Pleading Wizard

Pledge of Allegiance:

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a regular meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment. Adequate notice has been given by a duly advertised notice to the Herald News and the Suburban Trends on the 12th day of January 2005. Notice thereof has been posted on the bulletin board and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk. Can we have a roll call please?

ROLL CALL: Chairman Jack Dunning, Members: Bruce Grygus, Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ted Roberto, Lee Smith, Attorney Ralph Faasse, Engineer William Gregor.

Frank Covelli (late).

MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Cris DeMetriou, John Shutte.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, before we open up our meeting this evening, I would like to offer up a moment of silence on the passing of our Mayor Warren Hagstrom.

MR. FAASSE: How many years was he Mayor?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um?

MR. CHAIRMAN: 15 I think I was.

MR. FAASSE: Something like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A long time. Okay, we are going to take our agenda out of order and clean up a few things that are being carried this evening. The agenda has one computer error. The first application listed First Apple Realty was approved at our November meeting. So that should not have been placed on the agenda.

Application #11-05, Santoro, 1185 Ringwood Avenue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's move on to 11-05 the Santoro Application, which is 1185 Ringwood Avenue. Now we have some communication on that?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah we received communication from the Carlo Coppa today asking that it be carried to our next meeting in January and also waving any and all time requirements for the consideration of this application. As you no doubt remember when it was here, a couple of months back, we asked for revised plans and also I think there was a situation with the notice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um-hum

MR. FAASSE: We have the plans tonight finally but the notice hasn't been given. So the motion should be to carry it to and I believe if we have our regular meetings it will be January 4th.

MR. LUDWIG: I'll make a motion to carry it to the January 4th meeting.

MR. GRYGUS: Second

MR. CHAIRMAN: Roll call?

MS. MAROTTA: Don and Bruce.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bruce

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO JANUARY 4TH MEETING:

Made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Smith.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay next item will --

MR. GRYGUS: Jack, one thing, I'm sorry, we are right on time with that application?

MR. FAASSE: We just extended it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We granted it.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay, I'm sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Whatever time we need.

MR. FAASSE: You have a copy of that letter, right Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

Application #19-05, Biggio Brothers, 835 Ringwood Avenue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Next item is 19-05, Biggio Brothers, 835 Ringwood Avenue, Site Plan, Commercial and Use Variances are required here. We have communication from somebody right Gerri?

MR. FAASSE: The attorney on that one.

MS. MAROTTA: Yeah.

MR. FAASSE: Asking to be carried to the January meeting.

MS. MAROTTA: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: I guess I kept mine with the plans that I left at the office. So the motion on this one again would be to carry it. Well we are still within time, we got 90 days.

MR. GRYGUS: 90 days is going to be January.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: So we should --

MR. CHAIRMAN: We need an extension.

MR. FAASSE: Well we should definitely get one in January, when he comes.

MR. GRYGUS: You are going to cut it close because you are --

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, let's get one now.

MR. GRYGUS: Let's get one now. I'll make a motion to carry the application to the January meeting,

with the provision that the applicant grants us a 90-day extension.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The other question was Mr. Gregor had a list of items that were deficient, has that been addressed by the applicant?

MR. GREGOR: On which application?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Biggio Brothers.

MR. GREGOR: On Biggio, I just received revised plans today, so I don't know.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, they were here in our packet tonight.

MR. GREGOR: One of the items was a survey and I understand that they recently got a survey and that was submitted as far as the plans. I haven't reviewed it as of yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: But it was handed to me this evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, you'll keep us up to date on that.

MR. GREGOR: So Gerri you'll send -- you contact them and request an adjournment.

MR. LUDWIG: I'll second that.

MS. MAROTTA: Oh wait, who made the motion?

MR. GRYGUS: I did.

MS. MAROTTA: Bruce?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um-hum

MS. MAROTTA: And Don?

MR. CHAIRMAN: And Don.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO JANUARY 4TH MEETING:

Made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Smith.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. And you will send and extension, right, to him?

MS. MAROTTA: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now Gerri we have heard from Abma?

MS. MAROTTA: Yes.

Application #20-05, Abma, 38 Furnace Avenue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Application 20-05, 38 Furnace Avenue this is on a bulk variance. The Abma Application we have some correspondence.

MS. MAROTTA: They are asking to be kept to January.

MR. FAASSE: That is for Mr. Becker, is he here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, David Becker.

MR. FAASSE: This letter will confirm the telephone that you had with my secretary this morning where the applicant would like to have this matter carried to the January meeting and that an announcement be made so they do not have to renotice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you check the notice?

MR. FAASSE: I didn't check anything on this one, Mr. Chairman. Let's take care of it and I can always look at that a break.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, before we leave we will check on that.

MR. GRYGUS: I'll make the motion to carry it to the January meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, second?

MR. LUDWIG: I'll second that.

MR. FAASSE: Bill did mention though that there is some deficiencies in that one

MR. CHAIRMAN: We believe so, yeah.

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO JANUARY 4TH MEETING:

Made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Smith.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: I am not going to be here in January.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Where you going on a cruise again?

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Florida.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Credit Union?

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: No this is a wedding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there anybody else that called in Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: What do we have -- I thought we had deficiencies in this last one.

MR. GRYGUS: Yeah, you want to talk about that one?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well Bill there is deficiencies in there, I don't know what.

MR. GREGOR: I have done the office review I haven't done the full site plan review yet. I have to do the site inspection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This one we have a lot of information. This is a simple. Maybe we should move it up and get rid of it. This should be done.

MR. FAASSE: Well yeah if we are going full Board.

MR. GREGOR: Well anyone that we don't think we could hear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This one we asked for more information, I don't know if Bill got it. And this we do have one new submittal from North Jersey Partners that addresses some of this.

MR. FAASSE: Right, but the problem with North Jersey Partners is -- Ted did you listen to the tapes?

MR. ROBERTO: No, I did not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: MR. FAASSE: No, you are down to five people.

MR. FAASSE: So we are down to five and Frank is on that one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Frank is on the way.

MR. FAASSE: So that one we have to hold then until Frank at least gets here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any others that we don't think we can vote on tonight due to completeness?

MR. FAASSE: Well Donus we should wait until Frank arrives. Let's see, who is here on the David Donus application? Counselor?

MR. BARBARULA: Good evening.

MR. FAASSE: We are anticipating our sixth member, I assume -- sixth -- seventh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Seventh.

MR. BARBARULA: Seventh, hopefully.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, seventh.

MR. BARBARULA: Six I like, but seven I would prefer.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, 7 members as we haven't opened up yours. We will hold it until -- you know -- later tonight when hopefully that member will be joining us.

MR. BARBARULA: Well I have our professionals so we are here.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. BARBARULA: Where else would I want to be.

MR. FAASSE: I am sure you want to hold it for that for 15 to 20 minutes to see if we can start on that one.

MR. BARBARULA: I would like to have 7 yes.

MR. FAASSE: All right, I don't blame you.

MR. BARBARULA: Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This one we have information on.

MR. FAASSE: We got George and Lynn Dowson, are they here? Dolson?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dowson.

MR. FAASSE: Dowson.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: You got it right the first time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are just taking out the survey here.

MR. FAASSE: You are ready to go, that is the one with the plan all right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: That is only a bulk. Di Laura, Theodore Di Laura. Going once, 10 Whistler Place, no show.

MR. GREGOR: We have not gotten revised plans on that either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, we had asked for information.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, no show on Di Laura.

MR. GREGOR: Do we have any extension on that?

MS. MAROTTA: He has never been heard yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It doesn't matter, he is deemed complete. It doesn't matter Gerri. 9-30-05.

MR. GREGOR: I talked to the architect today, he had indicated to me that revisions were requested. Mr. Di Laura is made aware of those and he said that his engineer was going to be doing it but I didn't know who his engineer was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: The problem is, we can't carry this to January without an extension.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it is going to run out before then.

MR. FAASSE: 120 days we got.

MR. GRYGUS: I thought you said 90.

MS. MAROTTA: No

MR. FAASSE: No, no, no.

MR. GRYGUS: Oh, okay.

MR. FAASSE: That is what I said, we had 90. We had 90 on the other one.

MR. GRYGUS: That's what I thought it was 120 too.

MR. FAASSE: You jump at -- you didn't feel comfortable at 90.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay, so we are okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So a motion to carry to January 4th.

MR. FAASSE: While yes, provided he gives us an extension. There is also the snow contingency that the Chairman brought up. What happens if we get trouble with snow in January.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If we get snow in January, we can't have our meeting.

MS. MAROTTA: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And our time is going to run out.

MS. MAROTTA: So you want an extension from them too?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want an extension, yeah.

MS. MAROTTA: For how many days?

MR. CHAIRMAN: 90 days.

MR. LUGWIG: I'll make a motion to carry it to the January 4th meeting, contingent with him getting a 90 day extension.

MR. FAASSE: 90 day extension.

MR. SMITH: Second.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. Take a roll call now, I guess.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yup, roll call.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO JANUARY 4TH MEETING:

Made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Smith. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Smith.

MR. FAASSE: Mr. Lefkowitz

MR. CHAIRMAN: He was here.

MR. FAASSE: Why don't you rise when I --

MR. LAZEROWITZ: - Lazerowitz not Mr. Lefkowitz, there is a Mr. Lefkowitz in Pompton Lakes.

MR. FAASSE: I know, I know, I know, that is who I was confusing you with, the famous one.

MR. LAZEROWITZ: No relation.

MR. FAASSE: You are the one from Glen Rock on the farmers' field.

MR. LAZEROWITZ: Correct.

MR. FAASSE: We are waiting for Frank. Mr. Roberto is not qualified on your application because he didn't participate last month. So I am sure you would want the sixth member to come. So we are waiting for him, so we are going hold for a while.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He is on his way apparently.

MR. FAASSE: Hopefully, yes, he had a meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, he will be here.

MR. LAZEROWITZ: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: He is usually good at that.

MR. LAZEROWITZ: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: All right. We might take you first because you are a continuation.

MR. LAZEROWITZ: Yes, sir.

MR. FAASSE: Before the big one.

MR. LAZEROWITZ: Yeah, we just have a little supplemental.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then the last one is --

MR. FAASSE: Fennelly

Application #21-05, Fennelly, 6 Oak Street

MR. CHAIRMAN: 21-05, Fennelly, which is 6 Oak Street.

MR. FAASSE: Mary, Francis and William Fennelly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fennelly, okay I'm sorry.

MR. FAASSE: Don't feel bad, I kill all names, all nationalities.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Equal opportunity.

MR. FAASSE: I am, I am equal opportunity. I had a judge one time, he says I'll take care of the Arabic names, you take care of all the Dutchman. We had some problems with that one?

MR. GREGOR: Yes --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to just step up for a second, identify yourself for the record. We have some problems from an engineering point of view in that one so we might as well talk about it rather than sit here all night.

MR. SCHEPIS: Good evening, my name is Steve Schepis, I am the attorney for Bill Fennelly. Mr. Fennelly is standing here to my left.

MR. FAASSE: Did you ever send in a letter of appearance?

MR. SCHEPIS: Sure, I submitted the application.

MR. FAASSE: Did you really, okay. We got all of that then Gerri, his name, his rank, his serial number? Lawyers should have those special numbers that you can use.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Like engineers.

MR. FAASSE: Are you in good standing with the bar?

MR. SCHEPIS: Last time I checked.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, yes, all right, we do have your letter, I'm sorry. Okay, counselor. So you are here on behalf of the applicants. Who is the other gentleman?

MR. SCHEPIS: That is Mr. McQuillan (phonetic), he is the engineer.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, we won't hold that against him. Okay, now our engineer had a couple of questions on this as to whether or not we can even consider this one tonight.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, we are in the process of reviewing this application and we ran into some significant problems regarding the adjacent properties which we are unable to resolve as yet. One of the items was that, in looking at the Property Owners List, Lots 21 and 22 are listed as vacant. However, they are not listed on the Property Owners list for properties within 200 feet. Likewise, Lot 23 isn't on this list.

MR. SCHEPIS: I suspect that those properties are co-joined with other parcels, that is my understanding.

MR. GREGOR: Well that we would need to identify here for the simple reason that you are -- you do have a substandard lot and lot area and, if you have vacant properties, and I think it was indicated in the application that you -- is this the one that you approached other property owners and we unable to secure any additional properties. Am I correct in that or am I confusing with you with another application?

MR. SCHEPIS: There was a vacant lot immediately to the north of this property that was designated as 15 on the old filed map that the client attempted to purchase and he lost an effort to buy it.

MR. GREGOR: Okay. But there was nothing in the file indicating that other than that statement.

MR. FAASSE: Well we can have testimony to that fact.

MR. SCHEPIS: That is correct.

MR. GREGOR: Okay. All right, we feel your --best would be to resolve the ownership of those adjacent lots so we know what the story is on that. Also there was a -- there was a letter from the water supervisor which indicates that water and sewer are not available but you have already shown a septic and a well. The only question that I have, has that septic been approved or is that proposed?

MR. SCHEPIS: No, yes that has been approved by the Wanaque Board of Health.

MR. GREGOR: Okay. Could you provide us with a copy of the approval as well?

MR. SCHEPIS: Absolutely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we taking testimony here, Ralph?

MR. FAASSE: I'm sorry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we taking testimony here?

MR. FAASSE: No, we are really just dealing with procedural matters as to whether this thing is in sufficient situation position to hear it tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill would we need to have the location of the wells of the adjacent property owners too?

MR. GREGOR: Well that is one of the reasons that I wanted to ask about the septic plan because that is typically required on the septic plan because the septics cannot be located within 100 feet of an existing well. Do you have the plan that -- the septic plan showing that?

MR. SCHEPIS: Yes, Sir I do.

MR. GREGOR: If you could submit that to my office as well, I would appreciate it.

MR. SCHEPIS: Certainly.

MR. GREGOR: And I will be glad -- and the last item, the survey for the property.

MR. FAASSE: Do we have them or no?

MR. SCHEPIS: There is a survey.

MR. GREGOR: That's good, that is a good start.

MR. FAASSE: Well you need a survey.

MR. SCHEPIS: Yes, but --

MR. FAASSE: You have a survey but we don't.

MR. GREGOR: As you are well aware the Professionals Board of Engineers and Land Surveyors requires that all of the surveys be referenced on the plan and if any copies be submitted with the plan. Neither which have I seen. Maybe I missed a note but I didn't miss the survey.

MR. SCHEPIS: The survey is referenced on the plan but it is possible that you may have not seen the survey. They were forwarded but perhaps not part of the application packet.

MR. GREGOR: Those are the items that we need and we will complete our review. Unless there is additional work that you are going to be doing on it, we can have that review completed for the next meeting which I believe is January 4th.

MR. SCHEPIS: I have one question for you --

MR. GREGOR: Certainly.

MR. SCHEPIS: With regard to that ownership issue it is a little unusual because as you can see on the filed map the properties were once designated as two separate lots, 13 and 14. However once the lots were merged the assessor assigned number 13,

MR. GREGOR: Right.

MR. SCHEPIS: So I image that is probably the case with a number of adjoining properties in that they were the conglomerate of these smaller lots. Now what exactly would you want from us to qualify the issues.

MR. GREGOR: What I was able to do, in reviewing the tax records that I had access to, it was clear that this lot became -- 13 became part of this lot. In looking at the adjacent lots, Lot 20 and 24, there was no such notation and the map that was provided here didn't show the joining of the lots or the symbol for joining of lots would be sufficient. Just so we know which lot belongs to -- what lot belongs to what.

MR. SCHEPIS: Okay, so you are talking about a plan detail on the plot plan. You want to see --

MR. GREGOR: Well you could either do it on the tax map and/or your site plan. It is just -- I would even accept a note. What we are trying to do is get the information so that the Board can make an informed decision.

MR. FAASSE: In other words there are additional lots on the tax map.

MR. GREGOR: Right.

MR. FAASSE: That don't show up on the list.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are talking about this area Bill?

MR. GREGOR: Right. Lot 20 --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Lot 20 shows a house that probably falls into Lot 21.

MR. GREGOR: Very well, it is a good guess but I don't like to guess and I don't want the Board guessing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What about this --

MR. FAASSE: That might just be a matter of clarifying the tax information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is a garage, is that staying?

MR. FAASSE: I mean you don't have to put it on your plan right away. You could give us a list, that's fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, the list to be submitted --

MR. GREGOR: There is an existing garage that is shown on the property.

MR. FAASSE: Is that staying?

MR. GREGOR: It wasn't noted to be removed. I made the assumption that it was to be removed.

MR. SCHEPIS: Actually I believe we have a note to that effect but if we can cut to the chase, it has now been removed.

MR. GREGOR: It has now been removed.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, then the plan is no good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is right there.

MR. SCHEPIS: While we are amending the map, we will note that as well.

MR. GREGOR: Okay. Can you clarify just out of idle curiosity what that garage was for?

MR. SCHEPIS: I cannot speculate.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: There you go, no speculation.

MR. SCHEPIS: Mr. Fennelly can answer your question.

MR. FENNELLY: It was a small shed it wasn't always near a garage.

MR. FAASSE: Oh this property was owned by an adjacent property owner?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill, is that procedural?

MR. GREGOR: No, sorry.

MR. FAASSE: All right, let's go, we are not opening up the hearing.

MR. GREGOR: The attorney is slapping my wrist for asking too many questions. We will wait till we start the application.

MR. SCHEPIS: Is there a review memo that you prepared or something that we should take with us?

MR. GREGOR: No, that is what I am stating. I don't prepare a review memo until I have all of the information. Primarily, the signed and sealed survey needs to be provided.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now would it make more sense to come back in January or should we wait until we have a review memo from you and then we can address this.

MR. SCHEPIS: Well if I get this missing information which is by let's say within a week or so, we will have a review memo well in advance of the next meeting.

MR. FAASSE: Yes but you are very -- you know that is a very astute observation counselor. If you do not get the review memo until the morning of the 4th, you may just call up and say let's carry it -- you know. But it all depends, we got the Holiday.

MR. LUDWIG: If you can fulfill what he needs.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah. So it depends on how fast your professionals can get the information to ours and maybe we can expedite it.

MR. GREGOR: It sounds like everything I have asked, your engineer has readily available.

MR. SCHEPIS: I am confident we can provide this to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: Then we should be able to get a review shortly thereafter.

MR. FAASSE: You do have the letter from the water department, right? Because we had a copy of that.

MR. SCHEPIS: No, we didn't see that.

MR. FAASSE: You didn't see that. Do we have an extra copy of the November 30th letter, Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: Yeah.

MR. FAASSE: Please give it to them so they will know. We shouldn't be receiving things that the applicant don't have. All right. It is, just for the record, the November 30, 2005 letter from the Water Department.

MR. SCHEPIS: Okay, I guess then we will be carried to the January 4th meeting.

MR. FAASSE: That will be the motion, Mr. Chairman?

MR. LUDWIG: I will make a motion to carry this to the January 4th meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we have a second?

MR. GRYGUS: Second.

MR. SCHEPIS: Okay, I just ask that the notice be preserved.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, there will be no requirement to give further notices in this one. I think we are in good stead with the time, right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE JANUARY 4TH MEETING:

Made by Member Ludwig, Seconded by Member Grygus. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Smith.

MR. SCHEPIS: Okay, thanks for your time.

MR. FAASSE: Have a nice holiday.

MR. SCHEPIS: Merry Christmas

MS. MAROTTA: Frank Covelli?

MR. COVELLI: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: All right, Mr. Chairman. We just want to make it clear. We are just down to three cases. I would suggest we go to Dowson --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I would like to go to Dowson.

MR. FAASSE: -- and then we will do the Partners.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: And then go to Donus. And this is an old one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. He has got six people here that heard this.

MS. MAROTTA: Five down.

MR. FAASSE: And that is going to go on that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right okay.

MR. FAASSE: Right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, just so that everyone is up to speed, we are left with three applications. The Dowson Application, North Jersey Partners Application and the Donus. And we are going to be doing them in that order because Dowson is old business and North Jersey Partners is old business and Donus would be new business. Right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um-huh

MR. FAASSE: Everyone has been carried to the fourth. All right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so let's move --

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: So we are taking 102 Greenwood first?

MR. FAASSE: I'm sorry.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: No, 10-19.

MR. FAASSE: Dowson.

Application #13-05, Dowson, 21 Stephens Lake Road.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dowson, okay so we are going to move to Dowson which is 13-05, 21 Stephens Lake Road. It is a bulk variance. Can you please step forward? Now, Mr. Gregor, we got a new set of plans on this, right?

MS. MAROTTA: What?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We got new plans on this?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, we got new plans last month, remember.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, I just want to make sure that we all have the right stamp on it.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, Bill?

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What plans -- what is the date stamped on the plan we should be looking at, because I have two identical piles here?

MR. GREGOR: All right the plans are -- I don't know what the town date stamp is, I received it directly from the applicant.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, then ours would be three days before that, the 28th.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: I have one stamped, received the 26th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The 26th, okay the 26th.

MR. GREGOR: 10/27/05 is the date of the plans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. So that is the plan we are going to follow. The letter from Patio Enclosures would be dated October 28th, right?

MR. GREGOR: That is correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: October 28, 2005 -- our date stamped, I have October 28th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The 28th, yeah, okay.

MR. FAASSE: Wait this one was heard on --

MR. CHAIRMAN: September?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, September 7th. Ted were you here on September 7th?

MR. ROBERTO: No, I was not.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. ROBERTO: So I am not qualified to vote.

MR. FAASSE: Everyone else was present in October?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You got back to September attendance Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: Sure. September, no Chris, no Ted Roberto.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The remaining six are okay.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, okay, so the other six members are all qualified.

MR. FAASSE: You are the same two gentlemen that were here in September, correct?

MR. MULLHOLLAND: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Just so that we are clear your oaths that you were administered that night, continues tonight. So everything you say has to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God. And again, just for the record, because we don't have a video tape, identify yourself. First the applicant.

MR. DOWSON: George Dowson

MR. FAASSE: Okay, and Sir?

MR. MULLHOLAND: Michael Mullholland

MR. FAASSE: And you are from Patio Enclosures, correct?

MR. MULHOLAND: Yes, Sir.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. GRYGUS: Before we proceed, we have two plans that are dated the same but they are date stamped in the Borough at different dates and one is sealed and one isn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is why I asked which plan -- all right, which has got the latest date on it, Bruce?

MR. GRYGUS: One has a date stamped 10/31. One is date stamped 10/28.

MR. FAASSE: We already got the 28th one.

MR. GRYGUS: But they are both dated 10/27/05.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are they both sealed?

MR. GRYGUS: One is sealed and one isn't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Which one is not sealed?

MR. GRYGUS: The one that is dated the 31st.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not sealed. I was thinking just the opposite would have occurred.

MR. GRYGUS: I just want to make sure that they are identical.

MR. FAASSE: Are they Sir, they are both prepared by Patio Enclosures?

MR. MULLHOLLAND: Yeah, I think the discrepancy was that on your web site it says that you need 10 copies. I showed up with 10 copies and then I was informed that I needed 20. So we made more copies.

MR. GREGOR: So you got two.

MR. MULLHOLLAND: So I made two trips.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So basically we have two of the same, that is what I was wondering.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: All right. But the main thing is what is the date of your plans that we are looking at?

MR. MULLHOLLAND: 10/27

MR. FAASSE: 10/27 okay. 10/27 plans. And do we have a letter from our engineer on this?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, right now. Dated September 1st Bill?

MR. GREGOR: That is correct.

MR. FAASSE: All right. Okay, so basically why did we adjourn this Mr. Gregor?

MR. GREGOR: We needed some additional information and the applicant wanted to deal with the Highlands issue prior to proceeding before the Board.

MR. MULLHOLLAND: And I understand that he has done so successfully, I hope.

MR. FAASSE: Tell us what happened with the Highlands?

MR. MULLHOLLAND: To my knowledge, I believe that Mr. Gregor spoke to a Ross McDonald who let him know that if the Board so chooses they can waive the Highlands requirements because it is an addition to an existing structure, as far as that.

MR. GREGOR: Yes, I did speak with him and he indicated that he has spoken the Highlands Commission and that is what they indicated to him verbally. He was trying to get it confirmed in writing and to my knowledge he has not confirmed it in writing but I believe the Board can proceed on that. I still recommend that the Board's condition is on any Highlands requirements since we, without it in writing, that we can waive the requirements, I do not wish to advise the Board to do so.

MR. FAASSE: So noted. You understand. In other words any action that this Board takes, if it does it in the affirmative, it is going to be subject to approval by the Highlands Authority or --

MR. GREGOR: A waiver.

MR. FAASSE: -- a determination by them that they waive their requirements.

MR. GREGOR: In other words, we cannot supercede the Highlands.

MR. MULLHOLLAND: I realize that.

MR. GREGOR: Unless something in writing from the DEP, I am reluctant to have this Board proceed without that stipulation in there.

MR. MULLHOLLAND: I can certainly see that but my conversation with Ross McDonald from the Highlands Commission said that, in fact, that since it is a single family home and it is an existing home that it doesn't -- it doesn't necessarily fall under the Highlands jurisdiction. Again, being a new act -- you know -- as far as that, that perhaps it may not have even needed to come up in this application.

MR. GREGOR: That was my discussion with Mr. McDonald as well.

MR. FAASSE: They are putting in an awful lot of hearsay on the record.

MR. GREGOR: He was trying to get confirmation from the DEP in writing. At the time he said he had hoped he could get it within a week or two. That was approximately a month and a half ago. So I don't know that he got it. So without that in writing from the DEP, who now has jurisdiction over the Highlands, I cannot recommend that this Board do anything other than what I had just mentioned, is that the application be subject to waiver or approval from the Highlands. Which is I understand --

MR. MULLHOLLAND: The waiver wouldn't come from the Highlands, the waiver would come from us. What you are looking for --

MR. FAASSE: No, no.

MR. GREGOR: The waiver --

MR. FAASSE: It comes from the Highlands.

MR. GREGOR: This is a state regulation we cannot waive a state regulation. It is my understanding and my reading, the way the regulations are written, that this property would be considered exempt by the Highlands. However, my interpretation of the Highlands regulations is academic. Only the DEP's interpretation governs.

MR. MULLHOLLAND: Okay, so you are just waiting for that -- you are waiting for written confirmation of what you verbally spoke about.

MR. GREGOR: Right. And, unfortunately, DEP --

MR. FAASSE: What we are going to do is -- what we have to do, is we are going to have to make it subject to the compliance of the Highlands Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's all.

MR. FAASSE: Now that means that that they are not going to get any kind of building permit until they can prove either that the Highlands has said that they approve the application or they waive their rules and regulations with respect to this application.

MR. MULLHOLLAND: I understand.

MR. FAASSE: And unfortunately we can't take hearsay one way or the other. We are anticipating that they will waive it but we don't know that for a fact.

MR. GREGOR: We were told by Mr. McDonald that it was his --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Who is Mr. McDonald?

MR. GREGOR: He works for the Highlands Commission. However, DEP jurisdiction and he could not get it in writing and that is something I required.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let's move on from that point. Bill was there anything else in your report that needed to be clarified in these drawings?

MR. GREGOR: Yes, let me just touch base on my report, if I may. Items 1 through 4 in my report are factual items and I will read them just so the Board is aware of what is going on. The subject properties are currently located in the newly created Highlands Preservation area and subject to regulations of the Highlands Water and Protection and Planning Act and, therefore, subject to review and approval of the Highlands Water and Protection Board and Council. This should be a condition of any action by the Board. The application proposes is to construct a one-story 17 by 20 foot addition onto the side of an existing structure and an approximately 11 1/2 by 25 foot deck addition. The existing structure is nonconforming in front yard setback, side yard setback and rear yard setback. The existing lot is nonconforming in lot width, lot depth and lot area. The property abuts a brook along the rear yard. The extents of the flood plane, wetlands and wetlands buffer should be shown on the site plan. The application has requested a waiver of this requirement and I am recommending that this requirement be waived.

MR. FAASSE: What is that number 5.

MR. GREGOR: Number 5. The locations of utilities such as well and septic should be added to the site plan. That has been added to the site plan. The name and address of the applicant and owner of the subject property should be added to the site plan. That has been added to the site plan. A key map should be added to the site plan. That has been added to the revised plans. A zoning table should be added to the plans noting existing conditions and existing and proposed variances. That has been added to the revised plans.

MR. FAASSE: Is it accurate?

MR. GREGOR: Yes. The existing and proposed grading should be added to the plans. Specifically, any activity in the flood plane should be noted. The application is -- the applicant is requested a waiver on this item because no proposed grading is being proposed, it is being built over an existing concrete porch. All adjacent property lines and structures and zone lines should be added to the plans. A waiver has been requested and is also recommended by our office for the same reason I mentioned in Item 10. The proposed building addition will required the following variances from the R-40 Zoning Requirements. The addition will require a variance for front yard setback. The extent of the variance should be added to the plans, it has been added. The front yard setback is 44 feet, the requirement is 60. That is shown on the zoning table. The addition will require a variance for rear yard setback. The extent of the variance should be added to the plans in the Variance Table. The existing variance is 2.58 feet, that is existing, the required is 55. No storm water management has been provided. The applicant has requested a waiver on this since no new impervious area is being proposed. We also recommend that waiver be granted by the Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you Bill.

MR. FAASSE: We have 44 foot front setback where 60 is required?

MR. CHAIRMAN: U-hum

MR. GREGOR: 44 where 60 is required, yes.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. And the other one is 2.58?

MR. GREGOR: 2.58 rear yard which is existing, where 55 is required.

MR. FAASSE: You got the distances Bruce?

MR. GRYGUS: Yeah, I got them.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, very good. You want to tell us anything else about your application?

MR. DOWSON: I am just trying to make the house livable. It is very small. I have nobody around me, there is nobody around me; it is all woods, and I have no problems with the neighbors they all said -- you know -- they signed by paper. I don't know, I just need this to happen or I have to look for another place to live. It is just that it is too small. I have to go on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How big is your existing house right now?

MR. DOWSON: 20 by 20. There are two of us in there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, and the benefit of this addition would be to give you usable living space.

MR. DOWSON: Some living space, yes. Actually -- you know -- some breathing room.

MR. LUDWIG: Is that two stories?

MR. DOWSON: Excuse me?

MR. LUDWIG: Is there a basement?

MR. DOWSON: Yes, yes.

MR. FAASSE: Is there anything else you want to tell us Sir?

MR. DOWSON: Excuse me?

MR. FAASSE: Anything else you want to tell us?

MR. DOWSON: I'm hoping that you will pass this variance. That is about it.

MR. FAASSE: Any questions of the applicant or the gentlemen from Patio Enclosures? No questions, open it up to the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, let's open it up to the public. Does anyone from the public have any questions or statements on this application? Seeing or hearing none, we close the public portion.

MR. FAASSE: You got it Bruce?

MR. GRYGUS: I'll make a motion to approve the application with the following variances. A front yard variance of 16 feet, where the applicant is provided 44 feet, where 60 feet is required by ordinance. And the second will be a variance for a rear yard setback of 42.42 feet, where the applicant is providing 2.58 feet and the requirement is 55 feet. The approval will be conditioned upon the applicant submitting writing documentation of either a waiver or approval of the plan by the Highlands Commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that 52?

MR. LUDWIG: I'm sorry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that 52 on the rear?

MR. GREGOR: The rear was 2.58.

MR. GRYGUS: Yeah, it is a variance of 42.42 feet, they are providing 2.58 where 55 is required.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So it would be 52?

MR. GRYGUS: Oh, I'm sorry 52.

MR. GREGOR: You are 10 off, you are right.

MR. GRYGUS: 52.42 feet.

MR. FAASSE: 52.40 --

MR. GRYGUS: 42 is the variance.

MR. LUDWIG: You are so good with that, that is why I was going to let you do it.

MS. MAROTTA: We need a second.

MR. LUDWIG: I'll second that. You have the conditions on the --

MR. GRYGUS: Yeah.

MR. FAASSE: Just that one condition.

MR. LUDWIG: 44

MR. CHAIRMAN: Who seconded it?

MR. LUDWIG: I DID.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Don.

MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH VARIANCES.

Made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Smith, Covelli.

MR. GRYGUS: Go ahead Ralph.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, you have to give your famous speech.

MR. FAASSE: The Board sought fit to grant you your application. However, it does not become finalized until we adopt the resolution. Hopefully, we will do that at the next monthly meeting. Thereafter, the secretary has 10 days to put it in the paper. Thereafter, anyone has 45 days, anyone from the public including all those people who didn't show up here or anything else like that, has 45 days to take us to Court to say what we did was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. Once the Building Department receives suitable plans, an application for a building permit, they will grant you a building permit but if you do any building between now and the resolution, the 10 days, the 45 days, you are doing it solely at your own risk and peril. Do you understand that?

MR. MULLHOLLAND: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: He has to, you have to say yes Sir.

MR. DOWSON: Yes, I understand that.

MR. FAASSE: All right. Because it would be the first time that a Superior Court Judge says that is a nice addition but pull it all down. All right.

MR. MULLHOLLAND: And this is all subject to getting that letter from --

MR. FAASSE: We have to have a letter one way or other saying that they are going to take jurisdiction or they are going to waive to. And you are going to need that for the building department, not so much for us, Because you do fall within that district, unfortunately. And hearsay will not waive it for you.

MR. MULLHOLLAND: Oh no. And that would be addressed to the Board or to the Building Department?

MR. FAASSE: No, you can just give it to the applicant. It can be addressed to the applicant. The applicant from the Highlands Authority on their official stationary saying that -- you know -- we have reviewed your plans and we do not exercise our jurisdiction and we waive any rights that we have with respect to this application, something to that effect. And you got all the hearsay names and everything else.

MR. MULLHOLLAND: They spoke to your engineer as well.

MR. FAASSE: That is what I am saying.

MR. MULLHOLLAND: It wasn't just my hearsay, it was his as well.

MR. GREGOR: My hearsay too.

MR. MULLHOLLAND: There you go.

MR. FAASSE: All right. We are confident that you will get it but until you do get it, the Borough can't do anything.

MR. MULLHOLLAND: Very good.

MR. FAASSE: And, unfortunately, they are the sovereign, we are just -- you know -- an entity of the sovereign.

MR. MULLHOLLAND: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. GREGOR: Good luck.

MR. DOWSON: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, we are going to take a five minute break so you can get to --

MR. FAASSE: Oh yeah and then if you get ready on Partners?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, right, will get Partners up first. All right, we are going to take a three minute break.

MR. FAASSE: I have to just go outside.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

RECESSED.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, let the meeting readjourn. Let the minutes reflect everyone is present that was here before our break.

Application #18-05 North Jersey Partners, 102 Greenwood Avenue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are going to move on to Application #18-05, North Jersey Partners, 102 Greenwood Avenue, Minor Subdivision, New Building Lot Created Use and Bulk Variances. Counselor are you ready?

MR. LAZEROWITZ: Yes, Sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let's go.

MR. LAZEROWITZ: Jay I. Lazerowitz, continuing the application for the applicant. I recall up Mr. Lantelme, who has been previously sworn and qualifications accepted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, now you have submitted a newer plan.

MR. LAZEROWITZ: That is correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let's both be on the same plan. I think we have a Borough date stamped of November 28, it looks like.

MR. GREGOR: The date of the plans are revised 11/23/05.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, where that be -- oh I see it. Okay.

MR. LAZEROWITZ: As a result of some questioning by the Board after the conclusion of the testimony of Mr. Lantelme and the applicant, we revised the plan to address some concerns. That revised plan depicts approximately where a dwelling will be placed. It also depicts utilities and, finally, it depicts that the garage will be removed and it is designated as such on the plan. Mr. Lantelme, you prepared this revised plan?

MR. LANTELME: Yes, I did.

MR. LAZEROWITZ: Oh it also -- if you would kindly, it is somewhat repetitive, but if you could just comment on what you show now in the revised plan that differs from the previous plan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have an extra plan, Gerri?

MR. FAASSE: Do you have another one, I don't have that one?

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: I didn't get it either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You don't one either?

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: I got it from --

MR. FAASSE: You got it from him?

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I got one from Gerri.

MR. LAZEROWITZ: We can russell up one if that helps.

MR. GREGOR: Here you go Ralph.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Who needs one?