BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT                                      MINUTES

JANUARY 9, 2002                                                                                        

 

REORGANIZATION &

REGULAR MEETING

 

           

OPENING STATEMENT:  Read by Mayor Warren Hagstrom

This is a Reorganization and Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment and adequate notice has been given and it has been duly advertised by the mailing of a notice to the Suburban Trends and Herald & News on the 13th day of December, 2001 and a notice thereof has been posted on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk.

 

Mayor Hagstrom announced the re-appointments of Peter Hoffman to a 4 Year Term and Frank Covelli to a 2 Year Term as Alternate #1. New members sworn in were Lee C. Smith to a 4 year Term and Harry Hirshman to a 2 Year Term as Alternate #2.

 

ROLL CALL:  Chairman Jack Dunning, William Grygus, Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Robert Ricca (came in at 8:10 P.M.), Ted Roberto, Frank Covelli, Harry Hirshman, Lee Smith, Attorney Ralph Faasse, Engineer William Gregor and Building Inspector Jeffrey Brusco.

 

Salute to the Flag.

 

NOMINATION FOR CHAIRMAN: The name Jack Dunning was presented by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, no other names were presented. Nominations closed by Member Covelli and seconded by Member Hirshman.

 

ROLL CALL ON NOMINATION FOR CHAIRMAN:  Voting yes were Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli, Hirshman and Smith.

 

At this point in the meeting Chairman Jack Dunning took over.

 

NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIRMAN:  The name Ted Roberto was presented by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, no other names were presented. Nominations closed by Member Covelli and seconded by Member Hirshman.

 

ROLL CALL ON NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIRMAN: Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Covelli, Hirshman and Smith.

 

NOMINATION FOR BOARD ENGINEER: The name William R. Gregor was presented by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Hoffman, no other names were presented.  Nominations closed by Member Covelli and seconded by Member Hirshman.

 

ROLL CALL ON NOMINATION FOR BOARD ENGINEER:  Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli, Hirshman and Smith.

 

NOMINATION FOR BOARD ATTORNEY:  The name Ralph Faasse, Esq. was presented by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Roberto, no other names were presented. Nominations closed by Member Covelli and seconded by Member Hirshman.

 

ROLL CALL ON NOMINATION FOR BOARD ATTORNEY:  Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli, Hirshman and Smith.

 

ADOPTION OF EXISTING PROCEDURES AND BY-LAWS: To continue as already exists.

 

MOTION TO ACCEPT:  made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli, Hirshman and Smith.

 

ADOPTION OF EXISTING MEETING DATES TO CONTINUE ON THE SECOND WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH, AND ADOPTION OF SITE VISITS TO BE CONDUCTED THE SATURDAY PRECEDING THE MONTHLY MEETING AT 10:00 A.M.

 

MOTION TO ACCEPT: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli, Hirshman and Smith.

 

ADOPTION OF NEWSPAPERS:  To continue with the Suburban Trends and the Herald and News.

 

MOTION TO ACCEPT: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli and Smith. Member Hirshman abstained.

 

MOTION TO DIRECT BOARD SECRETARY TO ADVERTISE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT TO GIVE NOTICE OF THE MEETING DATES FOR 2002: made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli, Hirshman and Smith.

 

Regular Meeting began at 8:00 P.M.

 

Application #22-01, Peter Prodzenko, 39 Snake Den Rd., Block 102 Lot 3, “A” Appeal & “B” Interpretation:

The Board Secretary received a letter dated January 9, 2002 which was faxed over from Attorney James LaSala requesting the application be carried to the February 13, 2002 Meeting and extended the Board’s time to act on this application for 60 days.  Atty. Faasse told the Board he spoke to Atty. LaSala today, and recommended that Atty. LaSala prepare an outline for the Board before the next meeting so the Board could have a better understanding of this application. Atty. Faasse also said, the Board Secretary noticed the wrong Block number was printed in the public notice and also on the notices to the 200 ft. search property owners. The Board Secretary will get in touch with Atty. LaSala and let him know he has to re-publish and re-notify.

 

MOTION TO CARRY TO THE FEBRUARY 13TH MEETING:  made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Hoffman, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli, Hirshman and Smith.

 

Application #23-01 Ringwood Park Plaza Realty, L.L.C., 1102 & 1104 Ringwood Ave., Block 438 Lot 1.01, Commercial for Signs.

Atty. Michael Lavigne affiliated with Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch LLP who represent CVS Pharmacy.  Atty. Lavigne told the Board they have revised their plans according to what the Board requested last month. The Board also made it clear, to the applicant last month that they would have to take another look at their original sign package and think about lowering the height of the pylon sign, and the number of signs. The interior window signs, that were illuminated, have been taken down.  One new plan has been submitted which has two sheets and the Exhibit A Schedule has been revised. Eng. Gregor said the revised plan submitted has exactly the same revision dates as the previous plan, and in order to avoid confusion, it might be best to mark the plan as an exhibit. The plan was marked “Exhibit A-2 Revised Plans 1/9/02”.

Chairman Dunning told Atty. Lavigne that one document that is missing is the Site Plan, showing the location of all the other freestanding directional signs. Atty. Lavigne told Chairman Dunning he has that with him tonight and that it was a separate sheet that was approved by the Planning Board. Eng. Gregor spoke up and said, however, what they’re asking for is some directional signs that are significantly larger than what’s permitted and could create a sight distance problem. Atty. Lavigne told the Board, on Sheet A-9.2 there is a series of three signs that are directional signs, the one that is labeled “Enter Only” and the one that is labeled “Exit Only”, are not proposed for this site. Eng. Gregor told Atty. Lavigne, if there are things on the drawing that are not proposed for this site, they should be clearly labeled or removed. Eng. Gregor’s initial concern was over the “Enter Only” and “Exit Only” signs being too high and causing a site distance problem, but they are not part of this proposed site after-all. Att. Lavigne explained the sign that says “Drive-Thru Pharmacy” is worded that way because people can only pick up and drop

off prescriptions only at this drive-up window.  Eng. Gregor explained the applicant will

 

need a variance for that particular sign according to the definition in the ordinance.  Atty. Lavigne added, that there is pavement stripping, in addition to the directional sign, that there is a separate lane. There is also a separate lane for delivery trucks, because at the rear of the property there is a receiving/delivery dock.

Member Grygus mentioned the two illuminated window signs that were on the front elevation and have been removed, but they are shown now on the left plan elevation. Atty. Lavigne said yes, they are shown now as Member Grygus indicated, but Atty. Lavigne has been authorized by the applicant, if need be, to eliminate these two signs. Atty. Lavigne also mentioned, that they could eliminate the sign on the front façade on the red fabric canopy, which in addition to the pavement stripping and the directional sign, and says Drive Thru Pharmacy Enter. The plans also show on the right side elevation a Drive Thru Pharmacy sign on the side of the red fabric canopy, which faces the dumpster enclosure and Post Office, can also be removed.

Planner Jill Hartmann spoke up and said the sign ordinance is going before the Planning Board on Thursday, January 17th and from there it will go to the Mayor & Council for first reading. Ms. Hartmann said all the signs that CVS is proposing are out of character for the redevelopment plan. Ms. Hartmann went on to say, that the idea is to provide awnings on existing structures with wood based signs above them. The signs that will be permitted according to the new ordinance, will be smaller than what’s permitted now.

Pictures were passed around from John Soojian, owner of CVS Building on Ringwood Ave., which he took over at the Cedar Grove CVS Pharmacy location. Mr. Soojian came forward at this point.  Mr. Soojian testified that the pictures were taken by him on December 23rd at the Cedar Grove location. These pictures were marked Exhibit A3 through A9.

Atty. Lavigne said the revised plan had shown eleven (11) proposed façade signs. What is left is two CVS Pharmacy identification signs and 3 proposed ancillary messages on the front façade. Initially they proposed a 14 ft. pylon sign, and have taken 4 ft. off the top to comply with the ordinance requirements. The ordinance also requires 3 ft clearance from the bottom of the sign. Mr. Soojian spoke up and said, if your heading north on Ringwood Ave. and there is a car parked in front of the pylon sign, you cannot see the bottom of the pylon sign as it currently exists, and if you put the ancillary signs below they would be of no value whatsoever.

Ms. Hartmann spoke up and said what the Borough is looking for is as little signage as possible. Eng. Gregor added, that the only sign he has an opinion on, and is an opinion for safety reasons, he recommends that the Board grant a variance for the directional sign for the Drive Thru Pharmacy.

Atty. Lavigne asked the Board if it would be appropriate to eliminate the three ancillary messages from the Ringwood Ave. frontage and limit them only to the pylon sign, but increase the height of the pylon to 14 ft. that was originally proposed provided that the three ancillary messages are on it with the three ft. clearance below. A very long discussion took place over how many signs should be installed, size of these signs and the location of these signs.

 

RECESSED AT 9:10 P.M.

 

RECONVENED AT 9:20 P.M.: Everyone present as before.

 

Atty. Lavigne had asked the Board for some informal feedback before the break in regards to, if they felt is was appropriate for this location to limit the façade signage to two, with the CVS Pharmacy ID Sign on the Ringwood Ave. façade and the Second Ave. façade, eliminate all the rest of the accessory signage, limit the three accessory signs to the pylon only and to raise the height of the pylon to 14 ft. with the 3ft clearance underneath.

At this point, the Board started discussing what color the pylon should be, red lettering a white background, or white lettering on a red background. Ms. Hartmann suggested red lettering on a white background would be more attractive.

Atty. Faasse told the Board that he understood the application has been amended to have: two façade signs, one on the front facing Ringwood Ave. that says CVS/Pharmacy and also one on the Second Ave. side, all other signs from the building would be deleted. The request would be for a 14 ft. pylon sign as indicated with three (3) ancillary signs and all three (3) of them with the verbage that’s there would be red letters with a white background and would be more than 3 ft. off the ground to comply with the Borough’s Ordinances, and a Drive-Thru Pharmacy sign located as shown on the site plan.

Atty. Faasse asked Planner Jill Hartmann from a planning prospective and the design for the neighborhood of Haskell, would it be better to have the ancillary signs on the building or on a pylon with the understanding that the pylon would then be increased to 14 ft. with the 3 ft. clearance?  Ms. Hartmann said her opinion is that she prefers from a planning prospectus centralized signage, and that would be the pylon sign and raise it obviously to put the other signs, and wind up being smaller and centralized. In this way, when you look at the building you get beyond the pylon sign you see more of the architecture of the building and less signs. Ms. Hartmann added, underneath the pylon sign to soften some of the look, it should be appropriately landscaped with bushes and ornamental grass so that it’s almost a twelve-month a year look. Ms. Hartmann was asked, if she recommends the signs be lit or unlit? Ms. Hartmann said she didn’t think it mattered whether its lit or not, it’s the Board’s pleasure. If its not lit, it may detract from the sign if there’s a portion below that isn’t lit, and in fact, it might look as though there’s a bulb out.

Atty. Lavigne spoke up and said he would like to offer by way of an amendment to the application for the Board’s consideration and vote is an amended sign package in line of what the planner had described. Atty. Lavigne would like the Board to approve one façade sign on Ringwood Ave. the front elevation CVS Pharmacy that’s depicted A-2, also CVS Pharmacy identification sign on the left elevation facing Second Ave., propose to eliminate all the other ancillary signage on the wall facades, window signs would be eliminated along with the signs that had been originally proposed for the fabric canopy over the drive-thru, approval of the directional/pharmacy sign that Eng. Gregor recommended on the location that’s depicted on sheet A-6, approval of a 14 ft. pylon sign

Pharmacy at the top and the three ancillary messages (Drive-Thru Pharmacy, Food

Food Shoppe and One Hour Photo), all to be internally illuminated with white background and red lettering, and having the three foot clearance to the ground. The base of the pylon sign would be landscaped. The following variances would be required: total number of façade signs, (one permitted under the ordinance and they propose two), number of facades with signage (ordinance allows one and they propose two), number of free standing signs (if you interpret the directional/pharmacy sign as a free standing and not directional, that would require a variance, one is permitted and two would be proposed), and over all height of the pylon (10 ft. is permitted and 14 ft. would be proposed). 

The members discussed the lighting of the signage and agreed that the wattage would not exceed with what exists now.

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:  None/Closed

 

MOTION TO APPROVE FOUR VARIANCES: TWO SIGNS ON BUILDING (ONE ON RINGWOOD AVE. SIDE AND ONE ON SECOND AVE. SIDE), TWO FREE STANDING SIGNS (DIRECTIONAL PHARMACY SIGN, PYLON SIGN 14FT. IN HEIGHT WITH THREE ANCILLARY MESSAGES WITH A MINIMUM CLEARANCE OF 3 FT. WITH RED LETTERING ON WHITE BACKGROUND), ALL SUBJECT TO APPLICANT REVISING DRAWINGS AND INCLUDING LANDSCAPING AS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNER, WATTAGE WILL NOT EXCEED WHAT IS THERE NOW WITH RESPECTTO THE PYLON WATTAGE AND TO BE INCLUDED ON DRAWING AND DRAWING SHOWING A REVISION NUMBER ALONG WITH A SIGNATURE BLOCK ON DRAWINGS, AND WILL BE SUBJECT TO BOARD ENGINEER’S APPROVAL: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Roberto, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto and Covelli. Members Ricca, Hirshman and Smith were not qualified.

 

APPLICATION #24-01 Richard & Regina Wieland, 138 Greeenwood Ave., Block 460 Lot 16, Bulk & Use Variance:

Mr. & Mrs. Wieland stepped forward and were sworn in by Atty. Faasse.

Mrs. Wieland explained to the Board they want to put a temporary house on their property next to their existing house for Mr. Wieland’s mother and when she doesn’t need the temporary house anymore, it will be removed. Mr. & Mrs. Wieland submitted paper work on these types of houses called “Echo Housing”.

At this point, Eng. Gregor went over his report dated December 28, 2001. (All members have a copy)

Chairman Dunning asked if the Wieland’s checked with the Sewer Authority about hooking up another residence on their property. Mr. Wieland told the Board these particular kind of houses are hooked up to the main house on the property along with the water line. Mrs. Wieland said this is all explained in the brochure on “Echo Housing”.

Mr. Wieland said they haven’t approached the Sewer Authority about this proposal as of yet. Member Grygus asked if there were any other homes in the area with two separate dwellings on the property and Mrs. Wieland said no. Mr. Wieland said the proposed second house would be finished off to look like his main residence. The brochure on these types of homes, show homes like this in Morris, Union, and Warren Counties.

Chairman Dunning said the Borough has no zoning or enforcement powers to stop the Wieland’s from selling their property and leaving this unit there, and the person who buys their house may decide to rent out this extra unit. Chairman Dunning said, the Borough doesn’t have any ordinance set up to govern this type of situation, therefore, they would need a Use Variance because it’s a non-conforming use. The question is how does the Borough control the use of this unit? Mrs. Wieland said the only of thing they thought of doing was adding an addition on to their existing house.Eng. Gregor said in the R-10 Zone, you are permitted two family structures if the lot contains 20,000 sq. ft., this lot does not contain 20,000 sq. ft., therefore, they would need a Use Variance for that. Eng. Gregor said if they added an addition onto the house, and not make a two family structure, just an addition, that would be permissible under ordinance and you would only be dealing with Bulk Variances.

Mr. Wieland explained to the Board, that these homes in other counties are owned by the county and are put on the property of the adult child and then the house is rented out. Mr. & Mrs. Wieland would be the first people to buy their own Echo House.

Member Grygus suggested the Wielands might want to carry this application to next month and in the meantime might consider amending the application and also consult with the builder of the Echo Houses.

The Wielands decided to carry the application and give it some thought as to which they their going with this.

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:  None/Closed

 

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE FEBRUARY 13TH MEETING: made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Ricca, Roberto, Covelli, Hirshman and Smith.

 

Atty. Faasse reminded the applicants, if they amend their application and have new plans, they must have them on file more than 10 days before the February 13th Meeting.

 

APPLICATION #25-01 Mt.Lakes Estates & Lakeside Manor, Conklinton Rd./Mt. Lakes Drive, Block 200 Lots 8 & 8.01, Bulk Variance:

Attorney Juliana Blackburn came forward on behalf of her client. Atty. Blackburn said she was the corporate counsel for Mt. Lakes Estates Inc. & J & S Group, Inc. the two entities responsible for Mt. Lakes Estates & Lakeside Manor. Atty. Blackburn explained to the Board that Mt. Lakes Estates & Lakeside Manor is a big project on Conklintown Rd. and Mt. Lakes Drive consisting of 128 single family homes and 47 townhouses. The

subdivision for Phase I was recorded about two months ago. The reason for the application is to build a retaining wall with lettering to identify the project and also to enhance the project. Present also were Howard (Bud) Harrison, Project Manager and Jacinto Rodrigues, President of both corporations responsible for the project.

Mr. Harrison, 61 Gionti Pl., No. Haledon, N.J. & Mr. Rodrigues, 626 Schuyler Ave., Kearny, N.J., were sworn in by Atty. Faasse.

Mr. Harrison explained what they want to do is build a wall at the entrance on both sides of the street. The wall will have stone faced décor similar to the stone on the property and they want to create a nice entrance into the project. The walls will be approximately 20 ft. long, 10ft. high and irregular shape. Mr. Harrison said they can meet the setback requirements on one side, but on the other side they cannot meet the setback. Eng. Gregor went over what Mr. Harrison, which was, on one of the signs they are requesting that the sign be placed in the right of way because they don’t own the property that fronts on the roadway. Eng. Gregor went on to say, that on the other side, the sign would be put in front of someone’s property and Mr. Harrison agreed. Mr. Rodrigues started explaining the plan that was displayed on the easel to the Board. Mr. Rodrigues explained that some of his property later on would be conveyed over to the Borough. The Board wanted to know who would own the sign after this property is conveyed over? Atty. Faasse said he didn’t know. Mr. Rodrigues said later on the homeowners association would maintain the sign as far as cutting the grass around the sign.

Atty. Blackburn said the only ingress and egress into the project is this entranceway.

The lettering size is would be 4’ x 5’ and would be metal lettering. Mr. Rodrigues added, that he doesn’t want big lettering and only wants something that is nice to look at.

Member Grygus asked Eng. Gregor what variances do they need. Eng. Gregor said this is a proposed project identification sign and there is no provision in the ordinance for this. So for locating the sign, you need a variance, which is the primary variance. In order for the Board to consider granting it, there are a lot of factors to take into consideration. One of them is a safety factor mentioned in his report such as sight distance, esthetics and the impact on Lot 8.01 that does not belong to Mr. Rodrigues. Eng. Gregor said again, the ordinance does not have any provision for a site identification sign.

Atty. Faasse added, that there is a need for a survey, because their application mentions Lots 8, 28, 29, 30, 32 and part of Lot 8.02, and there is only notice to Lot 8. Therefore, their plans do not let the Board know what lots are involved or are not involved.

Atty. Faasse also mentioned, notice was not given to Lot 8.01 and Atty. Blackburn agreed and said she only noticed the people that where within the affected area of Lot 8. Member Grygus brought it to the Board’s attention that the Ringwood property line is directly across the street. Eng. Gregor asked if they have approval from the Planning Board and Mr. Rodrigues said they have approval for the entire project, but Phase I is the only piece perfected. Eng. Gregor also asked if there were any Stop Signs shown on the approval from the Planning Board, and Mr. Rodrigues said he looked at the plans and didn’t find anything. Eng. Gregor requested a copy of the full set of plans that were approved for the site. Eng. Gregor went over what the signs will say, and that would be; on one side of the

road the sign will say Mt. Lakes Estates, and the other side of the road the sign will say Lakeside Manor. 

Atty. Faasse mentioned he has a problem with the sign that’s going to be in front of  Lot. 8.01 which is owned by Mr. Joseph Diaz. Atty Faasse went on to say, before the Board can hear the application, the Board has to know exactly what they’re proposing, what lots are involved, the public has proper notice and if the taxes have been paid etc. If they are within 200 ft. of Ringwood, they have to notify Ringwood and get a property owners list from Ringwood. Atty. Blackburn said the reason they put all the other lots on the application, is because it’s the property the corporation owns.

Atty. Faasse summed up by telling Atty. Blackburn and Mr. Rodrigues he thought they might want to amend their application before the next meeting by putting only the lots that are affected with the signs. Atty. Blackburn will also correct the owner’s name to Mountain Lakes Estates & Lakeside Manor.

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

Ken Manning, 2 Linda Rd., Wanaque, N.J. stepped forward. Mr. Manning started to tell the Board he lives right in the middle of this deplorable mess. Mr. Manning said he has no problem with the sign, the problem he has is with the hazardous conditions he and his neighbors have been living with for quite some time. Mr. Manning suggested something be put in writing that this area be cleaned up and invited the Members of the Board to come and see the esthetics of what is going on in this area.

 

Joann Patterson, 6 Linda Rd., Wanaque, N.J. stepped forward. Ms. Patterson had pictures of her front and side yard that have been this way for two years. Ms. Patterson said they were promised that their properties would be cleaned up and her property was filled with back-fill of garbage, glass, bottles and cans. She has half a driveway and the Borough is allowing this developer to proceed with a project that he has had no respect for the residence that live there. Ms. Patterson went on to say that she has asphalt under the eight feet that they filled out in front of her yard and nothing can be planted because they never tore up the asphalt. Ms. Patterson said it’s just not fair that they have to live this way, since they pay taxes like everyone else. Ms. Patterson said her yard is an embarrassment. She and the other property owners have been to Planning Board Meetings, Council Meetings every month for the past two years.

Atty. Faasse told Ms. Patterson when the application is heard, the Board will consider her comments, although, they might not have a lot of bearing on an application for a sign. Atty. Faasse added maintenance and enforcement, is not the jurisdiction of this Board.