REGULAR MEETING

Salute to the Flag:

OPENING STATEMENT:

This is a Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment and adequate notice has been duly advertised by the mailing of a notice to the Suburban Trends and the Herald & News on the 15^th day of January, 2002 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, William Grygus, Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig (came in at 8:10 P.M.), Roberto Ricca (came in at 8:25 P.M.), Ted Roberto, Frank Covelli, Lee Smith, Attorney Ralph Faasse and Engineer William Gregor.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Building Inspector Jeff Brusco and Member Harry Hirshman.

APPLICATON #22-01 Peter Prodzenko, 39 Snake Den Rd., Block 102 Lot 3 “A” Appeal & “B” Interpretation: Eng. Gregor said he hasn’t received any additional information and called the attorney for the applicant and he indicated that he was going to request to be carried and they weren’t sure how they were going to proceed with this application. Atty. Faasse added, he hasn’t received anything in regards to Judge Saunders decision

and recorded deeds.

Chairman Dunning instructed the Board Secretary to send a letter to Atty. LaSala advising him that the Board is carrying the application to the May 8^th Meeting and to please inform the Board as to what he is planning on doing with this application.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE MAY 8^TH MEETING: made by Member Roberto, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Roberto, Covelli and Smith.

APPLICATION #24-01 Richard & Regina Wieland, 138 Greenwood Ave., Block 460 Lot 16, Bulk & Use Variance:

The Board Secretary told the Board she received a letter from Mrs. Wieland asking to carry the application to the May 8^th Meeting because she hasn’t received the final drawings from her architect.

Chairman Dunning instructed the Board Secretary to send a letter to Mr. & Mrs. Wieland informing them the Board will carry the application to the May 8^th Meeting and the Board is requesting whatever plans she has to send to Eng. Gregor two weeks prior to the May 8^th Meeting. Also, inform the Wieland’s that a set of plans must be on file in the Borough Hall with the Board Secretary 10 days before the May 8^th Meeting, and if they are changing their original application they will have to amend their application and re-notice 10 days before the meeting.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE MAY 8^TH MEETING: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Hoffman, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Roberto, Covelli and Smith.

APPLICATION #25-01 Mt. Lakes Estates & Lakeside Manor, Conklintown Rd.,/Mt. Lakes Drive, Block 200 Lots 8 & 8.01, Bulk Variance (CD 12-12-01):

No correspondence has been received from the applicant. A letter was sent on March 18, 2002 to Attorney Blackburn (all members have a copy) telling Atty. Blackburn if the Board does not receive the amended application and documentation requested, the Board will dismiss this application without prejudice at the April 10, 2002 Meeting.

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Roberto, Covelli and Smith.

Chairman Dunning mentioned the letter received from the Passaic County Planning Board in regards to Sierra Landscape Design (all members have a copy). Atty. Faasse said he received a phone call from an attorney who apparently is representing Sierra Landscape Design and is going to file an application with the Building Inspector. Atty. Faasse told the attorney there could be a Use Variance along with an amended Site Plan, but the biggest problem is with the County of Passaic. The attorney told Atty. Faasse he wasn’t aware of the problem with the County and that he would get in touch with his client to find out about this additional problem. Chairman Dunning told the Board Secretary to inform the County that Mr. Robert Ferretti is no longer the Building Inspector, because the letter dated April 9, 2002 from the County copied Mr. Ferretti instead of Mr. Brusco.

ENGINEER/BUILDING INSPECTOR’S REPORT: Eng. Gregor told the Board he received one new application for a proposed garage addition onto an existing single family home, which is Application #02-02 Frank & Lynn Morici, 4 Paul Place, Haskell. Eng. Gregor said he will be providing the Board with a report on this application.

Eng. Gregor also received another Sketch Plat/Site Plan showing existing and proposed on the Morici Application #02-02. Eng. Gregor said, we have again the same situation that the Board has addressed in the past, whereas, a surveyor is providing proposed information. Eng. Gregor said he discussed this with two other surveyors to try and get some insight into the Board regulations and they both have advised Eng. Gregor that they are not permitted as surveyors to put proposed on the plan. Eng. Gregor sent a generic letter to the PE Board to try and get some clarification of their interpretation of their regulations. Eng. Gregor received a response from the PE Board indicating that at it’s meeting on April 4, 2002 the Board discussed Eng. Gregor’s letter and that additional information is needed to adequately respond to the inquiry. Therefore, they asked Eng. Gregor to be more specific with his request and include any copies of plans, maps etc. to facilitate the Board’s review. Eng. Gregor’s recommendation is that the Board ask the Board Secretary to submit Eng. Gregor’s original letter, the Board’s response and a copy of the Site Plan to the PE Board for clarification. Atty. Faasse said he was concerned that disciplinary action could be taken against the surveyor. Eng. Gregor said he didn’t want to see any gentlemen get into any problems, but he would like to make sure that this Board operates properly. Chairman Dunning responded by saying, how do we protect ourselves? Eng. Gregor said he tried not to send the PE Board a plan with a name on it.

Eng. Gregor said he told the surveyor to contact the PE Board and the surveyor told Eng. Gregor he did contact the Board but they haven’t gotten back to him. Eng. Gregor suggested sending the PE Board a plan and cut his title block off the drawing and see if the PE Board will review it. Eng. Gregor added, that he is not trying to get this gentleman fined, because these fines can start at $500.00 and up. Member Covelli asked Eng. Gregor if he was going to do the submission to the Board. Eng. Gregor said he wrote a letter initially requesting it. Atty. Faasse spoke up and said, Eng. Gregor is suggesting that the Board Secretary send a letter to the PE Board enclosing the documentation they are requesting. Atty. Faasse also said, he wouldn’t remove the title block from the plan and the appropriate motion would be, upon Eng. Gregor’s recommendation, is that the Board communicate with the State Board of Professional Engineers & Land Surveyors, saying that on numerous occasions, the board has received plans where a land surveyor certifies not only as is conditions but as to proposed conditions. Also, the Board of Adjustment is wondering if that is within the professional licensing ability of a land surveyor and included in this correspondence should be Eng. Gregor’s letter, the PE Board’s response and the site plan. Member Ludwig said he has a problem with singling out one person when this has been an ongoing thing with multiple surveyors. Member Covelli wanted to know why Atty. Faasse doesn’t want the title block excluded. Atty. Faasse said, so the PE Board can see the plan was signed by a person who only professes to have a license in the land surveying business. Atty. Faasse added, if the Board doesn’t want to write to Trenton, then the Board can write to the land surveyor saying that on numerous occasions the Board has received plans that are done beyond his professional licensing ability and the plans will be rejected unless he can show to the Board contrary.

The Board Secretary spoke up and said she felt very uncomfortable sending the letter to the surveyor because she knows him personally and she feels he is very competent at what he does and would like to disqualify herself from sending the letter. She also added, that last month Atty. Faasse mentioned that the surveyor put on the plan “This plan was made for the purpose of obtaining a front yard variance for the proposed addition and is not to be used as a site plan. Utilities shown are existing as located as part of the original survey”. It was decided that Atty. Faasse will send a letter to the surveyor.

Member Grygus asked the Board Secretary to ask the Building Inspector to update the Board on the Zikra Application (C-Town). Chairman Dunning said there are several problems with this application; drainage problem, signage problem etc. Eng. Gregor said a letter has been sent to Mr. Zikra regarding the drainage issue and Eng. Gregor hasn’t received a response as of yet. Chairman Dunning asked Eng. Gregor to look into the signage issue and check it with the resolution. Member Grygus suggested that Eng. Gregor inform the County on what’s going on at that location. Member Grygus also wants the Building Inspector to update the Board on the CVS Pharmacy issue involving the signs.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

Marie Broughman, Application #3-01, 1 New Street, Wanaque, N.J. stepped forward. Mrs. Broughman told the Board she faxed a letter dated April 10, 2002 to the Mayor & Council, Wanaque’s Chief Financial Officer, Engineer William Gregor, Wanaque Board of Adjustment and Larry J. Fox, Esq. (a copy of this letter and attached correspondence was passed out to the Board tonight by the Board Secretary). In this letter, Mrs. Broughman is objecting to the bill received from Eng. Gregor dated 3/12/02 for $110.00. Mrs. Broughman went on to say that the application which she and her husband submitted to the NJDEP on June 20, 2001 File No.1613-01-002.1 with maps prepared by John Miceli dated 5/20/01, is not the application with which Eng. Gregor reviewed and reported. She went on to say in the letter, that they did receive NJDEP Approval, LOI based on this application, File No.1613-01-0002.1, and that the NJDEP has sole jurisdiction regarding the application that they submitted. According to the NJDEP regulations any and all comments were to be addressed to the NJDEP as stated in the letter sent to Wanaque Borough, as required by NJDEP. She said, they did in fact, receive a Letter of Interpretation from the NJDEP, giving them approval with no wetlands or transition areas on the property in question, Block 227 Lot 15. The response from Eng. Gregor to the Wanaque Board of Adjustment, was his approval of the application submitted to the NJDEP on 8/30/01, File No. 1613-01-0002.2 and 1613-01-0002.3 (with revised map dated 8/24/01), which was withdrawn by Mr. & Mrs. Broughman’s professional, Environmental Technology, Inc. due to the application not being required.

Mrs. Broughman’s point was that Eng. Gregor is billing them and Eng. Gregor approved a map to be signed that was submitted to DEP and it was not the map that was submitted to theBoard of Adjustment. The map that was approved by the Board of Adjustment was dated April 20, 2001. Mrs. Broughman said that DEP has complete jurisdiction of all wetlands and applications. Atty. Faasse spoke up and said, the Board’s Resolution was specifically conditioned upon receiving approval from the DEP and also a condition that whatever communication was received from the DEP, that it would be reviewed by the Board’s Engineer to make sure a Building Permit could be issued. Mrs. Broughman said she doesn’t know why Eng. Gregor would reply to something that was the wrong application, but the Broughman’s had received the LOI prior to him doing the review and was also past the deadline for his statements to have any impact on DEP decisions.

Member Covelli spoke up and said Eng. Gregor’s function was to review the LOI based upon the Broughman’s complying with the Board’s Resolution. Mrs. Broughman insisted that Eng. Gregor did not do that.

Member Ludwig read a part of the Resolution to Mrs. Broughman which states; “All plans to be submitted to the State of New Jersey are to be reviewed by the Board’s Engineer and until said plans are reviewed and approved and permission is received from the DEP, no building permit is to be issued nor shall the applicants commence any work on the site”. Mrs. Broughman made mention that her father-in-law’s name was incorrect on Page 2, third line down of the Resolution.

Eng. Gregor spoke up and said, the Board granted a conditional resolution because the applicant chose to come before the Board for an approval prior to going to the DEP. Therefore, the Board requested that any approvals by DEP or documentation from DEP be submitted to the Board along with final drawings for review prior to recommendation of signature of those plans for signing by the Board’s Chairman and Secretary which is required prior to the Building Inspector issuing a Building Permit. This request for Building Permits came to the 11^th hour and Mr. Brusco called Eng. Gregor the day before Eng. Gregor wrote the letter (dated March 13, 2002), and Mr. Brusco indicated that the Broughman’s Resolution was about to expire and could Eng. Gregor expedite the application. Eng. Gregor told Mr. Brusco to fax all the information and Mr. Brusco did fax everything including information from the DEP. Eng. Gregor then looked through all the drawings and found the latest drawing that was submitted to the Board and was last revised on August 24, 2001 which was a site plan with a limit of disturbance added to it. Eng. Gregor said he reviewed that information and completed his report and faxed the report to Mr. Brusco the very next day so the Broughman’s could get their Building Permit and not have to come back before the Board because their resolution expired. The DEP documentation that Eng. Gregor reviewed indicated that the DEP found no wetlands on site and no transition area affecting the site. Therefore, they satisfied the final condition of the resolution and Eng. Gregor recommended that the drawings can be signed and a Building Permit can be issued. Eng. Gregor also did a report on this dated March 13, 2002.

Mrs. Broughman told the Board that the jurisdiction is the DEP, and if she and the Board can’t come to resolution tonight, she will then dispute this and bring it to the County Board of Appeals, and she added, by going to the County Board of Appeals, the Board cannot withhold the Construction Permit as stated in NJSA Title 40:55D-53.2AD.

Mrs. Broughman addressed Eng. Gregor and said, what she doesn’t understand is why does Eng. Gregor in his report keep referring to the DEP Application that was withdrawn.

Eng. Gregor responded by saying, because that was the only application that was sent to him. Mrs. Broughman said, that was not do to any error of hers, that was from the Building Inspector and he was on the list to get copies from the DEP. Eng. Gregor said, if in fact he did not mention in his letter the date of the initial DEP Report that he reviewed, if that was not in there, that is not important to getting a Building Permit. What was important Eng. Gregor said, was a letter back from DEP giving the Broughman’s approval and that was the pertinent portion.

Mrs. Broughman insisted that the data in the letter from Eng. Gregor is incorrect and the Board can’t make her pay for an application that was withdrawn.

Atty. Faasse spoke up and said, what Mrs. Broughman is suggesting is the Board should advise Mr. Brusco that Eng. Gregor made an error in his letter and please rescind the Building Permit. Mrs. Broughman said the Board is missing the whole point.

Chairman Dunning told Mrs. Broughman they read her the conditions of the resolution.

Member Ludwig told the Board, if Mrs. Broughman does not want to accept Eng. Gregor’s letter saying that she met all DEP regulations, which is what the resolution read, and if Eng. Gregor, in error, accepted the DEP letter stating that there were no wetlands involved, and Mrs. Broughman believes his letter was issued in error do to a date, Member Ludwig believes the Board should rescind the Building Permit until this matter is resolved.

MOTION TO RESCIND THE BUILDING PERMIT UNTIL THIS MATTER IS RESOLVED: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli and Smith. Member Ricca voted no.

Mrs. Broughman wanted to know if Eng. Gregor was going to be paid for the bill she received and the Board told her the bill has been approved. Chairman Dunning told Mrs. Broughman that Eng. Gregor did a service that the resolution required him to do. Mrs. Broughman then told the Board she will be going to the County Board to challenge the bill.

RESOLUTION FOR APPLICATION #01-02 Christine & Anthony DeFrancesco, 133 Monroe St., Block 456 Lot 9, Bulk Variance:

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

Chairman Dunning told the Board two revised drawings were submitted by the DeFrancesco’s showing what was requested at the last meeting. Eng. Gregor said the only dimension missing was the front full width dimension.

CORRESPONDENCE: No questions asked.

VOUCHERS: submitted by Eng. Gregor for Application #7-00 Zikra for $223.00.

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

VOUCHERS: submitted by Atty. Faasse for Resolution on Application #01-02 DeFrancesco for $115.00

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

MINUTES: from March 13, 2002 Meeting. Atty. Faasse mentioned on the DeFrancesco Motion on Page 3, the Motion should have read “MOTION TO APPROVE WITH A FRONT YARD SETBACK” not FRONT YARD VARIANCE.

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

Member Grygus wants Zikra’s Escrow Account checked since the Board approved another voucher tonight on this application. The Board Secretary said, she checked the balance in December 2001 and there was $949.00 left. Chairman Dunning directed the Board Secretary to send a letter to Mr. Zikra asking for $1,000.00 to be put into escrow for professional fees. Member Grygus asked the Board Secretary to ask Mr. Brusco to take a look at the house on Eastside Ave. Member Grygus said the owners have expanded the entire house and Member Grygus thinks they have encroached further than the original footprint.

Board went into Executive Session at 9:30 P.M.

Resumed Regular Meeting at 9:58 P.M.

Member Ricca wanted to know if a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued for Mr. Zikra’s property and Chairman Dunning said only a Temporary Certificate has been issued. Chairman Dunning told the Board that the Planning Board has approved a dance studio to occupy space in this building and according to the Planning Board Minutes, they can’t get a CO until the construction is completed. Chairman Dunning also said, there supposedly is an application coming for a Video/Arcade on the second floor, which will require a Use Variance.

MOTION TO ADJOURN at 10:00 P.M.: Carried by a voice vote.

______________________________

Gerri Marotta

Secretary to Board of Adjustment