BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
SEPTEMBER 10, 2003
Salute to Flag:
This is a Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Board of
Adjustment and adequate notice has been duly advertised by the mailing of a
notice to the Suburban Trends and the Herald & News on the 13th
day of January, 2003 and a notice thereof has been posted on the bulletin board
in the Municipal Building and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk.
ROLL CALL: Chairman Jack Dunning, Members William
Grygus, Frank Covelli (came in at 8:10 P.M.), Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ted
Roberto, John Shutte, Lee Smith, Atty. Ralph Faasse and Eng. William Gregor.
Application #14-03 Frank T. & Linda M. Forster III, 23 Railroad Ave., Block 248.02 Lot 2, Site Plan & Use Variance:
Atty. Dennis Maher, 117 Hudson St., Hackensack, N.J. came
forward on behalf of the applicant. Eng. Gregor told the Board he prepared a
report dated June 27, 2003 letting the applicant know what is missing from the
application. Eng. Gregor said he hasn’t received any revised drawings as of
today and a number of items haven’t been responded to since the June 27th
report. Atty. Maher responded and said neither he nor his client ever received
the June 27th report. Atty. Maher said they have the engineer here
tonight to give testimony. Atty. Faasse suggested to table the application
tonight and work on the list of things from Eng. Gregor’s report and the Board
would proceed with the other application and then continue with this
application later. Atty. Maher agreed to this suggestion.
MOTION TO TABLE APPLICATION: made by Member
Grygus, seconded by Member Roberto, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members
Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
Application #16-03 A.G.D. Inc. – Rita’s Water Ice, 519 Ringwood Ave., Block 220 Lot 11, Site Plan Adjustment for Parking Lot.
Atty. Ira Weiner from Azrak & Associates, LLC, 627 Newark Pompton Tpke., Pompton Plains, N.J. came forward on behalf of the applicants.
Atty. Weiner explained why the applicant is back tonight
before the Board. He said, while the applicant was going through the process of
building and during the opening, the applicants where approached by a number of
people in town, including some town officials, that they had some concerns
about the location of the dumpster as approved, not where its currently
located. Atty. Weiner also mentioned that
Board had a concern about the closest driveway to the
building and where the handicap ramp comes out, there might be some safety
issues and wanted the driveway closed off. Atty. Weiner said that in order for
a garbage truck to get in there to empty the dumpster, they need an aisle.
Therefore, if they close that off, they couldn’t leave the dumpster where it
was because the garbage truck couldn’t possibly maneuver through the parking
lot. During the course of the hearing on this application, it was determined
that the dumpster would be moved and a new driveway opened and that would solve
all the problems. Unfortunately there are neighbors that are pretty close to
the relocated dumpster location and for them and the town officials, they felt
that might create a problem with the odor. Atty. Weiner said, from the
applicant’s point of view, they wanted to be good neighbors about it and solve
the problem, therefore, they submitted the new plan which keeps the dumpster at
its current location. With respect to the area near the handicap ramp, Eng.
Gregor points out in his report dated September 9, 2003, Item #6 which states:
The third change is the proposed opening of a second access driveway onto
Furnace Ave. adjacent to the handicap access ramp. Along with this change, the
site plan shows the two parking aisles along Furnace Avenue as one way. The easterly most driveway is proposed as
the entrance and the westerly most driveway as the exit. The driveway to Ringwood Ave. remains a two-
way entrance and exit. Atty. Weiner added that his clients want to do something
to try and discourage people from walking straight out into the traffic and it
might solve the problem and allow the dumpster to remain in the other location
which is next to a commercial lot and wouldn’t annoy anyone.
Dominick DeSenzo, one of the partners of A.G.D. Inc., 519
Ringwood Ave. came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Mr. DeSenzo said
after the original approval on the Rita’s Water Ice Application, they moved
forward on relocating the driveway on Furnace Ave. which would be further away
and during the construction of that driveway it started peaking the interest of
some of the people in town and town officials. Mr. DeSenzo said they were asked
several times why were they relocating the driveway and putting a new driveway
in. In the course of discussion, it came to light by the town officials and
neighbors, that maybe they should close up the first driveway and open up the
second driveway and relocating the dumpster to the back parking lot. Mr.
DeSenzo said they had all intentions after the last meeting, with the proposed
changes, of making those changes requested by the Board, but after speaking
with some of the local residents and understanding their concerns, they decided
to do what they did. Atty. Weiner added, that the Board had concerns with
people in the parking lot and therefore requested the one driveway be closed up
and the new driveway to be open. Mr. DeSenzo said the Board’s concern was with
children running up and down the handicap ramp and running into that lane of
traffic. The applicants felt that they could address that issue by leaving that
driveway open by making it an entrance only driveway; this way drivers on
Furnace Ave. would actually have a sight line. Mr. DeSenzo said he
and his partners also thought of doing a red one-arm fencing along the section at the bottom of the ramp that would force people to come down the ramp and either turn right to the sidewalk or left behind the building where the parking bumpers are in already and made that a clear walkway because of the handicap stalls. Atty. Weiner said these changes could be put on the site plan more clearly.
Chairman Dunning said, the way cars are parking now; the
cars are parking on top of the stripping that would become a handicap spot
therefore your lining up your car directly at the ramp and under this proposal
that wouldn’t happen. Atty. Weiner said that was correct and that’s why their
proposing the fencing. Chairman Dunning wanted to know if a person in a
wheelchair could get off of the ramp properly and Atty. Weiner said yes, as
long as they meet the 4 ft. turning radius as per ADA. Member Roberto said,
that the applicants at the last meeting, stated that they were going to put in
a planter area but it wasn’t put on the site plan. Member Ludwig added, that
the whole discussion here tonight is about the handicap ramp and that is not
what brought up this whole thing about moving the entrance. Member Ludwig said,
forget about the dumpster, he has no problem with moving the dumpster. His
problem is, being a former coach in town, and he was the one who brought up
moving the driveway. As a former coach, Member Ludwig went on to say, he would
be left with 15 children and the children would be dropped off in the parking
lot at Dairy Queen and he would have to supervise them himself. What this
applicant is proposing to do is, now if a child is left off at the back of the
lot, they have to cross three (3) parking bays to get to the entrance, and had
nothing to do with the handicap ramp. It had to do with dropping children off
and running through a traffic zone. Member Ludwig went on to say, the dumpster
issue can be addressed very simply and there is a valid point to moving that;
but as far as the second entrance, number one, Member Ludwig hasn’t seen the
applicant acting in good faith as a resident in the neighborhood. There were a
number of times Member Ludwig saw the barricades moved open and then moved back
again and their constantly not in the same spot. Member Ludwig said the
business is a great addition to the neighborhood and the only valid argument he
can see is the dumpster. Member Gryus asked how would they service the dumpster
if they left it the way it is right now? Mr. DeSenzo said, when the garbage truck
comes, they have to physically move the barrier and allow the truck to come in
and then physically put the barrier back after the garbage truck is done.
Member Ludwig added, that they need a handicap space for the deli which is not
before the Board right now, and they have 49 parking spaces and they need 45.
If they use one of those adjacent to the dumpster area and angled it towards
Ringwood Ave. entrance there’s no reason why a truck couldn’t pull in there.
Mr. DeSenzo said the dumpster enclosure is made out of concrete and fencing,
and what the Board is asking the applicants to do is spend another $4 or $5,000
dollars to knock that dumpster down and rebuild another dumpster enclosure and
that would include re-stripping the parking lot. Mr. DeSenzo said, what the
Board is forgetting, they’re a Mom and Pop operation and they have already
spent over $5,000 to address this problem and are trying
to be good neighbors. Mr. DeSenzo went on to say, they are back in front of the Board now asking the Board to cooperate with them and he doesn’t even know what he can estimate the loss of revenue this summer by having one of their entrance’s and exit closed with a physical barrier, but he’s sure its in the thousands. Mr. DeSenzo is asking basically tonight, is not to have to move the dumpster enclosure and to allow them to keep the driveway open and they will make it an entrance and exit through the new one that they spent $4,000 putting in. Mr. DeSenzo added, with all due respect as far as supervising children, he’s been a law enforcement officer for 18 years and deals with traffic issues every single day and he personally doesn’t feel that it’s a valid enough issue for him and his partners to spend that kind of money to close up the driveway. Member Ludwig said, he was the one who brought up the safety issue with the children at the last meeting and that Mr. DeSenzo agreed to that. Member Grygus asked how would they service the dumpster right now? Mr. DeSenzo said the garbage truck would come in off of Furnace Avenue and service the dumpster area and it has always been that way.
Atty. Faasse asked Atty. Weiner if the applicant’s engineer was going to testify this evening, and Atty. Weiner said no, but if the Board really wants to hear from the engineer, they can carry the application to next month and have the engineer present. Chairman Dunning asked Member Roberto if he was under the impression that the planter was running in the opposite direction down the center of the parking lot and Member Roberto said yes. Chairman Dunning asked Eng. Gregor if that showed up anywhere on the plans and Eng. Gregor said no and that discussion was under testimony. Atty. Faasse asked if speed bumps were installed, could that improve the safety issue in the parking lot? Eng. Gregor said if someone was coming down the ramp and someone is coming from the interior of the site leaving, the building is going to block the view of the pedestrian until he reaches the corner of the building.
Member Covelli asked about Item #8 in Eng. Gregor’s report of September 9th with regard to the relocation of the dumpster and size of the dumpster area and also the fencing and screening of the dumpster area has been removed and that this change is not recommended. Member Covelli wanted to know if there is a screening proposed in the revised plan. Mr. DeSenzo said the existing dumpster area is enclosed in concrete and has fencing in front of it.
Chairman Dunning said to the applicant, that he agreed with Member Ludwig about the safety issue in the parking lot. Chairman Dunning also said, if they had an entrance and exit off of Ringwood Ave. and an entrance and exit on Furnace Ave. off the rear driveway, they could make this site work and it wouldn’t hurt their business and they wouldn’t be losing any parking spaces.
Atty. Weiner said to the Board, he would never argue with the Board about the safety of the children in the parking area, but you do have that problem when they are dropped off in the parking lot and they take off across the parking lot and you have that condition in numerous places. To suggest that making this one change is going to make it safe, it’s not going to happen.
OPEN TO PUBLIC:
Robert Leto, 11 Stephens Ave. came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Mr. Leto’s issue is with the dumpster being located in the back corner of his property. Mr. Leto was told by the applicants that the dumpster was located there so the garbage truck could pull straight in to the dumpster, which is in direct line of sight into Mr. Leto’s bedrooms at 5:00 A.M.
Robert Mehringer, 30 Furnace Ave. came forward and was
sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Mr. Mehringer said its his property that will be
behind the dumpster. Mr. Mehringer said that when Dunkin Donuts was there,
there was no problem in getting the garbage out and he doesn’t understand why
it has to be moved and would prefer the dumpster to remain in its original
position.
Robert Ferdon, 34 Fredericks St. came forward and was
sworn in by Atty. Faasse.
Mr. Ferdon’s concern is the parking area and the flow.
Mr. Ferdon’s uses this parking lot three times a week and he thinks the
entrance off of Ringwood Ave. should be more of a concern and it would be a
better idea to try and get more cars to turn in Furnace Ave. because it’s a
wider street with a Stop Sign and if the driveway closest was left open it
could be an entrance only.
Mr. DeSenzo told the Board the garbage use to sit out in
front five days a week before the applicant took over and eliminated those
pails of garbage and have them dumped in their dumpster at their expense. Mr.
DeSenzo said his recollection is 100%, that at the meeting when they were approved,
the Board asked them to move the dumpster to the back of the parking lot and
they agreed, the Board also asked for a new curb cut in on Furnace Ave. and
they also agreed, the Board asked them to remove the first curb cut on Furnace
Ave and they agreed. They agreed solely to remove the first curb cut on Furnace
Ave. because at that point it became a non issue because the dumpster was being
removed and as long as the dumpster had to be moved they have to put another
curb cut in and it wouldn’t have been beneficial for the garbage truck to get
in and out. Mr. DeSenzo said if it had been expressed to him the first night,
that the main concern for that driveway was the safety issue of the handicap
ramp, and then he knows he would have personally addressed that issue in a
different way rather than losing that curb cut. Mr. DeSenzo added, they own the
deli business also and if people can’t pull in and out quickly they won’t stop
and will go elsewhere.
Atty. Faasse answered Mr. DeSenzo by saying that his recollection
is not 100%, because there was an issue at the last meeting in regards to the
safety, and if Mr. DeSenzo wants to contest that determination, then he will
have to come back with some kind of experts to tell the Board why this plan is
safe.
Atty. Faasse went on to say, the issue has always been
with the concern of safety with people in the parking lot having to cross over
a driveway to access Rita’s.
Chairman Dunning commented that the only concern he has
with the dumpster issue is the way its drawn it doesn’t show what is being
proposed other than the applicants saying their leaving it as it is which
appears to be too small for two dumpsters. Atty. Faasse added that it also
comes out into the driveway aisle.
The other issue, Chairman Dunning went on to say, is that
other businesses on Ringwood Ave. use a dumpster service and they pull the
dumpster out to the truck.
Chairman Dunning also added, if the applicants are coming
back next month, he would like the drawing straightened out to show the
property by the dumpster appropriately. Eng. Gregor asked for separate details
of the dumpster improvements and the railings. Atty. Faasse asked Atty. Weiner
to have his expert provide something to alleviate some of the safety concerns.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE OCTOBER 8TH
MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Shutte, voting yes were
Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and
Smith.
RECESSED AT 9:25 P.M.:
RECONVENED AT 9:40 P.M.: All present as before.
Application #14-03 Frank T. & Linda M. Forster III, 23 Railroad Ave., Block 248.02 Lot 2 Site Plan & Use Variance:
MOTION TO REMOVE APPLICATION FROM TABLE: made by
Member Covelli, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning,
Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
Atty. Dennis Maher came forward with Frank Forster. Eng.
Gregor went over his report dated June 27, 2003.
Atty. Faasse swore in both Frank Forster III the
applicant along with Albert Roughgarden, PE of Vollmer Associates, 365 West
Passaic St., Rochelle Park, N.J. Eng. Roughgarden told the Board he has a
license in the State of N.J. for Civil Engineering and his license number is 4344300.
The applicant is seeking to add a parking area and an additional driveway for
the storage of commercial vehicles on a lot with an existing non-conforming use
(residential) in a B Zone. The dump trucks are approximately 20 ft. long and 6
or 7 ft. wide with a capacity of 5 yards of soil, dirt or mulch. These vehicles
are owned by F. Forster Construction Co., Inc. that is partly owned by Frank
Forster, the applicant who is Vice President and his father is the other owner.
The business is a Construction/Landscape Design business. The property has a
single family dwelling on it in which Mr. Forster lives there with his wife and
children and no portion of it is used for the business. Mr. Forster’s
business is mostly in Bergen County and two people from
Wanaque work for him. There are three parking spaces on the property for the
commercial vehicles and they are 12 X 24 ft. spaces. The applicant will show
the location and sizes of existing and proposed utility mains and service
connections to the structure on a revised Site Plan. Chairman Dunning asked
about the existing concrete pad over a well on the property and Mr. Forster
said the well was used at one time and he believes it dried up which the prior
owner told Mr. Forster. No landscape materials such as mulch etc. will be
stored on the property.
Atty. Faasse wanted to know what other kind of uses are
in the area since this is a B Zone. Atty. Maher said there is the Robin Hood
Deli, Shippee’s Pharmacy, Apartment and Bar, House w/Apartment, Apartment House
and the Golden Age Club.
Eng. Gregor went over more of his report dated June 27,
2003. Eng. Gregor mentioned Item #7 that states; the proposed parking area
should be paved and the necessary drainage facilities should be provided to
accommodate any increase in storm water runoff. Mr. Forster addressed that
issue and said he would prefer gravel instead of paving because gravel drains
very well and he hasn’t had any problems so far with the gravel and the only
thing he would be doing is parking two trucks. Eng. Gregor said its up to the
Board to require the paving or waive it. The only other comment Eng. Gregor had
that wasn’t in the report is that the property to the rear is a residential complex
and he would recommend some visual screens along that area. Atty. Maher said
there is a lot of visual screening that you cannot see on the plans but there
is a fence back there and there are trees and Mr. Forster agreed. Mr. Forster
said he was planning on putting shrubs between the street and the parking area
so that the vehicles wouldn’t be visible from the street.
Eng. Roughgarden agreed that a gravel area would do very
well and the water would just seep through the gravel and into the ground as it
does today. Eng. Roughgarden went on to say, with the additional gravel area,
it would probably drain better than the existing area does today. The
improvements will not cause any adverse drainage conditions on any of the
adjoining properties. Eng. Roughgarden added that they are not changing the
existing drainage pattern and are keeping all of the drainage on site.
OPEN TO PUBLIC: None/Closed
MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS; SITE
PLAN BE REVISED TO INCLUDE EXISTING AND PROPOSED UTILITIES AND THEIR SIZES, THE
USE OF THE DWELLING BE LISTED AS A SINGLE FAMILY, DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLES; IT
IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED BY THE
APPLICANT AND THE BOARD THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS GRANTED
THE USE OF PARKING AREA TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN NOT
TO EXCEED THREE (3) VEHICLES AND THE VEHICLES SHALL NOT EXCEED
24,000 GVW AND THE FIRST TWELVE (12) FT. ENTRANCE TO
THE PARKING AREA SHALL CONTAIN MACADAM OR CONCRETE WITH THE REST BEING CRUSHED
STONE AS PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT: made by Member Covelli, seconded by
Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli,
Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
Eng. Gregor left the meeting at 10:10 P.M.
RESOLUTION #13-03 Anthony Staropoli, 28 Eastside Ave.,
Block 224 Lot 4, Bulk Variance:
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded
by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli,
Ludwig, Roberto and Shutte. Members Hoffman and Smith not qualified.
CORRESPONDENCE: No questions asked.
Member
Roberto mentioned that the Board should consider changing the Agenda around for
the October Meeting due to the large application pending. Atty. Faasse said you
can always flip the Agenda at any time during the evening and what should be
done for the October Meeting is tell the applicant not to bring in all his
experts and will have to do some scheduling.
VOUCHERS: submitted by Atty. Faasse for General
Expenditures for July, Aug., & Sept. for $750.00 and for Resolution #13-03
Staropoli for $115.00, for a Grand Total of $865.00.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Covelli,
seconded by Member Shutte, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus,
Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
VOUCHERS: submitted by Eng. Gregor for Engineering
Services for Application #10-03 Karpinski for $165.00, Application #07-00 Zikra
for $110.00, Application #04-02 LaSala for $110.00, Application #09-03 Wanaque
Manor for $1,320.00, Fee Service for July, Aug., & Sept. for $750.00, for a
Grand Total of $2,455.00.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Covelli,
seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus,
Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Roberto, Shutte and Smith.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: from July 9, 2003 Meeting.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded
by Member Roberto, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman,
Ludwig, Roberto and Shutte. Members Hoffman and Smith not qualified.
ENGINEER’S REPORT: Chairman Dunning said Eng.
Gregor has tried to follow-up with the Zikra Application and nothing has
changed with regard to getting any information from Mr. Zikra or his engineer.
Chairman Dunning said Mr. Zikra is doing more work in the building without
architectural plans.
The Board has never finalized the Dunkin Donuts signage.
The CVS Building has half of their signs back in the
window.
The Vitale Application #09-02 and Burgess Application
#12-03 plans haven’t been revised so the Chairman and Secretary can sign off on
the plans.
Chairman Dunning said the Wanaque Manor Application
#09-03 would be on the Agenda for the October 8th Meeting. A long
discussion took place about this application.
RECESSED AT 10:55 P.M.
RECONVENED AT 11:00 P.M.
Chairman Dunning announced that on the Agenda next month will be Rita’s and the Wanaque Manor Applications
MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 11:05 P.M.: made by Member
Covelli, seconded by Member Smith, carried by a voice vote.
______________________________
Gerri Marotta
Secretary to Board of Adjustment