The Sayreville Zoning Board of Adjustment on June 25 denied an application from Jan Iris Nunez and Christian Valeria to install a six‑foot vinyl fence at 40 Price Street directly on the property line along Henry Street, effectively seeking a zero‑foot setback where the borough requires a 20‑foot right‑of‑way setback for through lots.

Board members raised multiple concerns during a lengthy hearing: the submitted survey (dated February 2021) does not clearly show an existing pool that the applicants say was present when they purchased the property; the retaining wall where the applicants want to place a fence appears to lie on adjacent property, so the board cannot approve construction “on top of the wall”; and a six‑foot solid vinyl fence atop a three‑to‑four‑foot retaining wall would create a 9‑to‑10‑foot visual barrier that could obstruct sight lines for vehicles entering Henry Street.

Applicant Jan Iris Nunez told the board she wanted a fence “for the safety of our kids.” Zoning Officer Andy Mishanski explained that the applicants initially sought a 10‑foot setback in their office, revised their plan to 3 feet on the denial letter, and during the hearing sought a 0‑foot setback. Chairman Green said the board could not approve the application as presented because the borough ordinance requires a 20‑foot right‑of‑way setback on that through lot; he told the applicants, “We are denying your application. We we cannot accept the application as you want it because we have an ordinance…20 feet.”

Board members also flagged practical problems: if gates swing outward, vehicles would have to stop in the roadway to open them; the proposed fence line could make it unsafe or difficult for neighbors to see oncoming traffic when exiting driveways; and survey lines suggest the block wall the applicants want to use for fence posts may be on the neighbor’s land, which would legally prevent the applicants from placing posts there without the neighbor’s permission.

The board suggested alternatives and next steps: consider a chain‑link or see‑through fence along the Henry Street frontage to preserve visibility, have the fence contractor create a revised plan marking the exact proposed fence line and showing existing nearby fences, and obtain neighbor surveys to clarify property lines. Zoning Officer Mishanski told the applicants to work with the construction office to revise and refile; the board said it would consider a properly revised plan at a future hearing. As an immediate safety measure, board members advised the homeowners to secure or drain the above‑ground pool until fencing and permits are in order.

At the hearing’s close, a motion to deny the application as presented (zero‑foot setback) was moved and seconded and passed by roll call. Members voting in favor of denial included Chairman Green, Vice Chairman Kosinski, Esposito, Emma, Gottstein and Castlegrant. The board instructed the applicants to revise their plan and reapply with clearer survey information, contractor plans, and, if possible, a visibility‑preserving fence type for the Henry Street frontage.

The board’s denial is procedural and tied to the setback requirement, unresolved property‑line evidence regarding the retaining wall, and public‑safety considerations; the applicants were told how to return with a revised application.