PLANNING BOARD MEETING

BOROUGH OF WANAQUE

 

MINUTES

 

January 18, 2007

 

Reorganization Meeting

     and

Regular Meeting

 

Meeting called to order by Mayor Dan Mahler with a salute to the flag.

 

ROLL CALL:

 

Gilbert Foulon                        David Slater

John Di Meglio                      Eugene Verba

Mayor Dan Mahler               Ed O’Connell

Joseph Graceffo                     John Shutte

Kevin Platt

 

PRESENT: Attorney Steven Veltri and Engineer Michael Cristaldi

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:  William Rucci

 

READING:  Open Public Meeting Announcement

This is a Reorganization and Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Borough Planning Board and adequate notice has been given and it has been duly advertised by the placement of a notice in the Trends and the Herald News, mailed on January 5, 2007 and a notice thereof has been posted on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building in the Borough of Wanaque and a copy thereof has been on file with the Borough Clerk.

 

Members Kevin Platt and Joseph Graceffo have been reappointed and were sworn in by Mayor Mahler.

 

NOMINATION FOR CHAIRMAN: Member Di Meglio nominated Gilbert Foulon for Chairman, seconded by Member Platt. No other names were presented.

 

ROLL CALL ON NOMINATION FOR CHAIRMAN: Voting yes were Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba, O’Connell and Shutte.

 

At this point in the meeting, Mayor Mahler stepped down and Chairman Foulon took over.

 

NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIRMAN: Member Shutte nominated Joseph Graceffo for Vice Chairman, seconded by Member Di Meglio.  No other names were presented.

 

MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATION: made by Member O’Connell, seconded by Member Di Meglio.

 

ROLL CALL ON NOMINATION FOR VICE CHAIRMAN: Voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Platt, Slater, Verba, O’Connell and Shutte.

 

NOMINATION FOR BOARD ATTORNEY: Member Platt nominated Attorney Steven Veltri, seconded by Member Verba. No other names were presented.

 

MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATION: made by Member O’Connell, seconded by Member Graceffo.

 

ROLL CALL ON NOMINATION FOR BOARD ATTORNEY: Voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba, O’Connell and Shutte.

 

NOMINATION FOR BOARD ENGINEER: Member Di Meglio nominated Engineer Michael Cristaldi from Alaimo Associates, seconded by Member Graceffo. No other names were presented.

 

MOTION TO CLOSE NOMINATION: made by Member O’Connell, seconded by Member Verba.

 

ROLL CALL ON NOMINATION FOR BOARD ENGINEER:  Voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba, O’Connell and Shutte.

 

Chairman Foulon said the Board has to vote for a Planner, but the Board is not prepared at this meeting. The Board Secretary showed Chairman Foulon the Resolution given to her by Borough Administrator, Tom Carroll, in which it says that soliciting proposals for various professional services under the “Fair and Open” provisions of N.J.S.A.; and those proposals were received on December 20, 2006 by the Borough Administrator, who opened them and read them aloud; and that Fred Suljic, P.P. from Richard A. Alaimo Associates was appointed as Planner under the “Fair and Open’ provisions of the law. Chairman Foulon said the Board is not going to vote on a Planner because the Board hasn’t solicited for a Planner and this will be held up until the next meeting. Chairman Foulon said he thinks by appointing Fred Suljic from Alaimo Associates, it would be a conflict of interest when you have your Borough Engineer and Planner from the same firm.

 

MOTION TO ADJOURN THE REORGANIZATION MEETING AT 7:45 P.M.: made by Member Slater, seconded by Member Di Meglio, carried by a voice vote.

 

 

REGULAR MEETING

 

Meeting called to order by Chairman Foulon with a salute to the flag at 8:05 P.M.

 

ROLL CALL:

 

Chairman Gilbert Foulon                               David Slater              

John Di Meglio                                              Eugene Verba

Mayor Daniel Mahler                                   Ed O’Connell

Joseph Graceffo                                             John Shutte

Kevin Platt

 

PRESENT:  Attorney Steven Veltri and Engineer Michael Cristaldi

 

MEMBERS ABSENT:  William Rucci

 

READING:  Open Public Meeting Announcement

This is a Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Borough Planning Board and adequate notice has been given and it has been duly advertised by the placement of a notice in the Trends and the Herald News, mailed on January 5, 2007 and a notice thereof has been posted on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building in the Borough of Wanaque and a copy thereof has been on file with the Borough Clerk.

 

MINUTES: from the December 21, 2006 Meeting.

 

MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Graceffo, seconded by Member Di Meglio, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Di Meglio, Graceffo, Platt, Slater and Shutte. Mayor Mahler and Members Verba and O’Connell abstained.

 

COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTS:

Chairman Foulon announced that the Public Hearing for Investigation of Areas for Redevelopment has been postponed to March 15, 2007.

No questions were asked on Communications.

 

APPLICATION STATUS: Engineer Cristaldi said everything he has is on tonight’s Agenda.

 

NEW BUSINESS APPLICATIONS: The following new businesses will be located at 1069 Ringwood Ave., “Bald Eagle Urban Renewal @Wanaque” Town Centre. The developer and owner of the project is Sal Falciglia, 179 Cahill Cross Rd., #311, West Milford, N.J.

 

Sam Cho – “Sushi Bar”. The owner of the business came forward. He said it would be both take out and eat in and only Sushi will be served. Hours of operation will be approximately 10:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. or 10:00 P.M. seven days a week.

 

Member Di Meglio asked about the garbage and waste that will be coming from this project and will they have one place for all of it? Chairman Foulon asked the developer, Mr. Falciglia to come forward to explain.

Mr. Falciglia said there will be a dumpster area in the back of the building set aside for garbage and recycling that will be picked up on a regular basis for all the tenants and it will be fenced in.

 

MOTION TO APPROVE AND SUBJECT TO ALL THE INSPECTIONS AS THE BUILDING IS FITTED OUT FOR THIS USE:  made by Member Slater, seconded by Member Platt, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba, O’Connell and Shutte.

 

Young Kwon – “Day Spa”. Mr. Cho from the “Sushi Bar” said Mr. Kwon is his partner and couldn’t make it for the meeting tonight and he will answer any questions the Board may have. Chairman Foulon told Mr. Cho that he was told this would not be a “Day Spa” and will be a hair and nail salon. Mr. Cho said there would also be manicures, pedicures, skin care and waxing. Chairman Foulon asked if each operator would be licensed by the State of N.J. and Mr. Cho said yes. Chairman Foulon added that there will be no massaging at all done on the premises and that it is not a permitted use. Chairman Foulon told Mr. Cho that he would have to change the application from “Day Spa” to “Nail & Skin Care”. Atty. Veltri said to Mr. Kwon, that he is stipulating that there will be no massaging in the business. Hours will probably be 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. or 9:00 P.M. seven days a week and there will be approximately six or seven employees.

Chairman Foulon suggested the Board hold off on this application until the name is changed to “Nail & Skin Salon” and a new application should be submitted.

 

Soon Nyeo Chang – “Dry Cleaners”.  Mr. Chang came forward and said cleaning will be done on premises. Chairman Foulon asked what kind of chemicals would be used and Mr. Chang said hydrocarbon. Chairman Foulon wanted to know what kind of odors does hydrocarbon put out and Mr. Chang said he could get some information on it. Chairman Foulon’s concern is that there will be a medical practice right above on the second floor and fumes might be bothering people especially if there will be professional offices upstairs. Chairman Foulon said before the Board can approve this application, they would have to submit a complete list of all the chemicals that will be used along with the MSDA Sheets for each chemical.

Therefore, the Board will hold off on this application.

 

Medical Office for Internal Medicine. Mr. Falciglia said the applicant couldn’t make the meeting tonight.

 

Pediatric Rehabilitation of North Jersey, Inc. Mr. Falciglia said the applicant decided the space was too small for this business.

 

Metro Markets, Inc. (Convenience Store). Mr. Falciglia said the applicant couldn’t make the meeting tonight.

 

APPLICATION #15-06 “Water’s Edge at Wanaque, LLC”, Block 468, Lot 2, Block 469 Lot 2, Block 470 Lots 1 & 8, Block 471 Lots 1, 4, 8 & 11, Block 472 Lots 4 & 7

24 Townhomes and 72 Condominiums for Preliminary Site Plan Approval.

Authorized Agent is Atty. George M. Capodagli.

Atty. Sam Presti came forward on behalf of the applicant. Atty. Veltri asked Atty. Presti who would his witnesses be tonight and Atty. Presti said tonight they would present their Architect, Genaro Salierno, Project Engineer, Patrick McClellan and Planner, Joseph Gurkovich.

Chairman Foulon announced that after each professional finishes his testimony, the meeting will be open to the public for any questions they may have to the professionals.

Atty. Sam Presti said there are additional exhibits that need to be addressed and they are; A-12 Revised Engineering Plans submitted by MCB Engineering with a revision date of December 21, 2006, Architectural Plans submitted with the revised engineering dated December 21, 2006 marked A-13, Planning Evaluation submitted by Joseph J. Gurkovich dated January 3, 2007 marked A-14, letter dated January 18, 2007 from Eng. Michael Cristaldi addressing the Architectural and Engineering Plans marked A-15. Atty. Veltri asked Atty. Kates, the attorney for “Skylands Clean, Inc.”, if he had any objections to these exhibits and he said no. Atty. Veltri said they are marking these exhibits in order to have an orderly hearing.

Architect, Genaro Salierno came forward for his presentation. Architect Salierno began by saying this is one of the most difficult projects he has ever started. Architect Salierno put up the plans on the easel and starting describing the plans. He said the previous application had four buildings and now there are six buildings, there are 34 townhouses in four townhouse buildings and 72 units in two condominium buildings. The back of the townhouses faces the lake. Architect Salierno began to address the comments in Eng. Cristaldi’s report of January 18, 2007. The townhouse units will be roughly 9,000 sq. ft. Architect Salierno talked about taking advantage of a retaining wall and used it to support a building and in that way they increased square footage of each townhouse. Each townhouse is a two-bedroom unit with a kitchen, dining room, great room, two bedrooms, two and half bathrooms and a study. The townhouse buildings will vary as far as vinyl siding, cedar shakes and some will be fish-scale. 

 

The condo buildings will also be like the townhouse buildings with vinyl siding, some brick and the front will have decorative railing for balconies. There will be two condominiums buildings 36 units each four stories; the first story is a garage, the three other stories are residential units. There are 13 units on the first floor, 13 units on second floor and 10 units on the third floor. The first floor has 9 apartments with two (2) bedrooms and four (4) apartments with one bedroom. The second floor is the same and the third floor there are eight (8) two- bedroom apartments and two (2) one-bedroom apartments. All the two (2) bedroom units have two bathrooms and the one-bedroom units have one bathroom and no dens.

The applicant has applied for a variance for maximum height for the condominium building that is 43’10”. Architect Salierno said he is actually showing a little less than that on the plans and the reason for that is that he needs more time to study the building, however, it will never be higher than what they are requesting. The height of the townhouse buildings from the front elevation to the main roof height is 30’10 ½.

Eng. Cristaldi told Architect Salierno your suppose to have 9 feet wide for each parking spot but they really don’t have 9 feet because of the column, therefore each of those spaces loses a little bit and Architect Salierno agreed. Eng. Cristaldi also asked about the space between the townhouse buildings and Architect Salierno said it is 10 feet and before the revision it was 12 feet, therefore a variance will be needed. There are 41 parking spaces in the condominium building and there is outside parking also.

Engineer Patrick McClellan came forward to explain the parking. The plans show a total of 263 parking spaces; 213 required by the RSIS therefore they’re in excess of 50 spaces. The breakdown is as follows: 82 parking spaces underneath the condominium buildings 41 in each structure, 48 parking spaces in the townhome garages, 36 parking spaces off street stripped, 62 spaces on street parallel spaces which is why they designed 30 foot pavement permitted to park on both sides and 35 parking spaces by the clubhouse. As per RSIS Requirements, each unit has to have a ½ of a space dedicated for guest parking and the rest of which is intended for residents parking; with that breakdown they are required 165 spaces for the residents of the 96 units. In the townhome, condo and in the stripped parking spaces, they have 166 spaces and those spaces would be intended for use by the residents and the on street parallel parking and the clubhouse would be reserved for guest use.

Atty. Veltri asked Eng. McClellan what variances have changed as a result of the revision. Eng. McClellan said there is a reduction in the magnitude of the building length variance; previously requested two for the townhome buildings and two for condominium buildings. Atty. Veltri said the building length variance was 252 feet for the condo and 275.4 feet for townhome and what is it now? Eng. McClellan said the condominium building remains the same, as far as the townhome building the two variances requested are eliminated as the buildings essentially have been cut in half and are under the maximum permitted. Atty. Veltri added that the minimum distance between the buildings has gotten worse and Eng. McClellan said it has gone from 12 feet to 10 feet. Eng. McClellan went on to say, one other variance is the magnitude increase which is the building to the internal roadway .34 feet, but to point out to the Board’s clarification, it is a second story overhang so it’s not proceeded to the driveway that way, but technically its an increase in the magnitude of that variance.

Atty. Veltri asked if the height of any of the buildings changed at all and Eng. McClellan said no. Atty. Veltri asked if the maximum variance that they’re requiring for height of the building is still 43’ 10” and Eng. McClellan said that is correct. Atty. Veltri said, a little more, and then this application is not in front of this Board. Eng. McClellan said he understood that and its part of the design to keep it under the 44 feet. Eng. Cristaldi wanted to know if the building height is the same on the garage side as it is on what they call the front side. Eng. Cristaldi said the front is where the patio is and he always figured a patio goes on the back but they’re really considering that the front of the building and they’re considering where you drive in with the cars as the back of the building. Eng. Cristaldi said the way you measure the building height is from the average grade on the front of the building to the average of the eaves, so depending on which side of the building you take as the front does it change the height? Architect Salierno said he took the front  where he has the front entrance to the each apartment. Eng. Cristaldi asked what would the height be if he measured off the garage side of the building. Architect Salierno said 10 more feet higher. Eng. Cristaldi wanted to point this out so the Board can take a look at that closely to see exactly how this ordinance measures building height and how the applicant is measuring it. Eng. Cristaldi said the applicant should take a good look at this. Atty. Veltri said to Eng. Cristaldi, that assuming the Board agrees with them on the front of the building where the front door is, is the rest of the measurement done correctly? Eng. Cristaldi said it looks based on the height they gave for the floors, it’s ok. Eng. Cristaldi took a good look at the plans submitted. Atty. Veltri asked Architect Salierno if he could give the Board some testimony regarding why he considered the end that he’s measuring the front of the building as oppose to the rear of the building. Architect Salierno said because the pedestrian entrance is the only place where people can get into the building to the lobby and from that area he considers the front. Eng. Cristaldi asked if you can access the front of the building with an ambulance and Architect Salierno said no. Chairman Foulon asked where do guest park and Architect Salierno told

the Board to look at Page 3 of 17 from MCB Engineering. Chairman Foulon asked where the front of the building is and was told towards the bottom of the page. Chairman Foulon said he didn’t think so and that the front of a building is on a road, not the back yard. Architect Salierno said he disagrees and there is a planning strategy where you have car entrances from what is perceived as the back and then the front entrances is only pedestrian and this has been done many times in developments. Member Graceffo said basically the building front is looking at four  retaining walls and wanted to know what the height of the retaining walls is. The one retaining wall is along the walkway where there is only access from the right

side facing the building and no walkway to the left side. Therefore, a resident or guest parking along the street side has to walk the entire length of the building up the side then around to what they’re calling the main entrance.

 

Chairman Foulon said the Board has every right to disagree that the front of the building is what they’re calling the front and what they’re calling the back and he thinks they have things backwards and that the front of the building is on Road A. Eng. Cristaldi said the townhouses are on Road B and that’s the problem, you can’t really get to the townhouses from Road A.

Joseph Gurkovich, Planner came forward: Mr. Gurkovich said everyone knows this site has topographic exceptional conditions and in order to get the roads in and appropriate slope you have to accommodate entries into the garages at a reasonable slope. Therefore, they have to bring the driveways in the back and that allows you to bring the building up and work with the slope. So if you’re providing for garages at the back it’s really not good for an entrance to the building. Everyone can drive into the back but sidewalks are provided to come around to the front. Mr. Gurkovich said in order to minimize the topographic disturbance you have to work with the slope and the best way to do that is to keep the road slope down and come into the back and people can walk around.

Member Graceffo added that the Board recognizes that this property has issues in terms of its topography, but as its being designed here, its creating questions and problems and the Board is not saying they don’t want the construction or the project, it’s the question of saying what’s being offered to the Board is really not good enough.

Atty. Veltri asked Architect Salierno if he had a rendering of the condos and Architect Salierno said he didn’t have time and will provide one with front and back views for the next meeting.

Someone asked about the height of the retaining walls and Architect Salierno said roughly 30 feet and some are 4 feet and are shown on Drawing 5 of 13 from MCB Engineering. Member Graceffo asked if an emergency vehicle was approaching the building, how would they access the building. Architect Salierno said a police car would have to park as close to the building as possible and enter from the front entrance. Member O’Connell said an ambulance with a gurney coming to the front of the building would have to walk up the hill. Architect Salierno said an ambulance would go inside the garage but he really doesn’t know their procedures. Member Platt asked what kind of ventilation is in the garage? Architect Salierno said they are trying to use natural means of ventilation and if it doesn’t meet the code they will use mechanical means of ventilation. Member Platt said if there was a car fire, the fire apparatus couldn’t get in there and they would have to drag lines in there to get to the car. Member Platt said if there were fans in the garage and there was a fire, the fans would only make the fire worse, therefore the ventilation system would have to shut down. Architect Salierno said that is something they will have to look into and having two entrances.

Atty. Veltri said the Board would like to send the revised plan to the Fire and Police Departments and the First Aid Squad for their review and comments between now and the next meeting. Atty. Veltri added, that it maybe a good idea to do a rendering on this building so the Board can see a lot easier why they’re saying the front is the front and the rear is the rear.

Planner, Joseph Gurkovich added that Eng. McClellan has gone through probably 20 or 25 variations of this site and this is the most efficient way to minimize the environmental disturbance.

 

MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING: made by Member Slater, seconded by Member Verba, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba, O’Connell and Shutte.

 

Atty. Michael Kates, “Skylands Clean” General Counsel came forward: Atty. Kates asked Architect Salierno that he understood from the Planner’s Report the 19 affordable units will be confined to the condominiums and Architect Salierno said that was correct. They will be one-bedroom units with square footage of 640 sq. ft. to 1000 sq. ft. Therefore, out of a total of 72 condos, 19 will be affordable. Atty. Kates wanted to know how many parking spaces would be diminished by columns. Architect Salierno said off hand he doesn’t know. Atty. Kates also said he understood that some of the construction was not sprinkled and Architect Salierno said that is correct and it’s the townhouses that are not sprinkled. Atty. Kates looked at the plans and said in terms of fire fighting equipment and accessing those non sprinkled units and there are no fire lanes dimensioned on the plans, by what mode would a garage fire be attended to by fire fighting equipment or any other featured fire on this side of the project? Architect Salierno answered by saying he is not an expert on that subject. Atty. Kates pointed out the comment in Eng. Cristaldi’s report regarding “that the applicant should provide testimony to compare the size of each unit proposed now vs. the footprint previously shown”. Architect Salierno said the changes in the townhouses; before there were two buildings and those buildings had end units that were larger than the end units on the revised plans.

Louis Bakula, 21 Gorge Drive, Haskell  came forward. Mr. Bakula wanted to know which direction does the front of the building face and Architect Salierno said it faces south.

Sandy Lawson, 28 Haskell Ave., Haskell came forward. Ms. Lawson said she thought she heard there were 166 parking spaces and was told by Eng. McClellan that there will be 263 parking spaces that include handicap accessible spaces. Eng. McClellan went on to say that they are 50 parking spaces in excess of RSIS.  Atty. Presti said at this juncture, that Joseph J. Gurkovich PP did submit a Planning Report and because of the time difference between the revised plans being submitted to the Board and his report they should probably incorporate those revisions into his report and therefore, will hold off on Mr. Gurkovich’s report.   Atty. Presti said he really doesn’t have any other formal testimony to provide at this juncture.

 

Chairman Foulon wanted to know about Item #1 on Eng. Cristaldi report dated January 18, 2007, and if there was any action on that. (Waiting for testimony concerning the ownership of Susquehanna Ave.) Atty. Presti said they are in the midst of getting the exact state of affairs. Atty. Presti said a lot of times what happens when your buying a piece of property, the formal Title Search gets done when you’re getting ready to buy. The seller provided the applicant with certain base line information and based upon that information they have the plans before the Board. The Board has asked for some fine-tuning on that base line information. To get that type of information will be an expense of about $10,000.00 to the developer for a formal full blown Title Search with regard to figuring out what the lay of the land is literally and figuratively over there. Atty. Presti said he is working with his title company to make it crystal clear as to what that situation is.

Chairman Foulon said he also noticed on Page 3 of 13 from MCB Engineering revision date of December 21, 2006, on the drawing there is a note that says “Approximate Location of Existing Structures. Actual Location, Status and Ownership to be Determined”. Eng. McClellan said they had a Boundary Topographic Survey submitted by Stewart Surveying, because of the information they had available to them at the time of the survey and somewhat related to the comments that Atty. Presti just offered to the Board, the surveyor would take an opportunity to evaluate the submitted boundary survey once he had additional documentation just to assure that what he’s done is accurate. What he has done is accurate, but if more information becomes available he like to consider that, so as a courtesy that note was included on the plan. Chairman Foulon said that’s all right, but the Board wants to make sure they’re not encroaching on someone else’s property. Eng. McClellan said just to clarify, Sheet 4 of 13 of the site plan, the last revision date 6/12/06 from where the developer occurs on the westerly side there will be an improvement of Lake St. running through the intersection with Susquehanna Ave. and the dimensions of the pavement are 15 foot for the ingress lane and 6 foot for the island and 15 foot for the egress. Mayor Mahler asked about the people who live there now and will they have to go all the way in and come back out? Eng. McClellan said they could provide curb cuts in the median to permit driveway access at any point along there. Mayor Mahler also wanted to know if they were going to be given off street parking along that road. Eng. McClellan said they have not planned for that at this time and Mayor Mahler said they should plan for it because those properties are pretty steep and those people can’t get up their driveways in the winter. Eng. McClellan said that Atty. Presti gave him the nod that the applicant would certainly consider that.

 

Member Graceffo was concerned with the minimum distance to the roadway and required is 40 feet and now with the new architectural plan showing the overhang on the second floor that only brings it to 4 inches and that to Member Graceffo is a severe required variance. Even though they say its an overhang second floor, it still brings the edge of the property line to a very small distance to a roadway and that to Member Graceffo is a major concern and needs to be looked at from a different prospective. Eng. McClellan responded and said they are not asking to subdivide these properties, so there’s not a property line in that vicinity and it’s a site planning issue that the Board is asking them to look at. Eng. Cristaldi said the ordinance doesn’t really look at it in terms of property lines; the ordinance says that the building should not be any closer than 40 feet to an internal roadway and really had nothing to do with property lines. Another point Member Graceffo brought up is that they really need to determine what is the front of the buildings. The way its proposed right now and designed, the front of the condominiums are facing south and then the townhouses also facing south; so you have the front of one building looking into the back of another building, and the front of another building looking into a retaining wall and yet from the roadway as you approach off of Union Avenue you’re looking at the back of another building. Eng. McClellan said as he understands the architecture, the desire of the townhomes, roadways aside, slopes aside, one of the objectives of the townhomes is to take advantage of the view of the lake. The architecture looks for that to be the rear of the house because of the rooms that will be associated with the rear of the house. Combining that idea with Mr. Gurkovich’s comments, which Eng. McClellan 100% agrees on, that they’re trying to work with the slope of the land and you want to come in on the low side of the building with the driveways so that brings a unique situation where the north side of the building wants to be both the rear for its views and wants to be the garage for its slopes.

Atty. Veltri asked if there are any other sites that are constructed similar to this site for the condominium buildings that they could tell the Board about and maybe the Board could look at. Eng. McClellan said he would consider that question and get back to the Board.

Member Graceffo said another point is the safety concerns about the emergency vehicles accessing the roadways and these buildings. It needs to be addressed in much more detail than what has been presented. Eng. McClellan said the Board’s request to submit the plans to emergency services is also an excellent idea. It was also suggested by Member Platt that a set of plans be given to Fire Sub-Code Official Bill Fleck.

 

Steve Sprinkle, 2 Seminole Path, Haskell came forward. Mr. Sprinkle said he looked at the drawings this week and it looked like there was a proposal for the resurfacing

 

of a driveway. Mr. Sprinkle said he has access to Lake Drive and is waiting on a Title Search to see if any of his property is touching that road. Eng. McClellan said he is acknowledging an improvement to the roadway and would also need to include an improvement to the driveway. Eng. McClellan added that it might be best to first get the title information so they will have a clear idea on what they can and cannot do. 

Eng. McClellan said that there could be provisions made for those homeowners who can’t get up the driveway during inclement weather. These are all questions that should be brought up during Final Site Plan.

 

MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING: made by Member Slater, seconded by Member Di Meglio, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Di Meglio. Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba, O’Connell and Shutte.

 

Atty. Veltri asked Atty. Presti if he was stipulating that the applicant would extend the time limitations on the Board until the next Board Meeting and Atty. Presti said that was correct. Atty. Veltri added that at the next Board Meeting the architect would do the cross sections, renderings for the condominium building and title search information if available. Chairman Foulon said to bear in mind, that no action will be taken on this application until the title search issue is resolved (concerning ownership of Susquehanna Ave.). Member Graceffo suggested it would be nice for the Board to have some commitment as to what the actual façade materials would be. Atty. Veltri added that the Board may do is mark all of the renderings and have the applicant confirm to the Board that that will be the actual building type and quality, so when the professionals are doing the renderings, do them carefully because the Board will mark them and that may be a stipulation of approval if this application is approved.

 

MOTION TO INSTRUCT THE SECRETARY TO SEND THE PLANS TO THE FIRE CHIEF, POLICE CHIEF, FIRST AID SQUAD AND THE FIRE SUBCODE OFFICIAL: made by Member Graceffo, seconded by Member Verba, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Salter, Verba, O’Connell and Shutte.

 

Chairman Foulon said, based on the comments that come back from the aforementioned departments, the whole design might be changed and might be asking to spread this project out and not worry about coverage. Chairman Foulon said lets make this right so that they don’t create a terrible situation where God forbid someone loses a life because they condensed everything. Chairman Foulon went on to say, let’s start with a clean piece of paper after we hear from the different departments and lets make sure we do it right.

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

Sandy Lawson, 28 Haskell Ave. came forward. Ms. Lawson said with regard to this particular project, has there been any change as far as the “LOI” from the DEP

determination whether they’re in the sewer service area? Ms. Lawson thought she

read in the paper where the Planning Board was going to hire its own Environmental Expert and if the Board did and who is it. Eng. Cristaldi said Tom Carroll, Borough Administrator was going to get someone the Borough used before. Chairman Foulon thought it was the person they used on the Pulte Application and he hasn’t been hired yet because he’s been away. Ms. Lawson wanted to know the cost for that expert and Chairman Foulon said he didn’t know and the applicant would bear that cost.

Bruce Lyons, 84 Burnside Place, Haskell came forward. Mr. Lyons said he works for Telcon who acquired the piece of land next to the proposed development. Mr. Lyons said from what he hears, the people that are below the quarry said that there is a lot of blasting, vibration and noise from the trucks. Telcon will be putting 1200 ton per hour crushers in that particular area and there will be a lot of quality of life issues. This property that Mr. Lyons is talking about is located in Bloomingdale and Chairman Foulon said the Borough can complain about it but there’s nothing that the Borough can do about it since its not happening in our town.

 

RESOLUTIONS:  None

 

VOUCHERS: None

 

MOTION TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING LEGAL MATTERS AT 10:07 P.M.: made by Member Graceffo, seconded by Member Slater, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba, O’Connell and Shutte.

 

MOTION TO CLOSE EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10:54 P.M.: made by Member Slater, seconded by Member Di Meglio, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba, O’Connell and Shutte.

Chairman Foulon announced that no action was taken in Executive Session, only discussed pending legal matters.

 

MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 10:55 P.M. made by Member Slater, seconded by Member Di Meglio, carried by a voice vote.

 

____________________________________

Gerri Marotta,

Planning Board Secretary