Pleading Wizard

Pledge of Allegiance:

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a special meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment. Adequate notice has been given. When did we give notice Gerri?

MR. FAASSE: Oh, here it is, look at this, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: October 20th, there we go. To the Suburban Trends and Herald News and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk and posted on the bulletin board in the Borough Hall.

MR. FAASSE: And for the record it was published in the Herald News on October 26, 2006.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, very good, thank you, Ralph.

MS. MAROTTA: I mailed it on the 20th.

MR. FAASSE: I know you did, the mailing would have been sufficient but it was included.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It was in the paper. Could we have a roll call please?

ROLL CALL: Chairman Jack Dunning, Bruce Grygus, Frank Covelli, Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ed Leonard, Art Koning, Eric Willse, Attorney Ralph Faasse, Engineer William Gregor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, the meeting tonight is dedicated to the Holiday Inn Express, Block 428, Lot 3.01, 133 Union Avenue. Counselor, are you ready?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, Sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I am Michael Rubin, Attorney, 1330 Hamburg Turnpike, Wayne Township, we represent Holiday Inn Express as to this application for a Use Variance before the Board of Adjustment. First, before we start, I wanted to thank the Board for allowing us to have this special meeting. It was on short notice and we do thank the Board for getting together this evening. Every so often in life a mistake happens; sometimes it is a costly mistake sometimes it isn’t. In this case, it is a costly mistake for an applicant, but life being what it is, things happen. In this case, we experienced an error, a mistake. One of the professionals involved in the drawing of the plans made an error, as you know, perhaps from the correspondence that went back and forth between counsel and Mr. Fiorello, the Borough Attorney, and counsels to both of the Boards, the Planning Board and the Board of Adjustment, it was decided that this matter required a Use Variance because a new plan was needed which exceeded the height requirements of the zoning district in which we are in. Interestingly, we, and as the Board probably knows, it was part of our application papers, we were here, I can’t believe it was January 15, 2004 when the Resolution was approved by the Planning Board for the 81 room hotel and, obviously, we went through a year of applications and modifications and public hearings and such and this was approved by the Planning Board then the applicant went through all the procedures of getting its permits and, in fact, started to clear and, during the clearing process, the Construction Code Official brought it to the attention of the builder, who advised the applicant, the owner, that there was a problem with the ADA, Americans for Disabilities Act, requirements for the swimming pool. You might have read that in some of the correspondence that has been going back and forth between the Boards. We are coming here this evening seeking a Use Variance to allow the additional height to the building. We have reconfigured the building; we have slightly changed the site plan. It has been agreed, once again, by an exchange of correspondence between the Borough Attorney and counsels for both of the Boards, and myself, that we should bifurcate this application and that the Use Variance only would be heard by this Board of Adjustment and the remainder of the application, which is the amended site plan would then be heard by the Planning Board. The Planning Board graciously allowed us to come forward with an Amended Site Plan Application for a special meeting, once again, and that is going to occur in about two weeks, at the end of the month. Therefore, what we have this evening are witnesses who will only address the Use Variance issue. In Mr. Gregor’s report to the Board, which we received as copy, he does make mention of some site plan issues. That was before the decision was made to bifurcate the application and just have the Use Variance here. So I assume those issues would be deleted from tonight’s hearing and the Board would only focus on the Use Variance. But, of course, everyone is here anyway. I have the engineer, architect, planner and they all could answer your questions on any of the issues that you feel necessary. And I do know there are some residents here who probably have questions also. I would like to bring up --

MR. FAASSE: Excuse me, Mr. Rubin, before you proceed --

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: You are right, we had decided to bifurcate it but as I have indicated very early on in this and the Board in considering the bifurcation also has gone on record as saying that there are occasions where the criteria for a Use Variance are impacted by site plan considerations so there may be some questioning back and forth on those very issues.

MR. RUBIN: Absolutely. We have the site engineer here.

MR. FAASSE: Good.

MR. RUBIN: We have -- we got the builder, we got the owner, I have everyone here.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. RUBIN: So any question that you might feel important to ask or if one of the residents has a question, I think I have everyone here to answer in the event anything would come up.

MR. FAASSE: And just so that we are clear for the record, we have this as Block 468, Lot 3.01 and is it 303 Union Ave?

MR. CHAIRMAN: 133.

MR. RUBIN: 133.

MR. FAASSE: 133.

MR. RUBIN: 133.

MR. FAASSE: All right, well your application said 303. That is where we have a little confusion. We want to straighten this out here, once right from the get go. We are right on the block?

MR. GREGOR: Burger King is 3.02, the Holiday Inn is 3.01.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the street address.

MR. GRYGUS: That is the lot number we are looking at the street number.

MR. FAASSE: The address now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The street address.

MR. FAASSE: In ours we had 303.

MR. GREGOR: Because we took it off of this copy that they submitted.

MR. RUBIN: The owners are telling me 303 should be the correct number, what was on the application.

MR. GREGOR: The street number?

MR. RUBIN: The street number.

MR. GREGOR: If that is the case, I would just caution the Board in two places on my report of October 31st, the heading 133 should be changed to 303 and the first sentence, the end of that, it should be 303 Union Avenue. I am not quite sure where I got 133 but it is academic at this point in time.

MR. FAASSE: Absolutely. All the notices were 303.

MR. GREGOR: If I could make one further clarification --

MR. RUBIN: I don’t use the address; I use the lot and block --

MR. FAASSE: Yeah I know.

MR. RUBIN: -- when I give it to the tax assessor. I never use an address.

MR. GREGOR: If I could make one further clarification based on my report, which I believe is a little bit different than I think you had indicated you understood, Mr. Rubin, that the site plan issues that I had referenced in my report, I believe are issues the Board could, if they choose to consider.

MR. RUBIN: That’s fine.

MR. GREGOR: We had excluded site plan issues and I list them specifically from this -- from consideration. This is my recommendation only to the Board because this is bifurcated and they include excluding the site details, such as traffic circulation, drainage and etcetera.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. GREGOR: Those we specifically excluded.

MR. FAASSE: Correct.

MR. GREGOR: The other matters we feel the Board, if they chose to, should consider as part of the use variance.

MR. RUBIN: There is no problem -- no problem. Arthur Hanson, our site engineer is here. Arthur is in a unique position, he was here the first time around, two years ago, he testified before the Planning Board at length and he is still on the job.

MR. FAASSE: First witness.

MR. RUBIN: Arthur if you could come up and be sworn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, for the record Mr. Rubin’s letter also refers to the address as 133. His November 3rd letter, date stamped November 6th.

MR. RUBIN: We will change that to 303 as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He also refers to the site as one.

MR. RUBIN: I don’t know where that came from

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe that is where you got it from Bill.

MR. GREGOR: It might be in here somewhere; I don’t know it is academic.

MR. FAASSE: Mr. Rubin wrote us a letter on when?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The letter is dated November 3rd it is date stamped November 6th.

MR. FAASSE: What letter is that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is one that Gerry gave us the copy tonight.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, oh, oh about Mr. Kauker coming.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, okay.

MR. RUBIN: Mr. Kauker has asked one of the members of his firm, Kathryn Gregory, to be here and Catherine is here to testify.

MR. FAASSE: How about Mr. Kauker. You get us all worked up for Mr. Kauker and then you send a substitute in. All right. Mr. Hanson?

MR. RUBIN: She is better, that’s okay.

MR. FAASSE: If she is a lady, she got to be more attractive than Mr. Kauker.

MR. RUBIN: Arthur if you could be sworn.

ARTHUR HANSON SWORN

MR. FAASSE: Okay, Arthur Hanson, spell your last name please.

MR. HANSON: H-A-N-S-O-N

MR. FAASSE: And give us a business address.

MR. HANSON: 7 Doig Road, Wayne.

MR. FAASSE: Doig.

MR. HANSON: Doig D-O-I-G

MR. FAASSE: That’s it, you got to spell it because -- you know -- that is an interesting spelling on that.

MR. RUBIN: Mr. Hanson has appeared before just about every board around here in recent years. I would ask that his qualifications be allowed:

MR. FAASSE: In what area?

MR. RUBIN: Civil Engineering.

MR. FAASSE: P.E.?

MR. HANSON: Yes, I am P.E.L.S.

MR. FAASSE: P.E.

MR. HANSON: And L.S.

MR. RUBIN: And L.S.

MR. FAASSE: L.S.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is luxury sport L.S.?

MR. HANSON: That’s it.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah. And both of those licenses have been issued by the State of New Jersey?

MR. HANSON: Yes, they are.

MR. FAASSE: And both of those continue in full force and effect as of today?

MR. HANSON: Yes, they are.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, good. Now P.E.L.S. any questions on his qualifications?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. FAASSE: Licensed by the State of New Jersey.

MR. RUBIN: Thank you.

MR. HANSON: Thank you.

Direct-Examination of Mr. Hanson by Mr. Rubin

Q Mr. Hanson tell us, if you can, what was designed originally and then tell us what, just generally, even though this is not a site plan hearing, the Board wants to know what is different. So tell us what is different.

A Okay, what I have mounted on the board here is Sheet 3 of 7 in your package entitled Plot Plan, Lot 3.01 and Block 468. All it is is a colorized version of what you have here. Basically, the approval that we obtained from the Planning Board a couple of years ago, this building was approximately 70 feet longer. So it stretched up almost to the edge of the parking stalls that we show here. The rear of the building is in the same place as it was originally approved. The right edge of the building is in the same place as it was originally approved. All the parking on the right hand side is exactly the same. The two driveways, the one from Burger King that access our lot in front and back and the other driveway at the southerly end I believe. The westerly end of our site is in the exactly the same place that was approved. We always had a row of parking along the front. We had an entrance with a drive-up canopy in here. As Mr. Rubin indicated, when the building had to get changed in size because of basically the swimming pool inside, we were so close -- this line is right on the edge, it is the wetlands buffer as approved by the State of New Jersey. The Planning Board required --

Q Arthur, that wetlands has been an actual delineated line by DEP and that is approved by a letter of delineation.

A We have a letter of interpretation here is actually the zigzag line over here. Once we obtained that we went back to the State and we had to obtain a general permit to buff our average so that we have a straight line buffer in here. It was compensated for on the other half of our lot it is actually off the page. So this is an approved general permit line with a buffer on this side. As I indicated, the Planning Board required that we provide an entranceway for the fire trucks to get in and turn around at the back of our building. If we try to push the building another five feet that way --

Q Which direction is that way?

A Going towards the west, we would be into the fire lane. If we then picked up the fire lane and pushed that five-foot further west we are in the buffer. So expanding our building to accommodate the ADA requirement inside was an impossibility. So we went to the four story, it got smaller. Like I indicated, the rear and the right edge, same place as was approved. The left edge, or westerly side of the building, came in approximately 70 feet. In its place we added a couple of cars up front. The number of rooms in the hotel is the same now as it was before we had approval.

Q That is 81.

A 81, that is correct.

Q No change. So in your professional opinion, because of the requirement to let’s call it stretch out the building to allow for the additional space for the swimming pool, it just could not be done.

A That is correct.

Q That was an impossibility based upon the plan for the building that was heretofore approved by the Planning Board.

A That is correct.

Q So the only way to do it was to go up.

A Go up and make the footprint smaller.

Q And just so there is no question, what is the dimension that is small, what is the change in the building?

A Like I said, basically it shortened up approximately 70 feet.

MR. FAASSE: So what are the overall dimensions?

A I think the architect can give you he said he would help me put it in, rather then having me guess at it.

MR. FAASSE: Oh okay.

Q In reviewing Mr. Gregor’s report on Items of Site Plan interests so there is no question, Mr. Gregor makes note that the front yard setback is 48.9 feet instead of the 50 foot minimum required. Was there an issue of front yard when we were first before the Board or is it something that has occurred with this new amended plan?

A It occurred for this new amended plan. It is actually the corner of the canopy where the drop cloth is, right on our front side. The last time the entrance was a little bit further to the east, just enough to get us behind the setback line. With the new version of the plan, the corner of the canopy is encroaching on the setback line.

Q So that 1.1 foot in, which would require a technical variance, is something that you understand has to be requested and be it of this Board or the Planning Board but right now it would be the Planning Board but we do wish to bring it up for the Board’s review.

A That is correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Was that -- just one question though, but you also moved the location of the canopy with the new building also.

MR. HANSON: It follows the front door.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well is it -- the canopy was to the very end of building in the original plan. Now you are in the center of the building.

MR. HANSON: That is what I am saying. It follows where the front door is. The building configuration, a little bit of jots, have changed since the first plan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well we will get into that with the architect.

MR. HANSON: Correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I mean there has been major changes in the architecturals on this.

MR. HANSON: Well what I am saying is that the rear wall and the easterly wall is in the same position. So I couldn’t encroach any closer to the pond towards the south and I couldn’t encroach any further east into the parking lot. So these are the two lines.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But downsizing the building didn’t drive the need for the front yard encroachment, moving the canopy did.

MR. HANSON: No. The new configuration of the building with the door.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct.

MS. GREGORY: That too, of course, yes.

BY MR. RUBEN:

Q Mr. Gregor also asked for the NJDEP Letter of Interpretation. Those were filed with the Municipal Clerk and with the engineer for the Planning Board but before all is said and done we will make sure a copy comes to Mr. Gregor. I didn’t realize that he didn’t have it. When things go to the Municipal Clerk we never know --

MR. GREGOR: If I may also I think, Sir, excuse.

MR. RUBIN: Surely.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Hanson also indicated, I believe, in your testimony that you have a DEP Permit for buffer averaging.

MR. HANSON: Correct.

MR. GREGOR: Could that also be included because, obviously, what we want to see -- we don’t want to see you again. We want to take care of everything at once. And I mean that in a very nice way.

Q We understand thoroughly and we make sure that Bill you get those documents as they have already been filed with the Borough. There is no question as to the NJDEP floodway and flood hazard lines being shown?

A No, they are shown.

Q And they are in existence but not in the area of the building.

A Correct.

MR. GREGOR: Did you say they are shown?

MR. HANSON: Yes. I have to label them a little better for you, they on three of the sheets, not all of the sheets.

MR. GREGOR: Okay, I didn’t see them. I saw where they should be but I didn’t see them on the plan. Are they on the plans? Did I miss them? If so, I do apologize, if not, I am asking that they be shown.

MR. HANSON: Before they are shown, this is the line that is in here.

MR. FAASSE: What sheet are you on?

MR. HANSON: Well I think they are on all it just that they are not labeled.

MR. GREGOR: Oh it is not labeled, okay.

MR. HANSON: Yeah.

MR. GREGOR: So you will label them.

MR. HANSON: I will label them, yes.

MR. GREGOR: Okay, very good.

Q Another point that Mr. Gregor pointed out in his report is that we have spaces of 9 by 18 and spaces of 9 by 20.

A That is correct.

Q Could you advise the Board of where those spaces are and how they have been configured?

A Well, again, this is part of the variance that we obtained from the Planning Board on our original submission. This is basically in the parking field to our east. These are the 9 foot stalls as they are labeled. And the 9 by 18’s are along, again, the same as they were approved for by a variance before the Planning Board along Union Avenue. Again, as I indicated before, this area of the parking lot is exactly the same as it was approved. The number of cars, the layout, is exactly like it was on the first set of plans.

Q Even though you have testified earlier and the Planning Board has approved, in your professional opinion, is having the 9 by 18 spaces a safe and prudent way to design this site?

A Yes, it will function correctly.

MR. WILLSE: I have a question. I know it got approved but what about buses, trucks and RV’s.

MR. RUBIN: That was my next one, trucks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well actually while you are on parking, before you get to different types, I guess we’ll just do questions as he hits the bullet items. What did you allow for parking spaces for the meeting rooms?

MR. HANSON: The meeting rooms are only used by the residents of the hotel. You are talking for parking count?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MR. HANSON: We just used the number of rooms.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So if they were at 70 percent occupancy and then they got 50 people come to a meeting, where would everybody park?

MR. HANSON: I do not believe they could fit 50 people into their meeting room.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. HANSON: The meeting room is very small.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The new one?

MR. HANSON: The new one. The architect can give you the size when he comes up but I doubt if they could fit 50 people in there.

MR. RUBIN: Most respectfully, we never really designed this facility for catering, meetings and things like that. This site just isn’t big enough for that kind of use. This was -- this is called a Holiday Inn Express. That means something in Holiday Inn language. This is a transient kind of operation. This is not for long stay people even though on occasion you do get them but it isn’t going to be a landmark for meetings. The --

MR. GREGOR: I didn’t hear an answer to Item 13. What I was asking for there --

MR. RUBIN: Sorry Bill.

MR. GREGOR: -- is for the applicant to provide, and I didn’t see it in the Planning Board Resolution, that is one of the reasons I asked it, because I think the number of parking spaces totally changed.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.

MR. GREGOR: How many spaces on 9 by 18 and how many spaces are 9 by 20? That was the question I was asking here.

MR. HANSON: Oh, okay. I will have to count them up.

MR. GREGOR: You don’t have to do it right now but that is what I was requesting.

MR. HANSON: Okay, I don’t have it tonight.

MR. GREGOR: For the Board’s information. It is information for the Board so they have enough information to make an informed decision.

MR. HANSON: Okay.

MR. RUBIN: I think it is somewhere in the application papers to split between 9 by 18’s and 9 by 20’s. It is in there somewhere because I remember writing it. Arthur there is no parking for large trucks on this site is there?

MR. HANSON: No, there is not.

MR. RUBIN: So if a large trucker wants to come on, is there any way or does he has to go elsewhere?

MR. HANSON: He has to go elsewhere.

MR. RUBIN: So this is not a site for 18 wheelers and such to bed down for the night.

MR. HANSON: No, it is not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you proposing a sign to tell them that before they pull in your lot, saying like No Truck Parking.

MR. HANSON: We could.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because I mean an 18 wheeler could pull in there thinking there was a place to stay and be stuck in your lot.

MR. RUBIN: We could. I mean it has never been asked before but we could.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I mean do you understand the logistics of that?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, absolutely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A truck comes off the interstate looking --

MR. GREGOR: All right, you have a sign that is 90 feet in the air, right?

MR. RUBIN: You see those signs quite often.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No Truck Parking.

MR. GRYGUS: No Overnight Truck Parking.

MR. RUBIN: Right, you see those. You are absolutely correct. It has never been asked before.

MR. GREGOR: While we are talking about parking, you have relocated the handicapped parking spaces away from the building. Is there a valid reason why you did that, since they should be the closest to the building?

MR. HANSON: Well my opinion this is the closest. The handicapped are right here in the most westerly corner. You get onto the sidewalk which leads you right up to the front door.

MR. GREGOR: Well wouldn’t it be closer if they were facing Union Avenue?

MR. HANSON: You would have to go across the driveway. We are trying not to have the handicapped have to go across the width of the driveway. This way they are always on the sidewalk. You get out of your car; you get on the sidewalk and travel to the building on the sidewalk without crossing any street.

MR. RUBIN: I believe that is also a requirement in ADA that they not --

MR. GREGOR: That they are on the same side.

MR. RUBIN: That they do not have to cross over thoroughfares.

MR. GREGOR: Because originally you had them on the east side of the building, right against the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because I think -- I think there was a second exit door on the end of the building there, an entrance door was there or no on the original plan?

MR. HANSON: Well there is still a door.

MR. GREGOR: There still is it is not shown.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. HANSON: It is shown.

MR. GREGOR: No even on the other side -- on the west side of the building there is an exit, you are not showing it with a sidewalk.

MR. HANSON: Right here.

MR. GREGOR: Right.

MR. HANSON: There is a door there.

MR. GREGOR: Right, I don’t see a sidewalk.

MR. HANSON: Because you want everybody to come in the front door passed the desk.

MR. GREGOR: Right.

MR. HANSON: You don’t want people who don’t have rooms here to walk in the side door.

MR. GREGOR: Um-hum.

MR. HANSON: So you make it handicapped accessible so everybody can come in the front door.

MR. GREGOR:

MR. RUBIN: There was a question about a loading area. Is there a loading area for this facility?

MR. HANSON: No, there is no loading area.

MR. RUBIN: Is one required for a Holiday Inn Express?

MR. HANSON: Not for the Holiday Inn Express. We have no need for a truck except when we first bring in all the beds and the tables and all of that for the building. Other than that, there are no tractor-trailers or anything, which we have indicated before, coming on the site to build or anything.

MR. GRYGUS: What about offsite catering that is going to be delivering things?

MR. HANSON: My understanding is they don’t do that.

MR. RUBIN: They have coffee and I think rolls or some such cold breakfast.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What about in the use of the meeting room?

MR. GRYGUS: The meeting room, yeah.

MR. RUBIN: Well as I said before this isn’t going to be a catering facility.

MR. GRYGUS: No, I know that.

MR. RUBIN: It was never designed for --

MR. GRYGUS: No, if you were having a meeting in the meeting room obviously you want to provide food for the people you are having a meeting for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because I believe there is even a small food prep off of that.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, right.

MR. FAASSE: You are going to get it from Burger King.

MR. RUBIN: Well I have the owners here we will ask them.

BOARD MEMBER: Yeah, we’ll go over to Burger King, I heard that one.

MR. GREGOR: The loading area isn’t just for food.

MR. RUBIN: No.

MR. GREGOR: If you had janitorial supplies delivered and in comes in 20 foot box truck, where does he park without blocking up your site?

MR. FAASSE: Our ordinance requires a loading zone.

MR. GREGOR: A loading zone.

MR. FAASSE: However, I do believe that was one of the variances that the Planning Board gave you.

MR. HANSON: Right, I believe so.

MR. GRYGUS: Mr. Rubin, if I could interrupt for one thing.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, Sir.

MR. GRYGUS: Only because it is not in Bill’s and I heard you mention it when you talked about the moving of the building. You made mention of something with the fire department having access and I am looking at the original plan which showed the grass pavers with a driveway all the way around the back and then coming out. But now on the new plan you’ve downsized the building, you said you could not extend the building to the west to accommodate the additional space --

MR. HANSON: Correct.

MR. GRYGUS: -- for the -- to make the pool ADA compliant because you would lose that whole area for the fire department but you have removed it totally from the new plan.

MR. HANSON: We still have on the west side -- you know -- basically fire department indicated to us they want this area delineated and they were going drive on the grass around the other end. And if you notice on the far easterly side we provided a drop curb there. Again, for the same reason for the fire truck or whatever to access going west or coming out going east.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But I think that area to the west was intended for when you had the building 70 foot longer. If you --

MR. HANSON: You mean this here?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MR. GREGOR: The farthest to the west.

MR. HANSON: Well what we did is we lined up right up with the driveway so that say the fire truck coming making a left into our site would go straight right into the fire lane and then turn behind the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, how would they get --

MR. HANSON: I wouldn’t want to take the fire lane and move it over and have them make like an S turn to get in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How would they get there now?

MR. HANSON: Go right in this driveway, come right down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But you have removed all of the --

MR. GREGOR: The pavers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- the pavers in the new plan.

MR. HANSON: Well I can put pavers back going over across here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I only brought it up because you made mention of it.

MR. GREGOR: Let me ask a question, it is a very good point, but let me ask a question. The original plan you are stating did have grass pavers?

MR. HANSON: I would have to look. I know we provided a means to get back there. We told them we wouldn’t put anything there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is right here Bill.

MR. FAASSE: It does.

MR. HANSON: He says -- he is indicating he has the plans so for the grass pavers; we will put the grass pavers back.

MR. GREGOR: All right, did you specifically and purposely remove them from this plan or not?

MR. HANSON: No.

MR. GREGOR: No.

MR. HANSON: No.

MR. GREGOR: So the intent is to have grass pavers.

MR. HANSON: Correct.

MR. GREGOR: From that driveway --

MR. HANSON: To this driveway.

MR. GREGOR: To that --

MR. HANSON: Correct.

MR. GREGOR: From that access area to the access area to the rear.

MR. HANSON: That is correct.

MR. GREGOR: Okay, and that will be shown on the revised plans.

MR. HANSON: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Did you want to see these?

MR. GREGOR: No that is quite all right. I take his word for it.

MR. RUBIN: Did you provide or can we provide fencing around the detention basin?

MR. HANSON: Yes we can.

MR. FAASSE: What number is that Mr. Rubin?

MR. RUBIN: 17. It is one of the issues that we went through for quite some time with the Planning Board. Whether this Board wants us to deal with the Planning Board on that, just tell us what to do and we will do it. As you know, we will be there in two weeks, hopefully.

MR. GREGOR: Oh so what you are stating is that you are going to provide parameter fencing.

MR. HANSON: Around the detention basin.

MR. RUBIN: I don’t know if, Bill, I don’t know if the Borough has an ordinance on that. I know some Boroughs -- some municipalities do have Ordinances.

MR. GREGOR: Most do not and I don’t believe that Borough of Wanaque does. It is typically a safety issue, which we always recommend, and the applicant either says I agree with you or I disagree with you.

MR. RUBIN: When they are dry, most of the time, I know sometimes say it is not sightly, it is unsightly, but if it wet most of the time we say -- you know -- why not, sure. I don’t recall what the conversation was at the Planning Board two years ago.

MR. FAASSE: What is the depth of the detention basin? Does it slope down? How much?

MR. GREGOR: About a foot or two.

MR. FAASSE: How much?

MR. GREGOR: I’m guessing, I am going to -- I’ll let him answer it.

MR. HANSON: About 7 or 8 feet from the highest point to the lowest.

MR. GREGOR: It is that steep?

MR. HANSON: Yes, very steep.

MR. GREGOR: I do recommend it, I always do. It is up to you?

MR. RUBIN: It is not a problem, not a problem.

MR. FAASSE: That does sound like a safety issue.

MR. RUBIN: Yeah, for some reason it wasn’t discussed at the Planning Board that is not an -- yeah, we could do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While we are there, could you tell us what the height of those keystone walls are?

MR. HANSON: I assume you are talking about the one that is running along the driveway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, there is a short section.

MR. FAASSE: He is not using one though is he?

MR. HANSON: Between the garage and the detention basin?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, well there is also one -- is that one as I read it right to the rear of the structure also, when you come off of the rear of the structure? Is that a keystone wall also?

MR. HANSON: Right. I will do them both okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. HANSON: This one here, the highest elevation is up in the top, in the most westerly corner where the wall is 223 and the pavement is 224. 1 foot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 1 foot, okay.

MR. HANSON: As you go easterly, we have an elevation of 222 and the bottom of the wall is about 220 1/2 up. Oh, it is right on here, 222 and 218.5.

MR. GREGOR: Okay so that is about --

MR. CHAIRMAN: 3 - 3 1/2 feet. Okay and how about the other ones that are along the edge of the parking?

MR. HANSON: Okay, we are talking about the bottom of the wall right at the middle of the four-story building?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. HANSON: Is 221.3 and the top of the wall is about 222.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. RUBIN: Again, Mr. Gregor makes note of sidewalk servicing the handicapped parking area and the area on the east side of the hotel to be widened six feet. Could you fit that in Arthur?

MR. HANSON: Mr. Gregor, I believe you are talking about this one right here?

MR. GREGOR: That is -- the sidewalk along the easterly property line, yes, right along there around the along the edge of the building and also the sidewalks fronting on the handicapped parking spaces. It is shown as 4 feet wide --

MR. RUBIN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: -- and with the two foot vehicle overhang, that will impair the ability of people to, especially handicapped, to access those sidewalks. I recommend both of those be widened to a minimum of six feet. That is what my letter is indicating.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. HANSON: Well we could widen -- this one is not labeled but I can label it and make 6 feet.

MR. GREGOR: I scaled them because they weren’t labeled.

MR. HANSON: Okay. And we could make it 6 right up to the front door. We can’t change it over here.

MR. GREGOR: I don’t need it there.

MR. FAASSE: No, it is just the parking area.

MR. HANSON: So we are only going to go from the handicapped to the canopy.

MR. GREGOR: Along the east side of the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just where parking area is by there.

MR. HANSON: There is no handicapped over there.

MR. GREGOR: No but you have vehicles parked there right?

MR. HANSON: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: And vehicles typically have a two foot overhang, correct?

MR. HANSON: Normally, yes.

MR. GREGOR: And if you put a two foot overhang on a four foot sidewalk, how much area do you have left --

MR. FAASSE: Wait a minute, I can get this.

MR. RUBIN: Does your car have a two-foot overhand, mine doesn’t.

MR. GREGOR: This is for the record.

MR. HANSON: Well we can also make those 18 foot stalls then you would have your six foot sidewalk. These 8 stalls here are 20 feet deep so we could make them 18 like the rest and have a 6 foot sidewalk.

MR. GREGOR: That would also solve the problem that I mentioned.

MR. HANSON: We could do either one, yes.

MR. GREGOR: Which would you prefer to do, it is your site plan? If you want to confer with your client that is quite all right, I just want to get it resolved so that we don’t have any -- we don’t see you again.

MR. HANSON: I will move the building.

MR. GREGOR: Pardon?

MR. HANSON: We will make it six feet here and the building will slide down and touch.

MR. GREGOR: You are going to make a 6 foot sidewalk in both locations?

MR. HANSON: And then just realizing the 49.2 then is going to get a little bit shorter.

MR. GREGOR: All right so you are going to make it six feet in both locations, the sidewalk.

MR. HANSON: Correct.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MR. HANSON: So instead of 49.2 I will probably use about 48 1/2 foot front yard setback.

MR. RUBIN: Arthur there are -- Mr. Gregor points out there is a discrepancy between a note saying there are sidewalks along Union Avenue and one that says no sidewalks. I think we have sidewalks.

MR. HANSON: We have. When we first made the plans we did not have sidewalks. After the County got done with us --

MR. FAASSE: Sidewalks.

MR. HANSON: -- we had sidewalks.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, with County.

MR. HANSON: And curbs.

MR. GREGOR: All right, then I have a simple request, remove that note.

MR. HANSON: Yes. I was hoping --

MR. RUBIN: The County impressed upon us the importance of sidewalks. Steve Edmond said, he’d put sidewalks in, of course. Existing and impervious surfaces and structures located to be removed and returned to natural state. I think that goes without saying.

MR. HANSON: Right.

MR. RUBIN: That’s happening. We are making it green wherever the old paving was.

MR. GREGOR: Oh so that will be removed.

MR. RUBIN: Yes, in fact, it might be removed already.

MR. HANSON: We are talking about -- there used to be a house right in the middle here --

MR. GREGOR: No, I am talking to your left, right there.

MR. HANSON: That is not our property.

MR. GREGOR: Yes, it is.

MR. HANSON: It is leased back.

MR. GREGOR: According to your survey it is.

MR. HANSON: No, no, it is leased back to someone else. It doesn’t belong.

MR. FAASSE: You are not giving us all the information.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You got more than one use on the site then.

MR. HANSON: No, it is vacant land.

MR. GREGOR: Can you -- your survey --

MR. FAASSE: So what is it being leased for?

MR. GREGOR: Excuse me, your survey shows me that the entire property to the point where it meets Union Avenue is the subject property.

MR. HANSON: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: That is what Sheet 2, I believe of your plan shows.

MR. HANSON: That’s is --

MR. GREGOR: Now you are telling me something different.

MR. HANSON: That’s is the deed parcel, that is correct.

MR. GREGOR: You are telling me that that is not your property now?

MR. HANSON: It is the deed parcel. If you go and search out the deed for this piece of property, you will get a piece of land that tapers all the way down to a point, like you said.

MR. GREGOR: And that is the survey that you submitted with the site plan?

MR. HANSON: That is correct.

Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now what are you telling us, that property is not yours?

MR. RUBIN: It is not part of our site plan.

MR. HANSON: It is not part of our site plan.

MR. RUBIN: Our site plan is what you see.

MR. HANSON: Right here.

MR. RUBIN: That is our site that we were before the Planning Board with, that is our site that we have before you this evening.

MR. GREGOR: Well unfortunately that is not clear anywhere on this drawing.

MR. HANSON: We have no improvements beyond this line.

MR. FAASSE: The westerly line.

MR. GREGOR: I know you don’t because it is wetlands.

MR. RUBIN: You can’t touch it.

MR. HANSON: And we don’t want to be there.

MR. FAASSE: Well now he said it was leased to somebody. Who is it leased to?

MR. RUBIN: We are not buying it. This wasn’t purchased from the owner. We have no rights to it.

MR. GREGOR: Excuse me, Mr. Rubin?

MR. RUBIN: Yes, Sir.

MR. GREGOR: The site plan is, again, I just want to make sure I am clear on this.

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: The site plan is Lot 3.01, correct?

MR. HANSON: That is correct.

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

MR. GREGOR: And the site plan Lot 3.01 contains, according to your site data, 3.893 acres, acres, correct.

MR. RUBIN: Total, correct.

MR. GREGOR: Now what you are telling me is that the site plan is for less than 3.89 acres?

MR. RUBIN: Sure. We are not building on the whole thing, we can’t. It is not -- we opted just to use this portion. There are wetlands there, there are flood plain issues, we are not going there. It is not our application.

MR. GREGOR: It is still part of the site.

MR. RUBIN: The whole lot is the site, sure.

MR. GREGOR: Therefore it is still part of your application.

MR. RUBIN: It has to be.

MR. GREGOR: Good.

MR. RUBIN: But we are not improving it, we are not touching it.

MR. GREGOR: And I am not asking you to. What I am asking you --

MR. RUBIN: We don’t want to because there is the wetlands and all kinds of problems.

MR. GREGOR: What my note asked --

MR. RUBIN: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: -- was and, again, I am just going to go through this so that it is very clear to the Board members and to me, is that on the portion of the site that you are not developing there are existing impervious surfaces and I am recommending that they be removed since they are unnecessary and not to be utilized. Mr. Hanson, I believe, said he cannot because he does not have control of that. That is where I have a question.

MR. RUBIN: Right and I can advise the Board and represent to the Board that the site as depicted on the plan before you and on the plans that you all have is the only area that is owned or the property of this applicant. There is no right of this applicant to go beyond that line. They can’t do that; they don’t have a legal right to do that.

MR. GREGOR: Where does it say that in your presentation?

MR. RUBIN: It doesn’t, I advising -- that is the plan that you have before you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a subdivision?

MR. RUBIN: I show no improvements beyond the line. It may not be a big issue -- you know -- it might be a very small thing.

MR. GREGOR: No, it is not an issue. It is just that the application that you presented is not the application that we are hearing about now and that is why I concerned.

MR. RUBIN: Sure it is, it absolutely is. We are not improving the whole lot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What calculations did you use for your site numbers?

MR. RUBIN: I have to use --

MR. HANSON: The entire building, the entire lot.

MR. GREGOR: But you just said you don’t control the entire lot.

MR. RUBIN: Not anymore. We are only using what we are improving, what we are doing the work on.

MR. GREGOR: All right. So but you --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Who controls the other part of the lot?

MR. RUBIN: The original owner.

MR. GREGOR: Sassafras properties?

MR. RUBIN: Correct, yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Has this been subdivided?

MR. RUBIN: No, it is not subdivided. It is all one lot.

MR. GREGOR: It is one lot with two ownerships?

MR. RUBIN: No, it is not ownership. These are lease lines.

MR. GREGOR: Oh it is a lease?

MR. RUBIN: They are not subdivided.

MR. GREGOR: All right.

MR. RUBIN: Someday we may but it is not before any Board right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But in your table you are showing provided 9 percent building coverage based upon 3.893 acres.

MR. RUBIN: Correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are saying you don’t control that site. So your total impervious coverage and your building coverage should be recalculated based upon what you are saying --

MR. GREGOR: What you lease.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- what you -- whatever, however. What you are representing on that drawing right there.

MR. RUBIN: Sure, this is the plan that we got the original approval for, we didn’t go beyond that line. We didn’t want to go beyond that line. If we have to come back, if we do come back, I said have to, if we do someday for either another building or a subdivision or whatever then we have to address exactly your question and all other questions. But, at this moment, I have no need to address them because it is not an issue. I am not -- this developer is not improving anything except what you see on that plan, on the whole lot. Someday if it ever changes, we will be back and asking whatever the appropriate board is for relief. But right now there is no relief to be asked for. I have nothing before you to ask. There is -- I am --

MR. CHAIRMAN: They don’t control but they are using it in their calculations.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, I know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don’t understand that.

MR. GREGOR: It doesn’t make sense.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: That is if you are using the total acreage for your calculations but the application is only leased a portion of that acreage, how can you use those numbers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shouldn’t you be using only the numbers that you can control?

MR. RUBIN: Because I don’t have a subdivision. I have a legal one lot.