ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEET
DECEMBER 5, 2001
The Regular
Meeting of the Wall Township Board of Adjustment was called to order by
Chairman Noorigian at 7:30 P.M. Members
present were Chairman Noorigian, Vice Chairman Clayton, Mary DeSarno, Thomas
Grasso, Ralph Addonizio, Anthony Rembiszewski, first alternate Mark Brosnan,
second alternate Wilma Morrissey, Attorney Hirsch, Planning Coordinator Pam
D’Andrea, Recording Secretary Betty Schinestuhl, Engineer Glenn Gerken, Planner 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 stated there are four applications scheduled for this evening. Amerada Hess is being carried to February 6,
2002. Meccia will be heard first.
Mr. Cinelli
arrived at 7:40 P.M.
CASE
#BA15-2001 – Date
application complete: May 15,
2001. Carried from August 1, 2001,
September 5, 2001 and November 7, 2001
APPLICANT:
CHRISTOPHER MECCIA
PROPERTY:
1640 Martin Road, Block 943, Lot 16, R-60 Zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Bulk Variance
Timothy B.
Middleton, Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney
Middleton said at the first meeting the applicant testified. History of the property was given. The neighbors spoke at that meeting. The engineer spoke about the letter of
interpretation that was received from the DEP delineating the wetlands. This is an undersized lot. The adjoining property owners were asked if
they would consider selling a portion of their property. The Simms property is a flag lot. In Wall Township flag lots are required to
have double the property required. That
requirement makes the Simms property undersized. The applicant offered his property to the adjoining
neighbors. They said no. Attorney Middleton stated Mr. Lawrence could
not make the meeting this evening. The
Township engineer has visited the property maybe he can answer the neighbor’s
questions. The wetlands have been
delineated.
Mr. Gerken said
he visited the site. He said the Board
is concerned about this property. The
applicant has an LOI. He said it would
be beneficial for the applicant to have a grading plan done. He said if the grading is changed more than
2½” they need a variance. The LOI goes
with the land.
December 5, 2001 Page
2
Attorney
Middleton stated if a grading plan is needed before approval they will submit
one. He said the applicant requests
that this application be carried. The
applicant will submit the grading
plan to Mr.
Gerken before the next meeting. Mr.
Gerken suggested also doing a buffering averaging.
Mr. Clayton said
he would like to see the stream on the plans.
Attorney Middleton said he does not believe the stream is on the Meccia
property.
Mr. Grasso said
he believes the stream will take a change in path because of the heavy
equipment on the property. He said he
believes that lot was once dry. He said
he believes the wet was created. He
said he has some concerns about building a home on a wet piece of
property.
Robert Shimko,
1636 Martin Road, stated this application has been going on for five
months. Mr. Shimko stated the applicant
should have provided all the information by now.
Attorney
Middleton explained the applicant’s engineer had a stroke.
Chairman
Noorigian said this application will be carried.
Attorney
Middleton said the applicant will hire a new engineer.
Chairman
Noorigian said this application will be carried to February 20, 2002. Attorney Middleton waived the time limits.
CASE
#BA27-2001: Date application complete: September 28, 2001. Carried from November 7, 2001
APPLICANT:
KIRK AND TAMMY BENNETT
PROPERTY:
1203 Remsen Mill Road, Block 355, Lot 17, R-60 Zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Use variance
Chairman
Noorigian noted that Kirk and Tammy Bennett were sworn at the last meeting and
they are still under oath. He stated
two members were not at the last meeting.
Mr. Cinelli is not available to vote.
Attorney Hirsch explained Mr. Addonizio listened to the tapes of that
meeting and is available to vote.
Entered into
evidence:
A-16 Letter from Greg Kirk dated November 19,
2001
Attorney Hirsch
explained there are two residences on one lot.
It is a pre-existing non-conforming use. The Construction Official stated the damage is 40% – 45%. The Board has to consider the applicant can
build the house the same size it was.
If they are going to tear it down
December 5, 2001 Page
3
they need a
variance for the pre-existing non-conforming use. Attorney Hirsch explained the application.
Mr. Addonizio
said they don’t have to rebuild it and keep the cinderblock wall. You can tear one wall down and rebuild
it. He said his understanding is that
they want to build a bigger house and that is why they are here. They are going from a 1,500 s.f. house to a
2,000 s.f. house. The 2,000 s.f. house
would fit more in with the neighborhood.
Mr. Grasso said
the Board has a chance to bring the property into conformity. He said this property is not in keeping with
the neighborhood. They are relying on
the income from the garage apartment to sustain themselves through this
process.
Mr. Addonizio
asked how long the apartment has been in existence. Mrs. Bennett said since 1968.
Mr. Addonizio
asked how big is the apartment. Mrs.
Bennett said 500 s.f.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if the Bennett family lived there.
Mrs. Bennett said yes.
Mr. Addonizio
asked how are the conditions. Mrs.
Bennett said they are very cramped.
Mr. Addonizio
asked how many bedrooms. Mrs. Bennett
said one.
Mr. Addonizio
asked how many other rooms there were.
Mrs. Bennett said there is one bedroom, a living room, kitchen and a
bathroom.
Mr. Addonizio
asked how many people could live in the apartment comfortably. Mrs. Bennett said 1 – 2 adults.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if the previous owner rented this apartment. Mrs. Bennett said yes.
Mr. Addonizio
asked how long have the Bennett’s lived in Wall. Mrs. Bennett said she has lived here 8 years and her husband has
lived here all his life.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked to see a photo of the proposed house.
Mrs. DeSarno asked if the applicant has thought about changing the
roof. Mrs. Bennett said both roofs
would be pitched. Mrs. DeSarno asked if
they would all match. Mrs. Bennett said
yes.
Mr. Maczuga
asked if Mrs. DeSarno was talking about the second structure. He said they need a variance to pitch the
roof.
Mr. Clayton said
there was some testimony about joining the garage and the house. He asked how much impact that would have
regarding the roof. Mr. Clayton asked
if there were any records showing how long the apartment has been rented.
Mrs. Bennett
said it has been rented since 1968.
December 5, 2001 Page
4
Entered into
evidence:
A-17 Tax assessment showing the garage apartment
being in existence
Attorney
Middleton said the zoning laws were modified in the 50’s and then again in the
60’s.
Mr. Grasso said
a two family dwelling is not in keeping with the neighborhood. He said if the garage apartment stays there
would be an impact on the Township and the schools.
Mrs. Bennett
said a one bedroom apartment can only be rented to a certain amount of
people. She said it is just a one
bedroom apartment.
Mr. Grasso said
if you were to rent the apartment to a young couple and they had children you
could not turn them away. He said this
would not be in conformity with the neighborhood. He asked Mrs. Bennett what her taxes were. Mrs. Bennett said $4,700 right now. They will go up over double with the new
house.
Mrs. Morrissey
said at the last meeting she remembers the apartment being rented since
1975. This evening you are saying
1968. Mrs. Bennett said she has found
out more information. It is 1968.
Mr. Clayton
asked if they would deed restrict the apartment to only rent to 1 – 2 people.
8:32 P.M. The
Board recessed.
8:42 the meeting
resumed.
Mr. Clayton said
the aerial map should be entered into evidence.
Entered into
evidence:
A-18 Aerial map dating back to 1969
Mr. Addonizio
asked if BOCA rules surpass township ordinances. Attorney Hirsch said they are two different areas of the
law. He stated Municipal Land Use Law
does not give the Board anything to go on.
Mr. Maczuga read
400C3B. Attorney Hirsch explained the
ordinance. Attorney Hirsch read Mr.
Kirk’s letter.
Mrs. Bennett
said they went to the Building Department before they purchased the property
Attorney Hirsch
asked Mrs. Bennett if she asked the Building Department if they could
rebuild. Mrs. Bennett said we asked if
we could square it off and add a second story.
The Building
Department told
her there was no problem. Attorney
Hirsch asked when did they go to the Building Department. Mrs. Bennett said January 2000.
December 5, 2001 Page
5
Attorney
Middleton asked if she told them they were going to build a bigger house. Mrs. Bennett said she told them they wanted
to build a bigger house. Attorney
Middleton asked if she got the statements in writing. Mrs. Bennett said no.
Attorney
Middleton, regarding the A-5 photo, said the garage apartment has two bays and
what appears to be a third. It appears
to be living space. He asked if they
replaced one of the bays with a door.
Mrs. Bennett said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if behind the garage door is there a bay. Mrs. Bennett said yes.
Attorney
Middleton asked if anyone was living there.
Mrs. Bennett said no.
Attorney
Middleton, regarding Mr. Kirk’s letter, said his only comment is if the Board
is going to rely on Mr. Kirk’s report that the house is only partially
destroyed he would like the opportunity to speak to Mr. Kirk. He also would like his client, Mr. McAllen,
to be able to go into the house and take a look around.
Mr. Addonizio
asked Attorney Middleton why didn’t he ask Mr. Kirk to attend the meeting when
he received the report. Attorney
Middleton said he just received the report.
Mr. Addonizio
stated if Attorney Middleton has an outside expert come in and testify the
numbers will be different. Mr.
Addonizio said he is comfortable with Mr. Kirk’s report.
Attorney
Middleton said he thinks Mr. Kirk rendered his report with the understanding
that the 50% was the issue.
Attorney Hirsch
said the applicant can still ask for the same relief. Even if the Board denies the application they can still have two
residents on the lot.
Mr. Grasso said
there are a few problems with this application. He said this application does not conform with the
neighborhood. He said the applicant can
live in the garage apartment until the new structure is complete and then the
garage apartment should be demolished.
The new structure would then look like it belongs.
Mrs. Bennett
stated after the new house is finished she would not be able to afford the
taxes. She stated there is a personal
hardship. Mr. Grasso said if they tear
down the garage apartment the taxes will be different.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked Mrs. Bennett about the living quarters downstairs in the garage
apartment. Mrs. Bennett said it is a
concrete floor. It is not
finished.
Mr. Rembiszewski
asked if Mrs. Bennett went to the Building Department on her own. Mrs. Bennett said she went with her husband.
Mr. Maczuga
asked if it was made clear to the Building Department that there were two
structures on the lot. Mr. Bennett said
yes. Mr. Clayton said the Building
Department had to know that. They had
to go inspect it after the fire.
December 5, 2001 Page
6
Mrs. DeSarno
asked if they applied for a permit and then was told you had to go before the
Board. Mrs. Bennett said when she went
for a demolition permit she was told she had to go before the Board.
Robert McAllen,
12010 Remsen Mill Road, was sworn.
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. McAllen where he lived in relationship to the property in
question. Mr. McAllen said two houses
down. He said his wife owns the house
which is directly across the street. We
are within 200 feet. He said he objects
to this application. He stated what is
on the property is not in keeping with the neighborhood. The homes there now are larger. He stated he does not believe a two dwelling
residence belongs in this neighborhood.
He said the Board has to consider what impact it has on the
neighborhood. He said there is no
hardship here. He said it does put a
hardship on the residents.
Attorney
Middleton asked Mr. McAllen if his concern was that the applicant would build a
home larger than what is there now. Mr.
McAllen said he wishes they would build a new home. He said it is very hard to control the number of people in an
apartment. Mr. McAllen asked if there
were any permits issued because there is an enormous amount of fill being
brought in. He said they should
demolish the structure and build a house then demolish the garage
apartment.
Mrs. DeSarno
said if they can rebuild the existing house would you prefer to see that
instead of a new home. Mr. McAllen
said they should take the three car garage and incorporate it into the design
of the new home.
Mr. Addonizio
asked if you could limit the ad for the apartment to single professional, no
kids. Attorney Hirsch said the Board
can place a restriction on the approval but it would be very hard to enforce.
Mr. Clayton
asked Mr. McAllen how long he lived in that neighborhood. Mr. McAllen said since 1982. Mr. Clayton asked if Mr. McAllen researched
the area and did he know the two dwelling residence was in the neighborhood.
Mrs. Bennett
asked Mr. McAllen if there were any other mother-daughter homes in the
neighborhood. Mr. McAllen said no.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked the applicant if they would be willing to change the roof lines. Mrs. Bennett said they have no objection to
that.
Attorney Hirsch
explained what the Board has to consider in this application. The Board has to decide if there is a
pre-existing non-conforming use on this property. They have to decide if this use was once legal. Whether or not there was total destruction
of the primary dwelling and whether it can be rebuilt or whether they have lost
the pre-existing non-conforming use. He
stated if the Board was to approve this application Attorney Middleton can file
an appeal. He suggested to the Board
that Mr. Kirk come to a meeting and have Attorney Middleton question him.
December 5, 2001 Page
7
Mrs. DeSarno
said this application should be carried.
Mrs. Morrissey said she agreed.
Mrs. Morrissey asked Mr. Maczuga if he felt Mr. Kirk should be at the
next meeting. Mr. Maczuga said
yes. Mr. Addonizio also felt Mr. Kirk
should be at the next meeting. Mr.
Rembiszewski also went along with the Board members regarding Mr. Kirk.
Chairman
Noorigian said the application will be carried to January 9, 2002.
Attorney
Middleton asked if he could have his own professional go to the house. Mr. Clayton said he did not think that was
necessary.
Mr. Addonizio
said Mr. Kirk has given an unbiased opinion.
He said if Mr. McAllen hired someone they would go in Mr. McAllen’s
favor.
Mrs. Bennett
said she does not understand why she has to allow someone on her property from
the objector.
Mr. Brosnan said
the applicant can hire their own inspector.
Attorney Hirsch said they are free to call any witnesses they want.
Chairman
Noorigian said the application will be carried to January 9, 2002.
Attorney Hirsch
stated no further noticing is required.
Mr. & Mrs.
Bennett waived the time limits.
10:05 P.M. the
Board recessed.
10:20 the
Meeting resumed.
CASE
#16-2001: Date application complete: May 16, 2001. Carried from July 18, 2001, September 5, 2001 and October 18,
2001
APPLICANT:
PLASTI-CLAD METAL PRODUCTS
PROPERTY:
Highway 34 and Ridgewood Road, Block 806, Lot 5, OR-5 Zone
RELIEF
REQUESTED: Site Plan, Use Variance, Bulk Variance
Mark Aikens,
Esq. appeared for the applicant.
Attorney Aikens
explained this property is located on Ridgewood Road. Plasti-Clad has been in existence for 50 years. The applicant is proposing to construct an
18,000 s.f. building expansion in two phases.
There will be no additional employees.
The material stored in the yard will be stored in the warehouse.
Pearse Mackle,
Birdsall Engineering gave his qualifications.
The Board accepted his qualifications.
December 5, 2001 Page
8
Attorney Aikens
gave an environmental history of the site.
The applicant will provide a synopsis of the environmental site
history.
Mr. Mackle
explained in 1982 the EPA stopped their direct discharge of process water into
the ground. Plasti-Clad no longer
discharges into the ground. Plasti-Clad
installed a system that draws groundwater from the ground into a treatment
system. The excess chromium and zinc is
extracted, stored in dumpsters and taken away by a licensed hauler. Quarterly and annual reports are sent to the
NJDEP. The NJDEP said the treatment
plant is in compliance. They have been
below the standards 50% of the time.
The monitoring is done on site.
Mr. Gerken
suggested getting acknowledgement from the DEP that the proposed detention
basin would not have any negative impact on the adjacent property. Attorney Aikens said he has no problem with
that. Mr. Gerken asked for the
applicant to get something from DEP before the next meeting. Attorney Hirsch stated the Board wants you to
be able to testify that you discussed this with the DEP and there is no impact
on the remediation.
Mrs. DeSarno
asked if the treatment material is stored in 50 gallon drums. Mr. Mackle said in a large container. Mrs. DeSarno asked if there was only one
storage unit on site. Mr. Mackle said
just one. Mrs. DeSarno asked what happens
when it is filled. Mr. Mackle said they
change it and keep the process going.
Mr. Cinelli
asked, since 1982 has there been any DEP concerns. Mr. Mackle said no. Mr.
Cinelli asked if the DEP knew of this application. Mr. Mackle said he did not know.
He would find out. Mr. Cinelli
said he would like to know how the DEP would react to this. Attorney Aikens said he would make the call
to the DEP.
Mr. Grasso asked
if the report that was submitted show that the remediation has cleared up. Mr. Mackle said he did not put anything like
that together. The levels have been
reduced. Attorney Aikens said the DEP
has jurisdiction regarding bench markings.
Mr. Grasso asked
if there was a log where the applicant had kept records. Attorney Aikens said they can talk to the
DEP and see if they have a record. We
submit the data to them. The applicant
does not have a log.
Mr. Grasso asked
if they knew where the outside wells were and how many. Mr. Mackle said there are 4 or 5. He never visited them. Mr. Grasso asked for the location of the
wells. Mr. Mackle said they are marked
on the map.
Mr. Grasso asked
if any permits were required from the DEP.
Mr. Mackle said as far as the treatment system is concerned, no.
Mr. Grasso asked
who monitors the wells. Mr. Mackle said
J.R. Henderson Labs.
Mr. Grasso asked
for some sort of graft from 1982 to present.
He would like to see the improvements.
December 5, 2001 Page
9
Attorney Hirsch
stated DEP has jurisdiction. This is
regulated by DEP. It is monitored by
DEP. The Board has a right to see the
EIS, which has been prepared.
Mr. Cinelli
asked if they are going to clean up the site.
He asked for a landscaping design be submitted to the Board. Attorney Aikens that would be part of the
site plan.
Mr. Brosnan
asked about new jobs. Attorney Aikens
said no new employees are proposed.
Chairman
Noorigian stated this application will be carried to January 16, 2002.
RESOLUTIONS
TO BE ADOPTED:
BLAIR AND
ROBERTA QUIN – BA#26-2001
Block 227, Lot
10 Brosnan/Cinelli
MINUTES TO BE
APPROVED: Mr. Clayton moved to approve the minutes of
the Work Shop and Regular Meeting of November 7, 2001. Mr. Rembiszewski 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