BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
MINUTES
MARCH 3, 2004
Salute to Flag:
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 8th
day of January 2004 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 William Grygus, Frank Covelli, Peter
Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Chris Demetriou, Ted Roberto, John Shutte, Lee Smith,
Attorney Ralph Faasse and Eng. William Gregor.
APPLICATION #20-03 Manuel O. Hoyos, 105 Conklintown Rd., Block 200 Lot 3.01, Bulk & Use Variance:
Rod Nyennatee Lewis, AIA, P.O.Box 7717, Paterson, N.J.
came forward on behalf of Mr. Hoyos.
Chairman Dunning told the architect and the applicant
there is a problem, because the revised drawings were not submitted within the
10-day window of time and not enough copies were submitted to the Board
Secretary to pass out to the members so they could review the plans. The Board
Secretary only received seven (7) copies instead of twenty (20).
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE APRIL 7, 2004
MEETING: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were
Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Demetriou, Roberto,
Shutte and Smith.
Atty. Faasse recommended that Mr. Hoyos go to the
Building Department Office and look at the file with regard to a letter sent by
Atty. Buckalew on behalf of Richard Dinkfeld a neighbor of Mr. Hoyos’ with
regard to a right-of-way, which affords his property.
APPLICATION #03-04 Zbigniew Surowiec, 11 North Maple Ave., Block 302 Lot 12.01, Bulk Variance:
Mr.
Surowiec stepped forward. Eng. Gregor told the Board there is no signed, sealed
and current survey for this property. Eng. Gregor explained to Mr. Surowiec the
survey that was submitted is not current, signed or sealed and there also are a
number of structures on the property that are not shown on the survey that was
submitted, and there also is a number of structures shown on the survey which
aren’t on the property. Eng. Gregor also said, that there is a drainage catch
basin in
the
rear of the property that isn’t shown on the survey either. The survey that was
submitted is dated January 21, 1987.
MOTION TO CARRY TO THE APRIL 7, 2004 MEETING: made
by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning,
Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Demetriou, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
Application #22-03 Kera Investments, LLC, 4 Shady Ave., Block 421 Lot 13 & 18, Bulk & Use Variance:
Atty.
Steven Snyder of Morris, Downing & Sherred, LLP, One Main St., Newton, New
Jersey 07860 came forward on behalf of the applicant, Kera Investments, LLC.
Eng.
Gregor recommended that the application is complete as submitted, since it was
not complete for last month’s hearing.
Atty.
Faasse mentioned that this application is a Bulk Variance and also needs
permission to build on an unimproved road.
Atty.
Snyder said they are requesting a variance for lot depth because the lot has a
depth of 110 feet and the minimum is 120 feet required by ordinance.
George
Gloede, Engineer & Planner, P.O. Box 449, Oakridge, N.J. came forward.
Mr. Gloede addressed certain remarks in the review letter
that he received this evening dated March 3, 2004 from Eng. Gregor.
Item #1 in which it states the applicant should provide
the Board a copy of an “LOI” from the NJDEP, and Mr. Gloede said they would if
required. The wetland area in question, is off of the applicant’s property and
submitted a letter from an environmental expert stating that he did do an
investigation of this area and its his belief that it is an isolated wetlands,
if it is considered a wetlands at all, and therefore, would have no buffer
whatsoever.
Item #2 the “DRY WELL NOTE”, there was a question about
the drainage on the property so what he provided is a location for a Dry Well.
They haven’t done soil logs in the area where the Dry Well is shown on the plan
and they would have to do that to make sure that the area in question would be
acceptable for a Dry Well. There are certain conditions where a Dry Well could
be used and can’t be used if its going to impact a basement, septic system,
above water table and above certain elevation of any rock outcropping or
bedrock below. At this time, they aren’t certain where it’s going, but they
will provide a spot on the site to cover the roof drainage.
Eng. Gregor asked Mr. Gloede how far away is the proposed
seepage pit that is shown on the drawing, away from the septic field. Mr. Gloede said it’s approximately 50 feet.
Eng. Gregor said he scaled it at 37 feet.
Mr. Gloede said the septic is 25 feet away from the side of the house
and the tank itself is probably
another 35 ft. away. Eng. Gregor told Mr. Gloede that the
state regulations require that the seepage pit must be a minimum of 50 ft. away
from any septic field. Mr.
Gloede said their next phase of their project would be to
submit to the Health Dept. and to the Zoning Department a plot plan of this
which would have the septic design and the locations of the seepage pits all in
conformance with the state regulations. Eng. Gregor told Mr. Gloede, one of the
things this Board has to consider is the ability to handle drainage on this
site. Eng. Gregor added, to locate a seepage pit to handle the drainage in an
area that obviously is not solid rock, and the location shown on the plan is
not feasible because it violates state statute.
Mr. Gloede addressed Item #4 that states, “The Grading
Plan indicates the northeast corner of the proposed structure below the
existing grade”. Mr. Gloede said he assumes Eng. Gregor means that the lower
level of the house is below the grade that’s shown on the plan. Mr. Gloede said
that would be corrected on the plan. Eng. Gregor mentioned he would need a
first floor elevation of the garage floor for drainage purposes.
Item #5 referring to the existing roadway on Shady
Avenue, it is a narrow roadway and it varies from 10 to maybe 12 ft. in certain
points and as far as improving that roadway, Mr. Gloede said, he doesn’t think
it’s the applicants responsibility to improve the township roadway. Eng. Gregor
asked if they are proposing any improvements to the roadway and Mr. Gloede said
no. Mr. Gloede said they are asking relief under Section 55D-36 of the MLUL.
Eng. Gregor also asked if they are prepared to address the conditions for
safety that exist on the roadway for adequate access. Mr. Gloede said, as far
as addressing it, it is an existing roadway. Atty. Faasse asked Mr. Gloede why
does he say that it is an existing roadway? Mr. Gloede said the survey that was
done shows that there is a paved roadway within the right-of-way. Atty. Faasse said
that does not make it a public roadway. Mr. Gloede said it is a municipal
roadway and said he has checked that out. Eng. Gregor said he has a note on the
survey that indicates that it was researched and was signed by the surveyor
which says “Doty Rd. & Shady Ave. are dedicated roadways approved by
Resolution by the Borough Council on December 1, 1945 and are shown on a Map
Entitled, “Map No. 2, Rainbow Valley Lake, Borough of Wanaque” filed on January
16, 1946 as Map #1109 as Public Roadway”. Atty. Faasse asked Atty. Snyder if he
has directed any correspondence to the Mayor & Council on whether or not
they plan on improving the roadway and Atty. Snyder said he has not. Atty.
Faasse said to Atty. Snyder that a 10 ft. roadway is barely adequate for one-way
traffic. Atty. Snyder said he
understands that there is a concern being raised, but since it is an existing
roadway, if the township believes it should be improved, then any improvements
have to be shouldered by all residents who share in the improvement. Atty.
Faasse added, that as part of this application, you need a permit to build on
an unimproved road, which is Section 35 of the MLUL, and Section 36 sets the
standard up. Atty. Faasse told Atty. Snyder that there is a memo in the file
from the Borough Clerk, Katherine Falone that states, “I received a request
from a
a resident for a copy of a resolution adopted December 1,
1945 dedicating Doty Road and Shady Avenue. A review of the minutes show, that
there was no Borough Council Meeting on that date. I reviewed the minutes of
November 28, 1945 and December 5, 1945 and find no such resolution”.
Atty. Snyder said he has documentation supporting this
Resolution, which was marked Exhibit A, which contains a signature from the
Borough Council. Atty. Snyder said the exhibit is a little difficult to make
out and was faxed to his office today. This exhibit was received from a Mr.
Siegel who is the surveyor. Atty. Faasse said this exhibit is not too legible.
Atty. Faasse also said, even if Mr. Siegel is accurate, there is not a road
that has been improved to Borough Standards or State Standards, then you must
carry the burden under Section 35 & 36. Atty. Faasse wanted to know how
many other unimproved lots abut this unimproved street. Eng. Gregor said, all
the Board can address is the application before the Board tonight and the
statute requires that the issuance of such a permit be subject to conditions
that will provide adequate access for fire fighting equipment, ambulances and
other emergency vehicles. Eng. Gregor added he doesn’t see where the applicant
has provided that information to the Board or any indication that the applicant
is going to do anything so that it is adequate.
Eng. Gregor mentioned Item #7 in his report with regard
to the proposed dwelling would require a variance for lot depth of 110 feet
instead of the minimum of 120 feet required by ordinance. The zoning table
indicates a lot depth of 109.92 feet. The applicant should advise the basis for
this number. Mr. Gloede said the 109.92 is the actual calculated dimension from
the front right-of-way to the angle point in the back of the lot which would be
the actual depth based upon how the ordinance calculates lot depth and in the
notice they rounded it up to 110 feet.
Member Grygus asked if they are aware of any wells in the
area that will be near the proposed septic location. Mr. Gloede said the
property that’s directly behind this lot, is owned by the same person who owns
Lot 8 and there are no wells in that location and no wells on the adjacent
properties to either the north or south of the subject property and the
property directly across the street is on the municipal water system.
Chairman Dunning asked what the applicant is planning on
doing with the grading in the rear where there’s a sharp drop off. Mr. Gloede
said it would be graded so there wouldn’t be a sharp drop. Chairman Dunning
also asked the size of the proposed dwelling because one drawing shows it to be
26’ X 50’ and another drawings shows it to be 30’ X 46’. Mr. Gloede said this question should be
referred to Mr. Rath who is one of the builders. Chairman Dunning also asked
about the changes to the grading of the property with regard to the water flow
on this property and will it send more water off this property. Mr. Gloede said
it will go in the same direction that it is going right now and they will not
be changing the water pattern which will be the low area in the back and that
is where the drainage in this whole area goes to now.
Eng. Gregor asked if blasting is required and if they are prepared to perform a pre-blast survey for the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Gleode said he believes that is required by the State.
Atty. Snyder asked Mr. Gloede to describe the shape of the proposed property. Mr. Gloede said this property was originally two (2) lots, both pretty much rectangular in shape, and when combined obviously it becomes an irregular shape and not conforming to the lot depth requirement by the Borough. At the shallowest point, the lot is 110 feet deep, and at the deepest point the lot is about 160 feet and would be roughly the center of the property going to the farthest westerly corner of the property that is the back point of the property. The average lot depth is approximately 110 feet that is calculated by the municipal ordinances.
Charles Rath, 31 Post Brook Rd., West Milford, N.J.,
owner of the property and builder came forward and was sworn in by Atty.
Faasse.
Member Grygus asked if the house will be stick built or
modular and Mr. Rath said it would be stick built. Chairman Dunning asked if
the floor plan that was submitted, is the type of house he is proposing? Mr.
Rath said that is the style house he is proposing, and the size itself is 1200
or 1300 sq. ft. including the garage. The house is almost like a split-level
and because of the typography they can utilize the rocks themselves without
doing excessive blasting. This house will be a three bedroom single-family
house with a garage underneath and the right hand side would be built on a
slab. Atty. Faasse said just to make it clear, the applicant did not many any
attempts to purchase any additional property in order to give him greater depth
to the lot and Mr. Rath said that is correct.
OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Larry Van Vliet, 4 Skylands Ave., Haskell came
forward. Mr. Van Vliet had pictures with him of the pond that was mentioned
earlier and described as only a puddle. Mr. Van Vliet said it is a pond and
these pictures were taken about a month ago by one of the neighbors. These
pictures were marked Van Vliet 1, 2 & 3.
Mr. Van Vliet said the road is in disrepair right now and
he and his neighbors want to know who will take care of the road after the
construction is over. Emergency equipment has to travel this road and they are
concerned with the condition of the road. Last year there was an oil spill from
one of the homes and it leaked into the well and it affected two homes that are
on the same well and they don’t know how many other problems its going to cause
as far as drilling for another well. Also, is the applicant going to widen the
road? Mr. Van Vliet said, there is no doubt about it; this construction will
block the road. Mr. Van Vliet mentioned, that water runs into this pond that he
had pictures of, and water also runs out of it.
Atty. Snyder told Mr. Van Vliet, that if any damage is
done to the road by the applicant’s trucks etc., the applicant realizes he is
responsible to repair it. Mr. Rath said as far as them blocking the road with
their equipment, that wouldn’t happen because the applicant also has to use the
road and why would they block it.
Glen Barriero, 9 Shady Ave., Haskell came forward and was
sworn in by Atty. Faasse.
Mr. Barriero said he has a stone retaining wall in front of his house that is
on the ledge, his septic tank is on the ledge, also the Mosquito Commission
treats that pond in the back. Mr. Barriero is concerned about the blasting
destroying his wall or his septic tank could crack. Mr. Barriero told Atty.
Snyder that two cars couldn’t pass on this street, without one pulling over.
Rita Barriero, 9 Shady Ave., Haskell came forward and was
sworn in by Atty. Faasse.
Ms. Barriero told the Board that there was an incident a couple of years ago
with an ambulance coming up the road and couldn’t get up the hill.
Penny Anson, 20 Shady Ave., came forward and was sworn in
by Atty. Faasse. Ms.
Anson said, when she submitted a letter dated January 12, 2004 from the
neighbors and herself (all members have a copy) they had asked before anything
is issued, to the applicant, that the applicant get a “LOI”, because if its a
buffer zone and the applicant doesn’t think it is, that is about 150 ft. and
Ms. Anson did check on the web site for New Jersey’s Wetlands Act. Ms. Anson
also mentioned about the oil spill, which was three years ago December 18th
and the “EPA” still hasn’t
issued a clear reading on it. Ms. Anson doesn’t think they can build there
without blasting and if they blast, Ms. Anson is afraid it will disturb the oil
that went into the ground. Ms. Anson said that the Borough Administrator, Tom
Carroll, went into the filing cabinet in the front office and got the book out
for December 1945, and there was no meeting on December 1, 1945, therefore the
road was not dedicated and Mr. Carroll was going to check with the Borough
Attorney about this.
CLOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Atty.
Snyder summed up by saying; what they are seeking from the Board is a variance
with respect to lot depth, 120 ft. is required and they have between 109 and
110 feet at the shallowest point. Because the lot is irregular in size, that
poses a hardship upon the applicant pursuant under the MLUL. The deepest point
of the lot is between 150 or 160 ft. deep and it’s their contention that
there’s a hardship posed on the applicant and also that the relief their
seeking is de minimus in nature and this particular lot is consistent with the
other lots in the neighborhood and the only non-conformity which is
pre-existing in nature, is the lot depth.
MOTION TO APPROVE FOR THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE; MINIMUM LOT DEPTH WHERE 120 FT. IS REQUIRED IN THE R-10 ZONE AND THE ACTUAL DEPTH IS 109.92 FT. WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE OF 10.08 FT., WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS TESTIFIED THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR FIRE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT AND OTHER EMERGENCY VEHICLES NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF HEALTH AND SAFETY, AND WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS BOARD THAT HE WILL SEEK A LETTER OF INTERPRETATION (LOI) FROM THE “DEP” WITH RESPECT TO WETLANDS, AND WHEREAS THE APPLICANT HAS TESTIFIED THROUGH HIS SURVEYOR THAT IN FACT THE ROAD WAS ACCEPTED BY THE MUNICIPALITY ON DECEMBER 1, 1945 AND SUBMITTED EXHIBIT A-1 AS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION TO THAT BELIEF AS WELL AS A SIGNED AND SEALED SITE PLAN AND ALL OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE BOARD ENGINEER’S CORRESPONDENCE OF MARCH 3, 2004 WAS TESTIFIED BY THE APPLICANT AND HIS PROFESSIONALS THAT HE WOULD MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, IN TESTIMONY THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE EITHER IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW OR WITH THE CONCERNS RAISED BY THE BOARD ENGINEER A PRE-BLAST SURVEY FOR ANY BLASTING THAT MAY BE REQUIRED ON THE SITE, AND THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THROUGH TESTIMONY THEY WILL NOT MAKE ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING ROADWAY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE BOARD ENGINEER: made by Member Covelli. No one made a second on the motion, therefore the Motion dies.
MOTION TO DENY THE APPLICATION: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Smith,
voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig,
Roberto and Smith.
RECESSED AT 10:02 P.M.
RECONVENED AT 10:15 P.M.
All Members
present as before the break.
Application #02-04 Stanislaw & Olga Tokarz, 48 Furnace Ave., Block 219 Lot 1.01, Bulk & Use Variance:
Chairman
Dunning told Mr. & Mrs. Tokarz that there are deficiencies in their plans
and Engineer Gregor gave them a copy of his report this evening.
MOTION TO CARRY TO APRIL 7TH MEETING: made by Member Ludwig,
seconded by Member Roberto, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus,
Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Demetriou, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
Application #09-03 Wanaque Manor Associates, Portion of Properties along Jefferson St. & Boulevard, Block 457 Lot 1 & Block 479 Lots 1 & 2, Amended Preliminary & Final Site Plan & Conditional Use Variance:
Attached
are the minutes for this portion of the meeting transcribed by Karen
Gagliardotto Kocsis, Certified Shorthand Reporter hired by Atty. Peter A.
Buchsbaum who is representing Application #09-03 Wanaque Manor Associates.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION
TO THE APRIL 7, 2004 MEETING AND THERE WILL BE A SITE VISIT ON APRIL 3, 2004 AT
10:00 A.M. AT THE SITE: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig,
voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig,
Demetriou, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
CORRESPONDENCE: No
questions asked.
VOUCHERS: submitted by
Atty. Faasse for Professional Services for Jan., Feb., & March for a total
of $750.00.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Smith, seconded by Member
Roberto, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman,
Ludwig, Demetriou, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
VOUCHERS: submitted by
Eng. Gregor for Engineering Services for Jan., Feb., & March for a total of
$750.00, Application #22-03 Kera Investments for $165.00, Application #02-04
Tokarz for $440.00, Application #03-04 Surowiec for $165.00, Application #23-03
Montanye for $165.00, Application #15-03 Brett for $165.00, for a Grand Total
of $1850.00.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made
by Member Roberto, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning,
Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Demetriou, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
MINUTES: from the
“Special Meeting” of January 28, 2004.
MOTIONTO APPROVE: made
by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Shutte, voting yes were Chairman Dunning,
Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Demetriou, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
MINUTES: from the
February 4, 2004 Meeting.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made
by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Shutte, voting yes were Chairman Dunning,
Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Demetriou, Shutte and Smith. Members Grygus and
Roberto not qualified.
ENGINEER’S REPORT: Eng.
Gregor said he has 3 (three) new applications. One is relatively incomplete,
Eng. Gregor said.
Member Grygus said Rita’s Ice
Cream will be opening this Friday, March 5th and he would like the
Building Inspector to make sure that they put up their barricade and he would
also like to schedule from the applicant as to when he’s going to comply with
the approved site plan like he said he was going to. The Board Secretary told
the Board that the Building Inspector has already sent a letter to Rita’s with
regard to the barricade for the parking lot entrance and in the letter told
them to get in touch with Captain Bill Sullivan of the Wanaque Police Dept.
Member Grygus would also like the Board to consider a Performance Bond.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:38
P.M.: carried by a voice vote.
__________________________
Gerri Marotta
Secretary to Board of Adjustment