BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING
BOROUGH OF WANAQUE
July 6, 2005
Regular Minutes
This is a Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment on
July 6, 2005,
and adequate
notice has been duly advertised by the mailing of a notice in the uburban
Trends and the Herald & News on the 12th day of January 2005 and otice has
been posted on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building and a copy hereof is on file with the Borough Clerk.
ROLL CALL: Chairman Jack Dunning,
Members Bruce Grygus, Frank Covelli, PeterHoffman, John Shutte, Lee Smith, Board
Attorney Ralph Faasse, Board Engineer William Gregor, Don Ludwig (late),
MEMBERS
ABSENT:
Chris Demetriou, Ted Roberto, Jr.
Chairman Dunning stated that the
Board will run the agenda out of order to speed things up.
Application
#10-15: 1019 Ringwood Avenue, Block 408, Lot 13:
Use and Bulk
Variance
Chairman Dunning stated that the Board received a letter from
applicant's attorney requesting the matter be carried to the August 3rd
meeting, as the attorney was accumulating correct information to give notice to
property owners. It is believed
that the
Board deemed it conditionally complete subject to the applicant submitting
architectural floor plans and elevations.
To date such has not been received.
Secretary Marotta stated she has not received anything either. Since no notice has been sent the Board
stated that they can decide later whether to adjourn the matter to the August
or September meeting. Chairman Dunning
requested that Board Engineer Mr. Gregor follow up and call the applicant's
engineer and see where the missing information is.
Application #01-05: Ringwood
Park Plaza, L.L.C., also known as CVS
Pharmacy,
1104 Ringwood Avenue, Block 438, Lot 1.01:
Bulk
Variance (Commercial) for an Electronic Sign
Attorney
Faasse stated to Chairman Dunning that he has a letter dated July 6, 2005,
saying that the last time this application was before the Board further documentation
was requested by the Board, including as-built site plan per the engineer showing
sign was actually located where it was approved to be located. Attorney Faassee stated he had not received
the
documentation. Upon contacting Attorney Brian A. Marone it
was learned that he was in the process of getting married. Attorney Marone stated he had the plans with
him but he did not file them with the Board ten (10) days before the meeting.
In his
letter to the Board, Mr. Marone is requesting the application to be carried to the
September 7th meeting.
One of the
Board member inquired if the plans were completed or not. Attorney Faasse stated that in Attorney
Marone's letter it is stated that he did have the completed plans but was
unable to transmit same at least ten (10) days prior to
tonight's
meeting of July 6, 2005. Attorney Faasse
stated that this should be followed up on tomorrow requesting that the plans be
sent ASAP so Board Engineer Mr. Gregor can look at them.
Motion to
carry application to the September meeting was made by Member Frank Covelli and
seconded by Member Bruce Grygus with the rest of the Board voting in favor of
carrying the application to the September 7, 2005 meeting.
MKR
Enterprises:
Attorney
Faasse spoke to Attorney Bartel regarding this application. Attorney Faasse stated that even if Member
Ludwig comes to the meeting and has listened
to the tape there would still only be six (6) Board Members for the
application.
Attorney
Faasse stated that Attorney Bartel may wish for it to be carried. Attorney Faasse also stated that everything
does seem to be in order and that the Board would like to hear from Mr. Easse
(phonetic) as to the updating of his plans.
Attorney
Faasse stated that they could have Mr. Easse testify and that would alleviate
the extra fee for the architect coming.
Attorney Bartel stated that he did consult with his client but requested
a little more time to think about it.
Attorney Faasse responded by saying that even if Member Ludwig did show
up they don't know if Member Ludwig even listened to the tape. If not, that would bring it down to five (5)
members. Everyone would have to wait
for Member Ludwig to show up to find out if he listened to the tape.
Attorney
Faasse stated for the record that Member Smith did miss one meeting in March. However, he did listen to the tape and has
signed a certification to that effect
which means that he would be qualified to vote on the application. Also,
since Mr.
Shutte is not qualified to vote on this application that would leave only five
(5) qualified members to vote. Member
Ludwig would make is six (6) only if he
came to the meeting and listened to the tape.
Nothing
further was discussed on this application at this time. (Note:
Member Ludwig did arrive at meeting and this application is heard on
page four (4) of this transcript.)
Application
#007-05: William & Chris Ponte, 29 Tremont Terrace, Block 200.15, Lot 1:
Use Variance
Attorney
Faasse stated, again, five (5) affirmative votes out of seven (7) were needed
and if Member Ludwig comes to the meeting, since this application has not been
heard, there will be seven (7) Board
Members present.
Attorney
Faasse also stated that the notice per say is good. The use variance and bulk variance is in. The only problem is that it was in the
newspaper on the 26th but not mailed to the residents until the 27th
and that is not ten (10) days prior to today's date. This creates a problem and Attorney Faasse did not know if
this application will even be heard
tonight.
Mr. Ponte
stated that he does have the return receipts from all the mailings that were mailed out. But Attorney Faasse stated that the Board had a stamp on theirs from
the Midland Park Post Office that says they were mailed on June 27th. And
it must be
ten (10) days prior to a meeting, not including the day of the meeting and that
was by statute. Chairman Dunning emphasized
that this was not the Borough of Wanaque and not the Zoning Board, that it was
State Statute.
Attorney
Faasse stated that if proper notice is not given the Board does not have jurisdiction. If the Board heard the application to the
conclusion and the addition was put up a Superior Court Judge would say, it's
beautiful but take it down
because you
didn't give proper notice. For this reason
the application can not be heard tonight.
Attorney Faasse stated that the matter will have to be carried but he did
not know if it would be carried to August or September.
Mr. Ponte
stated that was too late. It's a time
delay for his project and they can't keep delaying it every month. Mr. Ponte stated that this addition is for
his mother and being put on his house and his mother is selling her house in
November. His
mother will
have no place to go. Attorney Faasse
apologized but stated there is nothing the Board could do about it. Mr. Ponte was told that he could withdraw his
application tonight if he so wished.
Mr. Ponte was told to think about it and call the office tomorrow and he
will be told whether it has been carried to the August meeting or the September
meeting.
Attorney
Faasse asked if there were any questions from the public regarding this application
and Mr. Ponte's neighbor questioned the fact that the application could not be heard tonight because the neighbors
did not respond in time? Attorney
Faasse
stated, again, that the reason it could not be heard tonight was the time factor
of the mailing not being ten (10) days before tonight's meeting. It's complete upon certification with the
Post Office that it was delivered. But
it delivered on the 27th which is not more than ten (10) days prior to today.
Chairman
Dunning stated that at the end of the night the Board will decide if they will
meet in August or not. Attorney Faasse
stated that anyone from the public can call tomorrow and find out when the
application is carried to. Attorney
Faasse
also stated
to Mr. Ponte that the Board will need his permission to extend the time in
which to act on this application. The
Board is requesting a ninety-day extension
if Mr. Ponte decides to proceed.
Mr. Ponte stated that would be fine and him and
his wife
signed the proper form.
Application
#07-05: First Apple Realty, LLC, 744 Ringwood Avenue, Block 245, Lots 3 &6
Site Plan,
Use & Bulk Variance
This
application was not heard. However, in
discussing the above application reference was made by Attorney Faasse that
there needed to be five (5) affirmative votes out of seven (7) votes and that
the applicant should wait for Mr. Ludwig to
arrive at
the meeting.
(Five minute recess)
(Off the record)
(On the
record)
Chairman
Dunning stated that all members are present as before the recess.
Attorney
Faasse stated that Mr. Ludwig has also arrived at the meeting.
Application
#15-04: MKR Enterprises/Tree Tavern, 17 Park Street, Block 240 , Lot 3:
Bulk &
Use Variance
The
applicant's attorney, William Bartel, was called forward by Attorney Faasse to speak
on behalf of the application. Attorney
Faasse stated there were a few administrative
items he wanted to mention. The first
item was the fact that Mr.
Smith who
was not at the March meeting did listen to the tape and he was up to speed. The next item was that Mr. Ludwig did not
listen to the tape so he is disqualified
as is Mr. Shutte. That leaves five (5)
possible votes. Attorney Faasse
also stated
the Board has a revised A3 from Mr. Easse's office, he believes, with a revision
62205, adding a handicap toilet, and the Board will hear testimony from the
architect, Mr Easse on that. Attorney
Faasse stated that the Board did receive a
lengthy
letter, faxed, dated June 14th from Attorney Bartel. Attorney Bartel stated that thereafter he sent ten (10)
additional copies for distribution two (2) days thereafter. All the Board
members had a copy.
Attorney
Faasse stated that at the last meeting the Board deemed it unnecessary to have
the engineer change all of the plans.
The Board did indicate what kind of changes they would like to see and
any affirmative action on this application would be subject to revised plans being filed in accordance with both
Mr. Easse's testimony and what the applicant has indicated in Mr. Bartel's
letter of June the 14th. Attorney
Bartel requested the architect, Mr. Easse, come forward and speak. Attorney Faasse stated that, just for the
record, Mr. Easse was previously sworn and his oath continues.
Architect
Easse stated that the drawing was revised after last month's meeting to indicate
the need to bring the building up to compliance on the exterior for ADA or ANSI
requirements, such as a new handicap toilet in the rear of the restaurant in
front of the
bar area. Architect Easse stated that
this was a very easy change and it was not a structural change in any
regard. They would reverse the swing on
an existing door, move an existing sink in the front of a foyer giving a radius
of five
(5) feet
turning, and that this complies with the interior and exterior. He further indicated that the elevation that
was prepared two months ago would not change and that there will be a window in
front of the stairwell as shown on the plan and
that the
doorway will be re-placed around a corner so that the entry could be made without
opening the garage door.
Architect
Easse also stated that the back stairwell in the rear, adjacent to the restaurant/cooking/bar
area will have to be rebuilt by replacing some steps. That was not noted on the plan but as he took another look he
realized they may have to
add
additional risers and handrail. This
does not effect the design and it's just maintenance and it has to be
done. He wanted to bring this up now so
if someone sees them working in the back it's noted that he did not alter the
plans substantially.
Attorney
Bartel questioned whether there would be a change to the step-to-riser ratio. Architect Easse said that it would be a
repair and that they have to comply with
the handrail spacings and such because it is a safety issue. Attorney Faasse
questioned
if they were going to be any wider than they are currently. Architect Easse said no, but that they had
to comply with a minimum width. To do
this they would just make that out with the stringers and the handrails by
altering them
slightly. He also told the Board that it will be the
same building with very little internal changes.
A Board
member asked Architect Easse about the door that exits out from the existing
office space and if that could be a door with no exterior hardware. Architect Easse stated that what they were
going to do was install what is called a
"detects"
emergency hardware piece on the it so when it's pressed from the inside there
is a locking device. He stated that if
the Building Inspector wants a different egress plan then they may have to put
just a "pull" and not a locking device so it
can only be
activated from the inside.
Attorney
Faasse asked where there was another exit from that end of the "seating
area" into the office area and if that was the only fire exit. Architect Easse stated, no, as a matter of
fact there is an exit by the bar. The
bar is adjacent in the top right-hand corner.
He stated that because of limited access of the building and the
construction with sixty-five seating, they will comply with the two doors that
are shown without sprinklers.
Board
Engineer, William Gregor, was asked if he did any further reviews after the last
meeting and he stated he did not have any revised plans after the last
submission.
Architect
Easse was asked whether the issues in his last report that were mentioned in
Attorney Bartel's letter of June 14th were satisfied. Architect Easse replied that one of the items was the intent for
the applicant to have a wider access
than the
driveway width. After discussion amongst
Board members it was agreed to leave it at 15 feet.
The next
question asked by a Board member pertained to item number four, that the
applicant purchase an enclosure for garbage cans and place it appropriately.
The response
was that they would put it wherever the Board asked them to and what was the
decision from the Board as to where the garbage should be placed. Attorney Faasse stated that it paragraph
four says that the applicant will purchase an enclosure for the garbage can and
place it appropriately on the property so as to secure garbage containers and
shield them from public view. The Board
member wanted to make sure that any trash from the restaurant was not located
next to the
adjacent
dwelling units. It was stated that the present
intention is to put the garbage behind the building by the stairwell.
A Board
member stated that he noticed that the water and sewer lines run through the
existing dwelling to the restaurant and to the proposed use and also referred
to a note that stated that any new connections or size change must be approved
by the
appropriate
authority. The Board member was
inquiring whether they were proposing separate connections for the new dwelling
and from the restaurant separate from the existing dwelling or are they not? Attorney Bartel stated that they are going
to comply with what the Construction Official orders them to do. A Board member asked if that would be shown
on the drawing as to where it should be located? The response was that once they are told where to do it they will
comply but they're not at that stage yet.
Another
Board member remarked about the grass pavers that the architect came up with
and asked if the intent to use those would be in the areas of the parking spaces
or the entire gravel area. Attorney
Bartel stated that spaces one through eight will be paved and the grass pavers
will be in spaces nine through seventeen.
Attorney
Faasse stated that they would like to use the concrete bumpers rather than the
rubber bumpers because the concrete would allow drainage to go through. A Board member asked that by paving space nine
would that take care of the handicapped slot that will be paved? Response was that, yes, it will. It was stated that space four and not space
nine is handicapped designated as per the drawing.
A Board
member asked what part of the driveway and aisle-ways were to remain graveled? The response was that the backup lane and
access lane from one to eight will be paved and everything else is paver
blocked, both access and
additional
parking. There will be no gravel at
all. The paving will be to the
street. The Board members also
discussed landscaping.
Board
Engineer Gregor inquired about whether or not there was a sign in front of the
residence? The response was that yes,
there is a very beautiful sign at the location. A Board member asked if the sign was illuminated and, if so, does
it
comply with
the ordinances? The response was that
the sign is illuminated. Board members
went on to discuss the beauty of the sign.
PUBLIC
PORTION: Chairman Dunning asked the public if there were any questions on five,
six and seven and Mr. Bartel's letter.
There was no response from the public.
Attorney
Faasse asked Attorney Bartel if it would be a problem incorporating the restrictions
in the Deed? Attorney Bartel responded
by saying, not at all, these are promises that are meant to be kept.
Maximum
capacity was discussed amongst the Board members. The maximum capacity is 66, with 50 in the restaurant area and 16
in the bar area. A Board member
questioned the restrictions on the hours of operation. Attorney Bartel
stated that
whatever the ordinance was for this type of establishment it would be adhered
to.
Attorney
Faasse stated that the only Bulk Variance is for 11.9 feet for the side yard. The existing is 8.1 feet and the ordinance
calls for 20 feet.
PUBLIC
PORTION: The public was asked if anyone
had any questions regarding this application.
No one from the public came forward and the public portion was closed.
At this
point Mr. Bartel spoke regarding the application. He stated that he felt that this was cleaned up very nicely over
a gradual period with the help of the information
and comments from the Board and for which they express their
appreciation. He felt that this was sensible development. He also stated that they have made some
promises that the Board knows they will keep.
Mr. Ludwig
made a statement that even though he could not vote on this application he
would like to apologize to the applicant for not being able to come in to
listen to the tape. Mr. Ludwig stated
that his feelings were that the applicant and party have really knocked
themselves out with regard to accommodating everything that was requested of
them.
A Board
member made a motion to approve the application with the following variances:
1. The approval of the Use Variance to allow
for commercial use in the R15 residential zone.
2. A Second Use Variance which would allow for
a second residential unit which is also not permitted in the R15 residential
zone.
3. A single Bulk Variance of 11.9 feet for a
side yard.
The Board
member stated that the applicant is providing 8.1, where 20 feet is required by
ordinance.
The
condition of the resolution would be that the plans are brought up to include the
items that are listed in Attorney Bartel's letter dated June 14, 2005, with the
addition of the proposed location of the garbage enclosure which is not listed
in
the June
14th letter. The motion was seconded by
another Board member. Attorney Faasse
stated that the Deed restrictions will also be put in.
Attorney
Faasse stated the Commercial Use does already exist on the site and the motion
would be to grant an expansion of that Use.
So it is really an expansion of two existing nonconforming uses rather
than just a straight Use Variance.
ROLL
CALL: Chairman Dunning; yes, William Grygus;
yes, Frank Covelli; yes, Peter Hoffman; yes, Lee Smith; yes.
Application
#07-05: First Apple Realty, LLC, 744 Ringwood Avenue, Block 245, Lots 3&6:
Site Plan,
Use & Bulk Variance
A Board
member stated that the applicant now had a different attorney than who was on
the application. The new attorney was
present and identified himself as Brian Keane with the firm of Hartman and
Winnicki in Paramus, New Jersey. Ms.
Kris Ziser,
who is a member of First Apple Realty, LLC, was present and will testify as a
fact witness. Michael Carroll, project
engineer, with Schwanaweit (phonetic) and Hals Engineering firm was present and
stated that they provided the
site plan.
Attorney
Keane stated that he noticed in the engineer's report that there are certain things
that will probably have to be amended, which is fine, and they will address that. Attorney Keane also stated that he was ready
to proceed at this time. Before they
proceed, Attorney Keane stated that in the interest of full disclosure Mr.
Ludwig is a
customer of JK Seamless Gutter, an occupant of the property, but not the
applicant. JK and First Apple have
common ownership. Attorney Faasse stated
that as long as Mr. Ludwig felt that he could vote impartially and did not
have a
financial interest in the business then it shouldn't be a problem with him voting.
Attorney
Keane stated that the project is to demolish a current 1 1/2 story frame warehouse
at the rear of the property and build a new 2 story warehouse a little further
south and east of the current site. Ms.
Ziser testified as to the condition of
the current
structure and the limited use and safety issues. After testifying, Ms. Ziser answered the Board member's questions
to their satisfaction
OPEN TO
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed
Engineer
Carroll testified as to the technical aspects of the application and the variances
that are requested. He stated that with
regard to the Highlands area it is entirely in the plannng area and not in the
preservation are, is none of the Highlands' regulations would apply to this
site. Confirmation on that is pending from
the State.
(Five minute
recess)
(Off the
record)
(On the
record)
Chairman
Dunning stated that they were back from break and all members were
present. Engineer Carroll proceeded to address the letter
received from the County
of Passaic,
stating that at this time nothing has been resolved. Specifically, the County wants to put up traffic lights and have
First Apple Realty close their
northern
driveway. If moved according to County's
request the new entrance (driveway) would be approximately 20 feet closer to
the building. The second existing
southern driveway is unusable to many of the trucks. Engineer Carroll
stated that
the turn in or out was too sharp for many of the trucks to make. If the County denies use of the northern
driveway then major changes have to be made to the site.
OPEN TO
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed
Builder
David Schmell, owner of David Schmell Construction answered the Board's
questions regarding the layout of the new building and any construction questions. Also discussed was a second stairway inside
the new building for fire
safety.
OPEN TO
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed
After some
discussion it was it was agreed by all that the plans will be amended based
upon the Board's suggestions. Attorney
Faasse stated this might not be able to be done by the August meeting, if there
is an August meeting. Actually,
everything
depended on what the County's final plans were. After further discussion regarding the revisions Attorney Keane
approved an extension requested by the Board until the September 7, 2005
meeting.
Board member
Bruce Grygus made a motion to carry the application to the September 7, 2005
meeting and another Board member seconded the motion.
ROLL
CALL: Chairman Dunning; yes, William
Grygus; yes, Frank Covelli; yes, Peter Hoffman; yes, Don Ludwig; yes, John
Shutte; yes, Lee Smith; yes.
Board
members discussed the availability of the members for the August meeting.
A Board member
made a motion to suspend the August meeting and to carry all pending
applications to the September 7, 2005 meeting.
The motion was seconded by several Board members.
OPEN TO
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed
RESOLUTIONS:
Application
#06-05: Jennifer Cosgrove, 66 Willow Way, Wanaque, New Jersey, Block 252.01,
Lot 14:
Application
was made by Jennifer Cosgrove for permission to construct a 1 story addition,
covered front porch and garage onto the front-side and rear of existing dwelling. The application was hear at the public
meeting on May 4, 2005. The
Board heard
testimony in support of the application and reviewed the submitted documents. The application was approved by the Board
with revisions.
A Board
member made a motion to approve the resolution and it was seconded by 23 another Board member.
ROLL
CALL: Chairman Dunning; not qualified,
William Grygus; yes, Frank Covelli; yes, Peter Hoffman; yes, Don Ludwig; yes,
John Shutte; yes, Lee Smith; yes.
A motion was
made to designate Member Bruce Grygus to sing the resolution due to the fact
that Chairman Dunning is not qualified and Vice-Chairman Roberto, Jr. was absent. Motion was seconded by Member Smith.
ROLL
CALL: William Grygus; yes, Frank Covelli;
yes, Peter Hoffman; yes, Don Ludwig; yes, John Shutte; yes, Lee Smith; yes.
CORRESPONDENCE: New Land Use Books have been passed out to
the Board members. Three vouchers were
discussed and a motion was made by Board Engineer Gregor to approve for
payment. Board member Ludwig seconded
the
Motion.
ROLL
CALL: Chairman Dunning; yes, William Grygus;
yes, Frank Covelli; yes, Peter Hoffman; yes, Don Ludwig; yes, John Shutte;
yes, Lee Smith; yes.
Member
Covelli made a motion to approve the minutes of the June meeting and it was
seconded by Member Grygus.
ROLL
CALL: Chairman Dunning; yes, William Grygus;
yes, Frank Covelli; yes, Peter Hoffman; yes, Don Ludwig; yes, John Shutte;
yes, Lee Smith; yes.
A motion was
made to adjourn the July 6, 2005 meeting and a unanimous vote of
aye was made
by all Board members.