Pleading Wizard

Pledge of Allegiance:

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a regular rescheduled meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment. Adequate notice has been given by a duly advertised notice posted in the Herald News and the Suburban Trends on June 7th and a notice thereof has been posted on the bulletin board and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk. Can we have a roll call please?

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

MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig

MR. FAASSE: Well first we have the Santoro one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, but we can call Pete to get Number 7, if we need him.

MR. FAASSE: Pete?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hoffman.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ed Leonard is supposed to be here.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So we’ll give him a couple of minutes and then we’ll get on the phone because that one is a Use Variance.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, because we got six. There are three matters on; yours is going to go tonight, six or seven.

ATTORNEY: Well we’ll see who is here Mr. Faasse and we’ll decide on how much we get through.

MR. FAASSE: Well, I mean if we go to six and then it we carry to next month I am sure the next meeting will listen to that -- the tape.

ATTORNEY: Okay, thank you.

MR. FAASSE: Their good on that. You will get your seven votes. Okay, we got the Santoro application.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: There was a request for an adjournment, the clients are –-

MR. CHAIRMAN: Adjournment?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, there was a request from Mr. LaSala.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Asking to be carried –

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have that or was it just a phone call.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, no, no, no, the secretary has it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: I have a letter here, somewhere I got it. I was organized this morning when I left. Mr. LaSala, dated -- oh yeah -- did we ever get an easement, did you get a copy of that Bill?

MR. GREGOR: No, no, I didn’t.

MR. FAASSE: June 20th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Mr. LaSala, my clients will be unavailable on July 11th, we will request and adjournment of the application scheduled for that evening to the August 1st meeting. The applicant extends the time for the Board to act on this for an additional 30 days. Please announce the adjournment so that they won’t have to give further notice. Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Need a motion on that to carry the application to the August meeting.

MR. FAASSE: August --

MR. CHAIRMAN: 1st.

MR. FAASSE: 1st, I guess, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: August 1st.

MR. WILLSE: I make a motion to carry the Santoro Application to August 1st.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, second on the motion?

MR. KONING: I’ll second it, Member Koning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Roll Call?

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #03-07 TO AUGUST 1ST MEETING:

Made by Member Willse, seconded by Member Koning, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you.

MR. FAASSE: Now on the Elwood matter we had Mr. -- distinguished attorney Mr. Walker here from the Borough of Ringwood that wishes to dialogue a little bit with the Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Just enter your appearance Sir.

MR. WALKER: Good evening. Michael Walker, firm of Higgins and Walker on behalf of the applicant Ruth Ann Elwood.

MR. FAASSE: It is Ringwood right?

MR. WALKER: That is Ringwood, that is correct. 130 Skyline Drive in Ringwood. An issue arose this afternoon as the result of a report that I had received from Mr. Gregor and I had also discussed the matter with Mr. Faasse, there is an issue as to whether or not the jurisdiction is going to be held by the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Board. Specifically, the question is whether or not a Use Variance is required pursuant to the ordinance because there is some issue as to whether or not there is a density issue.

MR. FAASSE: Well there is a density issue the question is whether or not you qualify for an exception under the Statute because of the minor subdivision.

MR. WALKER: That’s correct.

MR. FAASSE: This is a historic argument or debate that we engaged on this Board and I told you today that Wanaque has always been of the opinion when you got two substandard sized lots and you try to do a subdivision that you still need a density variance. But the long and short of this is that without an application for a Use Variance we won’t have jurisdiction over the subdivision. So I think what Mr. Walker would like to do is to take an adjournment tonight.

MR. WALKER: I would like that carried this evening.

MR. FAASSE: And he will see whether or not he can convince the Planning Board that this should be in their bed of wick and then it will be transferred over to the Planning Board, otherwise if it is not so deemed a Planning Board matter then he would have to renotify and amend their application for the Use Variance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: Well this wouldn’t be any different than the one that was --

MR. FAASSE: Johnny De.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: Or the one that we had in the back over here.

MR. FAASSE: Right, we had the big discussion with Mr. Peck remember just before his retirement.

MR. GREGOR: They can approve a non-standard building lot.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Johnny De had a separate issue as well.

MR. GREGOR: Right, but the one in the back that we had.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because of the zone.

MR. GREGOR: You mean the one up on the hill.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, the one that was in the wrong zone or something.

MR. GREGOR: Right he had the one house.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: Is that the one that Mr. Beck was involved in Mr. Faasse?

MR. FAASSE: No, Johnny Dee was Mr. Beck. Don’t ask us to pronounce the name; we’re going to have a hard time with that name.

MR. FAASSE: Go ahead Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: De Diminicantanio

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sounds good.

MR. FAASSE: I told you it was tough.

MR. WALKER: In any event, I just request that it be carried until the following meeting.

MR. FAASSE: Sure.

MR. WALKER: To give me the opportunity to apply to or at least consult with the Planning Board on the matter.

MR. FAASSE: Just so long as you understand that right now it would be our determination, I think, with the Board, that without a Use Variance this Board would not have jurisdiction over the application, in any event.

MR. WALKER: I understand that.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the reason it was sent here is because it needs the Use Variance.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. WALKER: Correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is normally what happens.

MR. FAASSE: You know, I mean Mr. Walker wants to argue over a very scholarly point and I think we ought to give him the opportunity to do so.

MR. WALKER: That’s absolutely right -- accurate Mr. Faasse.

MR. FAASSE: We don’t have the repository wall of all knowledge and wisdom in the world. Right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s right.

MR. FAASSE: So there should be a motion just to carry this to the August 1st meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, pending a decision by --

MR. FAASSE: Well the applicant’s attorney.

MR. GRYGUS: Should it have even been on the agenda?

MR. FAASSE: Well --

MR. GRYGUS: Should it have even been on the agenda?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are we allowed to say anything during this particular issue?

MR. FAASSE: Well we are not opening up the hearing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. FAASSE: Are you a neighbor?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am and I got a piece of paper in the mail so that is why I am here.

MR. FAASSE: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So I don’t understand the legality of what he is trying to do here but I do have some --

MR. FAASSE: No, it is nothing that Mr. Walker is trying to do. Please, please don’t --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know, I am just saying that I don’t understand the discussion. So I am just trying to know if there is an opportunity to discuss certain concerns.

MR. FAASSE: Well we won’t be able to discuss the merits of the case because we cannot open it.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Faasse, explain to her what you were just doing, that is what she is asking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, they are confused by what we just did Ralph.

MR. GRYGUS: By carrying it.

MR. GREGOR: She is asking you why it is being carried.

MR. FAASSE: Right now the way the application is set up, they are asking for a minor subdivision with bulk variances. This Board does not have jurisdiction over a minor subdivision, that is normally a Planning Board matter. However, we do have jurisdiction over subdivisions where there is a Use Variance applied for. All right, that hasn’t been applied for, it hasn’t been noticed. So the question is we can’t hear it at all because we don’t have jurisdiction. But Mr. Walker needs sometime to determine with the Planning Board powers that be as to whether or not he should be in front of the Planning Board or whether he can come or he should come back here. If he comes back here, he is going to have to amend the application for a Use Variance plus renotice everyone, specifically saying that they want the Use Variance.

MR. GRYGUS: In any event, the application will be heard at some point in time and you will have your opportunity to be heard.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is the difference between the subdivision and the Use Variance and what exactly does that mean? I guess he is going to use it in the Planning Board at a different reason than he is going to use it --

MR. FAASSE: No, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, No.

MR. FAASSE: No, the use Variance would come into play here because the Borough says that for a one family dwelling you need 10,000 square feet. Each of these proposed lots are less than 10,000 square feet so it would be an increase in density as to what would be permitted on the lands. Okay?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So if it goes before the Planning Board --

MR. FAASSE: Right, then they would say that it is not a density issue. It is only a subdivision with the bulk variances.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, but traditionally when you create a substandard lot it creates a use variance.

MR. GRYGUS: I would think that if it decided to go before the Planning Board it would also have to still be renoticed.

MR. FAASSE: Yes because he is asking for bulk variances.

MR. WALKER: That is absolutely correct so one way or another you are going to get another notice. It will be a different board; it would be a different meeting so we would have to renotice.

MR. GRYGUS: So whether if it is at this Board it is going to be for a Use Variance, you are going to get another notice. If it is deemed to go to the Planning Board you are going to get a notice for that hearing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: And you have the right to check with the secretary, our secretary, she is the Planning Board secretary as well as exactly what is happening to the application.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do I have the right to present the Board with just a copy of what I -- of my concerns or is that not at this time?

MR. FAASSE: Not at this time.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not at this time.

MR. FAASSE: Once we open up the application, the applicant goes first, they present any evidence that they have either documentary or by testimony, then we open it up to the public for cross-examination of their experts but then later the public, itself, will be given the opportunity to enter any evidence and to testify.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Okay?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: I hope I was right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was good.

MR. FAASSE: At least he agrees with something I do. Do we have that motion?

MR. COVELLI: So moved Mr. Chairman, I motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, seconding that?

MR. GRYGUS: I’ll second it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Roll Call?

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO AUGUST 1ST MEETING:

Made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.

MR. WALKER: Okay, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, now we are going to go to the main case of the evening here, 23-06, Reality Associates Redevelopment, LLC, 547 Ringwood Avenue, Use and Bulk Variances. Counselor, how are you this evening?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you Mr. Chairman I am fine, I hope everyone else is, a little warm. Gittleman, Muhlstock and Chewcaskie, Brian N. Chewcaskie on behalf of the applicant, Reality Associates Redevelopment. We were here at the last meeting and we were informed that a notice was not sent to the Passaic County Planning Board. Based upon the Board’s decision, the matter was carried to this evening. We did provide the appropriate notice to the Passaic County Planning Board indicating that the hearing would be this evening and a copy of that Affidavit of Service was provided to the Board’s secretary. I believe we also provided a copy directly to Mr. Faasse. So I believe that should address the jurisdictional issues with respect to this matter to proceed. We also had the opportunity to discuss, I guess, with Mr. Gregor some of his concerns. So we have submitted some revised plans. And I guess just so that --

MR. FAASSE: You have his letter right?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We received it today, yes we do.

MR. FAASSE: Now the problem we have, we just had the discussion; we only have six members here. We are anticipating a seventh. I don’t how long your case is going to be. If you think you can put your case in and go for a vote, you wouldn’t -- I would assume you wouldn’t want to do it with six.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That would be my advice to the client but I wanted to see how far we would get this evening.

MR. FAASSE: Now if you wish to wait a few minutes to see if the seventh member comes. We got somebody coming right?

MR. GRYGUS: You want to call Pete and we will do --

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point Ed was supposed to be here according to Frank who talked to him earlier but he is not here. Pete said if we needed him, we could call him.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, we know that Ringwood Avenue is tied up because there is some prominent person who is being laid out at the funeral home.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I would prefer to have seven members although I do not know if the Board is sure whether seven will come this evening. So I really don’t want to dictate how the Board should act, but I am ready to proceed and if we have to we can carry it to the next month for a vote assuming we have completed all of our testimony.

MR. GRYGUS: Call Pete and do the other agenda items early?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah or do you want to -- do you have Ed’s phone number?

MR. GRYGUS: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don’t you -- since Ed said he was coming, why don’t you call him?

MR. COVELLI: I have the phone number here.

MR. FAASSE: Let Gregor do it so he can try out his new phone.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And I sit down for a little while, while you can get to other business.

MR. FAASSE: What we are thinking, -- you know -- I mean what we should maybe do is just hold this and take a five-minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Or we can get everything --

MR. GRYGUS: Do the other agenda items.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- so we can all have the correct set of plans and everything else?

MR. FAASSE: I really don’t want to even do anything if we are going to have the seventh member here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, all right.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: In the event that -- I appreciate that but we are going to see if we can get the seventh member here tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ed is only around the corner.

MR. GREGOR: So are we going to take a five-minute break?

MR. FAASSE: I don’t know. We do have a couple of groupies here, welcome Mr. DiMeglio. Is everyone else here on the Reality Associates, I mean because that is the only matter that we are going to be hearing tonight. So if you are here on something else and you have a question or something?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Tell them they welcome to stay anyway.

MR. GRYGUS: Come on up John.

MR. DIMEGLIO: I guess you want my name. My name is John DiMiglio, 414 Ringwood Avenue.

MR. FAASSE: How do you spell that last name?

MR. DIMEGLIO: D-I-M-E-G-L-I-O, gees I know how to spell my own name.

MR. FAASSE: I think she knows.

MR. DIMEGLIO: The Wanaque Golden Age, they want to know what is happening with their cell tower, they are suppose to put a cell tower up.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. DIMEGLIO: And they want to know what is happening. Now, I believe I had a Republican come here and I asked the Mayor what was happening with the cell tower, how come -- you know -- they haven’t started yet. And the Mayor couldn’t give me an answer; he said he would have to get back to me, which he hasn’t gotten back to me yet. And I know a few of the members, well the president of the Golden Age called the Administrator and evidently he doesn’t return the phone calls either. Tom Balunis, our Councilman, he called me and he says the reason why it hasn’t been moved ahead is, he says the engineer, which is you, Bill, hasn’t signed off yet. So are you holding it up for them?

MR. GREGOR: Now, we have signed off.

MR. DIMEGLIO: Oh you did sign off?

MR. GREGOR: Yes, we have signed off. There was a delay of about two weeks in the sign off because the architect didn’t send us a full set of signed and sealed plans. He sent us a set of reduced plans, which were very difficult to read because they were about, I think, one-eighth the size of the full size plans.

MR. DIMEGLIO: So you are telling me now that all they have to do is go before the building inspector and get a permit.

MR. GREGOR: The sign off has been accomplished to my knowledge. Our letter was faxed to the town advising --

MR. DIMEGLIO: So they would have to go before the -- they would appear to --

MR. GREGOR: They have to get a building permit.

MR. DIMEGLIO: -- to get a building permit, correct.

MR. GREGOR: Yes, as far as I know.

MR. DIMEGLIO: And they can do that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. DIMEGLIO: And they can do that?

MR. GREGOR: As far as I know.

MR. DIMEGLIO: Oh, okay because -- all right.

MR. GREGOR: I mean this Board’s work is done, I believe.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, there were just a few minor changes that had to make.

MR. GREGOR: Jack, were the plans signed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did we ever sign them?

MS. MAROTTA: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Where are they?

MS. MAROTTA: I don’t know, I just got that letter today from Bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Today?

MS. MAROTTA: It was faxed to me, when was it faxed? It was faxed on the 10th. No, not that one, up at the top.

MR. FAASSE: The 3rd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The 3rd.

MS. MAROTTA: On the 3rd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But do you have the plans that they sent in, your set?

MS. MAROTTA: I would have to look in the file.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, this was faxed on the 3rd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Now they sent you a set of plans.

MR. GREGOR: I still have it reduced. At the Mayor’s request, I pulled a magnifying glass out and review the reduced plans. Although I think it was much more difficult.

MS. MAROTTA: I don’t think I received anything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good question, let’s take two minutes and see if you got the plans.

MR. GREGOR: I asked the architect to send me a full set I never received them yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If they are and they are ready for signing, we can sign them.

MR. GRYGUS: So what you are saying for the record is that you read the reduced set --

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. GRYGUS: You approved it, it was faxed on the 3rd and as of this date, it has nothing to do with this Board other than if there is a signing issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The signing, right, we have to sign it.

MR. GREGOR: And the Board needs a full set of plans to sign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Which that never stopped the building department from issuing a permit anyway.

MR. GRYGUS: Because his letter released it on the 3rd, that was faxed on the 3rd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Even before that letter. Once the resolution goes for sure, even before resolution, they will issue permits.

MR. GRYGUS: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They may not have even applied for the permits though.

MR. DIMEGLIO: Well no, the way I was told is that the engineer hasn’t signed off yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but that doesn’t stop the building department from issuing a permit.

MR. GREGOR: John the way it functions -- the way it functions in Wanaque, when the resolution is approved by the Board, the building inspector issues a building permit. When he checks it for completeness at the end of the construction, he uses the final sign and sealed plans, that is the function as it works here.

MR. DIMEGLIO: All right, so what you are telling me is all they have to do is go to the building inspector to get a permit to start the project.

MR. GREGOR: They could have done that the day after the vote.

MR. DIMEGLIO: Well that is not the answer I got.

MR. GREGOR: Well I am telling you the way it works here.

MR. GRYGUS: I wouldn’t be surprised to see that Verizon wants every T dotted, crossed and everything else before they do anything.

MR. GREGOR: John that is told to every applicant that comes to this Board. In fact, Mr. Faasse has a standard reading that every applicant is told on the night we approve them that they can go and get a permit.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. DIMEGLIO: All right, but -- you know -- when I asked the question, I was told that the engineer was holding it up, that is the answer I got.

MR. FAASSE: Well any attorney would have advised them, especially in a situation with the wireless communication application to wait the appeal period. So that would have been -- you know -- our meeting, the resolution then 10 days to put it in the paper and then 45 days. The applicant probably wouldn’t have filed in that period anyway.

MR. DIMEGLIO: So it is safe to say that I can go back to the Golden Age and tell them that all Verizon has to do is filed for a permit to build?

MR. FAASSE: Well it is done here, however, there was a lease and we never were a party to that lease, that was with the town solicitor. So I don’t know if that was ever finalized.

MR. DIMEGLIO: I know that they were supposed to turn over the road to the town.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, that was a condition but that is out of the purview of the Board.

MR. FAASSE: I think that was done but there was a lease between the Golden Agers and --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Verizon.

MR. FAASSE: Was it Verizon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right and they were supposed to verify that there was a Hold Harmless Clause in there.

MR. FAASSE: Insurance and things like that.

MR. DIMEGLIO: All right, I’ll go back and tell them that -- you know -- it is up to Verizon now.

MR. GREGOR: All right, I’m sorry, we were not holding anything up.

MR. DIMEGLIO: Okay, well that is what I was told.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We always get blamed.

MR. GREGOR: That’s all right, I get blamed for a lot of things John.

MR. FAASSE: How did we make out with the telephone calls?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Covelli?

MR. COVELLI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have we found Edward?

MR. COVELLI: He is being located as we speak and I know how to put my phone on vibrate and it hasn’t vibrated.

MR. GRYGUS: The geek squad is out searching for him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have no plans.

MR. FAASSE: You don’t have plans.

MR. GRYGUS: Do you want to call Pete?

MR. FAASSE: Mr. DiMeglio?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have no plans on file to sign.

MR. DIMEGLIO: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They never sent them in.

MR. GREGOR: If Verizon sends in six full sets of plans, then we will sign them.

MR. DIMEGLIO: All right.

MR. FAASSE: Well as long as they are the same as what you enumerated.

MR. GREGOR: Um?

MR. FAASSE: As long as they are the same as what you listed here.

MR. GREGOR: Oh yeah, the correct set of plans.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, the correct set of plans.

MS. MAROTTA: I am making a note of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Gerri is making a note.

MR. FAASSE: All right, so we wait 5 minutes and then --

MR. GREGOR: Jack, you want to call Pete?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is Ed Leonard around?

MR. COVELLI: His wife was attempting to locate him. He is in town somewhere.

MR. FAASSE: Oh gee, oh gee.

MR. GREGOR: Do you want to call Pete?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, call Pete. I hate to bother him, but call Pete.

MR. FAASSE: All right, we’ll take five minutes.

MS. MAROTTA: Where is Don, is Don coming in?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Don said that if he wasn’t here on his normal schedule, he is always 10 minutes late, he had a business meeting.

MS. MAROTTA: Oh, okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He called me last night.

MS. MAROTTA: Yeah I got, you know what, I got listed Elwood, yesterday and then today I got Reality and I assume that did come on the 3rd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But you didn’t receive anything from AT&T so it doesn’t matter what we got.

MS. MAROTTA: All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you see the new move we are planning?

MS. MAROTTA: Yeah, I am looking at this, I never saw this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but that is my new move now.

MS. MAROTTA: Where was this in the Trends?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am going to petition out Wanaque.

MR. FAASSE: What are you going to do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Petition this in Wanaque, it is my new petition.

BOARD MEMBER: Are we still on tape?

MR. GREGOR: Yup.

BOARD MEMBER: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: Are we taking a five-minute break?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don’t we take five and turn the tape off.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, all right.

MS. MAROTTA: Are we taking are recess?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, let’s take a five-minute recess.

FIVE-MINUTE RECESS - TAPE TURNED OFF.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: To a flat roof which would bring up to I believe up to about 33 feet based upon what has been presented. We have presented it as an alternative; we will provide testimony that the height variance could be justified. It is aesthetically more pleasing and you will see so from those exhibits. There is also a side yard setback variance that we noticed for, it may or may not be required. In the zone, one of the zones, there is a 15-foot requirement; we are at 11 feet. However, in the zone, the business zone, there is a 10-foot side yard requirement. So although we meet the requirement in one zone, we do not meet it in the other and, therefore, we have noticed for that variance and we will leave it for the Board to determine. Again, we will provide proofs in that regard relative to that variance. Just so that we are all on the same page, after the last meeting in June we came back here and we submitted revised plans. You should have revised engineering drawings that have been prepared by Burton Engineering; the revision date should be June 19th. Those drawings were substantially revised to address Mr. Gregor’s June report relative to the application. We also have provided revised architectural drawings in which the dimensions were provided for the signs and also the alternative roof design. The revision date on those drawings should be June 20, 2007. In addition with the set that the Board should have received, the set of drawings, there was a letter that was submitted by Mr. Stinson of Burton Engineering, which was also dated June 27th, which addressed substantially Mr. Gregor’s report in June. We do have a new report from Mr. Gregor, which we can deal with this evening, that report date is July 10th. So, hopefully, the Board Members have the most recent set of drawings, which we will be relying upon this evening. I only have with me this evening and I proposed to only present three witnesses, Drake Stinson, the site engineer, Mary Scro, the project architect, and Michael Kauker, as a planner relative to the variance criteria. Although in Mr. Gregor’s report, there was an indication that the height variance request would be withdrawn. We believed it would be prudent to demonstrate that the building could be built without the necessity of a height variance but we would like the opportunity to allow the Board to make the determination relative to the application. If the Board is inclined to grant the use, then we believe that the height variance is also justified because it is more aesthetic and more in line with what other developments that you would see in town. So unless there are any questions of me, I would call my first witness, Mr. Stinson.

MR. FAASSE: Excuse me, just so that we are clear, you have Mr. Gregor’s letter dated July the 10th, correct?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Correct, we do have it.

MR. FAASSE: We have the listing of the sheets prepared by Burton Engineering and we also have the architecturals. Now is that an accurate listing? I hope everybody got a chance to look at them.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is correct, that is accurate.

MR. FAASSE: All right, so that is accurate, okay.

MR. GREGOR: I have a question?

MR. FAASSE: Preliminary, well go ahead.

MR. GREGOR: You had questioned the potential variance for a side yard variance.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is correct.

MR. GREGOR: I just direct your attention to Section 114-12 (A) (7) (B) and it reads any business structure where a provision is made for apartments shall comply with the side and rear yard requirements established in the R10 residential district. That is why a side yard is required.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: So the four feet variance would be required.

MR. GREGOR: That is correct.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you for pointing that our Mr. Gregor. Unless there are any other questions, I do have Mr. Stinson.

MR. FAASSE: You ready Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let’s go.

MR. FAASSE: Bring him forward.

MR. STINSON SWORN

MR. FAASSE: Give us your full name, spell your last name and you may use a business address if you wish.

MR. STINSON: Yes, my name is Drake C. Stinson, that is S-T-I-N-S-0-N, I am an engineering manager with Burton Engineering and our business address is 66 Glen Avenue, Glen Rock, New Jersey.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Mr. Stinson could you give the Board the benefit of your professional experience, your education and employment please?

MR. STINSON: Yes, I am a graduate of Civil Engineering from NJIT 1986. I am a professional engineer licensed in the State of New Jersey in 1991 and I have practiced civil engineering for over 20 years. I have testified in front of numerous Planning Boards throughout New Jersey.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And as part of your position with Burton Engineering do you regularly appear and testify before Planning and Zoning Boards in the State of New Jersey?

MR. STINSON: Yes, that is correct.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And could you give certain examples to the Board where you have recently testified?

MR. STINSON: I’ve recently testified in Edgewater, Hackensack, Green Township, Emerson, off the top of my head.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And besides your professional engineering license, Mr. Stinson, do you hold any other professional licenses?

MR. STINSON: I am a member of ASCE but no other professional licenses.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I submit Mr. Stinson as an expert in the field of civil engineering.

MR. FAASSE: You’ve got to forgive me, the seal kind of obliterates everything. His license number, 36684?

MR. STINSON: Yes, that is right.

MR. FAASSE: And that continues in good force and effect as of today.

MR. STINSON: Yes, it certainly is.

MR. FAASSE: You paid your annual fee?

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Don’t laugh, I had one where the man didn’t. Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will accept you as a --

MR. STINSON: I have my shingle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let’s go.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF MR. STINSON BY DR. CHEWCASKIE

Q Mr. Stinson what were you retained to do by Reality Redevelopment Associates with respect to this site?

A Yes, we were retained to design a site plan to redevelop the site from the former use into a use as we see now, which is the medical office with the residential component up top.

Q And as part of your services did you acquaint yourself with the site and the surrounding area.

A Yes, I certainly have.

Q Could you describe what presently exists on the site?

A Certainly, I can refer to our survey drawing for that.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Let me stop you there. Mr. Chairman I would like to probably start with A-1, unless Mr. Faasse do you pre-mark anything, the application or do you indicate that that is part of the record already?

MR. FAASSE: Well these are all plans that you filed with the Board, correct?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is correct.

MR. STINSON: Absolutely correct.

MR. FAASSE: So, yes, we can label them A-1 and everything else as we start testifying to them.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Should we label the entire set as A-1 and then just referred to them as they are designated on each drawing.

MR. FAASSE: Which way do you want to handle that Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It doesn’t matter. If they are numbered --

MR. GREGOR: Why don’t you just do the whole set as A-1 and then be sheet number?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: It will be C-1, C-2, C-3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How many drawings are in a set?

MR. FAASSE: Well he has 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

MR. GRYGUS: The same set we got here right?

MR. FAASSE: A total of 7 pages, right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Well there will be 8 sheets, including the survey.

MR. FAASSE: Wait a minute, where is the survey? Did we get the survey?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: You know what, this survey may not have been attached to the resubmission. So let’s mark the survey as A-1.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, because I don’t have it in my packet here.

MR. STINSON: All of these drawings were included with the last submission, when submitted, we submitted all the drawings.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah the only issue is that the site plans are bound together as a package. The survey was separate and the architecturals were bound together in the third package. So we have got three separate packages. One package is only one drawing, which is the survey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is SV1.

MR. FAASSE: And to complicate matters, we don’t have the survey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, it is part of the package, Bill.

MR. GREGOR: That is right, it should be the last sheet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You got 8 pages.

MR. GREGOR: 8 pages.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh okay. The last page is SV1 Bill?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We have submitted the package three times, I think the last time we didn’t include it.

MR. GREGOR: I stand corrected -- I stand corrected.

MR. FAASSE: All right, it is SV1-- SV1?

MR. CHAIRMAN: SV1.

MR. FAASSE: B like in boy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is the survey, the last page.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, so.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Mr. Stinson if you could mark on the cover page A-1 with today’s date.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And Mr. Faasse do you want the application number on it?

MR. FAASSE: No, we’ll know. Now once you mark these you are going to leave them here?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That’s correct.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE

Q Mr. Stinson what you have marked as A-1 is the most recent submission of the site plan and accompanied documents that were prepared by your office to this Board?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q And that consists of eight sheets?

A Yes.

Q And there may various and varying dates on those sheets. The last revision on any of those sheets would be June 19, 2007?

A Yes.

Q Can you turn to the last sheet and then I think the question I asked you was to describe the current condition of the site.

MR. FAASSE: You are going to refer to the survey, so could we just have the date of that page because that has to be amended in Bill’s list or Mr. Gregor’s list?

MR. STINSON: The last revision date for drawing SV-1 is revision #3 and then January 23, 2007.

MR. FAASSE: 23rd, 2000 --

MR. CHAIRMAN: And 7.

MR. FAASSE: 7, okay.

MR. STINSON: That revision had to do with revising some utility information in the road, which was further refined and corrected on our site plan.

MR. FAASSE: I see it.

MR. STINSON: When we contacted the DPW we got the size of the water main and the sewers in the street.

MS. MAROTTA: He is going to have to use the microphone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are going to have to either stand by the mic or carry the mic.

BOARD MEMBER: You can use the one out here on the table if you want to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s all.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, he can pull it up to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There you go.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE

Q Now Mr. Stinson I note that the building is still contained on that survey because the survey was originally done in 2003, that building is no longer there, correct?

A That is correct, the building has been removed and been raised, but it is the former location for the Gladys M. Rhinesmith Administration Building. It was a two story brick and masonry building fronting Ringwood Avenue. You can see there was a driveway on the one side that went right up to the property line, looped around one way. There was parking in the back. Our proposed plan has the building in generally the same location except shifted just slightly this way so that we have a two-lane entrance and egress from the site. There was bituminous parking in the back. Right now the current site is pretty much -- it is completely cleared and undeveloped right now. So that is the existing site. It is long and narrow and it is just slightly over an acre, so it is about 100 feet wide by 450 feet long and, as I said, just slightly over one acre in size, long and narrow. It was stated before about the split zone, we can show that on the cover sheet. You can see here that, on the key map, that it is split with the residential zone, right here, and the B Zone in front. So the zone line goes right through the back. It has been stated and it is factual that the proposed building is entirely in the B Zone. The parking extends in the back into a portion of the residential zone and that is where the split zone comes into play.

Q Mr. Stinson, perhaps, for clarification, based upon what I see it looks as though the B Zone is on the lower section, is on Lot 17 in Block 233, it looks like. Am I correct?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q Thank you. Could you describe the proposed site plan and walk us through what you are proposing to do with this site?

A Yes, absolutely.

Q And we could mark, since that is a colorized version, I would ask you to mark that as A-2 and identify it, please.

A This is what we call Landscape Rendering of the project. It is a combination of various drawings that have been submitted. There is no new information on here. It is just a combination of the information and it is colored to represent landscaping. This is the landscaping rendering. The date on this drawing is today’s date that is July 11th and I will mark this A-2.

MR. FAASSE: Oh we do have --

MR. CHAIRMAN: We don’t have that.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, we don’t have that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

A As I said, it is the same information, it is just combined into one drawing.

Q All right. And if you could walk us through A-2 and what that depicts Mr. Stinson.

A Right. It depicts the proposed site plan with the trees and the landscaping highlighted on this drawing and also has the zoning information so that it could be referred to. As it was stated before, we need a variance for the side setback, which would be on the northerly side, over here. Whereas 15 feet is required; we are providing 11 feet. So there is 4-foot variance for side setback. That is in the business zone but because there is a residential component the setback is 15 feet. We have a two-lane driveway coming in that is 22 feet wide. We have the parking completely contained in the back. The dash line that is shown here is the building setback line, which we are within, except for that northerly side. We have the parking in the back. We have a total of 47 parking spaces, whereas 46 are required. So we have the adequate parking. We have handicapped parking spaces in the back. Some of the most recent revisions were to add the handicap ramps in the front where the crosswalk is, a stop sign and a stop bar with a painted line was provided in the front. We moved the dumpster just one more time. The first submission, it was in the back near residences, we got the sense that it needed to be moved further up and then at the last meeting, receiving input from the residents and the planner, we moved the garbage to the other side, which is in the B district and we provided blank spots on the other side to provide adequate turning for a garbage truck to come in and it is demonstrated on the truck turning. There was a comment about the truck being able to pull in, I just spoke to the planner and we can agree to provide a little bit greater radius on the entrance that would make it completely easy for the trucks to come in.

Q All right. Before we get to the specifics of Mr. Gregor’s report Mr. Stinson, it is my understanding that the proposed building is substantially similarly located as the previous school building, am I correct?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q And could you describe the utilities that have been designed to service this building.

A All right. I will refer to our Grading Plan and Utility Plan, which is drawing C2.2. All the storm water drainage on the site is on the paved area in the parking lot and it is collected into two Type B drainage inlets. It is collected along a pipe, it runs underneath the driveway, comes to the front to another inlet, and then connects to the sewer that is in Ringwood Avenue. The roof drainage is collected and it is addressed by a drywell so that the water infiltrates into the ground. Our storm water calculations demonstrate that there is actually less runoff under proposed conditions than there are under existing conditions and we have accounted for our run off.

Q Okay.

A That is the storm water management. The utilities --

Q Before you get to the other utilities let’s look at the storm water management in a little more detail. What is the existing grade of the site and if you can describe to the Board whether it slopes in one direction or the other in terms of adjoining properties?

A The site is basically very flat, it is very flat as is the surrounding properties. There are residences along here, Lots 21 through 14, are private residences. There is an existing chain-linked fence in there now which is kind of a natural divide and there is no effect to our site with adjacent drainage and it is flat.

Q Based upon your design and your analysis, Mr. Stinson, is any water that is going to hit this site be maintained and collected on this site?

A There is nowhere -- we are accounting for our own drainage and there is no waterways or drainage swales or any of the such that would effect our property.

Q Okay. So the water that hits this site is collected and then goes into the location, which you indicated both from the parking lot and the roof drains and that water, once collected, goes toward an existing system in Ringwood Avenue?

A Yeah, that is correct.

Q Will any of the water that hits this site run off on any of the adjacent properties?

A It would continue to flow the same way that it does now.

Q Okay. In that regard, does the design of the system that you have proposed satisfy current NJDEP requirements both in terms of collection and water quality?

A I am not sure if that is true or not.

Q Okay. But if that is necessary, that will be addressed?

A Yes, that is true.

Q And you have provided a storm water management plan to Mr. Gregor which is under review, correct?

A That is correct, yes.

Q And if there are any issues with respect to storm water management, since it is of a technical concern, that could be addressed as a condition with this Board, correct?

A Yes, yes.

Q It would not change the overall design of the proposed building. It can be addressed through other means to address the storm water.

A That is right, that is right.

Q With respect to the general utilities that would serve the building, water, electric, gas and sewer, are those depicted on the site plan?

A Yes, there are depicted on the Grading, Utility and Soil Erosion Control Plan, which we are looking at here now. The water services come in off of Ringwood Avenue, they are separate services. The building would be sprinkled so there is a four-inch firewater service line and there is a two-inch domestic water service line that would be connected to the existing eight-inch waterline that is in Ringwood Avenue. The sanitary sewer would be a six-inch PVC service connection, which would connect to the existing manhole that is located in Ringwood Avenue. And the drainage, as I said, also connects to the storm sewer that is in Ringwood Avenue.

Q Are the utilities that you just described adequate to service the proposed development?

A Yes, certainly.

Q Thank you. If you can go back --

MR. FAASSE: Excuse me, while we are on that subject, have you checked with the Wanaque Water Department to make sure that there is adequate water supply and have you check with the Sewer Authority as to whether or not they can handle the sewerage?

MR. STINSON: No, we have not but that would be a final. Should the Board decide to -- you know -- approve the project, we would ensure that we would meet the requirements of the local utilities.

MR. GRYGUS: Because they may not have capacity for you.

MR. STINSON: I can talk about the lighting and the landscaping.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q Yeah, I was going to go to the lighting and the landscaping, Mr. Stinson.