PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MINUTES
OCTOBER 16, 2003
BOROUGH OF WANAQUE
Meeting called to order by Vice Chairman Joseph Graceffo
with a salute to the flag.
ROLL CALL:
Joseph Graceffo Eugene Verba
Kevin Platt Thomas
Balunis
PRESENT: Attorney Steven Veltri and Engineer Michael
Cristaldi
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Gilbert Foulon, Mayor
Warren Hagstrom and Member Brindisi.
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 17, 2003 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 July 17, 2003 Meeting.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Slater, seconded
by Member Platt, voting yes were Members Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba and
Balunis. Member DiMeglio abstained.
COMMUNICATIONS: No questions asked.
ENGINEER’S REPORT: Eng. Cristaldi said there’s
nothing to report.
NEW BUSINESS APPLICATION: “Johnnie’s Barber Shop”,
930 Ringwood Ave., Haskell, N.J. Block 309 Lot 25. Owner of building is Gloria
Fico, 930 Ringwood Ave., Haskell, N.J. and owner of business is Frank Alois,
1004 E. 28th Street, Paterson, N.J.
John Fico came forward 930 Ringwood Ave., Haskell, N.J.
son of Gloria Fico represented his mother because she is not feeling well,
along with Frank Alois, 1004 E. 28th Street, Paterson, N.J. owner of
business. All inspections are in compliance. This was previous a barber shop
and will be a barber shop again.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member DiMeglio,
seconded by Member Platt, voting yes were Members DiMeglio, Graceffo, Platt,
Slater, Verba and Balunis.
NEW BUSINESS APPLICATION: “D. R. Leishman Assoc.”
(Tax Office), 1084 Ringwood Ave., Haskell, N.J. Block 435 Lot 17. Owner of building is Aeran Park, 1086
Ringwood Ave., Haskell, N.J. and owner of business is Donald R. Leishman, 78
Witte Road, Hewitt, N.J.
Mr. Leishman came forward. Mr. Leishman explained to the
Board he was at 566 Ringwood Ave. and moved down to 1084 Ringwood Ave.
Inspections are in compliance with the exception of the Plumbing Inspection
that states a permit is required for the water heater. Mr. Leishman said the
landlord had his plumber take out a permit but it hasn’t been completed.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO PLUMBING WORK BEING
COMPLETED AND REINSPECTED: made by Member DiMeglio, seconded by Member
Balunis, voting yes were Members DiMeglio, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba and
Balunis.
Presentation by Tom Carroll, Borough Administrator who will explain to the Board the “Proposal for the Re-examination Report” for Ringwood Ave. from the Reservoir North to Conklintown Road.
Mr. Carroll came forward and told the Board something they have been talking about for years which is to take a look at the zoning up and down Ringwood Ave. Initially, they were going to do a re-examination report of the upper half only of Ringwood Ave., but given the potential for development of the Rhinesmith Building or that tract and with the revitalization they’ve seen in business areas such as Rita’s Water Ice coming, in they saw the positive impact that has had on the area. Recently, the Mayor & Council voted to purchase the old Jack’s Hardware Building. One of the things they are looking at is the possibility of redeveloping not only that tract but also several of the other properties going all the way up to Lakeland Auto Parts. The proposal now is taking a look at the zoning for the entire length of Ringwood Ave. Pulte is getting very close to breaking ground, and with the Ringwood Ave. reconstruction underway, what they’re looking at for the Haskell Business District they also want for the Midvale Business District. The plan would be to take Haskell redevelopment one step further in that once the re-examination report is done, they would then do a redevelopment plan or that property from Doty Road up to Lakeland Auto Parts and possibly the Intili property also. By doing so, it allows the Borough a lot more leeway in how a developer is selected and what can be put there in the process. This would put the Borough at an advantage and that once an area is in need of redevelopment, the Borough then qualifies for redevelopment grants and the application process for this is in September. The Mayor & Council is asking the Planning Board to approve it tonight and to authorize Planner Jill Hartmann to do the re-examination report, come back with recommendations, have a Public Hearing and take a good look at what zoning there will be up and down Ringwood Ave.
Member DiMeglio asked if they were talking just about the
business sections of Ringwood Ave. Mr. Carroll said they are looking at the
entire length from Pompton Lakes right up to the Ringwood border. Member DiMeglio
also wanted to know if they were planning on rezoning some of these properties.
Mr. Carroll said everything is up for discussion and it has to come back to the
Planning Board and if any rezoning is going to be done or any change in the
requirements, its has to be through the Planning Board’s recommendation to the
Mayor & Council. Member DiMeglio said he lives on Ringwood Ave. and he’s
sure the zoning in his area isn’t going to be changed. Mr. Carroll said it will
be up to Ms. Hartmann as far as the recommendation in talking to the Planning
Board and Mayor & Council in doing research. Ms. Hartmann spoke up and said
if they were going to do a re-examination report then it would be the
recommendations of the Planning Board. Ms. Hartmann suggested a Re-examination
Master Plan Committee that would meet to talk about Ringwood Ave. and give Ms.
Hartmann some guidance and this committee should start to meet by November or
December.
Member Slater said, on the agenda it said from the
Reservoir North to Conklintown Rd. and yet Mr. Carroll is talking from Pompton
Lakes North. Mr. Carroll said they’re going to do it all at one shot and
originally they were talking about doing this back in the Spring, but because
of meeting cancellations and what not, and with Jack’s Hardware building coming
into the picture, they decided to do it all at once.
MOTION TO AUTHORIZE PLANNER HARTMANN TO PREPARE THIS
PROPOSAL FOR RE-EXAMINATION: made by Member Balunis, seconded by Member
Slater, voting yes were Members DiMeglio, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba and
Balunis.
Mr. Carroll, told the Board the Borough is purchasing the property at 1075 Ringwood Ave. which is Jack’s Hardware building. The rear portion of the parking lot on Doty Rd. is also part of Jack’s Hardware property. The Borough executed a lease agreement that gave the Borough the right of first refusal to purchase the entire lot if the property owner was willing to sell. The owner did present the Borough with a Contract of Sale in the amount of $400,000.00 and the Borough Council has moved forward to exercise that right. Under the Municipal Land Use Law the Planning Board must act on that move by the Mayor & Council. The plan is to demolish the building and hopefully get additional funding from outside sources to purchase several of the other buildings and attract a developer and do something that’s a lot nicer than what is there for the center of Haskell.
Member DiMeglio wanted to know how they’re going to
recoup the $500,000.00 after they buy the property. Member Graceffo said it’s a
valuable piece of property
and it might bring back more than that. Mr. Carroll said,
if you look at the long term plan of putting together a package of property
down there, the benefit of redeveloping that property in the long run has a
tremendous value for the Borough.
Member Balunis wanted to know if the grant money could be
used for demolishing and other costs. Mr. Carroll said, the way he understands
the grant money, it can be used to purchase, demolish or fix up. Planner
Hartmann added, that under the redevelopment statute, you can name a developer
and you can sell the property to that developer to recoup, therefore, you can
recoup all or at least a portion of what the property costs through the plan.
Member DiMeglio said he feels that the Borough is
gambling with taxpayer’s money. Member Graceffo said it’s an investment and if
you look at the condition of the center of town this seems to be a good
opportunity to fix up the center of town.
Member Platt said the Borough would be losing tax
ratables by knocking down the building. Mr. Carroll said yes for a while, but
this is something that has been talked about for years and knows we have the
opportunity to do something about it.
Member Slater said he thought it seemed like a lot of
money for that building and what about the people who live there, and losing
about $10,000 or $12,000 a year in taxes, and whatever rental income comes from
the building.
Member Graceffo said, later on down the road, when this
property is developed it will bring back a much greater ratable than it does
now.
Mr. Carroll summed up by saying, yes it’s taxpayer money,
it’s a little bit of a risk but look at it as an investment in how the
community will look over the next 50 years.
Member DiMeglio wanted to know how they were going to get
rid of the rest of the buildings. Mr. Carroll said that’s where they’re going
to work with the community development money and look for other financing and
other avenues to offset the cost to the Borough. Eng. Cristaldi added that
Ringwood Ave. is a busy road and has enough traffic to support a lot of
businesses. There are a lot of stores that have no place to park and that’s why
people don’t stop. Member DiMeglio asked Ms. Hartmann if she thought this was
the right thing to do. Ms. Hartmann said she thinks this municipality, whether
its right or wrong, deserves a much more attractive, useful and economically
feasible downtown.
Attorney Veltri said the way the statute reads, if the
Board does nothing the Mayor & Council can take this within 45 days and do
what they wish, but the opportunity that the Board has, is to look at this in
conjunction with the Master Plan and give the Mayor & Council
recommendations. The Board has to look at it as a use point of view and a
zoning point of view, not necessarily a monetary point of view, that’s the
Mayor & Council’s job and their decision. If the Board does nothing in 45
days, they’ve complied with the law by referring it here and they can do what
they wish. If the Board wants to make a recommendation through a report, this
is our opportunity to do that. The Board has another meeting coming up in which
to get ideas and to put a report or recommendations together for the Mayor
& Council if
the Board wants to take the time, if not, the Board can
do it tonight with the administrator here and give him the Board’s
recommendations and they can move forward.
Member Slater said, what the Mayor & Council have
done already is say, in their eyes the dollars are there and what we’re saying
is, we don’t think the dollars are there. Member Slater said he thinks that’s a
valid argument. Atty. Veltri answered by saying, the law says you can review
and give recommendations in conjunction with the Master Plan, not in
conjunction with your budget.
Mr. Carroll said if the process was perfect, the
redevelopment plan would come first and then the purchase of the property,
however, because of the way the contract was structured and the Mayor &
Council had a 45-day opportunity to deal with it. Ms. Hartmann added, from a
land use prospective, if you look back at the Master Plan, this section was
proposed for redevelopment and it was proposed for purchase. It was proposed
and not just this site, but others as well, therefore, barring the cost, which
is not an item with this Board; it is consistent with the Master Plan and
consistent with the ideas and plans that have come before.
Member Slater added, the taxes that the Borough is going
to garner on that property being redeveloped are not going to cover the dollars
that will be put into it. Member Slater wanted to know if there are any access
dollars in the town budget. Member Graceffo said that’s not the Board’s responsibility.
Member Graceffo also said, he thinks this is a great opportunity to get the
investment back and probably make money on the investment and it also is a good
plan to bring about the kind of redevelopment you would really like to see take
place in that portion of our community.
MOTION TO OPEN MEETING TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON THE
PRESENTATION ONLY: made by Member DiMeglio, seconded by Member Balunis,
voting yes were Members DiMeglio, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba and Balunis.
John Maiello, 26 Rhinesmith Ave. came forward. Mr.
Maiello said the redevelopment is needed.
Mr. Maiello wanted to know, if the developer said to the town, he would
like to developer more on Doty Rd., would the town be open to that? Mr. Carroll
said, he thinks the town would be open to anything that is positive down there.
Mr. Carroll said it would be up to the developer to see how he wants to see his
traffic flow, parking, and also talking to the County which would probably only
allow ingress off of Ringwood Ave. and egress out of Doty Rd. and with a
traffic light it won’t be as difficult as it is right now.
Grace Maiello, 26 Rhinesmith Ave. came forward. Ms.
Maiello asked Ms. Hartmann, when Mr. Carroll says redevelopment, what is the
difference between a legal application for redevelopment plan. Ms. Hartmann
said there is state law for redevelopment that permits you, based upon certain
criteria, declare a site or area in need of redevelopment. Once you do that,
you can spot zone, purchase,
condemn and purchase, and turn it right over to a
developer who pays you back for the purchase price. An investigation is done to
see if the properties are in need of redevelopment or rehabilitation. If you
meet one of the criteria, then you can re-zone one specific piece of property
completely different from what’s around, and you can seek proposals from
various developers.
CLOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION: made by Member Slater,
seconded by Member Verba, voting yes were Members DiMeglio, Graceffo, Platt,
Slater, Verba and Balunis.
Vice Chairman Graceffo asked the Board if anyone had any
specific recommendations on this matter they would like to present to the Mayor
& Council.
Member Slater said, he thinks they’re all in agreement that
something is needed and he thinks that what’s dividing the Board is that this
plan seems to be too speculative.
Member Graceffo said, the Board is not responsible for
the financial end of it, but is responsible for the plan of it and the impact
on the community and feels this is a step in the right direction.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF 1075 RINGWOOD AVE.
BUT WITH THE CONCERN OF THE FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY PLACED ON THE TOWN:
made by Member Slater, seconded by Member Balunis, voting yes were Members
DiMeglio, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba and Balunis.
Application #16-02 “RSK DEVELOPMENT CORP.”, MOUNTAIN AVE., BLOCK 240 LOT 14. Application for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to allow the construction of 18 Townhouse Dwelling Units. Authorized Agent is A. Michael Rubin, Esq.
Atty. A. Michael Rubin, 1130 Hamburg Tpke., Wayne, N.J. came forward on behalf of the applicant. Atty. Rubin explained that there were several questions outstanding from the last time the applicant was before the Board.
Joseph Marra, Architect came forward and stated that he
took the Board’s recommendation and spent some time on the site with the
interested neighbors. He has been in contact with the Fire Chief and has made
some revisions to the plan based on the Board’s concerns about the fire truck
coming up Mountain Ave. and accessing the site. They also made some plan
revisions based on Planner Hartmann’s recommendation for landscaping and site
lighting. Mr. Marra said they did revise the plans accordingly and resubmitted
them with the revision date for SP 1 & SP 2 of August 26, 2003, SP 4 &
SP 4.1 July 22, 2003, and Landscape Plans dated August 28, 2003. Atty. Rubin asked Mr. Marra to tell the
Board what transpired with him and the neighbors and what they were seeking.
Mr. Marra said they were interested in what the property was going to look like
finished, so they walked the property and tried to distinguish were the
buildings were going to be.
They also tried to envision what the landscaping would
look like. Atty. Rubin asked Mr. Marra if there were any Bulk Variances left on
site. Mr. Marra said yes there are Bulk Variances and he only has one on his
schedule and it is the distance of building to internal roadway and it exists
at Unit 13 at the cul-de-sac. The ordinance requires a distance of 40 ft. and
because of the cul-de-sac they only have 30’6” and they did revise the site
layout plan to indicate that. Atty. Rubin asked Mr. Marra if the granting of
this variance would be detrimental to the neighbors or the general public in
any way and Mr. Marra said no and that this is a minor aspect of the plan and
seventeen (17) of the eighteen (18) units have at least 40 ft. Atty. Rubin
asked Mr. Marra, based upon the layout with all the revisions, if there was
anyway to avoid the variance application and Mr. Marra said no. Mr. Marra was
also asked if in anyway would it harm the neighboring property owners or the
community and Mr. Marra said no. Mr. Marra said in Planner Hartmann’s report of
July 17, 2003, where she indicates there are two “C” Variances, the first one
being the one Mr. Marra just described and the second one being for no walkways
between residential buildings and common parking areas. Mr. Marra said that was
addressed at the July Meeting and there are sidewalks everywhere along the
road, therefore, Ms. Hartmann’s concern has been alleviated.
Atty. Veltri commented, that at one of the meetings the
Slope Ordinance came up and one of the questions that was asked of Atty. Veltri
was, was it a waiver or a variance and he said at that meeting it was a waiver
because he believed it was in the subdivision and site plan ordinances in the
town. Atty. Rubin responded and said that would make it a waiver. Atty. Veltri
said it is, except, that was also without his knowledge put in the zoning
ordinances in the town.
Eng. Cristaldi spoke up and said he just wanted to double
check the variances and they all seemed to be minor. Eng. Cristaldi mentioned the
minimum distance from the building to the internal roadway. Mr. Marra said it
was alleviated. Eng. Cristaldi asked Mr. Marra if Unit 13 is the one they still
have and Mr. Marra said yes. Eng. Cristaldi asked if part of the cul-de-sac has
15 ft. to the buffer and Mr. Marra said the curb was actually 6” over the
buffer line and they relocated it. Eng. Cristaldi asked about the air
conditioning units and they were suppose to be screened if their less than 10
ft. from a sidewalk. Mr. Marra said they’re going to put the condensing units
at the rear of the buildings.
Planner Hartmann asked Mr. Marra about the site lighting
plan. Mr. Marra said the site lighting plan that was revised included building
mounted lanterns.
John Desch, Traffic Engineer for the applicant came
forward. Atty. Rubin said to Mr. Desch, a question was raised at the last
meeting as to what the Residential Site Improvement Standard meant as to
improvements off site. Atty. Rubin asked Mr. Desch if he found a fairly clear
clarification on that very issue as promulgated by the DCA and Mr. Desch said
yes he did. Mr. Desch sent it as well as Atty. Rubin to Atty. Veltri this past
summer. Mr. Desch said the question had been raised by
Mr. Litwornia as to whether the Board should consider not
only the traffic generated by this site but consider all the traffic in the
entire existing neighborhood. DCA and RSIS has obviously been questioned about
this type of condition at length and did come out with an interpretation. The
interpretation clearly states that the a “T” of a street serving a multi-family
development with a single means of ingress and egress, has been increased to a
thousand trips as to oppose 250 trips, and certainly this development falls way
below that. They also clarified that based upon their interpretation that you
are not to consider the existing development when counting the number of
vehicles. The developer needs only to be concerned with your review of those streets
that he in fact is building and required to bring to the municipal standards.
Ken Job, of Job & Job Site Engineers, 108 Hudson St.,
Hackensack, N.J. came forward. Atty. Rubin asked Mr. Job what were his findings
as far as site drainage. Mr. Job said there are two issues when discussing site
drainage. First is what’s called storm water management that is detention or
retention on site. Because this is a residential development its subject to the
storm water management requirements of the RSIS. Those standards say, not only
can we not increase runoff from the property, but also when this project is
complete they have to have less runoff than what comes off now. For the two-
year design storm they have to have half of the current runoff, for a ten- year
design storm 75% of existing runoff, for a 100-year design storm 80% of
existing runoff. What they have designed is a below ground system that complies
with the RSIS and to simply put it when this is built there will be less runoff
than what comes off now. The second
issue that was brought up was runoff patterns. As far as quantifying the fact
that they are going to put less runoff directly onto neighbors properties. Mr.
Job said with this system at full capacity, there would be no increase of
runoff into the Mountain Ave. drainage system after this project is built. What
they have done is improve the drainage from what exists now.
Mr. Job went on to say, the site was rezoned to permit
the multi-family density as shown on the architectural site plan, however,
there were not corresponding revisions made to the Steep Slope Ordinance to
reflect a multi-family development on a small parcel and that is the reason for
the variance. You cannot achieve the density for which this site was zoned and
comply with the Steep Slope Ordinance.
MOTIN TO OPEN APPLICATION TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION: made by Member Platt,
seconded by Member Verba, carried by a voice vote.
Wayne
Rumsey, 75 Grove St. came forward. Mr. Rumsey wanted to make the Board aware of
a lot of changes coming through from the DEP and also Mt. Laurel and starting
to turn the tide in favor of the towns in giving them more leeway
in discretion in how things are built. Mr. Rumsey said the DEP is putting new rules in with regard to streams and wetlands and they’re trying to retain more water on
on
site and their increasing the buffers from 50 to 300 ft. As far as affordable housing, half of Mt.
Laurel housing should be sold or rented to seniors and
as
much as half the town’s remaining affordable quota could be satisfied by paying
a city enough which is currently $35,000 per unit to rehabilitate some of its
substandard housing.
Atty.
Rubin commented that Mr. Rumsey was reading this information from a newspaper
article and is a reporter’s view of changes that might be.
Atty.
Veltri commented and said we can only deal with the state of the law as it
exists tonight and said he thinks that was an article for future changes.
Maria
Conte, 22 Colfax Ave. came forward and said she bought her property 26 years
ago and wanted to subdivide it and was told she couldn’t. Ms. Conte wanted to
know how close the project was going to be from her. Mr. Marra showed Ms. Conte
on the plan the property lines. Mr. Marra had walked the property with Ms.
Conte and explained the distance from her property to the project. Planner
Hartmann explained to Ms. Conte she couldn’t subdivide her lot because it
wasn’t in the same zone as the project.
MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION: made by Member Slater, seconded by Member DiMeglio,
voting yes were Members DiMeglio, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba and Balunis.
Member
Platt told the Board that the Fire Chief informed him that the revisions for
the fire truck turning radius issue was all right with him and that the road
would be plowed in the winter time.
MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION FOR AN 18 UNIT SITE PLAN
& ALL THE REPRESENTATIONS & STIPULATIONS OF THE APPLICANT MUST BE TRUE
& ACCURATE , MUST COMPLY WITH THE BOARD’S ENGINEER’S REPORTS, PLANNER’S
REPORTS & THE TRAFFIC REPORTS ON THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE MENTIONED AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING, SUBJECT TO & CONTINGENT UPON RSIS REQUIREMENTS THROUGHOUT
THE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING TRAFFIC, SUBJECT TO THE WETLANDS WAIVER, SUBJECT TO
ADEQUATE WATER & SEWER COMPACITY, & SUBJECT TO THE APPLICANT ENTERING
INTO A DEVELOPER’S AGREEMENT WITH THE MUNICIPALITY WHICH THE BOROUGH ATTORNEY
WILL DRAFT: made by
Member Slater, seconded by Member Verba, voting yes were Members Graceffo,
Platt, Slater, Verba and Balunis. Member DiMeglio abstained because he missed
the last two meetings.
Application #17-03 “SASSAFRAS PROPERTIES, L.L.C.” (Holiday Inn Express), Union Ave., Block 468 Lot 3.01. Authorized Agent is A. Michael Rubin, Esq., Site Plan Application for an Eighty-One (81) Room Hotel.
This application is being carried over to a “Special Meeting” to be held on Tuesday, October 21, 2003 at 8:00 P.M.
RESOULTION: for Application #05-03 “Sassafras
Properties, L.L.C.”, Union Ave., Block 468 Lot 3.02, Amended Site Plan to erect
a 90 ft. high Pylon Sign with attendant variances and was voted on at the July
17, 2003 Meeting by a 7-0 vote.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Slater, seconded by Member Platt, voting
yes were Members DiMeglio, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba and Balunis.
VOUCHERS: submitted by Atty. Veltri for “Sassafras Properties, LLC” for review of
Site Plan and preparation of Resolution for $250.00, vouchers submitted by
Planner Hartmann for Preliminary Major Site Plan Application for “RSK”
Development Corp. for $800.00, Sassafras Site Plan Application for $200.00, for
a Grand Total of $1,250.00.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member DiMeglio, seconded by Member Verba, voting
yes were Members DiMeglio, Graceffo, Platt, Slater, Verba and Balunis.
MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:55 P.M.: made by Member Slater, seconded by Member Verba,
carried by a voice vote.
_________________________
Gerri
Marotta
Secretary
to Planning Board