BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MINUTES

DECEMBER 12, 2001

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, Ted Roberto and Frank Covelli (Member Covelli came in at 8:25 P.M.), Attorney Ralph Faasse, Engineer William Gregor and Building Inspector Jeff Brusco.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Robert Ricca

Chairman Dunning announced the agenda will be taken out of order for tonight.

MINUTES: from November 14, 2001 Meeting.

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

RESOLUTION ON APPLICATION #19-01 Ruth Kreloff, 17 Skyland Ave., Block 423, Lot 9, Bulk Variances:

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

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

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

Attorney Faasse mentioned to Building Inspector Brusco that on the plans for the 6 ft. high fence, on Application #20-01 Ostrander, crossing over the property line so that it would connect to an existing fence, the Board does not allow that and the Board told Mr. Ostrander he had to stop the 6 ft. high fence at the property line.

CORRESPONDENCE: Chairman Dunning announced that the Borough of Wanaque is holding their annual Holiday Luncheon in the Borough Hall Court Room on Friday, December 21, 2001 between 12:00 Noon and 2:00 P.M. for all Borough of Wanaque Employees.

ENGINEER/BUILDING INSPECTOR’S REPORT:

Eng. Gregor reported a new application for 138 Greenwood Ave. and is for an erection of a second dwelling unit which is referred to as “Echo Housing”.

Eng. Gregor told the Board he witnessed a flood test at the constructed seepage pits at Mounir Zikra’s property, 207 Ringwood Ave. Eng. Gregor said he received some preliminary results and just recently received a copy of the engineer’s report on the flood testing, which seem to confirm some of the concerns Eng. Gregor had. Eng. Gregor has been in contact with the engineer and is currently reviewing his submittal and Eng. Gregor will be requesting additional information. As of right now, Eng. Gregor said, he doesn’t have sufficient information that the site provides adequate drainage.

Atty. Faasse suggested the County should be apprised of what is going on at this site, since it is a county road. Eng. Gregor agreed, and said he would follow up.

Building Inspector Brusco told the Board he received the “Echo Housing” application, and being processed is the Mt. Lakes Estates/Lakeside Manor Application to erect two free standing signs at the entrance to Mt. Lakes Drive.

APPLICATION #22-01 Peter Prodzenko, 37 Snake Den Rd., Block 102 Lot 3, “A” Appeal & “B” Interpretation. The Attorney for the applicant has asked that this application be carried to the January 9, 2002 Meeting.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE JANUARY 9, 2002 MEETING AND CONDITIONED UPON THE APPLICANT GIVING THE BOARD A 60 DAY EXTENSION: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Kardasz, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Kardasz, Ludwig and Roberto.

APPLICATION #23-01 Ringwood Park Plaza Realty, LLC, 1102 & 1104 Ringwood Ave, Block 438 Lot 1.01, Sign Variance Application:

Attorney Michael T. Lavigne from the law firm of Pitney, Hardin, Kipp & Szuch LLP, 200 Campus Dr., Florham Park, N.J. stepped forward on behalf of the applicant.

Atty. Lavigne explained to the Board, that the property owner signed the application and consented to the filing of the application, and Atty. Lavigne is actually here this evening on behalf of the corporate applicant who is CVS, Inc. Atty. Lavigne went on to say that the property location is at the corner of Ringwood Ave. & Second Ave., 1102 through 1104 Ringwood Ave. and is located in the “B” Business District. They have submitted drawings of both the proposed pylon sign and elevations of the proposed wall signage. Atty. Lavigne told the Board, present tonight are Michael A. Bradley, Account Executive from Michael Anthony Sign & Awning Co., and also John Soojian owner of the property

and developer of the site. Atty. Faasse swore in witness Michael A. Bradley, Account Executive for Michael Anthony Sign & Awning Co., 255 Kearney Ave., Jersey City, N.J. 07305, and also sworn in was witness John Soojian, 421 Lakeside Ave., Pompton Lakes, N.J.

Mr. Soojian explained he is President of Soojian Brothers Construction Co. which is a general contracting company and is owner of the CVS property and is responsible for supervising the construction of the CVS Pharmacy. Atty. Lavigne asked Mr. Soojian to go over the dimensions of the building and in particular the two facades, one facing Ringwood Ave. and the other facing Second Ave. Atty. Lavigne explained the drawing that the Board will be focusing in on, would be the one done by Sear-Brown, Architects from 85 Metro Park, Rochester, N.Y., labeled A-4.1 Exterior Elevations, dated July 23, 2001. Mr. Soojian went over the calculations presented in a report dated December 12, 2001 from Ringwood Park Plaza Realty LLC that was handed out at tonight’s meeting.

Eng. Gregor asked what the differences are between the drawing the Board is looking at tonight labeled A-4.1, which is signed and sealed by Mr. J. Harmsen printed date of 8/20/01, versus the approved architectural elevation drawing approved by the Planning Board. Mr. Soojian answered by saying the only difference is the signage. Eng. Gregor asked if the Second Ave. side of the building is labeled front elevation on the drawings dated 8/20/01 and Mr. Soojian said yes. It was cleared up that the actual front elevation by definition of the Planning Board is what’s labeled as the right side elevation. Atty. Lavigne said, if the Board feels it is appropriate for purposes of the municipal records, they would certainly be more than happy, as a condition on any sort of approval, to submit revised plans clarifying that and re-labeling the Ringwood Ave. façade as the front. Eng. Gregor recommended the Board members to mark on their drawings by crossing out the word right side and put front, and then the front elevation would be the left side, and the left side is the rear, and the rear would be the right side. Mr. Soojian went on to explain the façade square footage calculations for use in determining the allowable square footage of signage on the building. Member Grygus interrupted Mr. Soojian and said that the overall dimensions in his report were 135.67, but if you add the breakout it comes to 136.66. Mr. Soojian said he thinks the difference is in the Canopy and Wall Area and he will double check it. Mr. Soojian said the actual proposed signage for the building is 190 sq. ft.

Member Grygus asked if this application was dealt differently because it’s a business on a corner lot and has two front yards. Eng. Gregor spoke up and said, for the purpose of the way the ordinance is worded and for the purpose of setbacks, the definition of setback is that this site has two front yards. For the purpose of signage, there’s no provision for providing additional signage for a building on a corner lot as oppose to a building on an interior lot in the Borough’s Ordinances. Therefore, you use the front façade of the building for total square foot area and the only signage is permitted on the front façade of the building other than the permitted freestanding sign.

Atty. Lavigne added, the overall total square footage of wall signage that they are proposing, taken altogether on all the façades they are proposing, is under the amount of

square footage that would be permitted on the front façade. Therefore, the variances they are seeking are not with regard to overall square footage of wall sign area, but rather the fact they propose to separate it and distribute it on two facades as oppose to the fact the ordinance does require that the signage be placed only on one façade, and it also says that there’s only a total number of one wall sign permitted on the front façade. So obviously, Atty. Lavigne said, they will seek a variance for that as well. Chairman Dunning said, on the front of the building facing Ringwood Ave., their proposal is for four separate signs, and on Second Ave. they would be putting three.

Member Grygus asked Eng. Gregor about the illuminated window signs and Eng. Gregor said there are no illuminated window signs proposed. Member Grygus added, that they are on the window now, and Eng. Gregor said they are not shown as part of this application and they will have to be removed, and that is an enforcement issue.

Mr. Soojian said he corrected the figures on the report and went on to say: the 64 ft. should be 63 ft. which is the center section, total would be 1233 sq. ft., the overall total becomes 2749 and 412 becomes the allowable. Atty. Faasse said the applicant will submit a revised A-1.

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed

Michael A. Bradley, Senior Project Coordinator for Michael Anthony Sign & Awing Co. stepped forward. Mr. Bradley described his background briefly and said he’s been in the industry for over 14 years. Mr. Bradley is in charge of installing the signs for CVS Pharmacy and has installed other signs for CVS throughout the state. Mr. Bradley went on to describe the signs and dimensions for the CVS Pharmacy. Eng. Gregor asked that Mr. Bradley provide him with the height and width of all the signs and this information should be put on the plans. Inspector Brusco added, that the sign area that’s provided by the architect, which will be whatever is granted, and the applicant will provide Inspector Brusco with a drawing and an application for a construction permit. They will give him the length and width, and at that time Inspector Brusco will calculate it to see if it meets the area that’s approved by the architect, and then a permit will be issued and Inspector Brusco will inspect on the site that its built according to the approved permit. Atty. Faasse added, the total sign square footage on the façade facing Ringwood Ave. would be 189.41 sq. ft. Atty. Lavigne asked Chairman Dunning if the interior signage that’s within the windows, and not attached to the façade, if that was to remain and not be removed, would that be considered part of the façade signage? Chairman Dunning said it all has to fall into the same sign ordinance and Building Inspector Brusco agreed. Planner Jill Hartmann also added, that window signage is not permitted. Member Covelli asked, if the applicant were to amend, would the Board be able to continue? Atty. Faasse said, if the applicant is going to amend the application, the question is, not only does he have to amend, but the Board needs the details of those signs because the Board can’t consider the application until they know what the signs are. Member Covelli then asked, would they be able to proceed this evening? Atty. Faasse answered by saying, he thinks they

should carry the application. Eng. Gregor spoke up and said, the Board would want to know where they are, how high they are, and how much window area was being used.

Atty. Lavigne told the Board he would have to get direct authorization from CVS to remove the window signs, and if they are to be included in the application, the Board will need more information on these interior window signs as to location and dimension which Atty. Lavigne does not have this evening.

A long discussion took place between Atty. Lavigne and the Board about the signs and Eng. Gregor’s report dated December 7, 2001. Mr. Bradley continued his testimony about the signage. Member Grygus asked Mr. Bradley why do they need a 14 ft. sign? Mr. Bradley, said primarily, in his opinion, if your traveling south on Ringwood Ave., the street actually turns and there are some commercial establishments that block the vision of the intersection. Mr. Bradley said, they feel it is important to make a decision prior to approaching the site, for a few reasons: primarily it is a safety issue. At this point, Eng. Gregor interrupted and said to Chairman Dunning he would question Mr. Bradley’s credentials as far as his discussing site distances and safety issues. Atty. Faasse said his testimony would be limited to a person who has expertise in the field of the manufacturing and erection of signs. Atty. Lavigne commented that all they are trying to do is establish when you are at the intersection of Second & Rinwood Ave. and you are approaching it in a car, you cannot see the CVS Building. Eng. Gregor reiterated he was concerned about the witness’ testimony on safety issues and his credentials. Atty . Lavigne then said, when they come back with their amended application, maybe they should have a witness with more expertise in that field. Member Grygus said, in his opinion, if your coming southbound, you’re going to have such limited view of that corner where the sign is, he believes the lower the sign in the southbound direction, the easier you will see it.

Planner Jill Hartmann addressed Atty. Lavigne about having seven signs and window signs are not something the Borough is considering in doing over the new sign ordinance, or is part of the ordinance right now. In light of the redevelopment that is going on in downtown Haskell. Planner Hartmann went on to say, if they need a higher pylon sign because of visibility and safety issues, that is certainly a technical issue and they should have an expert to discuss the “C” Variance requirements and that needs to be coordinated with the number of building signs. If they need the size for the pylon, what good are all the wall signs if no one is going to see them and they wind up becoming an attractive nuisance.

RECESSED AT 9:45 P.M.

RECONVENED AT 9:55 P.M.

Member Ludwig asked about lowering the sign, because there will be a traffic light at that intersection and people will see the sign when approaching.

Chairman Dunning wanted to know how do they arrive at the size of the lettering on the building at 48”, 18’ etc., and was any consideration given to smaller letters, and do they need that much signage on the corner. Atty. Lavigne said this is the typical CVS prototype, and when they amend the application, they will go into what each sign is intended to do. The reason for this signage, particularly on a corner lot, is that your trying to encourage traffic flow into what’s been designed as the main entrance, which is the entrance off of Second Ave. You obviously want to identify the front of the store which is Ringwood Ave., and you also want to identify the Second Ave. frontage as an entrance to the site and not secondary.

Chairman Dunning wanted to know why they need repetition of the signs and also wanted to know if this is typical signage for CVS. Atty. Lavigne, said when you have a corner lot property such as this one, it is proto-typical.

Eng. Gregor told Atty. Lavigne that no where on the drawing is it indicated what color the letters might be and asked for that to be added to the amended drawing.

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

Claire Kressaty, 1068 Ringwood Ave., Haskell, N.J. came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Ms. Kressaty commented that she was not in favor of the proposed variances. She was also concerned about the area turning into a highway atmosphere.

Louis Leichtweisz, 20 Park Ave., Haskell, N.J. came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Mr. Leichtweisz concern is mainly esthetics and doesn’t feel there is a need for all that signage and the building is illuminated far more than necessary.

CLOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

Atty. Faasse announced the next meeting will be January 9, 2002 and any amendment to the plan and any revised plans will have to be in to the Secretary more than 10 days before the next meeting. Eng. Gregor requested any amendments or revisions, should be mailed to him by the architect.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO JANUARY 9, 2002 MEETING AND FILE ANY AMENDMENT AND REVISIONS TO THE PLANS MORE THAN 10 DAYS BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING WHICH WOULD MAKE DECEMBER 28, 2001 THE LAST DAY THE PLANS SHOULD BE RECEIVED: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Roberto, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Kardasz, Ludwig, Roberto and Covelli.

Atty. Faasse reminded Atty. Lavigne to revise Exhibit A-1.

VOUCHERS: submitted by Atty. Faasse for General Expenditures for Oct., Nov. & Dec. for $750.00 and Resolutions on Applications #19-01 Kreloff for $115.00 and #20-01 Ostrander for $115.00, for a Grand Total of $980.00.

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

VOUCHERS: submitted by Eng. Gregor for Engineering Services for October, November and December for $750.00, Engineering Services for Application #7-00 Zikra for $500.00, Application #23-01 Ringwood Park Plaza for $150.00, Application #22-01 Prodzenko for $150.00, for a Grand Total of $1550.00.

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

PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed

DISCUSSION: Chairman Dunning mentioned Application #22-01 Peter Prodzenko for an “A” Appeal & “B” Interpretation. Atty. Faasse said, he suggested to Eng. Gregor on this particular application, it would be better to have the hearing start and allow the attorney to specifically outline the case. It might take a month for the Board to review this application because it’s a difficult application to determine where their going with this, and why the applicant’s attorney is saying the Building Inspector/Zoning Official is wrong.

Chairman Dunning mentioned that the Borough Attorney is saying this lot was never subdivided.

MOTION TO DIRECT BOARD SECRETARY TO GIVE THE REQUISITE NOTICE OF THE OPEN PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT TO THE NEWSPAPERS FOR THE JANUARY 9, 2002 RE-ORGANIZATION MEETING TO START AT 7:30 P.M. AND REGULAR MEETING TO FOLLOW AT 8:00 P.M.: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Kardasz, Ludwig, Roberto and Covelli.

Chairman Dunning directed the Board Secretary to send a letter to the Mayor & Council asking for a representative to attend the Re-organization Meeting on January 9, 2002.

MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 10:30 P.M.: made by Member Covelli, carried by a voice vote.

__________________________________

Gerri Marotta

Secretary to Board of Adjustment