MINUTES
MAY 14, 2003
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 13th
day of January, 2003 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, Frank Covelli (came in at 10:20
P.M.), Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ted Roberto, John Shutte, Lee Smith, Attorney
Ralph Faasse and Engineer William Gregor.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Robert Ricca.
Application #10-02 Ridwan Shabsigh, 673 Ringwood Ave., Block 243 Lot 5, Bulk Variance & Use Variance, Authorized Agent is Nancy E. Saccente. Esq.
Atty. Saccente came forward and said they have submitted their testimony on several occasions with regard to a Use Variance Application to convert the retail space on the first floor of the building to be converted to an apartment. Atty. Saccente said, after several meetings they proposed a bifurcation of the application so they could request that the Board vote on the Use Variance aspect of the application and then assuming that was approved, then they could come back again with additional engineering work and plans with regard to the lighting, parking and all of the other requirements. Atty. Saccente said they had hoped they wouldn’t have to come back, but unfortunately the retail space that they thought they had rented, fell through recently. Therefore, they are here tonight to request a vote on the Use Variance aspect of the application.
Atty. Faasse announced there are six members present
tonight who are qualified to vote on this application.
Eng. Gregor asked Atty. Saccente, as part of the Use
Variance, are they specifying the number of parking spaces they’re providing?
Atty. Saccente said, she does understand that the code requires six parking
spaces, which is two per unit, and assuming the Use Variance is approved, the
configuration of the parking spaces would be part of the second aspect of the
application. Eng. Gregor asked Atty. Saccente if she has concluded all of her
testimony and she said yes. Eng. Gregor then said to the Board, to refresh
their memory, with a Use Variance you have to provide the positive and negative
criteria for approval. To Eng. Gregor’s recollection, there haven’t been any
positive or negative criteria presented to this Board. Atty. Saccente disagreed
with what Eng. Gregor stated and said that with the owner’s testimony Dr.
Shabsigh and his cousin Arfan Biokua, they had
presented their arguments and their testimony with regard
to what they believe are the positive and negative criteria and Eng. Gregor
then said he stands to be corrected.
Atty. Faasse said the argument was that it full filled the purposes of E
& G of Zoning & Land Use and they went through the positive and
negative in Atty. Saccente’s summation on the 12th of February.
Member Grygus asked if they re-advertised to rent the
space and Atty. Saccente said yes and nothing has panned out.
MOTION TO APPROVE CONDITIONED UPON THE APPLICANT
COMING BACK FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND ALSO CONDITIONED UPON THEM BEING ABLE TO
SUPPLY THE SIX PARKING SPACES THAT ARE NECESSARY: made by Member Ludwig,
seconded by Member Hoffman, voting no were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus,
voting yes were Members Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, voting no was Member Smith.
The Motion failed with a vote of 3 to 3.
Application #07-03 Daniel & Lynda Kurpick, 114 Jefferson St., Block 456 Lot 11, Bulk Variance.
Atty. Faasse directed the members to correct the spelling of Mr. Kurpick’s name on the engineering report dated May 13, 2003.
Mr. Kurpick came forward and was sworn in by Atty.
Faasse. Mr. Kurpick explained he is seeking to add a level on the existing
house and on the back part of the house build a family room where there’s a
patio now. Mr. Kurpick also decided he would like to get rid of his garage to
gain more lot coverage and put a shed up instead and also a 6 ft. fence. Member
Smith asked Mr. Kurpick what is the purpose of a 6 ft. fence, since he already
has a 4 ft. fence. Mr. Kurpick said the side street which is Milton Place, especially
this time of year, it seems that lots of kids go from stop street to stop
street. Mr. Kurpick went on to say, that basically it’s a little bit of privacy
because of where the height of the side porch is and where the road is and if
you have a barbecue, it seems like everyone is into your yard.
Chairman Dunning told Mr. Kurpick he has to provide two
parking spaces and its not really drawn out in the site survey how he is going
to do that. Mr. Kurpick said he has two spaces now and wasn’t going to change
that and was going to remove the garage and leave the parking in the same
place. Mr. Kurpick also said, when he removes the garage he would like to put
up a 10 X 10 shed. Chairman Dunning said the shed wasn’t shown on the site
survey and Mr. Krupick said he was told it didn’t have to be on the site survey
because there wouldn’t be no need for a variance for the shed. Chairman Dunning
said if the shed goes where the garage was, it might impact the parking. Eng.
Gregor said in his report dated May 13, 2002, it states the existing garage
located in the rear yard, is noted to be removed, but it doesn’t say anything
about what he’s going to do with the area where the garage was. Eng. Gregor
said his driveway is roughly 21.3 ft. in length and appears to be
approximately 14 ½ ft. wide, that’s not sufficient room
to park two vehicles. Therefore, Eng. Gregor has asked that the site survey be
revised to clearly show how two vehicles will be parked on the subject
property. Mr. Kurpick said he parks two vehicles now and can’t say exactly how
wide the driveway is and he has plenty of room. Eng. Gregor said the Borough
Ordinance states you have to have 200 sq. ft., a 10 ft. X 20 ft. space for each
vehicle. Member Ludwig said to Mr. Kurpick he might want to consider a variance
for the footage on the garage, and then parking wouldn’t be an issue. Eng.
Gregor added, that if Mr. Kurpick puts a shed on this property, most likely he
would be exceeding the permitted coverage. Eng. Gregor suggested if Mr. Kurpick
is proposing a shed, he might want to look at doing it with this application,
because even for a shed, for coverage, he’ll have to go through the same notice
and pay the fees all over again.
Member Grygus asked if the elevations from the
architectures match to the way the site plan is laid out? Mr. Kurpick said the
house is a small cape with an addition on the front. Chairman Dunning said the
north elevation should become the east elevation and east elevation should
become the north elevation. Member Grygus also wanted to know if the addition
was calculated into the lot coverage. Eng. Gregor said he didn’t have a
dimension on it. Chairman Dunning said the application has to be amended for
lot coverage and if Mr. Kurpick chooses to leave the garage or add a shed, it
will probably put him over the lot coverage. Mr. Kurpick said if he had a
choice between the garage or shed, he would remove the garage and put a shed
up. Chairman Dunning asked Eng. Gregor about the ruling for the 6 ft. fence
that is proposed for the front yard. Eng. Gregor said the ordinance isn’t very
clear on fences. Chairman Dunning told Mr. Kurpick the Board has to know what
their dealing with in regards to the fence and would need something drawn out
in order to grant a variance. Chairman Dunning suggested to get the site plan
amended showing the fence with the gates so the Board can grant the proper
variances. Eng. Gregor added, that if the applicant is having a covered porch
on the side of the property, which the architectural shows but the site plan
does not, and a coverage variance will be needed and that has to be calculated.
In addition to that, if the applicant wants to add a shed, that will add
additional coverage and will also need to be calculated. Eng. Gregor also
mentioned the fence has to be clarified as well on the drawing.
Member Roberto asked the applicant if he would like
another month to get the information put together since he’s doing a big job
and it should be done right. Mr. Kurpick agreed that he would come back next
month. Member Grygus went over the things that are needed such as; the side
porch overhang has to be dimensioned same as it was done on the front, need
dimension of amount of fence on the length of the angle and put the length of
fence that’s in the front yard area, and if he’s going to put a shed it should
be located and size it on the plan and calculate it into coverage, and also
show on the plan how the parking is going to be revised. Chairman Dunning suggested
the size of the gates should also be shown.
MOTION TO CARRY TO THE JUNE 11, 2003 MEETING: made
by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Smith, voting yes were Chairman Dunning,
Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
APPLICATION #08-03 Kenneth & Donna McNerney, 19 Fourth Ave., Block 416 Lot 46, Bulk Variance:
Mr. Kenneth McNerney came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse.
Mr. McNerney explained to the Board he wants to add on a
level to an existing cape cod home. Member Grygus asked if they plan on
replacing the pool and Mr. McNerney said the pool collapsed over the winter and
was planning on replacing it. Chairman Dunning noticed the application is
deficient on parking. Eng. Gregor said the parking is satisfactory as proposed.
Chairman Dunning asked about the proposed covered porch. Eng. Gregor said the
proposed covered porch will require a variance for a front yard setback of 25.9
ft. instead of the minimum 30 ft. required by ordinance, the proposed second
floor addition will require a variance for a front yard setback of 27.4 ft.
instead of the minimum 30 ft. required by ordinance. The proposed second floor
addition and covered porch will require a variance for a side yard setback of
4.5 ft. instead of the minimum 15 ft. required by ordinance. The proposed
second floor addition and covered porch will require a variance for a total
side yard setback of 14.4 ft. instead of the minimum 35 ft. required by
ordinance.
Eng. Gregor asked
Mr. McNerney, on the architectures if you look at the cover, in the rear it
shows a two foot cantilever on the extreme most rear portion of the house, if
you look at the site plan, the only cantilever shown is on the recessed portion
where the concrete patio is and no cantilever is shown over the framed deck.
The drawings do not agree with one another. Mr. McNerney said its not coming
over the framed deck, therefore, the architectures are incorrect but the site
plan is correct. Eng. Gregor told the applicant the architectures need to be
corrected to show that there’s no two-foot overhang. The applicant gave it some
thought and decided to cantilever over the framed deck since no additional
variance is needed and he just has to change the site plan and therefore the
architectures are correct.
Mr. McNerney asked if he could replace the 18 ft. pool
that he took down with a 24 ft. pool. Eng. Gregor answered and said with a 24
ft. pool the applicant will be going over on coverage. Atty. Faasse asked Mr.
McNerney if he wants to amend his application because of the pool and Mr.
McNerney said yes. Atty. Faasse then responded by saying the Board will need
calculations from the applicant and he will have to come back next month. Mr.
McNerney decided not to replace the pool for now.
OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed
MOTION TO APPROVE FOR COVERED PORCH AND SECOND STORY
ADDITION WITH THE FOLLOWING VARIANCES: A FRONT YARD SETBACK VARIANCE OF 4.1 FT.
WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 25.9 FT. INSTEAD OF THE MINIMUM 30 FT.
REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE FOR THE PORCH, A FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE SECOND FLOOR
ADDITION A VARIANCE OF 2.6 FT. WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 27.4 FT. WHERE
30 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THE SECOND FLOOR
ADDITION AND COVERED PORCH OF 10.5 FT. WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 4.5 FT.
WHERE 15 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR BOTH THE
SECOND FLOOR ADDITION AND THE COVERED PORCH OF 20.6 FT. VARIANCE WHERE THE
APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 14.4 FT. INSTEAD OF THE MINIMUM 35 FT. REQUIRED BY
ORDINANCE, WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE SITE PLAN BE AMENDED TO SHOW THE
ADDITION OF THE 2 FT. OVERHANG OVER THE FRAMED DECK AND THE POOL HAS BEEN REMOVED
UNDER TESTIMONY, AND THE LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION CHANGED TO REFLECT THE
ADDITIONAL 2 FT. OVERHANG: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were
Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
RECESSED AT 9:30 P.M.:
RECONVENED AT 9:45 P.M.:
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed
RESOLUTION ON APPLICATION #03-03 Roland Wattenbach, 41 Boulevard, Block 457 Lot 41, Bulk Variance:
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Grygus, seconded
by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman,
Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
RESOLUTION ON APPLICATION #04-03 Alfredo Alarcon, Father Hayes Drive & Paul Place, Block 312 Lot 26, Bulk Variance, Authorized Agent is A. Michael Rubin, Esq.:
MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION DENYING THE
APPLICATION: made by Member Ludwig,
seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus,
Hoffman, Ludwig and Smith. Members Roberto and Shutte were not qualified.
RESOLUTION ON APPLICATION #06-03 Lu-Anne Davies, 17
Decker Rd., Block 432 Lot 11 & 12, Bulk Variance:
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded
by Member Roberto, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman,
Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
CORRESPONDENCE: None
VOUCHERS:
submitted by Atty. Faasse for Resolutions on Application #03-03
Wattenbach $115.00, #04-0 Alarcon $115.00, #06-03 Davies $115.00, for a Grand
Total of $345.00.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Roberto,
seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus,
Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
V OUCHERS: submitted by Eng. Gregor for
Engineering Services rendered on Application #01-03 Rita’s Water Ice for $334.00,
Application #06-03 Davies for $385.00, for a Grand Total of $719.00.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded
by Member Roberto, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman,
Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
MINUTES: from the April 9, 2003 Meeting.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded
by Member Shutte, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman,
Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
ENGINEER’S REPORT:
Chairman Dunning announced that Eng. Gregor is now in
receipt of the Dunkin Donuts revised plans for the sign.
Atty. Faasse announced, in regard to the Kreloff matter,
that there is presently a consent order being circulated to dismiss the
litigation because Ms. Kreloff was the successful bidder at the Public Sale and
the provision is, after she takes title, she’ll be filing a new application.
Chairman Dunning asked Eng. Gregor if anything has
happened with the Zikra Application. Eng. Gregor said he hasn’t heard from Eng.
Gerald Gardner as of yet.
The Board discussed the Wanaque Manor Application and it
was decided that a meeting would be arranged to discuss the completeness of
this application. Eng.
Gregor said he would call the Building Inspector, Jeff
Brusco, to discuss this application.
Eng. Gregor said he received a call from the applicant
for Rita’s Water Ice indicating that he wished to make some changes to the site
plan and asked Eng. Gregor if he had to apply for an amended site plan
approval. Eng. Gregor told the applicant that would be up to the Board based on
the volume or degree of the changes that they are making. If the changes are
significant, obviously they will need an amended site plan. Eng. Gregor
suggested they send him a copy of what they are proposing to change and a
letter describing it. Eng. Gregor received on April 25, 2003, a drawing with
the proposed changes and today, Eng. Gregor received a letter describing the
changes. Eng. Gregor read the changes to the Board and the Board reviewed the
plans.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE CHANGES TO THE PLANS FOR RITA’S
WATER ICE WHICH IS A DECREASE FROM WHAT
THE BOARD ORIGINALLY APPROVED, AND AS TO ANY KIND OF CHANGE ON THE MATERIALS,
IT WOULD BE UP TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR’S JURISDICTION, AN ASBUILT SHOULD BE
PROVIDED, THE PLANS THE BOARD ARE APPROVING TONIGHT ARE DATED APRIL 21, 2003,
IT IS ALSO RECOMMENDED THAT THE SITE PLAN AND THE ARCHITECTURE BE FORMALLY
SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD WITH A SUFFICIENT NUMBER OF COPIES: made by Member Grygus,
seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus,
Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
DISCUSSION: None
MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 10:30 P.M.: carried by a voice vote.
______________________________
Gerri
Marotta
Secretary
to Board of Adjustment