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 12th
day of January 2005 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 Chris Demetriou, Ted Roberto, John Shutte, Lee Smith, Attorney Ralph
Faasse and Engineer William Gregor.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Donald Ludwig
Application #07-05 William & Chris Ponte, 29 Tremont Terrace, Block 200.15 Lot 11, Use Variance:
Correspondence was faxed to the Board Secretary dated May
3, 2005 from Architect Patrick Church asking to carry the application to the
June 1st Meeting because they were told their application was
incomplete by Engineer Gregor and they needed time to comply with his requests.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE JUNE 1, 2005
MEETING: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Shutte, voting yes were
Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Demetriou, Roberto, Shutte
and Smith.
Application #01-05 Ringwood Park Plaza Realty, LLC “CVS Pharmacy”, 1104 Ringwood Ave., Block 438 Lot 1.01, Bulk Variance (Commercial) for an Electronic Sign:
Attorney Ryan A. Marrone of Stark & Stark, 993 Lenox Drive, Lawrenceville, N.J. came forward on behalf of the applicant, National Sign Services on behalf of CVS Pharmacy. Chairman Dunning asked Atty. Marrone if he had with him this evening a signed and sealed survey and Atty. Marrone said he did not. Atty. Marrone said he has with him the original site plan that was approved and is looking for an amendment to the application. Atty. Marrone went on to say that the reason an original survey wasn’t submitted is because there’s actually no site plan work that’s going to be done on site and the new signage just happens to be larger than the existing sign. There is no change or deviation at all to the prior location, height, set back, design, prior approval, and prior construction of the existing pylon sign.
Atty. Faasse asked if they were asking for a waiver and
also requested was an “As Built”. Eng. Gregor said what the Board has is a
“proposed plan” that was
approved by the Planning Board and subsequent to that the
applicant came to this Board for some additional signage. Eng. Gregor added,
what the Board has not seen, because at the time the applicant came before the
Board for the additional signage, is an “As Built Plan” to confirm that the
site is built in conformance to the approved plan. Atty. Marrone said he
believes that the site is built in conformance to the approved plan. Eng.
Gregor said the Board had a plan where the intention of the applicant was to
locate the sign 15 feet from the property line, now the sign is in existence
and before this Board proceeds to consider an enlargement of that sign, its
important that the Board know whether the sign is properly placed. Eng. Gregor
wanted to know if they had any documentation stating that the sign was actually
installed where it was suppose to be.
Atty. Faasse added, that when the applicant came to this
Board after the original site plan was approved by the Planning Board, they
asked to erect a free standing sign which is there, but do they have a plan
showing the actual location on a survey or plan where the sign was erected.
Eng. Gregor said, adding additional signage on the site, one of the
requirements for every application is that all pre-existing variances be listed
and clearly defined so the Board can consider the site as a whole not a portion
of the site.
Atty. Marrone said they are only seeking an amendment to
the existing resolution and are only seeking an amendment to a small portion of
the resolution. The site plan that was submitted, depicts the location that the
pylon sign was constructed and its not being moved and are only removing three
cabinets and replacing it with another cabinet and is only the expansion with
respect to the square footage that they are seeking the approval from the
Board. The square footage that they are seeking the expansion to is in still
full compliance with the ordinance. The ordinance permits a 50 square foot sign
and this sign is going to be closer to 41 square feet. The Zoning Officer felt
that because it was an electronic sign it should come before the Board and
there should be an amendment of the resolution of approval.
Atty. Faasse said more importantly, they are asking to
increase the size of a free- standing sign and someone has to certify where
that freestanding sign is. Atty. Marrone argued that it is existing on the site
plan where its labeled as proposed sign 15 feet from Ringwood Ave. and 20 feet
from Second Ave. and nothing has been changed to the approved plan.
Eng. Gregor said it is his recommendation that the Board
clearly know that the sign is where it’s shown to be by the applicant. Atty.
Marrone said they would send in the necessary information depicting the size
and location of the existing sign. Atty. Faasse said everything would have to
be in 10 days before the next meeting of June 1st.
The sign man who was present said he would not be able to
attend that meeting due to previous appointments, therefore, they will be at
the July 6th Meeting.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE JULY 6TH
MEETING: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Smith, voting yes were
Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Demetriou, Roberto, Shutte
and Smith.
Application #15-04 “MKR” Enterprises/Tree Tavern, 17
Park St., Block 240 Lot 3, Bulk & Use Variance:
Atty. William Bartel and Mike Ryan came forward and Mr.
Ryan was sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Atty. Bartel recapped by stating, his client
is getting married and needs to build a larger accommodation due to this new
family and will be getting married on June 18th. Mr. Ryan has four
children of his own and his fiancée has two and needs larger living space.
Atty. Bartel told the Board that the way the apartment is configured on the
plans, that is the way it will be and will never be changed.
Atty. Bartel went over Eng. Gregor’s report dated April
26, 2005 with Mr. Ryan.
Eng. Gregor asked how many employees Mr. Ryan is going to
have and whether the 50 seat restaurant and 16 seat bar is correct. Mr. Ryan
said there would be himself and one person during the day and if there were a
party, there would be as many as 3 total persons working. Chairman Dunning
asked if there was office space in the building and Mr. Ryan said yes and there
are three office spaces, one for him, one for his assistant and his son uses
one. Chairman Dunning mentioned the drawing dated April 11, 2005 by P.E. Gene
Rotonda with a proposed parking use layout table, but its incomplete. The point
is, Chairman Dunning said, is that Mr. Ryan may never have a party with more
than ten people, but the potential is the building holds x amount of people and
if the building is ever sold, there would be a problem with parking. Member
Grygus said, the applicant is proposing twelve (12) parking spaces and wanted
to know how 50 people arriving for a party would fit in twelve spaces? Mr. Ryan
said he would probably have to have a valet on hand to park them and do some
off site parking. Eng. Gregor said, the twelve spaces that are on site include
the outdoor and garage spaces, and of those twelve spaces, four of them are
taking up by the occupants of the two dwelling units. Therefore, it leaves
eight spaces are to be used for the restaurant, bar use and employees. The
Board should take into consideration that some of the employees are also
dwelling on the site. Eng. Gregor also mentioned that the Highlands Council is
considering gravel and pavement surface as impervious coverage. Eng. Gregor
added, that you get more runoff from pavement than you do from gravel, but they
are both considered impervious surface. Eng. Gregor said another point is that
the applicant might have to provide a handicap space, but he doesn’t know
what’s grand fathered in or not and he would confer with the Construction
Official with respect to this area and bring the information back to the Board
and share it with Atty. Bartel.
Also discussed was the buffer issue. Atty. Bartel said
his applicant would like to add some vegetation in the rear area between the
property and dwelling or erect a fence, which is the east side of the property.
On the west side there is a fence that belongs to a neighbor and the fence
divides the property. The fence is presently a chain link
fence with privacy slats and in good shape. The applicant would like to maintain the fence it it’s ok with the neighbor whom they believe would be. Mr. Ryan also explained about the lighting on the site. Mr. Ryan said there is floodlights currently on the building and Eng. Gregor suggested that the floodlights are not acceptable.
Mr. Ryan explained he did find architectural lights that provide light against the building where the parking is and will not be shining into the neighbor’s yard.
Mr. Ryan told the Board he is trying to improve the
appearance of the building for himself and the town.
Gene Rotonda, 47 Spring St., Ramsey, N.J., a Licensed
Professional Engineer and Professional Planner came forward and was sworn in by
Atty. Faasse. Atty. Bartel and Eng. Rotonda had gone over this application
earlier in the day and previously on the phone about the report from Eng.
Gregor. Atty. Faasse asked Eng. Rotonda to identify the plans for this
application. Eng. Rotonda said there are three sheets of this plan; one is a
Variance Plan dated April 11, 2005 sheet 1 of 3, the second sheet is 2 of 3
entitled Site Plan also dated April 11, 2005, and the third sheet is entitled
Profile- Detail-Lighting dated April 11, 2005 and sheet 3 of 3. Eng. Rotonda
went over the plans with regard to Item 11 in Eng. Gregor’s Report dated April
26, 2005 about the zoning table being revised showing required, existing and
proposed conditions for both of the structures on the lot. Also mentioned was
that Item 12 for the total side yard setback for the residential/commercial
structure should be corrected in the zoning table. With regard to Item 18, Eng.
Rotonda passed out a plan called “Drive Widening Exhibit” for the driveway and
was marked Exhibit A-1 that shows the existing driveway and the proposed
driveway.
Atty. Faasse announced he will be leaving the meeting
shortly and would like to swear in Architect Edward Easse before he leaves and
at this point Architect, Planner and Construction Code Official Edward A. Easse
44 Lincoln Ave., Hawthorne, N.J. was sworn in by Atty. Faasse. This application
will be tabled for later on in the evening.
Atty. Faasse wanted to swear in the following applicants
before he had to leave the meeting:
Application #06-05 Jennifer Cosgrove, 66 Willow Way, Block 252.01 Lot 14, Bulk Variance:
Ms. Cosgrove came forward along with her husband Robert
Cosgrove and builder John Moore, 166 Conklintown Rd., Wanaque and all were
sworn in by Atty. Faasse before he had to leave.
MOTION TO TABLE APPLICATION #15-04 “MKR”
ENTERPRISES/TREE TAVERN TO LATER ON IN THE EVENING: made by Member Grygus,
seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus,
Covelli, Hoffman, Demetriou, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
RESOLUTION ON APPLICATION #02-05 Alan Nejmeh, 25 Fourth Ave., Block 416 Lot 43, Bulk Variance:
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Covelli, voting
yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman and Shutte. Members
Demetriou and Smith abstained.
Application #06-05 Jennifer Cosgrove, 66 Willow Way, Block 252.01 Lot 14 Bulk Variance:
Chairman Dunning excused himself from this application because he lives within two hundred feet of applicant. Vice Chairman Ted Roberto took over the meeting at this point.
Ms. Cosgrove explained to the Board she wants to add an
addition onto her house of 20 feet, add to the garage to make it a car and half
garage and add a front porch.
Eng. Gregor went over his report dated April 27, 2005.
(All members have copies).
Member Grygus asked why the applicant didn’t pursue the
option of expanding the house to the rear that would not require as much relief
in the side yard setbacks. Ms. Cosgrove answered by saying she wanted the
garage space for more storage space and the family room would sit behind the
garage. Eng. Gregor said the applicant wants to make the house bigger on an
undersized lot. Member Grygus wanted the applicant to know that she is
proposing to build the porch over the utility services and that it is not
prohibited but if she has problems later on it will be at her own risk. Member Covelli asked if she had considered
instead of adding the garage to the north instead increasing the depth of the
garage. Ms. Cosgrove said, if necessary she would do that but it would make the
family room too small and she didn’t want to take away from the back yard
because of her dogs. Vice Chairman Roberto mentioned Item 4 in Eng. Gregor’s
report about the applicant’s name and address should be added to the plans,
along with Item 5 showing a Key Map to the plans, Item 6 existing conditions
and existing variances should be added to the zoning table, and asked the
applicant if those things would be a problem and the applicant said it would
not be a problem. Item 7 existing and proposed grading should be added to the
plans and Eng. Gregor explained when you get this close to the property line
you’re suppose to keep storm water at least 10 feet away from the foundation
and when you get this close to the property line its very difficult to do and
often, the storm water gets pushed onto the adjacent neighbors which something
that is not permitted. Member Covelli asked the builder, John Moore, would it
add significant cost to the applicant if she lengthened the one car garage and
narrowing its width in order to move the house further away from the property
line. Builder, John Moore said no it would not add significant cost to the
applicant.
OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed.
RECESSED AT 10:22 P.M.:
RECONVENED AT 10:27 P.M.:
The applicant said she would be willing to reduce it by 5
feet and it would be 8 feet in the front and 7.9 feet in the back. Therefore,
the applicant would be proposing 8 feet setback in the front and 7.9 feet in
the rear, and that would change Eng. Gregor’s third bullet under Item 8 to 7.9
feet instead of the 20 feet minimum
required by ordinance for side yard setback and the total
side yard setback would increase to 17.5 feet instead of the minimum 45 feet
required by ordinance.
Eng. Gregor re-calculated the lot coverage with these
changes and said it is now 26.7% coverage.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE APPLICATION WITH THE FOLLOWING
VARIANCES: FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR THE FRONT COVERED PORCH OF 19.3 FT. WHERE THE
APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 20.7 FT. WHERE 40 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, FRONT
COVERED PORCH A SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 10.4 FT. WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING
9.6 FT. WHERE 20 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 12.1 FT.
WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 7.9 FT. WHERE 20 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE,
A TOTAL SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 27.5 FT. WHERE THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 17.5 FT.
WHERE 45 FT. IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE, LOT COVERAGE OF 1.7% WHERE THE APPLICANT
IS PROPOSING 26.7% WHERE 25% IS PERMITTED BY ORDINANCE, CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL
WILL BE THAT THE PLANS BE BROUGHT UP TO DATE TO CONFORM TO ENG. GREGOR’S REPORT
OF APRIL 27, 2005, AND THE PROPOSED CHANGES THAT WERE STIPULATED BY THE
APPLICANT: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes
were Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Demetriou, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
MOTION TO TAKE APPLICATION #15-04 “MKR” Enterprises/Tree
Tavern, 17 Park St., Block 240 Lot 3, Bulk & Use Variance, BACK OFF THE
TABLE: made by Member
Grygus, seconded by Member Shutte, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members
Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Demetriou, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
Chairman
Dunning resumed his position on the Board.
Atty.
Bartel said during the break, the Architect Ed Eaase created three more parking
spaces. They are suggesting that one of the driveways be used for automobiles
only and the loading area in front of the garage can be used for three parking
spaces. The garbage containers can be moved closer to the front and they are
not planning on putting a regular dumpster that you would have on a larger
commercial establishment. Eng. Gregor wanted to make sure he understood that
they would have outdoor storage of the commercial trash which would be screened
but
it will be in cans and not in a dumpster and the cans will be moved on trash
day
manually
to an area where they can be picked up at the curb? Mr. Ryan said that’s
correct. Eng. Gregor added, if you were going to park three vehicles in the
garage, the vehicles that would be permitted to be parked behind them would
have to be of similar use, and since there are three uses, you need one garage
space for
commercial,
one garage space for one dwelling unit and one garage space for the other
dwelling unit, as Mr. Ryan had described, and Eng. Gregor added that’s not what
he’s telling him he has to do. Eng. Gregor’s recommendation to the Board would
be to consider in that aspect or that parking type of arrangement.
Also
brought up was the handicap issue, Architect Eaase said there’s an area that is
access to the building where the entrance is which approximately 8 feet and
there’s enough space to convert one or two of the spaces to handicap.
Atty.
Bartel mentioned the paving issue and if the Board wants it paved they will.
Architect Eaase said that if you pave this parking lot, its such a flat area,
there’s really no where to pitch it to, and his concern is that you will create
a bird bath situation that it will be so flat that even the best paver cannot
get it totally perfect and you’ll have areas that will become little puddles or
black ice. His suggestion would be to pave the areas where the designated
handicap space would be so you can have the striping and try to avoid the
paving in that instance, mainly because he doesn’t see a viable alternative to
grading this since there’s no drainage in the street and you have a neighbor
with a pool and a fence.
Eng.
Gregor wanted the applicant to know and the Board that he has two daughters
graduating from two different locations and he’s also taking a vacation and
will not be available for the June Meeting and will be sending a representative
to the June Meeting.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE JUNE 1ST
MEETING: made by Member
Grygus, seconded by Member Smith, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members
Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Demetriou, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed
CORRESPONDENCE: No questions asked.
VOUCHERS: submitted by Atty. Faasse for Resolution on Application #02-05 Nejmeh
for $125.00.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Grygus, voting
yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Demetriou,
Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
VOUCHERS: submitted by Eng. Gregor for Engineering Services for Application #07-05
Ponte for $191.00, Application #06-05 Cosgrove for $253.50, Application #02-
05
Nejmeh for $247.50, Application #01-05 Ringwood Park Plaza for $453.00,
Application #15-04 “MKR” Enterprises/Tree Tavern for $652.50, Application
#08-04 Sheehan/Biggs for $255.50, Application #02-04 Tokarz for $253.50, for a
Grand Total of $2306.50.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member
Covelli, seconded by Member Shutte, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members
Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Demetriou, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
MINUTES: from the April 6, 2005 Meeting:
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Shutte, voting
yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman and Shutte. Members
Demetriou, Roberto and Smith abstained.
ENGINEER’S REPORT: Eng. Gregor told the Board he’s been in touch with the
applicant’s engineer on two applications; he was promised the calculations two
weeks ago on the Raoul Application and has not yet received them, and the same
situation exists with plans and calculations for the Hulahan Application. The
Sheehan/Biggs and Tokarz plans and calculations were done and Ok for signing.
Chairman
Dunning mentioned the Donus Application that is incomplete and has been given
to Eng. Gregor for his review and to report back to Jeff Brusco the Building
Inspector.
Chairman
Dunning mentioned the Lakeland Health Care Application is a dead issue, and the
Building Inspector has sent some communications to LaSala about the sign before
the Kearny Bank is allowed to put their name up on the freestanding pylon sign.
MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 11:24 P.M.: Carried by a voice vote.
______________________________
Gerri
Marotta
Secretary
to Board of Adjustment