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 Suburban Trends and the Herald News on January 12, 2007. A copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk and posted on the bulletin board in Borough of Wanaque. Can we have a roll call please?

ROLL CALL: Chairman Jack Dunning, Bruce Grygus, Frank Covelli, Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ed Leonard, Art Koning, Eric Willse, Attorney Ralph Faasse, Engineer William Gregor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Gerri. Okay, first application this evening that we are going to talk about is 23-06 which is Reality Associates, 547 Ringwood Avenue, it is on bulk and use variances. Counselor, I believe we have some communication.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, we have a letter from Mr. Chewcaskie dated December the 4th. This will serve to confirm my telephone conversation with Ralph Faasse, the Zoning Board Attorney, that the applicant Reality Associates Redevelopement LLC hereby consents to an extension of time for the Zoning Board of Adjustment to render a decision with respect to this matter until March 31st. Previously I sent a letter, faxed, requesting an adjournment to be carried until the January meeting and he was going to give us an extension through the end of that meeting I think.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well here it is through that meeting.

MR. FAASSE: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh the prior one.

MR. FAASSE: In fact before I received his first communication, I talked to him and I said don’t give us January because I said -- you know -- we could have snow and everything else as we had tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: So, I said give us at least 90 days and he said March. So he is asking for an adjournment today. Carry to, I guess, the meeting would be January 3?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The 2nd.

MS. MAROTTA: January 2nd.

MR. FAASSE: January 2nd. The extension is through March 31st, so we will have to notify him that it is the 2nd.

MR. LUDWIG: All right, I’ll make a motion to carry that to the January 2nd meeting.

MR. WILLSE: I’ll second it.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, roll call.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #23-06 TO JANUARY 2, 2008:

Made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Willse, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. So anyone here on Reality, that is carried until the January meeting. Okay. Next application is 03-07, which is the Santoro application. 1185 Ringwood Avenue, Site Plan, Use Variance and Bulk Variances. We have some communication.

MR. FAASSE: Do we -- did we get something on that Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: Yes, I got it today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You got it Gerri?

MR. FAASSE: All right, I had a conversation with Mr. La Sala when I hadn’t heard anything from him by Tuesday and he told me that he was going to send a note but I never saw a copy of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: You want me to take care of that one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, let’s see what we got here.

MR. FAASSE: December 5th, as you are aware this office represents the property owners with regard to the above captioned matter. After several discussions following our last appearance before the Board the clients have decided to withdraw their application. Accordingly the motion would be to dismiss the application without prejudice based upon the applicant withdrawing the application.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll make the motion to dismiss that application without prejudice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, a second on that?

MR. GRYGUS: I’ll second it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Roll call.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPLICATION #03-07 WITH PREJUDICE:

Made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Okay the next application we are moving to is 06-07 which is the Elmwood Application. 13 Maple Avenue, Minor Subdivision and Bulk Variance and also a Use Variance, they never added the use to that.

MS. MAROTTA: Oh, they didn’t?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. WALKER: Good evening, Michael Walker from the firm of Higgins and Walker on behalf of the applicant Elwood.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good evening.

MR. FAASSE: To just refresh our memory, he was here the last month, right?

MR. WALKER: He was, he was sworn in also.

MR. FAASSE: Your name is?

MR. DEAN: Jerry Dean.

MR. FAASSE: Dean and we swore you in last month and your oath continues tonight.

MR. DEAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: You understand, okay.

MR. WALKER: Actually, as of the last meeting, we had concluded presenting information. What we have done is there were several comments made by Mr. Gregor with respect to the application and the revisions of the plans. Those revised plans have been submitted to the Board and I am certain that the Board had the opportunity to review them. I believe they were dropped off at the Board’s office about two weeks ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um-hum.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah the last revision is 11/12/07?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um-hum.

MR. FAASSE: Everybody has that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, stamped by the Borough November 16th.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. WALKER: November 12, 2007.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. WALKER: And if we could just have those marked as part of the application. We have already presented all the evidence and the testimony that we are gong to present in connection with the application. Just to summarize very briefly if the Board would wish me to do so, I will certainly do that. But I believe as we indicated during the course of the presentation to the Board that this application is beneficial to the community. The site is particularly well suited for residential development. It is in an existing residential area. I know there has been certain issues raised with respect to run off and what have you. All the issues that have been raised in opposition to the application interesting enough would not be negatively affected by this particular proposal. If anything, I think it would be positive. Right now there is existing water problems in the area and that seems to be one of the main complaints. There is also complaints regarding the construction itself but there has been testimony by Mr. Dean what measures can be undertaken to elevate that. But the fact is that if anything, as a result of this proposed project, the problems with respect to water and drainage would be improved. It certainly would not have a negative impact and we would certainly anticipate that it would have a positive impact. I would also indicate that this is a Use Variance as the Board is well aware and, again, this development is very consistent with the area. We are looking at a small to midsize home essentially I think this is beneficial because it is more affordable to middle income families. The proposed use is certainly the best use of the property involved. It is beneficial to the surrounding business community in that, once again, you would have families moving in, it would benefit the surrounding business community as it within walking distance, quite a short walking distance to Ringwood Avenue and it would certainly be a tax writeable and it will increase and enhance the value of the surrounding properties. We certainly request and we certainly will respond to any other inquiries that the Board may have but we request that the Board consider the application which I know you have done and approve it. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. GRYGUS: You had just indicated and I don’t believe that you submitted any documentation but you did just indicate that the proposed would improve the drainage situation. Are you stating that two houses would create less run off than one house, is that what you are stating?

MR. WALKER: Well I think what we are indicating is and Mr. Dean had indicated that there would be certainly no increase in the run off from the development to the property. It is not our position that the proposal would create less or more but it certainly would not create more. But you are talking about zero run off as a result of the development of this area but it certainly would not increase run off.

MR. GRYGUS: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions gentlemen? Are we done with the public?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, I don’t remember. I was just trying think of the same thing. Our minutes went to be transcribed.

MR. GRYGUS: I think we only opened it for questioning.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, I think so too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: I don’t think we ever open it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I think we have to have closing statements on this.

MR. FAASSE: I don’t think we opened it up to the public for statements one way or another.

MR. GRYGUS: No, we had questions.

MR. WALKER: I know you opened it up to the public on several occasions before.

MR. FAASSE: For questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For questions.

MR. WALKER: Oh, okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But at the end we let them come up and --

MR. WALKER: I though you did but perhaps I --

MR. GRYGUS: And I don’t know if we carried those or if we closed that.

MR. WALKER: Questions of Mr. Dean or?

MR. FAASSE: Pardon. No we had it for questions now this would be the public portion to make any comments on the application. Okay. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to be heard on this application?

MS. MAROTTA: You said we are opening it to the public?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, we opening it to the public for comments on the application now.

MR. FAASSE: And you are going to testify this time right?

MS. PETERSON: I was sworn in already.

MR. FAASSE: Well recent?

MS. PETERSON: I was.

MR. FAASSE: I don’t think so.

MR. GRYGUS: I don’t think so because you only had to give your name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Well let’s cover it anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let’s play it safe.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

DONNA PETERSON SWORN:

MR. FAASSE: Okay, give us your full name; spell your last name and an address please.

MS. PETERSON: Donna Peterson P-E-T-E-R-S-O-N, 16 Maple Avenue, Haskell, New Jersey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MS. PETERSON: Basically you received my information that I sent including the tax map showing all the properties in the area. I am not really sure exactly at what point what to say anymore about this except that there are other properties that would also be within the same means of coming for a subdivision. The water situation has been an increased problem over the last maybe four years due to something in the area. I have lived there for 20 years and have not had this problem until recently. My question about who is going to be legally held responsible or is there any accountability should this building create more of a problem. The attorney here said that it is not going to. Is he the contractor, the property owner, are they willing to take responsibility to guarantee that there is not going to be any additional problems from this? Are they willing to put it in writing, carry an insurance policy or something because -- you know -- as a property owner and living here for 20 years I shouldn’t have to encounter any additional cost or expense or harm to my own property. Right now the water coming through flows through on a cement floor it doesn’t accumulate inches wise to like ruin the raised floor. It flows into the sump pump. The last rain that we had, that real heavy rain where the town had some flooding, I pumped out a flow not four feet of water it doesn’t flood like that; it is ground water. I literally think I pumped the dirt road water through the ground through my basement and I pumped for eight days from one rainstorm. So my concern and if this is not the right venue to present this, I need to know where else to go but there is a problem in the neighborhood over the last four years -- you know -- I wish I could fix it. I wish I could move if that were the last resort but what guarantee do I have as a property owner because I will not have money to afford to fix damages that might accrue for this. I am already -- you know -- I don’t what else to say about it; that is my concern. The town has set a lot size for new construction, I am requesting that the Board honor that at least to some point that there can be a resolution of what is happened in this neighborhood to cause this increased water to be accumulating in this area before you allow any additional construction. Thank you.

MR. WALKER: Okay, just very briefly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. WALKER: It is my understanding; I know that you have appeared at several meetings and you voiced which, obviously, is a very general concern of yours. As you indicated tonight, you have had -- you have water problems, you’ve had water problems in the basement; there are water problems in the surrounding area and they have existed for at least four years now.

MS. PETERSON: Right.

MR. WALKER: And this property has nothing at all to do with those water problems is that fair to say?

MS. PETERSON: But there is no existing home on that end lot and my concern is is that I don’t know what is under the ground, is there rock outcrop is there -- I don’t know what is going to happen. I don’t see that you could guarantee or you could possibly know what is under that ground and if there is any potential for it to cause more damage or more water. And if that is the case, who do I legally come to when I can’t afford to fix my home or I have mold coming because now my floors are saturated. So this is what I want to know is --

MR. WALKER: You understand that once this construction progress is in full force that the town is going to monitor it. That the applicant -- that the contractor is going to have to submit the plans and that there can be no increase to the water run off as a result of the project. Do you understand that?

MS. PETERSON: Then who do I come to if the water problem becomes worse?

MR. WALKER: Who do you go to right now? Is this the proper venue for you because you got water concerns right now?

MS. PETERSON: Right and I have already -- I have already contacted the Mayor and I have been writing to the Mayor and Council. I am dealing with it in another venue. I just want to hold up or stop a potential for more.

MR. WALKER: You may have -- you may have a benefit from this construction. Do you understand that?

MS. PETERSON: But that is what I am asking. You can’t guarantee that, you don’t know.

MR. WALKER: But they must -- you understand they must guarantee --

MS. PETERSON: Who is guaranteeing?

MR. WALKER: Let me finish. They must guarantee that there will be a zero increase in run off and that will be monitored by the Borough.

MS. PETERSON: Okay.

MR. WALKER: Do you understand that?

MS. PETERSON: Okay so then maybe put it on the record, tell me straight out who do I go to, do I come if I have a legal claim, do I come to the contractor because his building on that property is causing me harm? Do I go back to the current owner? Do I come in and try to sue the town for damages? Who is responsible if this causes more damage?

MR. WALKER: The question is the same right now. Who do you go to, who do you address?

MS. PETERSON: So you are telling me that I come to the Board and I sue the town.

MR. WALKER: If there is something that is done and the builder does not do something that is consistent with what the town requires --

(Audio Skipped)

MR. WALKER: In fairness maybe Mr. Faasse can answer that but in fairness to everybody right now she has problems right now, she does, and she has certainly substantial problems with water. Our position is that this application has nothing to do with that. If anything, now the Borough has some control over this particular lot because they have to see engineering plans, they have to know where the storm drainage is going. So to some extent, if anything, it may help alleviate the problem.

MS. PATERSON: It may, it may help.

MR. WALKER: It will not make it worse and that is the best the town can do.

MS. PATERSON: See the words that you are using is what concerns me. You guaranteed that there will be no additional problem. You are saying that it is not going to -- I don’t understand how you can say these -- use these definitive words to guarantee it. It is not a guarantee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The statement was really; there is no increase in the run off that exists now.

MS. PATERSON: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is just saying what is going to come off the property in normal rain so.

MS. PATERSON: I also had a question and maybe the engineer can answer me this. The flooding, the water that is coming into the property, it is not because it is so deep that it is coming in over the windows, it is ground water. Now they mentioned about sinking tanks into the ground.

MR. GREGOR: Um-hum.

MS. PETERSON: If they sink tanks into the ground do those tanks flow the water to Ringwood Avenue or does that water just accumulate and saturate the ground water anyway?

MR. GREGOR: What?

MS. PATERSON: Is it really alleviating a problem by sinking a tank.

MR. GREGOR: Let me try to answer your question. Since they have not submitted a design they spoke and testified about seepage pits. Seepage pits recharge the water back into the ground water and add to the existing ground water. What they are proposing to do, as the attorney explained, is to have a zero net increase in the rate of water leaving the site. There will be more water leaving the site than leaves it now because it is now open field. They are going to put a house or two houses on there, is what they are proposing, with the associated driveways and concrete. That water would normally run off into the street. What they are required to do is to make sure that the water that initially soaked into the ground will continue to soak into the ground, that is the reason they are using seepage pits. They are increasing the run off but they are decreasing the rate of run off. The run off is now being put back into the ground not running into the street. That is what they are proposing as I understand their proposal. Again, it was verbal so I am doing my best to reiterate what they have stated.

MR. FAASSE: The net zero increase is only on the rate not the quantity.

MR. GREGOR: That is right, the rate and that is the rate leaving the property.

MR. LUDWIG: And another thing if I can speak out of turn here, I am not an engineer but I have been a builder for a good many years. Your house is across the street basically.

MS. PETERSON: Correct.

MR. LUDWIG: The pits that they are talking about putting in, I don’t know how deep your foundation goes, are going to be below the level of the existing elevation that is there. If I had to guess I would say that the bottom of the pit would probably be at about 8 foot depending upon what size tank he puts in. So the water is not going to be at the same level. They probably actually, if it is ground water, pick up ground water from up the hill. And as far as you being concerned about once they leave, the engineer has Completed Operations and Errors and Admissions Insurance. If he designs something that didn’t work, that is who they go after. The builder has got, should have, Competed Operations Insurance on his business. I know I carry it on my own. And that is what -- he could walk away from it but that insurance company is still liable for that forever is my understanding.

MS. PETERSON: How do I document what exists now versus if something happens and additional water comes in? How do I document that that this is what exists now and now it has increased and additional? How do I represent that?

MR. LUDWIG: That is going to be hard unless you get an engineer in there.

MR. FAASSE: You are never going to be able to duplicate the two scenarios, before and after. You are just never going to be able to.

MR. KONING: As he said, something has changed in the past four years as it is.

MS. PETERSON: Yes and I am trying to --

MR. KONING: What caused that, that is the same thing, you know.

MS. PETERSON: Well I have some guesses but I am not an expert to know what happened. There is only two things that I know of that have changed in the area so whether that is the case or not and I have communicated that to the Mayor in several letters. I haven’t gotten any response.

MR. GREGOR: Are there any water stains on the walls inside the basement of your foundation?

MS. PETERSON: There is like silt and stuff that comes in, I guess the soil is very sandy. So as it comes through, it comes through the back corner of the house and then it just flows in.

MR. GREGOR: Usually, fortunately, you probably never been in a situation of being in a house with a basement that has been under water for a while.

MS. PETERSON: No, no.

MR. GREGOR: You can always see like a high tide line if you will on the wall.

MS. PETERSON: No, no, it doesn’t get depth -- you know -- it maybe is like this deep -- you know -- and it flows through and the house is pitched so that it goes. Luckily I have my furnace on a pad, a raised pad, so it doesn’t effect the furnace and then the next room over has like maybe a four inch -- maybe a three inch raised wooden floor and the water flows under that to the sump pump. But I can’t pump it out the sump pump -- oh my gosh, you don’t even need to hear all of this. But the situation is that the only way for me to get rid of the water is to run hoses out my front basement window across the street to the other side which would be to his or their property to let the water flow down Maple Avenue to finally get to Ringwood Avenue. Because if I pump it out the main sump pump hole without redirecting it, it goes right back to the dirt road and it is just a vicious circle and I will be just circulating water forever. So the only way for me to get that water out is to run a hose, the town has kindly even given me my own cone, so that I put it in the street and run the hose, the piece of plastic, across the road so that people don’t drive over it and I have to literally flow that water down to Ringwood Avenue to their curbing.

MR. WALKER: You find that when you pump it on to the property that is the subject of this application, it is less likely to flow back into your home?

MS. PETERSON: Could you repeat that?

MR. WALKER: When you pump it across the street onto this property, is it less likely to flow back into your home?

MR. FAASSE: I don’t think she said she pumps it onto the property, she pumps it into the --

MS. PETERSON: To the road, I have to -- I get the hose --

MR. WALKER: Across the road though.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MS. PETERSON: I do, I put it over the crown of the road so that --

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. WALKER: Right across the streets, okay, on the side of the street where this property is.

MS. PETERSON: The hose is in the middle of the road, yeah.

MR. WALKER: It is less likely to flow back into your property if that is the case if you pump in that direction.

MS. PETERSON: Right, because it makes no sense to let it flow on my side of the road because it only goes right back to the dirt road. I need to get it over the center of the road so that it flows.

MR. WALKER: The flow of the water to the best of your understanding from the other side of road does it flow down the block away from your property?

MS. PETERSON: Yes but it goes right through the front, I don’t know what your driveway situation but I don’t think that is going to make a difference but that is the situation now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is an issue for the Borough Engineering Department, not this Board.

MS. PETERSON: Do you have the person’s name?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Borough Engineer is Mike Cristaldi.

MR. COVELLI: Mr. Gregor?

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. COVELLI: I am going to ask this question while Ms. Peterson is standing here. In your November 21st letter to us --

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. COVELLI: -- with regard to your review of this application.

MR. FAASSE: I’m sorry, November 21st?

MR. GREGOR: November 21st.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MR. GREGOR: When Ralph wrinkles his nose I just got to make sure I got the right letter in front of me.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. GREGOR: All right, I got the right letter. I don’t want Ralph wrinkling his nose at me.

MR. COVELLI: Number 15.

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. COVELLI: Could you read that please?

MR. GREGOR: Number 15, a storm water management plan and calculation should be a condition of any action by the Board to address the increase of storm water run off resulting from the increase in impervious area from any proposed construction on these lots. No Storm Water Management Plan has been provided.

MR. COVELLI: Okay, so I asked him to read that for two reasons. One is because you made a statement that to be honest with you I think certainly took me back a little bit that, of course, there is going to be an increase in run off whether it leaves the property or not is another story. There will be an increase in run off because there is an increase in impervious surface. But you made the statement and I am not going to mince the words, I don’t remember exactly how you worded it but the point of the story is just so that people here are clear, obviously, when you take something that is impervious surface, the undisturbed land, and add a home with roofs and gutters and driveways and concrete did you just say that before --

MR. GREGOR: Yeah.

MR. COVELLI: -- you are going to increase the run off. Now how you handle it on the property before it leaves the property is another story. But you can’t make the statement that there is not an increase in run off. But I am not sure what your wording was so that is why I am raising the question.

MR. WALKER: Well I think that Mr. Gregor has already addressed that issue and what we will be doing is controlling the run off on the property. And I wasn’t certain of your inquiry Mr. Gregor before but it was my understanding that if the Board was going to consider this application for approval, in that case it is a condition of that approval.

MR. COVELLI: The Board is considering it for approval. We are considering it for approval.

MR. WALKER: Yeah, I understand that but as a condition of that, okay, we would have to submit a storm water management plan.

MR. COVELLI: Including calculations.

MR. WALKER: Including calculations but that would be only if it was approved not prior to the approval process.

MR. LUDWIG: And that storm water management plan would be to capture all water that lands on the property and prevent it from leaving the property in a heavy flow.

MR. WALKER: That would be my understanding.

MR. GREGOR: Zero run off, that is what they have now is zero run off.

MR. LUDWIG: Zero that departure from the property.

MR. GREGOR: Right.

MR. COVELLI: Ms. Peterson, to your knowledge, you have lived across the street from the property and it has been -- I don’t know how long it has been it its current state, but have you seen water during a heavy storm run off the property?

MS. PETERSON: Maybe off of the side street where the rock is because the way the street is it kind of like pitches down. Their hill kind of has rocks and a driveway on the side, so that water comes down, puddles a little bit on their corner but because of the angle of the street it goes across that -- it is like a, not really a cul-de-sac but it is not a T or a cross intersection, it just goes around the curve. So when it comes off of that property and it flows that way, it goes across the street on the bend that is on my side, accumulates there and flows onto -- you know -- some goes on to my property and a lot of it goes down and goes on to that dirt road and puddles right off of the front corner of my property.

MR. COVELLI: There was a house on the property at one time.

MR. WALKER: There have been houses on the property, correct.

MR. COVELLI: Do we know what happened to the house?

MR. WALKER: The house was torn down. How long ago, Mr. Owens, was the house torn down? How long ago was the house removed from the property?

MR. OWENS: Three years, about three years.

MR. WALKER. About three years.

MR. OWENS: They said that there was water in there that it is built up in that old ware wolf den. The ware wolf den is lower than our property.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can’t take testimony from the audience like that. Okay.

MR. WALKER: You can have the opportunity to speak later.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Peterson do you have any other comments on this?

MS. PETERSON: Just to ask the Board to consider the situation and if --

MR. LEONARD: Can I ask -- you said there were two conditions that you think caused -- made the situation worse now, what are those two conditions?

MR. GREGOR: Well they had nothing to do with this application.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Well he has a curiosity.

MS. PETERSON: One potential I think one of the reasons might be that there is a property off of North Maple closer to Orchard Street and the property owner put up a two story garage so one of the things that I was thinking is maybe when he dug his foundation for that two story garage there is from -- this kind of like right at the base of the water company where the water company property runs down like that slope that end of Orchard Street, there is house way in the back, they actually have a pipe that runs across the whole length of 18 Orchard Street and it would go to his property. So I am thinking that maybe there was a natural run off from that area that maybe his building maybe deferred the water run off. That was one possibility. The other possibility is the guy who is diagonally across from their property, he owns that 700 foot lot, he has 117 feet across the front of his property and yet he brought in tons of dirt and leveled that whole piece of the water company’s property, New Jersey Water Company, he leveled it out and that was kind of like a gully and that could be the other problem that by him filling in that natural run off, now the water doesn’t have -- it use to go through there and come back into like that little swampy area on that property. So those are the two things that I have noticed and that guy keeps bringing dirt onto his property, raising, raising, raising, so. I don’t know if that is the --

MR. LUDWIG: Have you brought that to the Borough’s attention?

MS. PETERSON: I have. I spoke directly to the Mayor. He came and was on site looking at the area and I pointed out the circumstances to him. But I haven’t heard anything back. The only thing that he told me was that because of the pitch of the street, there was no way to put in any kind of drainage to alleviate the run off because our street is lower than the pipe in Ringwood Avenue. So really no resolution, no suggestion for any kind of relief. I am not trying to prevent these people from doing what they want to do, all I am trying to do is to try to find out a resolution either what is going on with the property now and not to have additional -- you know -- right now I can manage it. The water comes in, I have to pump it, I have to be up, I have to take days off of work to make sure that I am rotating the sump pumps. I just would like to find if there is some resolution that can come out of it before additional problems are created so that I don’t incur more problems with the water.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is more of an issue for the Borough not his Board.

MS. PETERSON: I am standing in front of you the same way that I addressed them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But they control --

MR. LUDWIG: Didn’t you testify though that when you pump it out across the street to the crown in the road it runs down to Ringwood Avenue?

MS. PETERSON: It does.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is pitched that way but then the street comes up like this to Ringwood Avenue.

MR. LUDWIG: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So it doesn’t --

MS. PETERSON: The water goes across the crown, I am the first house, it goes across the crown, it runs the entire length of Maple Avenue --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MS. PETERSON: -- down to the drainage on the corner. I can’t even run it down my own side of the street because my neighbors are also low and the one time that I did put it down, I was putting all the water into my neighbor’s driveway. So I have to crown it over the top of the street, you know.

MR. GRYGUS: You said the corner; you mean the corner of Ringwood Avenue?

MS. PETERSON: Yes, that is the only place that there is a storm drain unless you go all the way over, two and a half, three blocks away to where the Police Chief lives, there is like four storm drains, that is the next closest storm drain. Well thank you for your time.

MR. GRYGUS: Thank you for your testimony.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any one else have any statements on this?

MS. RAOUL: I really have more of a question but I will be happy to -- whatever you need me to do.

MR. FAASSE: Well if it is only a question; you are not going to testify?

MS. RAOUL: Well have a couple of facts if that would be appropriate now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let’s swear you in and make it legal.

SUZANNE GARDELLA RAOUL SWORN:

MR. FAASSE: Give us your full name, spell your last name and an address.

MS. RAOUL: Okay. Suzanne Gardella Raoul R-A-O-U-L. I am here representing my mother Gloria Gardella, 28 Maple Avenue. Mr. Dunning, I think, understands what this lady just said. This is just a clarification of point is that both Maple Avenue and Orchard Street, which is directly parallel, are lower as you go towards the railroad bed and since they have redone Ringwood Avenue in recent years, Ringwood Avenue is higher so none of that water flows anywhere near towards Ringwood Avenue and that is why this lady has a problem. It all stays at that end because there are no drains, there is just a catch basin and once the catch basin becomes filled there is no way to pump the water from that far end of the streets, both streets, up to Ringwood Avenue. So it all pools down there. Also as a point of clarification, my family has lived at 28 Maple Avenue since 1965 and we didn’t just have these problems in recent years, I have photos home and I’m sorry I didn’t think about even bringing them but of water that has laid in that area where the old railroad bed was and where Hackensack Water owns now, in the general area sort of across the street from these folks and Ms. Peterson as well, there has been water there for years at varying degrees of difficulty. How it has affected all the homeowners, I am not really sure. I am sure that some of them, a lot of them, have sump pumps even over as far as Orchard and back towards Maple but it has been a problem that has been there for many years and I am sure that every time there has been some sort of building or improvements of someone, no matter what it was, it has effected that. So that is just a point of clarification. I just want to ask a question. Number 15 that Mr. Covelli brought up on the report from the engineer mentioned about considering the storm water management plan. Yet I believe I understood correctly that right now the Board of Adjustment is not considering a storm water management plan because none has been submitted. Is that correct?

MR. GREGOR: No, no.

MS. RAOUL: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: My report recommends --

MS. RAOUL: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: -- recommends that the Board if they propose a favorable motion --

MS. RAOUL: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: -- that this be made a condition of any application, any approval of the Board.

MS. RAOUL: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: So that is my recommendation.

MS. RAOUL: Right, I understand that.

MR. GREGOR: What the Board is going to do --

MR. LUDWIG: Just like we did with your house on Father Hayes.

MS. RAOUL: I understand that.

MR. LUDWIG: We said if you built the house you had to put the --

MS. RAOUL: I think that what I am asking I guess is that there is --

MR. LUDWIG: So you should be familiar with that.

MS. RAOUL: -- no visual plan. Right now it is just a plan. That plan could be anything, correct, because you don’t have a specific plan.

MR. GREGOR: It has to be reviewed --

MS. RAOUL: You are just suggesting a plan.

MR. GREGOR: Excuse me, it has to be -- it will have to be reviewed and approved by my office, that is my recommendation.

MS. RAOUL: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: The Board has not required that as of yet because they have not -- that is my recommendation to the Board.

MS. RAOUL: I gotcha.

MR. LUDWIG: We don’t know what sort of house he is going to build.

MS. RAOUL: Sure.

MR. LUDWIG: And how much roof it is going to have.

MS. RAOUL: Okay.

MR. LUDWIG: That is all going to have to be factored in.

MS. RAOUL: Okay.

MR. LUDWIG: Like I said when you put your house up --

MS. RAOUL: When you see what is going to -- okay.

MR. LUDWIG: -- we requested your engineer supply us with the calculations as to how much water and then you -- I assume you put the storm water management back in.

MS. RAOUL: Yes we did. It was done during the construction phase.

MR. LUDWIG: That is not up to us, once we do it, it is up to the building inspector and the engineers in town to make sure you did it.

MS. RAOUL: Yes it was done during the construction phase and then building inspector came back and checked it and approved it before it before it was filled in.

MR. LUDWIG: But you came in with a specific plan.

MS. RAOUL: Right.

MR. LUDWIG: Whereas he is coming in basically with an idea for a couple of houses and it make dictate -- you know -- whatever it is most marketable at the time --

MS. RAOUL: Correct.

MR. LUDWIG: -- as to what design he is going to go with.

MS. RAOUL: All right, okay, that is fair enough.

MR. LUDWIG: The engineer is going to have to base his calculations on what he builds.

MS. RAOUL: On that, okay. And I have only one other question and that is before you decide to put the motion on the floor, before your vote and if you would repeat for us in the audience, I am just looking to see what our original letter said and I would like to know what number and how many variances or exceptions you are going to be approving in whatever the motion is because here it says lot area, lot width, lot depth, front yard setback, use variances, any other variances, if you could be specific and just let me know what all of those things are that you will or will not be approving.

MR. LUDWIG: As part of any approvals we just about --

MR. RAOUL: I mean you covered everything here but I don’t know if there are specifics that you are going to be voting on or maybe you don’t do that with a footprint, I don’t know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That will all come out as we move on.

MS. RAOUL: So just so that I could understand that it is like this.