REGULAR MEETING

OPENING STATEMENT:

This is a Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment and adequate notice has been duly advertised by the mailing of a notice to the Suburban Trends and the Herald & News on the 8^th day of February, 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.

ROLL CALL: Chairman Jack Dunning, Members Bruce Grygus, Peter Hoffman, Ihor Kardasz, Don Ludwig, Robert Ricca, Attorney Ralph Faasse and Engineer William Gregor.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Building Inspector Jeff Brusco, Members Ted Roberto and Frank Covelli.

APPLICATION #19-01 Ruth Kreloff, 17 SkylandAve., Block 423, Lot 9, Bulk Variances:

Ms. Kreloff stepped forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse.

Chairman Dunning said this application was for a house fire that was destroyed by 50% or more. Ms. Kreloff told the Board that the house has been removed this past week. Eng. Gregor proceeded to tell the Board there is an 11 X 17 survey sheet that was prepared by J. P. Miceli, a licensed surveyor in the State of New Jersey, which shows the previous location of the house, proposed location of the reconstructed house, existing garage and most of the pertinent setbacks. Also, there is a set of architecturals containing two sheets which show the front view and the side elevation from the downhill side which is towards the patio, and on the second sheet is the first floor plan and this is a one story structure. Eng. Gregor went on to say, that the third piece of information is the Alteration To Existing Individual Sewage Disposal System Design. The reason Eng. Gregor requested a copy of this system was to help the Board make a decision, and it also happens to locate the approximate location of the well and approximate location of the existing cesspool and the proposed septic system for this lot. Atty. Faasse asked Eng. Gregor, based upon his report, does this have to be referred to the Board of Health because of the proximity of the septic system to the well? Eng. Gregor said, any action by this Board with respect to the septic system, would be subject to approval of the septic system by the Board of Health. The applicant has the option of either going to the Board of Health first or coming to the Board first. Ms. Kreloff interrupted, and told the Board that the Board of Health has already approved the system. Ms. Kreloff went on to say, that the new design had been approved and that when the house is built, Ms. Kreloff would have to give the Board of Health a water sample from the well. Atty. Faasse added, that sometimes it would pay to refer this type of situation to the Board of Health first before this Board acts, because you have the location of the structure and Bulk Variances etc. Atty. Faasse

went on to say, if there is sufficient room on the property to relocate the septic system and if the Board of Health says it has to be relocated, then the building would have to be moved. Ms. Kreloff said, everything was approved by the Board of Health, and this is a very small piece of property with a lot of rock and there aren’t too many places to put the system, and she did bring the plans to the Board of Health first. Ms. Kreloff apologized and said she thought she had the letter from the Board of Health with her but she must have left it at home.

Chairman Dunning told Eng. Gregor, that on the survey it shows distances from the house in three directions, but not the rear and isn’t that going to require a variance? Eng. Gregor said yes and in Eng. Gregor’s report dated October 26, 2001, there is no dimension from the rear of the house to the rear property line. Eng. Gregor said he noted on page 2 of his report, the second bullet, a variance for rear yard setback of 29 ft. (as scaled off the drawing) instead of the minimum setback of 40 ft. required by ordinance. The 29 ft. was measured from the corner to the rear property line. Chairman Dunning asked where the garage is, is that also the rear? Eng. Gregor said he is considering that a side property line. Chairman Dunning asked if the garage needs a variance to stay where it is. Eng. Gregor said an accessory structure can only exist with the principal structure on the lot. Eng. Gregor went on to say, with the principal structure on the lot, there’s an argument that the accessory structure loses its variances. Eng. Gregor said he’s not an authority on this and he doesn’t know what the case law is on this, so what he did was to list all the variances for the accessory structure in his report as well. The only existing conditions that Eng.Gregor noted in his report are the size of the lot, and the width of the lot, everything else is listed as variances for the development.

Chairman Dunning asked Ms. Kreloff if she tried to purchase any surrounding properties. Ms. Kreloff said there is none to purchase, except for the town owning a little strip of land and this property is surrounded by the road. Chairman Dunning said he thought by enlarging her lot, it could help with her septic field problem. Ms. Kreloff said there is no land and its all surrounded by the road. Ms. Kreloff said the strip of land that is owned by the town, which is down on a cliff, you probably couldn’t even put a septic down there because it’s a cliff.

Member Grygus asked Ms. Kreloff if she lived in the house prior to the fire, and Ms. Kreloff said she never lived in the house and doesn’t intend on living in it. Ms. Kreloff has been renting the house to a bachelor for a good many years and he plans on moving back in. Member Grygus asked Eng. Gregor about how normal of a septic system is this one with regard to the propensity for any of the alarms to go off, as indicated on page 3 of the Sewerage Disposal System Design prepared by Frank Loscalzo, and what is the consequence if one of the alarms does go off? Eng. Gregor said the alarms are to let you know that there is a high level in the tank and it has to be checked.

Member Grygus asked Eng. Gregor if a seepage test has to be conducted or would it have been done already. Eng. Gregor said that a soil test would be necessary prior to any approval of the septic field, so the answer is yes.

Chairman Dunning asked Ms. Kreloff if she considered making the house larger than it

originally was. Ms. Kreloff said no, because the house needs so many variances as it is, the house is going in the same footprint as before the fire. Ms. Kreloff went on to say, the house will be occupied by a single person, the house has two bedrooms, one bedroom being used as a den and the tenant is very happy and Ms. Kreloff is happy having a good tenant. Ms. Kreloff never gave it a thought to re-build the house larger as far as building it higher or asking for more people to live in it which she doesn’t think would be appropriate. Ms. Kreloff said, she obviously could raise it up and couldn’t go side to side because its on a ledge rock and you can’t bring it closer to the road, you can’t put it over the septic system, you can’t put it into the garage and it can’t go on the ledge rock. Ms. Kreloff also said, if she went up in height with the house and added more bedrooms the septic system probably wouldn’t be adequate.

Chairman Dunning asked if she considered anyway to meet the parking variance of two off street parking spaces. Ms. Kreloff said actually, the town has a parking space right behind the property and three cars are allowed to park in these spaces. These spaces are used by the house Ms. Kreloff owns, the house behind her and the house next to her.

Member Hoffman asked if there will be a washer or dryer in the house and Ms. Kreloff said the tenant never had a washer or dryer.

Member Grygus wanted to know where the hot water heater is in the house. Ms. Kreloff said they are going to try and put it in the crawl space and the contractor is going to try and make the crawl space deeper so they can put the water pressure tank and the hot water heater in there. If not, then they will have to go in a closet as before the fire. Ms. Kreloff added that the house is heated by electric heat.

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

Lori Bartels, 19 Skyland Ave. stepped forward. Ms. Bartels’ concern was, if the well is adequate for this property, because people who have lived there have had problems with the well. Atty. Faasse asked Ms. Kreloff if there was ever a problem with not enough water for her tenant. Ms. Kreloff said, her tenant has never complained about it. Ms. Bartels also asked if she could see where the septic field is going on the property. At this point, Atty. Faasse swore in Ms. Bartels. Atty. Faasse asked Ms. Bartels where on her property is her well located and Ms. Bartels said right in the front off the driveway. Ms. Bartels showed Eng. Gregor exactly where her well is located on the plans.

RECESSED AT 8:40 P.M.

RECONVENED AT 8:50 P.M.: All present as before.

CLOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION: made by Member Hoffman, seconded by Member Ricca, voting yes were Members Hoffman, Kardasz and Ricca. Voting no were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus and Ludwig.

Atty. Faasse announced the application has been denied because the motion was three (3) affirmative votes and three (3) negative votes. Ms. Kreloff asked what that meant and Atty. Faasse said that the application has been denied. Ms. Kreloff asked if that meant she can’t rebuild the house and Atty. Faasse said not under this set of circumstances. Ms. Kreloff asked what set of circumstances can she rebuild, since she has just torn down the house. Atty. Faasse said, unfortunately the Board can’t tell her and that she would have to come back with a substantially different application. Ms. Kreloff wanted to know if there was another recourse for her to take and Atty. Faasse said she could appeal the decision by filing a suit with the Superior Court and suggested she consult with an attorney if she was considering that possibility.

APPLICATION #20-01 Dale Ostrander, 5 Belmont Ave., Block 237.01 Lot 1.02, Bulk Variance:

Dale Ostrander stepped forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse.

Mr. Ostrander said basically on the Villa Place side of his house, right now there is an existing 4 ft. high chain link fence. Mr. Ostrander would like to remove that fence and move it back and replace it with a 6 ft. high board on board wooden fence. Mr. Ostrander prefers the 6 ft. over the 4 ft. because he really doesn’t have a rear yard for privacy and the bulk of the property is on the side of the house. The existing fence is very close to the street and Mr. Ostrander is surprised the fence hasn’t been hit yet by the snow-plows. Chairman Dunning asked Eng. Gregor, where the fence runs off onto the neighbor’s property, what kind of a problem is that? Eng. Gregor said, the Board can’t approve someone putting a fence up on someone else’s property. Mr. Ostrander said, the existing 4 ft. chain link fence does tie into the corner of the recycling center fence. Eng. Gregor asked Mr. Ostrander if he had a copy of the easement agreement and Mr. Ostrander said no. Eng. Gregor continued to say, depending on the verbiage of the easement agreement, the Board can approve a fence on top of an easement. Atty. Faasse said, if the Board sees fit to grant the right to put up a 6 ft. fence, the applicant has to realize that’s its subject to the paramount right of the easement holder to gain access to the property. Chairman Dunning added, that the little stretch of property over the easement, because its behind the house, the applicant doesn’t need a variance for that. Mr. Ostrander also added that the Building Inspector said the same thing. Mr. Ostrander said, the 4 ft. fence is existing now, so he’s going to run the 6 ft. fence to the property line and stop and no trees will be removed. Atty. Faasse said, the application is for a 6 ft. fence along Villa Place terminating at the property line.

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed

MOTION TO APPROVE ERECTION OF A 6 FT. FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD FACING VILLA PLACE TO THE PROPERTY LINE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Kardasz, Ludwig and Ricca.

Member Hoffman left the meeting at 9:10 P.M.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None

RESOLUTION ON APPLICATION #17-01 Anthony & Christina Fagan, 33 Rockridge Rd., Block 415 Lot 25, Bulk Variance:

MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Kardasz, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Kardasz and Ludwig. Member Ricca was not qualified.

RESOLUTION ON APPLICATION #18-01 William & Diane Boesenberg, 1 Green Rd., Block 275 Lot 7.04, Bulk Variance:

MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Kardasz and Ludwig. Member Ricca was not qualified.

CORRESPONDENCE: Discussed was the letter dated October 10, 2001 from the Passaic County Planning Board in regards to Sierra Landscape Design, Block 307, Lots 2 & 5, 852 Ringwood Ave. Eng. Gregor told the board that the applicant never modified the plans and never re-submitted them for review and signature from the Chairman and the Board Secretary, but a Building Permit was issued. Eng. Gregor went on to say, if the plans are not in accordance with the resolution, then the applicant cannot get a Building Permit. Subsequently, in a number of towns that Eng. Gregor sits on, the Building Official has Eng. Gregor do a site inspection prior to the issuance of a CO. The only negative part of this procedure is, you will need additional escrow to cover that inspection, and the positive is you have control of additional costs.

Also discussed was the upcoming accreditation classes sponsored by the New Jersey Planning Officials.

VOUCHERS: submitted by Eng. Gregor for engineering services on Application #19-01 Kreloff for $240.00.

MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Kardasz, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Kardasz, Ludwig and Ricca.

VOUCHERS: submitted by Atty. Faasse for Resolutions on Application #17-01 Fagan for $115.00 and #18-01 Boesenberg for $115.00, for a Grand Total of $230.0.

MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Kardasz, Ludwig and Ricca.

MINUTES: from October 10, 2001 Meeting.

MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Kardasz and Ludwig. Member Ricca not qualified.

ENGINEER/BUILDING INSPECTOR REPORT:

Eng. Gregor told the Board there is a new application, #22-01 Peter Prodzenko which is an “A” appeal of the Zoning Officer’s decision and also a “B” request for interpretation of the Zoning Ordinances and statutes. Eng. Gregor said this application mentions a new zone and obviously there has been some new ordinances passed and new zones created in town and the Board has not been notified as such, and it makes things difficult to do their job properly. Eng. Gregor told the Board they should request that any changes in the ordinances and any revisions to the zoning book, for the Borough of Wanaque, be automatically forwarded to the Board of Adjustment. Eng. Gregor has already done some research on this application and was wondering if there has been adequate escrow collected, because Eng. Gregor will be consulting with the Board Attorney on this and he’ll probably need some escrow also.

Atty. Faasse suggested the Board Secretary send a letter to the Borough Clerk saying that the Board would like copies of all ordinances, zoning changes and proposed ordinances.

Chairman Dunning asked Eng. Gregor if he heard anything from Atty. Arnold Cohen with respect to the Lakeland Health Care facility. Eng. Gregor said the last thing he heard from Atty. Cohen was over a month ago and Atty. Cohen indicated that the applicant was not paying the escrow fees.

Eng. Gregor told the Board he witnessed the seepage pit tests for the existing pits that are on the site at C-Town. Eng. Gregor gathered some data requesting that the engineer submit to him the formal detail data and also made a suggestion that they replicate the test the following day, since some of the pits had standing water in them prior to the test and some were dry prior to the test. Eng. Gregor asked the applicant to let his engineer’s office know to contact Eng. Gregor about the time on the following day the tests were going to be done. Eng. Gregor was never contacted and doesn’t know if the tests were replicated and no data was ever sent to Eng. Gregor. Eng. Gregor spoke to the engineer twice and the engineer is having some difficulty with the data and Eng. Gregor is waiting to hear from him. Atty. Faasse asked Eng. Gregor if he follows-up these conversations in writing and Eng. Gregor said no. Eng. Gregor said he witnessed the tests and they are required to submit the data to him so he can review, comment on and provide a report to

the Board. Atty. Faasse said he would suggest that Eng. Gregor send a letter to the engineer telling him that the Board is still waiting. Chairman Dunning added that he should also send a copy of the letter to the property owner and also the Building Inspector, Jeff Brusco. Engineer Gregor agreed and said he would do that.

MOTION TO ADJOURN: at 9:50 P.M.

__________________________

Gerri Marotta

Secretary to Board of Adjustment