BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:                                                                

MINUTES

SEPTEMBER 11, 2002

 

REGULAR MEETING

 

Salute to the Flag:

 

Chairman Dunning asked for a moment of silence in honor of September 11, 2001.

 

OPENING STATEMENT:

 

This is a Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment and adequate notice has been duly advertised by the mailing of a notice to the Suburban Trends and the Herald & News on the 15th day of January, 2002 and a notice thereof has been posted on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk.

 

ROLL CALL:  Chairman Jack Dunning, Members William Grygus, Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig (came in at 8:05 P.M.), Ted Roberto, Frank Covelli, Ihor Kardasz, Lee Smith, Attorney Ralph Faasse and Engineer William Gregor.

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:  Member Robert Ricca.

 

Chairman Dunning announce a communication from the Mayor & Council in regards to filling the unexpired term of Harry Hirschman who resigned recently.  Attorney Faasse swore in Ihor Kardasz as Alternate #2.

 

APPLICATION #24-01 Richard & Regina Wieland, 138 Greenwood Ave., Block 460 Lot 16, Bulk & Use Variance: Correspondence was received from Jeff Brusco, Building Inspector, indicating that the Wieland’s have revised their plans and basically made their building plan adhere to the zoning and no longer need a variance.

 

MOTION TO DISMISS APPLICATION: made by Member Roberto, seconded by Member Hoffman, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Roberto, Covelli, Kardasz and Smith. 

 

APPLICATION #07-02 John & Debra Moore, 166 Conklintown Rd., Block 206 Lot 75, Bulk Variance:

Attorney Gregory Lake came forward with the applicants and Gary Veenstra, Survey Analyst of Rigg Associates, P.A.  Atty. Lake told the Board they have made the changes and additions to the map that was submitted last month in accordance with Eng. Gregor’s report dated July 9, 2002. Atty. Lake said Eng. Gregor gave Mr. Veenstra a report dated September 11, 2002 in which he made some comments about the amended map submitted, and Atty. Lake just saw it for the first time

tonight. Eng. Gregor told the Board submitted was a revised Plot Plan, a Topographic Survey, Property Survey and in addition to the architectural plans which will remain unchanged. The Topographic Survey is dated, August 30, 2002 and Plot Plan dated June 4, 2002. Eng. Gregor said the Board Secretary should have a copy of the survey signed and sealed, and also a copy of the Topographic Survey for him and the Board Secretary, signed and sealed. Eng. Gregor told Mr. Veenstra he would like to see the size of the water main on the map. Attorney Faasse asked Mr. Veenstra if they have been in contact with the Sewer Authority to see if the proposed 10’ wide sanitary sewer easement that was added for the sanitary sewer main which crosses the property, is sufficient?  Mr. Veenstra said he did not.  Atty. Lake told Atty. Faasse that Mr. Moore had contact with the Sewer Authority. Mr. Moore told the Board, the Sewer Authority could not find any documentation in regards to this matter. Atty. Faasse told Mr. Moore, according to his Attorney, Mr. Lake, Mr. Moore will create a 10 feet easement across his property for the benefit of the Sewer Authority and Mr. Moore said yes he will. Atty. Faasse then asked Mr. Moore if he asked the Sewer Authority whether or not they would accept it and if it was sufficient?  Mr. Veenstra said Mr. Moore did not and just wanted to know if there was an easement. Mr. Veenstra said they found two recorded copies of easements that were accepted previously. Mr. Veenstra said, no easements were found for Lot 76 and said his company did a full search on Lot 76 and a search on Lot 75 and also Lot 71. Mr. Veenstra said the existing garage floor is within the 100 year flood plain.  Mr. Veenstra also said, Eng. Gregor asked they supply the Flood Hazard line on the map, but the Flood Maps that Mr. Veenstra has from the Borough does not show this. Mr. Veenstra said they are currently talking with the DEP about these plans and are waiting to hear from them. Eng. Gregor said it appears, that both the basement of the structure and garage of the proposed structure are going to be below the 100 Year Flood, therefore, the flood hazard elevations will be higher than the 100 year flood. Eng. Gregor asked Mr. Veenstra if that was the application before the Board. Mr. Veenstra said he isn’t planning on making any changes at this time. Atty. Lake said when they saw the map the applicants retained an Attorney, Lisa Bromberg who only does work involving DEP.  Atty. Bromberg will be going down to the DEP when they have the information and Atty. Bromberg told Atty. Lake not to get the variance based upon them getting approval from the DEP. Atty. Bromberg said its very possible the DEP might say that they don’t have to deal with it. What she will do is, write a letter to the DEP confirming the meeting they had and the decision that was made. Atty. Lake said if that happens, he will submit the letter to Atty. Faasse or the Board, therefore their approval for a variance would be subject to them dealing with the DEP but not necessarily getting their approval. Eng. Gregor wanted to clarify that the elevations that are shown on the drawing is the current application and Mr. Veenstra and Atty. Lake agreed.  Eng. Gregor told Atty. Lake the Board will need either an approval from the DEP or a waiver for stream encroachment. Atty. Lake

told Eng. Gregor that Atty. Bromberg said its very possible they might not get either one. Eng. Gregor told Atty. Lake, if the DEP tells him on the phone that they’re waiving the requirements, Atty. Lake should write a letter confirming that conversation fax it to them with a signature block for them to sign and have them send it back to him. Eng. Gregor said that’s the only way he’s received correspondence back from them, otherwise it could be three months before he hears from DEP. Eng. Gregor added, the building official will probably want to see an approval or waiver from the DEP.

Chairman Dunning said, it appears they’re expanding the footprint of the dwelling, therefore they’re enlarging the portion that’s in the flood plain, and the applicant said yes. Chairman Dunning felt that maybe more of an issue with the DEP and Atty. Lake said it may or may not be. Chairman Dunning wanted to know how much larger and Mr. Moore said its not much larger and he could almost keep the same footprint. Atty. Faasse suggested it might be more prudent for the Board to adjourn the application for a month so the applicant can go to the DEP.  Atty. Faasse said the DEP might tell the applicant he has to move the structure or change the elevation and if that happens, the applicant would have to start a new application all over again. Member Roberto said, wouldn’t that be the Building Inspector’s call because he would require the DEP waiver or approval. Eng. Gregor spoke up and said, the Building Inspector will not issue a Building Permit until he receives something from the DEP. Atty. Faasse’s concern is if the DEP says the applicant has to raise the elevation of the new structure and bring it back to the existing size, then the variances will have to be changed and then the Board will be faced with a new application. Atty. Lake said he appreciates his suggestion and advice, but the applicant wants to proceed tonight and take his chances.

Chairman Dunning asked Eng. Gregor what is the difference between the 100 Year Flood and the Flood Plain. Eng. Gregor said, FEMA, which is a Federal Agency, identifies the 100 Year Flood Plain based on studies and calculations. New Jersey saw fit and felt it worth while to increase it so that a flood of a volume of the 100 Year Flood plus 5% should be the elevation that you need for a Stream Encroachment Permit if your going to approach that elevation. Eng. Gregor went on to say, that 5% are floodwaters, not elevation, therefore, the 5% additional flow is what determines the flood hazard. Eng. Gregor said there is one other criteria for a Stream Encroachment Permit and that is, typically you’re allowed the percent to fill 20% of the flood area, except in the lower Passaic River Basin. 

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:  None/Closed

 

MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE “DEP” EITHER APPROVE OR SUPPLY SOME FORM OF A WAIVER TO SATISFY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, AND A REAR YARD SETBACK OF 27.4 FEET WHICH REQUIRES A VARIANCE OF 17.6 FEET, AND THE APPLICANT

WILL GRANT AN EASEMENT TO THE SEWER AUTHORITY : made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto and Smith Members Covelli and Kardasz were not qualified.

 

APPLICATION #09-02 Michael & Irene Vitale, 4 Fourth Ave., Block 417 Lot 3, Bulk Variance:

 

Mr. Vitale stepped forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Mr. Vitale explained to the Board he wants to add on a kitchen and a dinette/sun porch.

Eng. Gregor went over his report dated September 11, 2002 that was passed out earlier at the meeting.  Eng. Gregor said based on the available information on the site plan, Eng. Gregor came up with a lot coverage of over 25% and there are two areas which are not dimensioned; the existing enclosed mud room and the existing  roof over the front porch. Chairman Dunning mentioned that the new deck was not shown on the survey. Mr. Vitale said the deck is not part of his application and will be put on sometime in the future. Eng. Gregor said there is a screened framed deck which is in the rear and is being removed and is not figured in the calculations, only the existing structure which is 22.2 X 30.2 which the one story addition is being added to. Chairman Dunning told Mr. Vitale the drawing and the survey doesn’t seem to be corresponding. Mr. Vitale told the Board he called his professional and informed him there was a mistake and it was corrected but Mr. Vitale didn’t receive a copy of the corrected plan.  Eng. Gregor said, not only are there discrepancies, but there also is missing information. Eng. Gregor added, that the architecturals and the site plan are not in agreement on the size of the proposed addition. One of the dimensions that don’t agree is 27 ft. wide total and on the architectural its 27’ 4” which will affect the side yard setback. Chairman Dunning added, if you look at the right side elevation, it shows it as an enclosed porch with steps going in two directions.

Chairman Dunning told Mr. Vitale, that the Board is going to have a problem with the variances because on either side of the side yard there are no numbers to work with to establish the variances. Chairman Dunning also said, he’s assuming the architectural plan is the correct one. Chairman Dunning told Mr. Vitale the application will have to be carried and he’s going to have to come back with the proper measurements on the survey.  Chairman Dunning asked Mr. Vitale who drew the architectural plan and Mr. Vitale said his brother did.

Eng. Gregor told Mr. Vitale, in the Bulk Requirement Table shown on the drawing, where it says existing condition, he would like to see what that existing condition is, whether it be the square footage of the lot, or the width of the lot, which helps the Board in making its determination. Chairman Dunning said Eng. Gregor will color mark the drawing so Mr. Vitale knows what has to be filled in and have either Mr. Miceli, the Surveyor, or Mr. Rotonda, P.E., upgrade the survey.

 

RECESSED AT 9:15 P.M.

 

RECONVENED AT 9:30 P.M.  All members present as before.

 

Chairman Dunning said, during the break, Eng. Gregor updated a plan for Mr. Vitale so Mr. Vitale can get the Board the information they need for the next meeting.

Eng. Gregor suggested to the Board, that in the future, they receive a separate survey from the site plan so the Board doesn’t have this confusion like tonight and had trouble reading it because there was too much on one drawing. The survey should show what’s existing now and the site plan should show the existing plus proposed.

Chairman Dunning told Mr. Vitale to give Eng. Gregor’s report to his surveyor/engineer, because that will help them with the missing items. Eng. Gregor added, that if Mr. Vitale is proposing not to put the deck on, the architectural should clearly show that, or if he is, the site plan should clearly show that.

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:  None/Closed

 

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE OCTOBER 9TH MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli and Smith.

 

Chairman Dunning told Mr. Vitale, whatever information he can get together has to be submitted at least 10 days before the next meeting of October 9, 2002.

 

APPLICATION #10-02 Ridwan Shabsigh, 673 Ringwood Ave., Block 243 Lot 5, Bulk Variance & Use Variance. Authorized Agent is Nancy E. Saccente, Esq.

Attorney Nancy E. Saccente, 442 Broadway, Hillsdale, N.J. and Arfan Biokua, 146 Butler St., Haledon, N.J. who is the managing agent and superintendent for the owner, came forward. 

Eng. Gregor said he had a number of issues with this application. Eng. Gregor said he noticed some deviations on the site from both the survey and site plan which were quite apparent. The existing shed, which is shown on the survey and has recently been removed, has not been amended on the survey. Atty. Saccente said the survey was done before Dr. Shabsigh bought the property in September 2001. Eng. Gregor recommended the site plan should indicate shed to be removed or has been removed. The next problem is they have four (4) parking spaces shown on the site plan that are partially on the applicant’s property and partially on another piece of property who is not an applicant before this Board, and the only access to the parking spaces is through someone else’s property, without the benefit of an easement or access agreement. Atty. Saccente said there is a slope in the back of this property with four (4) parking spaces and she is not sure why they were drawn

off the property line, because there is sufficient space to be completely within the property line. Chairman Dunning said, that still doesn’t work, because even if you bring the spaces onto the property, they would have to back up into the neighbor’s property to exit to Lines Avenue. Eng. Gregor added, he wants to see the other parking spaces to make sure there’s adequate aisle space, which from his site inspection, appears it may be deficient. Atty. Saccente suggested the other alternative would be to change it to just two (2) parking spaces and have them back- to back. Atty. Saccente also said, right now, basically there are no parking spaces anywhere on this particular lot. The two apartments that are currently being rented and the store that is not rented, use street parking. Atty. Saccente said, coming to the Board asking for a Use Variance to convert the retail space to an apartment, that they are trying to come up with a way to comply at least partially with the parking requirements of the ordinance. Eng. Gregor said the requirements for parking are two parking spaces per dwelling unit, and he can’t speak for the Board, but would think they would be looking for at least the minimum and not less. The other problem, Eng. Gregor said, is the site plan was not drawn in accordance with Section 114-33 of the Borough Code, which requires a lot more detail on the site plan and additional information than was included on the site plan prepared by Evans Architect. Atty. Saccente said, the reason for the condensed version of the site plan is that this application is mostly all interior renovation and nothing structural is being done to the dwelling or the site, other than creating that area for the parking in the back. Eng. Gregor told Atty. Saccente that waivers can be requested for areas that she may feel are not applicable. Eng. Gregor added, that right now there is insufficient information for the Board to proceed on the site plan alone. Eng. Gregor also said, both the survey and site plan indicate that this is a two story framed masonry building with apartments above, and based on Eng. Gregor’s site visit, there’s a portion that’s two story and a portion that’s one story. Atty. Saccente said there’s one apartment on the first floor behind the store and the second floor has the second apartment. Eng. Gregor told Atty. Saccente that both the survey and site plan have to be clarified as to the building and the Board needs to see the first floor plan and the second floor plan in total on the architecturals and that is his recommendation to the Board. Eng. Gregor added, that the site location plan is incomplete and doesn’t show anything to the west. Since this is a Use Variance, the last requirement of Section 114-33 is, any additional information maybe required.

Eng. Gregor strongly suggested, for the interest of the Board, that the 200 ft. Property Owners List be made part of the site plan.

Chairman Dunning told Atty. Saccente whatever plans are going to be submitted, have to be submitted at least 10 days before the next meeting, which is October 9th.

 

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE OCTOBER 9TH MEETING:  made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Kardasz, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli, Kardasz and Smith.

 

APPLICATION #11-02 Joseph & Danielle Diaz, 3 Mountain Lakes Dr., Block 200 Lot 8.01, Bulk Variance:

Mr. & Mrs. Joseph came forward and were sworn in by Atty. Faasse.

Chairman Dunning questioned the fact that no Ringwood properties were notified and the reason being, none of those properties are on the 200 ft. Search. Atty. Faasse said the only thing you can do tonight is carry the application because proper notice has not been given and if you’re within 200 ft. of Ringwood you must give notice to the Borough Clerk and obtain a property owner’s list from Ringwood.

Chairman Dunning said to Mr. Diaz, looking at his property, he has more than one shed. Mr. Diaz told the Board it should be on the plan and if it’s not, its because its not on his property any longer since Sumo Enterprises (Mt. Lakes Estates) moved it off his property. Mr. Diaz said the reason he’s here tonight is because since the construction took place on Mountain Lakes Drive, Mr. Diaz lost storage space due to drainage problems. Mr. Diaz told the Board he has no problem coming back next month after he notifies the Ringwood property owners, and he also said he was coming back anyway for another application he is processing for the Board. The Board told Mr. Diaz there is no reason to have two separate applications, he could have one and save application fees and advised him to amend his original application. Mr. Diaz explained he wants to enclose his garage area where he’s having the drainage problems, and therefore he can bring up the elevation and pitch it away from the house. Eng. Gregor told Mr. Diaz, if he wishes to amend this application to include modification of a structure on this lot, he can modify his application and doesn’t have to file a separate application unless he chooses to.  Member Grygus added, that if he does modify his application to include the addition, he has to notify everyone again because of the change.

 

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE OCTOBER 9TH MEETING: made by Member Roberto, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli, Kardasz and Smith.

 

Chairman Dunning asked Eng. Gregor to call the Borough Planner and find out what happened to the Zoning Maps the Board was to receive.

 

Application #12-02 Anthony & Michele Pacelli, 17 Beam Ave., Block 226 Lot 7, Bulk Variance for a Two Story Covered Deck:

Mr. & Mrs. Pacelli came forward and were sworn in by Atty. Faasse.

Eng. Gregor mentioned he doesn’t  have a signed and sealed survey. Mr. Pacelli said he spoke to Eng. Gregor about this and told him he only had one original. Mr. Pacelli got in touch with Mr. Darmstatter, who conducted the survey and said it is a violation of state law for him to give Mr. Pacelli copies of sealed surveys. Eng. Gregor explained that if a survey is in access of 2 years old, the surveyor cannot

issue it with a seal, but can issue it with a stamped explanation. Eng. Gregor said the Borough Ordinance requires a current signed and sealed survey. Eng. Gregor also said, based on what Mr. Pacelli told him and based on Eng. Gregor’s site inspection of the property, it appears that very little if anything changed and Mr. Pacelli can ask the Board for a waiver from strict interpretation of that requirement, but the Board did need to see a signed and sealed survey of the property. At this point, Mr. Pacelli handed the signed and sealed survey over to the Board so they could see it. Atty. Faasse asked Mr. Pacelli who his professional engineer is and Mr. Pacelli said Walter B. Cauceglia of Wayne. Atty. Faasse said they checked his license number and found out Mr. Cauceglia’s license is not currently active in the State of N.J. Mr. Pacelli said he is an elderly gentleman and is retired. Atty. Faasse said the Board shouldn’t rely on his drawing if he’s not a currently licensed professional engineer. Mrs. Pacelli told the Board she is very concerned about building a deck with a roof because of so many stories about decks collapsing she wants to be sure its going to be built right to withhold the weight. Atty. Faasse suggested the applicants sign the plans individually and keep them on file. Eng. Gregor went over his report dated September 11, 2002. Eng. Gregor made mention that he went to the tax maps to find this site and the tax maps have the wrong lot number on it. Eng. Gregor said the Pacelli’s survey is right, but upstairs in the Tax Assessor’s Office its wrong.

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed

 

MOTION TO APPROVE FOR A SIDE YARD VARIANCE OF 3.9 FT. , TOTAL SIDE YARD OF 9.7 FT. AND A REAR YARD OF 14 FT. WITH ADDITIONAL CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANTS SUBMIT  SIGNED ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli, Kardasz and Smith.

 

Eng. Gregor recommended that the applicants re-submit their version of the site plan showing the correct rear yard at 31 ft. and give a copy to the Board Secretary and send one to Eng. Gregor.

 

PUBLIC DISCUSSION:  None/Closed

 

RESOLUTIONS: None

 

CORRESPONDENCE: None

 

VOUCHERS: submitted by Atty. Faasse for General Expenditures for July, August and September for $750.00, Resolutions on Application #02-02 Morici and Application #06-02 Longo for $230.00, Extraordinary time expended in April, May

& June for Gallo Property, Sierra Landscaping, Storms/Eng & Long proposed

subdivisions, La Sala, Prodzenko, J.P. Miceli, Land Surveyor, for a total of $985.00, for a Grand Total of $1,965.50.

 

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

 

VOUCHERS: submitted by Eng. Gregor for Engineering Services rendered for July, August and September for $750.00, Application #07-02 Moore for $336.00, Application #06-02 Longo for $330.00, for a Grand Total of $1,416.00.

 

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

 

MINUTES: from the July 10, 2002 Meeting.

 

MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Roberto, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Covelli and Smith.  Member Kardasz not qualified.

 

MINUTES: from the August 14, 2002 Meeting.

 

MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Smith, seconded by Member Roberto, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto and Smith.  Members Grygus and Covelli abstained and Member Kardasz not qualified.

 

ENGINEER’S REPORT: Eng. Gregor said he is still requiring a field test for the Zikra Application and hasn’t received anything that has come close to that. Eng. Gregor said he will contact Mr. Gardner again in regards to this matter.

 

Eng. Gregor said he received a new application for 57 Townsend Road (Simpson) and made a phone call both to the surveyor and architect indicating that this application is incomplete. Eng. Gregor has a signed and sealed survey which shows proposed on it and a second signed unsealed survey that doesn’t show proposed on it.  Neither one of these surveys have setbacks of the buildings to the property line. Eng. Gregor also received an architectural plan with a building shown and with setbacks for example: 6.8’ + or -. Eng. Gregor called the architect and asked where did he get the information from and the architect told Eng. Gregor that he scaled it.  Eng. Gregor told the architect he would not accept this, therefore, Eng. Gregor is recommending that this application is incomplete.

 

 

MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 10:50 P.M.: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, carried by a voice vote.

 

                                   

___________________________

Gerri Marotta

Secretary to Board of Adjustment