would not be visible. There
will be no spillover and no glare. The
building lights will be pointed down.
Chairman Clayton
asked for the height of the lights in the rear. Ms. Hoffman said 12’.
Attorney Hirsch
asked if the four 20’ lights at the north parking lot will be visible. Ms. Hoffman said they would be off after
close of business.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if the signage lights will remain on after business. Ms. Hoffman said yes. Mr. Addonizio asked about the wattage. Ms. Hoffman said the building lights will be
175 watts, pole lights will be 400 watts and the lights in the front will be
1000 watts. Ms. Hoffman said the lights
will not be a problem regarding Route 35.
Attorney Hirsch
said all the lights will be fully shielded.
Ms. Hoffman said that is correct.
Mr. Addonizio
asked what type of lights are they? Ms.
Hoffman said they are metal halide.
Entered into evidence:
A-13 Photo showing existing buffer is minimal
Ms. Hoffman said
the neighbors can see the stored cars and masonry garage. The applicant will have a buffer more
esthetically pleasing. They will not be
able to see the building. They will
install a berm. It will be 5 – 7’. On top of that berm will be a 6’ white vinyl
fence. Between the fence and the
property line there will be shade trees, ground cover, etc. We will put in over 840 plantings,
including, trees, shrubs, ornamental ground covering and perennials. This exceeds the ordinance.
December 3, 2003 Page 13
Entered into
evidence:
A-12 Photo showing the existing buffers in the
area
Attorney Hirsch
said this application will be carried to January 21, 2004.
Chairman Clayton
said no additional noticing is required.
Attorney
Middleton waived the time limits.
RESOLUTIONS TO BE MEMORIALIZED:
TOM & JUDY KARL – BA#35-2003
Block 67, Lot 4 Gray/ DeSarno
VITO G. CASALE – BA#34-2003
Block 65, Lot 38 Rembiszewski/Morrissey
Mr. Gray made a
motion to approve the attendance record for 2003. Mrs. DeSarno seconded the motion and all members 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 10:35 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Betty Schinestuhl
Recording Secretary