BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

BOROUGH OF WANAQUE

MINUTES

Regular Meeting

March 7, 2007

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 12^th day of January 2007 and a notice has been posted on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk.

ROLL CALL: Chairman Jack Dunning, Members Bruce Grygus, Frank Covelli, Peter Hoffman, Ed Leonard, Art Koning, Eric Willse, Michael O’Hanlon, Attorney Ralph Faasse and Engineer William Gregor.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Don Ludwig.

Application #26-06 Michael & Jennifer Golas, 24 Rock Ridge Road, Block 416 Lot 9

Bulk Variance:

Mr. Golas faxed a letter to the Board Secretary dated February 27, 2007 asking to carry his application to the next meeting due to his architect’s late submission of revised drawings.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE APRIL 4^TH MEETING: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Hoffman, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Leonard, Koning, Willse and O’Hanlon.

Application #19-06 New York SMSA Limited Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless, 10 Villa Place, Block 999, Lot 4, Site Plan, Bulk & Use Variances:

Iris La Rosa, C.S.R. Precision Reporting Service, 1178 Fairfield Road, Bridgewater, N.J. 08807 did the minutes on this application. Minutes are attached. Testimony on this application ended at 9:46 P.M.

MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR THREE (3) USE VARIANCES, ONE WILL BE FOR THE USE TO CONSTRUCT A CELL TOWER IN THE AAH ZONE, SECOND USE VARIANCE FOR A VARIANCE OF 50 FT. IN HEIGHT WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 135 FT. AND 85 FT. IS ALLOWED, THE THIRD USE WOULD BE FOR TWO USES ON ONE SITE. THE FOLLOWING BULK VARIANCES WILL BE REQUIRED; A LOT VARIANCE OF 398.626 ACRES WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 1.374 ACRES WHERE 400 ACRES IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, A VARIANCE FOR A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 72.75 FT. WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 27.25 FT. WHERE 100 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, A VARIANCE FOR A REAR YARD SETBACK FOR THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OF 93.4 FT. WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 6.6 FT. WHERE 100 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, A REQUIREMENT FOR A REAR YARD SETBACK OF THE MONOPOLE OF 89.34 FT. WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 10.66 FT. WHERE 100 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, A VARIANCE ON THE PARKING AISLES OF 1 FT. AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 24 FT. WHERE 25 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, AN ADDITIONAL PARKING VARIANCE FOR SEVEN (7) PARKING SPACES ON THE NORTH EAST SIDE OF THE LOT WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 10 x 19 FT. SPACE WHERE THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES 10 x 20 FT. SPACE. THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS WILL BE PART OF THE MOTION; TO PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL SITE SIGNAGE AS PER TESTIMONY THIS EVENING WHICH WILL BE COORDINATED WITH THE BOARD ENGINEER, TO IMPROVE THE GRAVEL AREA ON THE NORTH EAST LOCATION OF THE SITE AS WAS DISCUSSED TONIGHT, MOVE THE PARKING SPACE #1 TO THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE AND TO RESTRICT PARKING OF THAT AREA JUST NORTH OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO RE-STRIPE THE ENTIRE NORTH END OF THE PARKING LOT, TO PROVIDE AN EXTERIOR POLE LIGHT IN THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED GRASS AREA, AS PER PRIOR TESTIMONY THE POLE WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE FOR EMERGENCY SERVICE USAGE, THE FLAG WILL BE A USA FLAG AND THE POLE WILL BE WHITE, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED THAT ANY TESTING ON THE GENERATOR WILL BE DONE BETWEEN 7:00 A.M. & 7:00 P.M. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, A FINAL CONDITION IS THAT THE LEASE SHOULD INCLUDE A HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT THAT WILL PROTECT THE LANDLORD FROM ANY LIABILITY RESULTING FROM ANY CLAIMS THAT INVOLVE THE PROPOSED WIRELESS STRUCTURE. THE LEASE SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE AN ADEQUATE RESTORATION CLAUSE THAT WILL INSURE THAT THE SITE WILL BE RETURNED TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION SHOULD THE WIRELESS USE EVER BE ABANDONED. THESE TWO (2) CONDITIONS IN THE LEASE WILL BE VERIFIED FOR ACCEPTABILITY BY THE BOROUGH’S SOLICITOR: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Leonard, Koning and Willse. Member Hoffman voted no.

Application #25-06 Gerald & Albana Sukniqi, 7 Orchard St., Block 308 Lot 10, Bulk Variance:

Mr. & Mrs. Sukniqi came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse.

Chairman Dunning asked the applicants if they received Eng. Gregor’s report and they did not. The applicants were given Eng. Gregor’s report dated March 2, 2007. Chairman Dunning said, since the last meeting, the applicants have submitted sealed architectural drawings and a new variance plan that was received on February 21, 2007. Eng. Gregor went over the high points in his report dated March 2, 2007. (All members have copies). Item #4 the 8’ X 26.5’ first floor addition will require a variance for a front yard setback of 20.5 feet instead of the 30 feet minimum required by ordinance. A variance of 9.5 feet is needed. Item #5 the 30.5’ X 40.5’ second floor addition will require a variance for a front yard setback of 18.5 feet instead of the 30 feet minimum required by ordinance. A variance of 11.5 feet is needed. Item #6 that is a variance for a front yard setback of 16.5 feet instead of the 30 feet minimum required by ordinance. A variance of 13.5 feet is needed. This variance should be added to the zoning table. Item #7 the 8’ X 26.5’ first floor addition and the 30.5’ X 40.5’ second floor addition will require a variance for a side yard setback of 4.7 feet instead of the 15 feet minimum required by ordinance. A variance of 10.3 feet is needed. Item #8 the 8’ X 26.5’ first floor addition and the 30.5’ X 40.5’ second floor addition will require a variance for a total side yard setback of 27.3’ instead of the 35 feet minimum required by ordinance. A variance of 7.7 feet is need. Item #9 the dimensions shown on the Architectural Plans do not agree with the dimensions shown on the Variance Plan. This should be corrected. To correct this and make it simple, Eng. Gregor suggested that Sheet T-1 and S-1 of the architectural plans are incorrect and should be removed from the set and avoid any future problem. The Church lot is mislabeled on the area map as Block 307 and should be corrected to read Block 309. The coverage calculations should be corrected to include the second floor addition and does not require a variance. Item #12 & 13 are statements. Member Grygus wanted to know if the entire roof drains will be going into the new seepage pit in the front yard. Mrs. Sukniqi did not understand the question and said she is not an engineer or architect. Mrs. Sukniqi said she calls the professionals up and they don’t return calls and seemed quite upset. Chairman Dunning said the Board is trying to help them and the Board needs communication since the applicants can’t address the questions because what’s represented on the documents is not clear. Chairman Dunning explained the applicants are in an area that has a flooding problem in the street and the Board is looking for on site retention of that storm water. There’s a drywell shown on the plans but it doesn’t show what’s hooked to it. Eng. Gregor suggested that the Board make it a condition that all the roof drains be piped to the seepage pit. Eng. Gregor asked the applicants if they would accept that condition and Mrs. Sukniqi asked what is the other option. Atty. Faasse responded by saying the application would be denied. Member Covelli tried to explain to the applicants that the seepage pit is being required because there is a concern about how much rainwater is going on the ground in that area because as was testified last month the road floods. The idea of the seepage pit is to collect as much water so that the area doesn’t flood. The Board’s question is, if you have a house and it has four downspouts, one on each corner of the house and their drawing shows only one of them in the front left corner going into the seepage pit; so the Board’s question is, what happens to the other three. If the Board makes it a condition that all the drains go into the seepage pit will the applicant’s abide by it? Mrs. Sukniqi said she did call their engineer up and told him that Eng. Gregor needs to talk to him about all the problems that came up. Mrs. Sukniqi mentioned the water to her engineer and that it was a big problem. Mrs. Sukniqi also wanted to know why isn’t Eng. Gregor’s report mailed at least a week before the meeting so she can read it and try to figure out what’s going on instead of finding out tonight. Chairman Dunning answered by saying, by the time the drawings are submitted and mailed to Eng. Gregor and he gets time to look at it the window of time is shortened. Mrs. Sukniqi said she also needs time to read the report. Atty. Faasse said to the applicants, would they like time to go and check with their professionals and come back next month to answer the questions. Mrs. Sukniqi said she was hoping this was the last meeting this month. Member Covelli said what needs to go on the record is, the question being asked is not referenced to Eng. Gregor’s report, but is coming out of the Board’s review of the plans submitted. Mr. Sukniqi said he would never have started this if he knew it was going to be so difficult and has already spent $10,000.00 on professional fees.

Chairman Dunning asked the question again, is all of the water collected from the roof into the downspouts going into the drywell? Eng. Gregor added, the Board would like to have all of the downspouts directed to the seepage pit and are the applicants willing to do that? Mr. & Mrs. Sukniqi said if it were the only way they would do it. Eng. Gregor recommended that the Board make it a condition of any action by the Board. Member Covelli mentioned that there is a 6” line running into the seepage pit and it’s a rather large line. Eng. Gregor said the Board should have a note put on the engineer’s drawing stipulating that all the downspouts will be piped to the seepage pit.

Atty. Faasse asked the applicants why they wanted to put the additions on the house. Mr. Sukniqi answered and said they have three children and the house isn’t big enough and they need more space.

Mrs. Sukniqi said the way she understands it is that the water problem on the street will be better after they take care of the downspouts. Eng. Gregor said what they are doing is providing an additional asset which is not going to make it worse, if anything its going to make it better but he can’t guarantee its going away.

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

Suzanne Raoul, 863 Ringwood Ave. came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Mrs. Raoul wanted to thank the Board for listening to her considerations last month concerning the water problem that is on Orchard Street and has been there for a while and has gotten worse over the years. Her concern is not what the Sukniqi’s want to do, but she doesn’t want to see the condition on the road get worse. She wants to be sure that all the drains will be put into the seepage pit.

CLOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 30.5’ x 40.5’ SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AND A 8’ x 26.5’ ADDITION ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE FIRST FLOOR AND A 4’ x 8’ COVERNED FRONT PORCH WITH THE FOLLOWING BULK VARIANCES: A FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 9.5 FT. FOR THE FIRST FLOOR ADDITION WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 20.5 FT. WHERE 30 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, A FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE SECOND FLOOR ADDITION OF 11.5 FT. WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 18.5 FT.WHERE 30 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE COVERED PORCH OF 13.5 FT. WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 16.5 FT. WHERE 30 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND THE SECOND FLOOR ADDITION OF 10.3 FT. WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 4.7 FT. WHERE 15 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE AND A TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCE FOR THE FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND THE SECOND FLOOR ADDITION OF 7.7 FT. WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 27.3 FT. WHERE 35 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE. CONDITIONS WOULD BE THAT THE PLANS

BE CLEANED UP AS PER ENG. GREGOR’S COMMENTS OF ITEM #10 IN HIS REPORT DATED MARCH 2, 2007, THE PLANS WILL BE CHANGED TO REFLECT AS PER THE TESTIMONY THAT ALL THE ROOF DRAINS WILL BE PIPED INTO THE PROPOSED SEEPAGE PIT AND ITEM #11 TO BE CLEANED UP ALSO: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Leonard, Koning and Willse.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

David Da Silva, 108 Monroe St., came forward. Mr. Da Silva wanted to know if the Board ever considered putting together some sort of instructional manual for the applicants. Member Grygus said the Board is in the process of revising the application process. Member Grygus added, that the Board continues to have problems with certain outside professionals and the same errors and missing information from the documents time after time.

RESOLUTION DENYING APPLICATION #21-05 William & Mary Fennelly, 6 Oak Street, Block 425 Lots 13 & 14, Bulk Variance:

MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPLICATION: made by Member Leonard, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus and Leonard.

VOUCHERS: submitted by Atty. Faasse for General Expenditures for Jan., Feb., & March, for $900.00, Resolution for Application #21-05 Fennelly for $325.00, for a Grand Total $1225.00.

MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Leonard, Koning, Willse and O’Hanlon.

VOUCHERS: submitted by Eng. Gregor for Engineering Services for Jan., Feb., & March for $900.00, Application #21-05 Fennelly for $285.00, Application #25-06 Sukniqi for $215.00, Application #26-06 Golas for $215.00, Application #01-07 Parsco for $215.00, for a Grand Total of $1830.00.

MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Willse, seconded by Member Leonard, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Leonard, Koning, Willse and O’Hanlon.

MINUTES: from February 7, 207 Meeting.

MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Koning, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Leonard, Koning, Willse and O’Hanlon.

ENGINEER’S REPORT: Eng. Gregor said he made a recommendation that Realty Associates Redevelopment, LLC, Block 231 Lot 11, 547 Ringwood Ave. that this application is conditionally complete subject to the Board’s deeming it complete. There is some missing information Eng. Gregor outlined in his report of March 6, 2007 that is minor.

The Parsco Application, which is the Getty Station at 1255 Ringwood Avenue, Eng. Gregor said he submitted to them a completeness review letter. The application consists of adding additional pumps, canopy and a convenience store.

Application #02-07 Judith Moglia is an appeal of the Construction Official’s determination and a request for a Use Variance. Eng. Gregor suggested the Board Attorney, Ralph Faasse, contact the applicant’s Attorney, A. Michael Rubin

to ask him that if he’s going to state that the use is pre-existing he has to provide some proof.

Chairman Dunning asked Eng. Gregor if he ever heard anything from Application #19-05 “New Century Gunite” and Eng. Gregor said not a word.

The Santoro Application was discussed and Chairman Dunning said the Santoro’s applied to the Mayor & Council for what Laurie Lane is. What came back in a Public Ordinance is that they were granted an Easement for access on that property which the Borough owns and Chairman Dunning said this information was in the paper about two weeks ago.

Another pending application is the Staropoli Application at 1283 Ringwood Avenue for a Minor Subdivision and Use Variance.

MOTION TO ADJOURN: at 10:52 P.M., carried by a voice vote.

___________________________________

Gerri Marotta

Board of Adjustment Secretary