PLANNING BOARD MEETING

BOROUGH OF WANAQUE

MINUTES

October 20, 2005

BEFORE: Members of the Wanaque Planning Board/Public

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT FOR THIS HEARING:

Chairman, Members DiMeglio, Graceffo, Mayor Hagstrom, Platt, Slater, Rucci, Planning Board Attorney, Township Engineer.

REQUESTED BY: Gerri Marotta

G & L TRANSCRIPTION OF N.J.

40 EVANS PLACE

POMPTON PLAINS, NJ 07444

(973) 616-1051

www.webtranscription.com

Salute to Flag

ROLL CALL:

Gilbert Foulon Kevin Platt

John DiMeglio Dave Slater

Joe Graceffo William Rucci

Mayor Warren Hagstrom

PRESENT: Attorney Steven Veltri and Engineer Michael Cristaldi.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Tony Brindisi, Eugene Verba, and Thomas Balunis.

READING: Open to Public Meeting Announcement MR. GRACEFFO: This is a regular meeting of the Wanaque Borough Planning Board and adequate notice has been given, and has been duly advertised by placement of a notice in the Trends and in the Herald News, mailed on January 21, 2005 and 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 last meeting

MS. MAROTTA: There were no minutes, because I’m having them done professionally, and they haven’t been returned to me yet.

MR. GRACEFFO: All right, so we’ll wait for the receiving of those minutes.

COMMUNICATIONS REPORT: No questions asked.

MR. GRACEFFO: Communications reports, note that they’ll be filed as provided. Application status.

APPLICATION STATUS REPORT:

MR. CRISTALDI: I have no new applications. Everything I have been conferred already.

NEW BUSINESS APPLICATION Computer Learning Annex, 532 Ringwood Avenue, Wanaque, New Jersey, Block 229, Lot 2.

MR. GRACEFFO: Okay. So, the first item on the agenda this evening is a new business application, Computer Learning Annex, located at 532 Ringwood Avenue, block 229, lot 2. The owner of the business is Sandra Ramos. Is the owner present? Would you step up, please.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Hi, I’m here on behalf of Sandra Ramos. I am the director of the Compu Learning Center.

MR. GRACEFFO: And your name please for the record.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Lena Lamontagne.

MR. GRACEFFO: Excuse us.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Lena Lamontagne.

MS. MAROTTA: Could you spell your name, please.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Sure. It’s L-a-m-o-n-t-a-g-n-e.

MS. MAROTTA: Lena, L-e-n-a?

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Yes.

MS. MAROTTA: And your address?

MS. LAMONTAGNE: The current address or for the business?

MS. MAROTTA: Where the business is. Well, let me have your address.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: 563 Ringwood Avenue, Wanaque, New Jersey.

MS. MAROTTA: That’s the business address.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Yes. The company address is P. O. Box U.

MS. MAROTTA: P. O. Box what?

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Letter U, Hewitt, New Jersey 07421.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay, thank you.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Your welcome.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: This business is at 532.

MR. CRISTALDI: No, the business address is 532 it says here.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Yea, the 532 is the location of where we’re requesting approval for. We currently have approval at 563 Ringwood Avenue.

MS. MAROTTA: But the business is at 532.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Yes.

MR. GRACEFFO: In other words, your moving the business from 5 --

MS. LAMONTAGNE: No, we’re actually looking to extend to provide literacy and computer training to youth ages 14 to 19. And it’s going to be after school from 3 to 5.

MR. GRACEFFO: And it’ll be at what address?

MS. LAMONTAGNE: 532 Ringwood Avenue.

MR. GRACEFFO: That’s where it’s going to be.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Yes.

MR. GRACEFFO: All right, that’s what we have to be concerned about. All right, very good. So the application’s been approved. All right. The fire inspection indicated that there’s a need for a fire extinguisher. Have you received that information from the Fire & Safety Bureau?

MS. LAMONTAGNE: No I didn’t.

MR. GRACEFFO: All right. On their report there’s an indication that there’s a need for fire extinguisher on the premises. So before you open the door with your CO, your going to need that. All right, everything in here is in order. Could you just give us a simple explanation of what the intent is of this business, please.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Sure. We received a grant to provide literacy and after school remediation, and pretty much to help disadvantaged youth with school work and homework help. And, also, in the summer we have a technology piece, which teaches computer applications and web design for that group ages 14 to 19.

MR. GRACEFFO: Okay. Do I have a motion of the Board to approve this?

MR. CRISTALDI: Do you have any off street parking?

MS. LAMONTAGNE: The kids are transported by van, we don’t really -- we do having parking on the side on. What is the name of the street to the right?

MS. MAROTTA: Pellington.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Not Pellington.

MR. CRISTALDI: Furnace Avenue, Furnace.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Yes.

MR. CRISTALDI: But you don’t have any off street parking.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: There’s parking in the back as well. There’s about four, five spaces back there for cars.

MR. RUCCI: There’ll be a drop off zone for these school buses I assume they are.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: It’s not a school bus, it’s just a van. We have a 12 passenger van, so we only accommodate up to 10 kids. We’ll probably on average have five at a time.

MR. DI MEGLIO: Who owns the building?

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Anthony DeMarco (phonetic).

MR. GRACEFFO: Are there any other questions of the Board members?

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: No.

MR. GRACEFFO: Oh, Gil is here, very good. I must have been sleeping. You can have the seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Finish this one.

MR. GRACEFFO: All right, do we have a motion of the Board to move this application, please, anyone?

MR. SLATER: So moved.

MR. GRACEFFO: Moved by Mr. Slater. Second by?

MR. PLATT: Second

MR. GRACEFFO: Mr. Platt. Roll call, please.

MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION: made by Member Slater, seconded by Member Platt, voting yes were Members DiMeglio, Graceffo, Mayor Hagstrom, Platt, Slater, and Rucci.

MR. GRACEFFO: Okay, good luck. Thank you.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Thank you very much.

MR. GRACEFFO: Just be certain you have the fire extinguisher in there before you open up, all right.

MS. LAMONTAGNE: Yes, no problem.

MR. GRACEFFO: Be my guest.

NEW BUSINESS APPLICATION Martial Art School, Karate School, 207 Ringwood Avenue, Wanaque, New Jersey, Block 204, Lot 5.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. All right we have a new business application. Martial Art School, Karate School, 207 Ringwood Avenue, block 204, lot 5. Owner of the business is Craig Boone (phonetic).

MR. BOONE: Yes sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And you are?

MR. BOONE: Craig Boone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. How are you sir?

MR. BOONE: Good. How are you this evening?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I’m just reading a letter from the building inspector, okay. Doesn’t seem like there’s anything wrong, just that we may have concern about the parking. It’s quite obvious what you want to do, you want to run a martial arts school.

MR. BOONE: That’s correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And what’s your parking situation?

MR. BOONE: Well, the back of the building there has numerous spots throughout the entire back. As far as what I slated for I believe 18 spots. I know there’s much more then that back there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: That’s in the C Town Shopping Center, Gil?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hum.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: That’s in C Town Shopping Center upstairs.

MS. MAROTTA: Yea.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Is that where that is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yea. And basically what he’s going to do is what Jeff is telling us that he’s going to use the entire second floor, 2900 square feet. And he wants us to be aware that in the future it can be divided up, there’s 18 uses allowed there I think. Let me see. Eight. There’s eight uses allowed there, okay. And I guess he wanted to make us aware of parking. However, for this application there’s plenty of parking. Any questions of the Board? Just briefly tell us what your going to do.

MR. BOONE: Just opening up a martial art school, training from children ages 4 up through adult. The classes are in the evening and Saturday mornings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any objections?

MR. GRACEFFO: Your parking won’t interfere actually then with pre-k school?

MR. BOONE: No, we’ll not, cause we’ll be there in the evenings, and she’s not there on Saturdays.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do I have a motion for approval?

MAYOR HAGSTROM: I’ll make a motion.

MR. GRACEFFO: I’ll second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Motion by Mayor Hagstrom, second by Joe Graceffo. Roll call.

MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION: made by Member Slater, seconded by Member Platt, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members DiMeglio, Graceffo, Mayor Hagstrom, Platt, Slater, and Rucci.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, good luck.

MR. BOONE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, did we do the report?

MS. MAROTTA: Oh, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just one second, please.

MS. MAROTTA: You did that, you reviewed his letter already, that was the parking. That’s from George.

MR. BOONE: I’m looking at November 1st.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And your aware of the water problem, the meter and all that?

MR. BOONE: We are aware of it, and that problem I received a call today from the owners of the building that it was already fixed. It was a meter problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. BOONE: And I do need to contact George to come in and just do the reinspection of it, which hopefully I can get him in next week to do, cause we’re to open November 1st.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Cause you won’t get a CO until --

MR. BOONE: Until he does that inspection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, and everything else is okay. Okay, good luck.

MR. BOONE: Okay, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, your aware you need a 20 pound fire extinguisher?

MR. BOONE: Yes. Matter of fact, I was told I need three of them up there. I already have one, and the other two will be up there this weekend.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now you can leave.

MR. BOONE: All right. Thank you.

NEW BUSINESS APPLICATION Tranquility Massage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good luck. New business application, Tranquility Massage.

MS. MAROTTA: You better read this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yea. Okay, I know. Right off the bat it’s a prohibited business in this town. Okay.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: Okay, I understand that. The ordinance 83-3 states that it’s unlawful for someone to, as you all know I’m sure you have it in front of you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: right.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: But next door there’s occupational therapy, which involves hands on. Across the street down by the Post Office is also a chiropractor’s office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: Which also involves hands on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, it’s not a massage parlor though, neither one of them are.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: Oh, but I’m not a massage parlor, I’ll be doing pain management. I am a massage therapist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yea, I know what your saying, you know.

MR. VELTRI: Can I interject?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yea. Yea, this is the ordinance guy so.

MR. VELTRI: If there’s an interpretation that needs to be made, and I think what your saying and suggesting, is that possibly your use is a permitted use; correct?

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: I’m hoping.

MR. VELTRI: Okay. This Board cannot make that interpretation, the Board of Adjustment can.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: Okay.

MR. VELTRI: So, if there’s a question on whether your use is permitted or not, and you would like to supply facts to suggest that it is permitted, the other board can listen to you and make a determination.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: Okay.

MR. VELTRI: If they determine that you are a permitted use, they’ll do a resolution, you can come back to this board for the business application that you’re here on tonight, we will hear it, and as long as everything else is in conformance, we’ll probably approve it. If they say you need a use variance, because your use is not permitted, then you need to stay at that board and obtain the use variance in order to get permission to do your business in that building.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: Okay. And when will there be a board meeting or something I should know of, where would I meet the --

MS. MAROTTA: They first Wednesday of every month. But I can tell you right now you wouldn’t make the November meeting, because Jeff there’s, you know, an application package that has to be filled out.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: And who do I get that from?

MS. MAROTTA: You should really come in -- you’ll have to come in and talk to the building inspector about this now.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: The building inspector is who?

MS. MAROTTA: Jeff Brusco (phonetic), he works right in that office there.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: Jeff Brusco.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, you should have been directed there right off the bat, you know, and we apologize for that.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: Okay, all right. I didn’t know. That’s fine.

MR. VELTRI: You know, if you strongly believe that it’s a permitted use, then ask him for an interpretation type of hearing, and then present your testimony to them. If you believe it probably isn’t so let me apply for the use variance, then you need to go through a formal application for a use variance application.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: And this is the building inspector.

MR. VELTRI: Yea, you talk to him about what your looking for.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: Okay.

MR. VELTRI: But that would be my advice.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: I actually believe he was the one who did send me here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think so too, because I’m reading his note, okay, that says it’s prohibited. And but, you know, he shouldn’t have sent you here, he should have sent you to the Board of Adjustment.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: Okay, the Board of?

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.

MR. VELTRI: Board of Adjustment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You see, if he’s telling us it’s a prohibited use and we can allow something that’s prohibited use, the Board of Adjustment can, okay.

MR. VELTRI: Or they can say that it isn’t a prohibited use, go back to the Planning Board, and then we’d be happy to hear it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: All right, thank you for your time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I’m sorry if you think your getting the run around.

UNIDENTIFIED PARTY: No, it’s all right. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

APPLICATION #17-05 Joseph and Dorothy Longo, 40 Maple Avenue, Haskell, New Jersey, lot 302, block 4.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, application 17-05, Joseph and Dorothy Longo.

MS. MAROTTA: Gil.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What’s that?

MS. MAROTTA: I got that this morning from Michael Rubin, the Longo’s already withdrawn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, they’re withdrawing their application. Wonder why? Probably found out they didn’t own the property.

MS. MAROTTA: Do we have to do a motion on that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have to do anything on that?

MR. VELTRI: Just make a motion to accept the application, and deem the application withdrawn.

MR. VELTRI: Yes, I have two resolutions. I want to take the less complicated one first, and that is on the Springer minor subdivision. They reconfigured lot line between two existing lots. We approved the application on September 15th by a 5 to 0 vote. The property is located in a R10 zone, the lots are adjacent, they both have existing residential dwellings on them. The subdivision was for one lot, lot 22 to convey to lot 23, 5,091 square feet at the rear of the lot. The adjacent lot will now be an L-shaped lot. The existing dwellings, garage, and shed will remain onsite. There were some pre-existing variances that would remain, but interestingly enough there were a couple of variances that were eliminated based upon the approval. And we approved the pre-existing variances on a flexible C analysis. We condition the approval based upon the representations being true, based upon the applicant complying with the engineers report dated September 8th, and that they receive any and all State, County, or local approvals that may be associated with this. That’s the resolution.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Entertain a motion for approval of the resolution.

MS. MAROTTA: Bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Made by Bill. Second.

MR. GRACEFFO: I’ll second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Joe. Any discussion?

MR. SLATER: Is that Charlie Huber’s (phonetic) sister or something, is that who that was, or is that the one on Greenwood?

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: This is on Pellington Street.

MR. SLATER: Pellington.

MS. MAROTTA: Oh, this was Springer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob Springer.

MR. SLATER: The electrician.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yea, right, selling some property to a neighbor.

MR. VELTRI: You may have come in after that Dave.

MR. SLATER: I don’t remember it. I was late one meeting like 8:30, so I think I’ll have to back out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He’s selling a part of his property to a neighbor to give her a bigger lot.

MR. VELTRI: It was very short application, you may have come in right after it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Roll call.

MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION: made by Member Rucci, seconded by Member Graceffo, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Graceffo, and Rucci, abstaining were Members DiMeglio, Mayor Hagstrom, Platt, and Slater.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, next resolution.

MR. VELTRI: The next resolution is Valley Hewitt Wanaque, block 432, lots 36 and 38, and that was an application for a preliminary major site plan. And we heard that application on September 15th, and by a 6 to 0 vote we approved the application. This is a long resolution, so I’m going to hit every condition. But I want to give some content first, and then there is an issue that has cropped up tonight with it. So, I need the Board to try to resolve that issue. This is a site consisting of 7.98 acres, it has frontage on Fourth Avenue, and it’s presently the location of an abandoned industrial establishment known as the Candle Factory. The application was to construct a gated residential development of 114 adult age restricted housing units. The subject housing units will be comprised of 70 condominium units contained within 235 unit buildings, and 45 townhouses contained in 8 buildings. A club house and recreational facilities, including a swimming pool will be included on the site. Now, this is the confusing part. And just for the record out of those 114 units, there will be 13 COAH units. They did present not only a full site plan, but an architectural plan. And they showed on the architectural plan a typical floor plan for both the townhouse unit and the condominium unit. I’m going to go off now on a tangent, then we’ll go back to the resolution. When I prepare resolutions I generally look at four things. I look at the site plan, and the architectural plans again. I look at my own notes that I make. And generally I do not prepare the resolution until I get minutes typed by our secretary, so I can look at those to see if my notes are accurate. And, finally, I look at Mike’s report, and any other reports that are in the file. When I looked at all the plans in this case there was nothing on the plans with a break down of how many one bedroom or two bedroom units would be onsite. And I checked Mike’s report, there was nothing in Mike’s report. I checked their expert reports, nothing in anything. Except I had a little note in my notes that said, I thought, 70 one bedroom condominium units, and 44 two bedroom townhouses. A little note I have. But I had a question mark in my mind when I prepared this thing in terms of maybe I was wrong, maybe that wasn’t said, maybe I was listening to one thing and looking at something else. When I got here tonight the attorney for the applicant was here and he brought it up, cause I had faxed this proposed resolution to both he and the Borough attorney. And he said gee, you know, in his mind the developer really hadn’t made a decision on how many bedrooms the units would be, and they’d like to deal with that at the final stage. So, when I prepared it when I was typing out this page, I directed my secretary to do it both ways. Once that they didn’t submit anything, and we deal with it at the final, and once with the break down. And then I came back and spoke to Gerri and she’s got the same notation in her notes that I have.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I now we asked the question. I mean I didn’t write down what the answer was, but I know the question was asked and answered.

MR. VELTRI: The question is, you know before we get to the rest of it, do you want me to present to you the resolution with the 70 one unit bedroom condominiums, and the 44 two bedroom townhouse in it, or the one saying that it really wasn’t presented, it’s going to be dealt with at the final stage? The only reason I’m even mentioning it is he was here, he’s gone now, and I said well, maybe I made a mistake and I’ll change. Now he’s not here, so it’s really not fair to him not to be heard. And I wanted you to hear the whole story, so that we’d all be on the same page when they come back for final.

MR. SLATER: I don’t think you have to be worried about fairness, as much as you have to worry about factuality. And if we could back it up with the typed minutes, I think --

MR. VELTRI: Well, the question is what did you hear, and what did you approve.

MR. VELTRI: It’s 13. That’s 13, that’s written in a couple of places. But this is the choice and the resolution, let me just give you the two sentences, and you tell me which one you want. One sentence is there will be 70 one bedroom condominium units, and 44 two bedroom townhouse units onsite. That’s one version. The other version is no break down of the exact numbers of one bedroom units and two bedroom units were presented or approved by the Board. Okay. And then I have another sentence in the conditions that they have to present, and I want, full architecturals when they come back for the final. We don’t want to guess or have, you know, what’s this, you know, how many bedrooms are on the end unit, how many bedrooms are in the middle. So, either way they’ve got to give us a full architectural. Again, it’s up to the Board on how you want the preliminary written. He objected, he said that there was really no firm break down, and I had it both ways in my notes. And I was unsure about it, that’s why I prepared it both ways.

MS. MAROTTA: Steve, I have 70 one bedroom units.

MR. VELTRI: Yea, 70 one bedroom, and 44 two bedroom.

MR. DI MEGLIO: What did you say, 114 units total?

MR. VELTRI: Yes.

MR. DI MEGLIO: I thought when they filed the application it was 104 units.

MR. VELTRI: No, it was 114 on everything I saw.

MR. DI MEGLIO: I thought in the paper it said 104.

MR. VELTRI: They presented 114, that’s what’s on the plan. Let me do this, le me go through the conditions, and then we can talk about it and decide which way we want to go. The conditions are all the same, it’s that once sentence that is the difference. They are presenting a total of 269 parking spaces on the site, and they are in the AAH2 Active Adult Housing District. No variances were applied for, and no variances were granted by the Board. I condition the approval on 22 conditions. So, I’m going to try to give you the basic conditions. First one is subject to and contingent upon all representations of the applicant being true. And if the representations are not true, the approval is subject to revocation. We granted the approval based upon the following specific representations. Number one, that at the time of final we’d be given a traffic study, a landscape plan with special attention to providing buffering to adjacent residential properties, and final architectural plans showing the break down of the units and the number of bedrooms in each unit. And we wanted those items to be presented during a public hearing for our review and approval. In addition, we want all Federal age restrictions for the adult community to be strictly applied during the marketing and selling of the subject units. Second condition is subject to the Passaic County Planning Board approval. Third one is subject to the Hudson Essex Passaic Soil Conservation District approval. Fourth condition was they need to enter into a developer’s agreement with the Borough, and post all performance guarantees that are necessary, and all bonding that’s necessary. And we wanted our resolution to be an exhibit in the developer’s agreement. Fifth that they needed to comply with the Planning Board engineer’s report dated 9/13/05, and, also, the report from Mr. Kelly, the Wanaque Borough Sewerage engineer’s report dated 8/30/05. And, then again, I mention that they need to present a traffic study to us, and the landscape plans, and the architectural plans. Sixth condition was that they submit a schedule to the engineer for construction. I wanted a construction schedule presented to our engineer. Seventh condition was that if blasting is required onsite, the blasting schedule has to be reviewed and approved by the engineer, and all blasting has to be conducted in accordance with State standards. Eighth condition was we wanted cross sections for critical slopes submitted prior to construction. Ninth condition was that storm water management drainage had to comply with RSIS standards. Tenth that we would approve the names of any and all roadways established for the project. Eleventh would be that the comply with any and all ordinances relating to fire prevention, water, and police. Twelve was, and this was another topic of discussion, that they had to comply with any and all soil moving permits or tree removal permits in accordance with Borough ordinance, and pay whatever fees were required. Again, this was a discussion I had with Mr. Hanley. I said to him that we did not want a situation here that they waive a final approval at the Building Department, and say we’re going to do anything we want. So, we’re approving this preliminarily, they want to deal with these specific topics when they come back, which they did not deal with when they were here last month. They can do that, and we’ll coordinate it with the Building Department, but I do not want to set up a situation where they have a preliminary approval, and they think they can do anything they want with soil and trees. That’s not what we set up, that’s not what we’re setting in motion, and I told them I was not going to change this condition. And he agreed after we had that discussion. The next condition was, again, a general one, an NJDEP condition, an ISRA condition that all environmental permits and/or no further action letters be obtained prior to construction. There were some concerns about environmental on this site, and what I’m saying in this condition is you get all your environmental approvals and permits, no further action letter, and then you build. Discussion again tonight centered on this condition. He said well, depending on what we get from the NJDEP we may have partial, and we would want to build partial. I said well that’s not we’re approving here preliminarily. If you have any of that testimony you want to put in, you put it in at the time of final, and then I can modify this condition at the time of final. But as of tonight you don’t have your permits, your not going to be able to construct anything. The next condition was any signage on the site had to be reviewed and approved by us prior to installation. Next condition was on affordable housing, the project would include 13 low and moderate income housing. And that the developer would pay for the sewer connection fees, and water connection fees for all the units, including these. Next condition was that they would pay for the sewer rights of the Borough at a rate of $7,700 per connection for all 114 units. The next condition was that they would enter into the pilot program in or ordinance on the payment in lieu of tax provision. The next condition dealt with off site improvements, that they would replace the existing water main, and install a 12 inch duct tile pipe for a distance of 400 feet along Fourth Avenue. And the other improvement they were going to make was install sidewalks connecting Fourth and Second Avenues on the Boulevard at a distance of approximately 550 feet, at their sole cost and expense. Next condition they would be responsible to pay for all water connection fees at a rate of $1,000 per unit for all 114 units and buildings on the site. The next condition was one that said the Borough of Wanaque is not going to be hamstrung by my conditions. That if Mr. Fiorello and the Mayor and Council want to add additional conditions in the developer’s agreement, they’re free to do that. But they can’t change what I’m doing without coming back to this Board, but they could add whatever they want. And, finally, there was a condition on as builts that Mike’s firm required. And that’s the resolution. So, if you want to add other conditions I can, but those 22 conditions I think were discussed and I think we should include. The one topic that I don’t have a clear answer for you on is did they break down the units and the number of bedrooms or didn’t they.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: If they don’t break down these units to us now, they’re going to have design changes, they’d be very open for design changes. I mean it’s just the nature of the beast. The total number is one thing, but knowing how many one bedrooms, how many two bedrooms also effects the pocket. So, we’re happy with 269, but for how many bedrooms.

MR. VELTRI: Well, the parking depending on the number of bedrooms they may have to come back for a parking variance. Is that correct, Mike, or is RSIS is it on the number of units or the number of bedrooms in the units?

MR. CRISTALDI: I’m trying to remember myself now. I don’t have it in front of me, I don’t remember myself how it was done.