PLANNING BOARD MEETING

BOROUGH OF WANAQUE

MINUTES

Regular Meeting

April 19, 2007

Meeting called to order by Vice Chairman Joseph Graceffo with a salute to the flag.

ROLL CALL:

John Di Meglio William Rucci

Mayor Dan Mahler David Slater

Joseph Graceffo Eugene Verba

Kevin Platt John Shutte

PRESENT: Attorney Steven Veltri and Engineer Michael Cristaldi

MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Gil Foulon and Member Ed O’Connell

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 22, 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 March 15, 2007 Meeting.

MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Di Meglio, seconded by Member Rucci, voting yes were Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Rucci, Slater and Verba. Member Shutte not qualified.

COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTS: No questions asked.

APPLICATION STATUS: Engineer’s report on Application #15-06 “Water’s Edge at Wanaque, LLC”. Eng. Cristaldi said the only application he has is the one on the agenda, which is “Water’s Edge at Wanaque, LLC”.

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 Rosario Presti Jr., Esq.

Attorney Presti came forward on behalf of the applicant. Atty. Presti informed the Board he has the Planner and the Project Engineer here this evening for testimony.

Atty. Veltri said a letter was received from Michael Kates, Esq. dated today and indicated at a prior meeting that he could not attend the meeting tonight. Atty. Kates said his expert received the plans within the last couple of days and requested the Board to extend our consideration of this application for at least one more meeting. Atty. Presti agreed with Atty. Veltri that no decision would be made tonight.

Atty. Veltri added, that at a prior meeting, the Board indicated that they would want to retain their own environmentalist and asked Atty. Presti if he intended to supply the Board with any amended environmental reports. Atty. Presti said actually their hope at this juncture is that they have the basic “EIS” which has been submitted and now the revised plan. The applicant would not object to the Board’s professional proceeding accordingly at this point, namely they won’t submit a revised draft at this juncture and will let the Board’s expert do what they need to do and the applicant will respond as to any questions that may arise as a result of their report. Atty. Veltri asked Atty. Presti when did he intend to put his environmentalist on. Atty. Presti said at this point, what they would do is put their environmentalist on after the Board has had their environmental consultant produce their report and then they would bring back Mr. Walker to respond and/or to elaborate if there were any outstanding questions or issues. Atty. Veltri asked the Board Secretary if the applicant was all right with escrow money and she said she received a large check from the applicant to be deposited in the escrow account. Atty. Veltri then said, he would ask the Board to consider making a motion to submit the existing environmental report to the Louis Berger Group, Inc. so that he can begin preparing a report hopefully for the May and at the latest the June Meeting. Eng. Cristaldi said the only thing wrong with that, is that it leaves things a little awkward for him to review; because now he’s going to be getting a new set of plans and have an environmental report that goes with a different set of plans. Eng. Cristaldi said the applicant’s environmentalist should just revise his report to reflect the right site plan. Atty. Presti said he could have Mr. Walker submit a supplement to the “EIS” addressing just the revisions as Eng. Cristaldi suggested.

Atty. Veltri said to Atty. Presti, that within three (3) weeks Mr. Walker will submit a supplemental environmental report and then prior to the next meeting have Gerri (Board Secretary) submit the existing environmental, the revised environmental and the revised site plan to the Board’s expert, so he can begin preparing his report. Eng. Cristaldi added that he would need Atty. Kates’ report too because the Board’s expert proposal was to compare those two reports because there is a lot of discrepancies between the two experts.

Mayor Mahler suggested that the Board Secretary should write a letter to Atty. Kates letting him know that he should have his environmental report updated to the new set of plans and that report should also be submitted to the Board’s expert who will be evaluating the two reports.

MOTION FOR APPLICANT TO PROVIDE A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON THE REVISED SITE PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD’S SELECTED ENVIRONMENTALIST, LAWRENCE PESESKY, THE LOUIS BERGER GROUP, INC. AND HAVE ATTORNEY MICHAEL KATES HAVE HIS ENVIRONMENTALIST, JOHN A. THONET OF THONET ASSOCIATES, INC., REVIEW THE NEW SITE PLANS SO THIS INFORMATION CAN BE AVAILABLE AT THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING AND THIS INFORMATION SHOULD BE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD AND TO THE VARIOUS PROFESSIONALS WITHIN A THREE WEEK TIME-LINE: made by Member Rucci, seconded by Member Platt, voting yes were Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Rucci, Slater, Verba and Shutte.

Atty. Presti said since the last meeting there are additional exhibits/documents that have been submitted to the Board and were marked as follows: Exhibit A-16 Letter dated March 5, 2007 from Wanaque Police Department, Exhibit A-17 Letter dated March 6, 2007 from Wanaque First Aid Squad, Exhibit A-18 Letter dated March 7, 2007 from Wanaque Borough Fire Dept. At this point, Vice Chairman Graceffo told Atty. Presti, even though these exhibits are being documented, they are based on the old set of plans, its only appropriate for these people to have an opportunity to review the new set of plans. Atty. Presti agreed. The revised site plan that was submitted by MCB Engineering that is comprised of 13 sheets with a revision date of April 4, 2007 will be Exhibit A-19, Architectural Plans submitted by Chester, Ploussas, Lisowsky Partnership, LLP last revised date April 5, 2007 will be Exhibit A-20, and Engineer Michael Cristaldi’s report dated April 18, 2007 will be Exhibit A-21.

MOTION REQUESTING THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE TO ALL THE AGENCIES INVOLVED ANOTHER SET OF PLANS FOR THEIR REVIEW AND DETERMINATION: made by Member Rucci, seconded by Member Shutte, voting yes were Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Rucci, Slater, Verba and Shutte.

Joseph Gurkovich, N.J. Professional Planner came forward to give a brief synopsis of the revision. Mr. Gurkovich said last time they were here before the Board, they had two clusters of buildings; one was a condominium building and one was a townhouse building. The Board had concerns regarding pedestrian access and also access for emergency vehicles. As a result of those comments, the site plan has been revised. Mr. Gurkovich proceeded to go over the site plan by MCB Engineering with the latest revision date of April 4, 2007. One of the things on the plan that wasn’t changed was the access road and it still comes in off of Susquehanna Ave. They removed the Club House Pool Area from the northwest corner and put it more towards the eastern corner of the site. There are now eleven residential buildings; townhouses on the south side of the building which is on the upper side and the COAH condominiums are accessed on the lower side as well as two other condominium units. Each townhouse has a two-car garage and two parking spaces in front and the COAH units have parking driveways in the front. The RSIS requirements for parking for this site are 213 spaces and the applicant is providing a total of 388 spaces which includes the driveways and garages as well as parking around the site roadways for guest parking. They have almost two times the amount of parking that’s required.

As part of the site plan, they have to cut into the rock wall and will be a 140 ft. cut in the rock wall. They left about 30 to 40 ft. along the rock wall base for any falling rock that might occur and also can be used for depositing snow during the winter so it won’t clog up the roadways or parking spaces. As the snow melts, it will go down the side and deposit into a catch basin in the grass areas. Each one of the roads is 24 ft. wide and more than adequate for emergency access.

Eng. Cristaldi asked about the COAH parking and that the townhouses have a driveway and a garage but the COAH units don’t seem to have any parking in them. Mr. Gurkovich said there are no garages for the COAH units but their driveways are right in front of the units. Mayor Mahler said to Mr. Gurkovich, he understands that a non-COAH unit will have a two -car garage and two parking spaces in the driveway and Mr. Gurkovich said that is correct. Mayor Mahler wanted to know how long the parking spaces in the driveway are and Mr. Gurkovich said between 20 and 25 ft. depending upon the indentations in the building façade. There are 38 spaces extra beyond the 388 spaces. The Club House has 28 spaces and 48 off street visitor parking; total number of spaces including COAH will be 426 spaces. The townhouses are two stories high and are on the south side and where the COAH units are below the townhouses, the townhouses are three stores high.

Atty. Veltri asked if the amendments to the plan eliminated any variances. Mr. Gurkovich said for the most part they were eliminated and there are a few that weren’t because of topographic conditions. The maximum building length where the ordinance requires 150 ft. and the applicant is asking for 180 ft. for the units.

Member Rucci asked what was going on with the access issue by the Burger King property and proposed project that was discussed at the last meeting. Atty. Presti said the title company is doing a full blown title search, but unfortunately because of the recent storm, the title company was flooded out, however, Atty. Presti was told by telephone that access should not be an issue. Engineer Cristaldi told Atty. Presti the question is whether or not the applicant has the right to improve the roadway if it doesn’t belong to them. Atty. Presti said in speaking with the title company, they’re advising Atty. Presti that should not be an issue. One of the members asked what the width of the bridge was and Eng. Cristaldi said the Traffic Expert had testified that pavement width had to be widened. Atty. Presti said the width of the bridge as it is now vs. what it can be there is still some ability to widen that bridge and if the applicant needs to do that, they can do that. Atty. Presti said they are confident from a review of the site itself that there is enough space to widen it and still have space available and because its near the river, it would behoove them to make sure they stay within those confines so they don’t get another public agency involved.

Atty. Veltri added, that according to his notes, in December Mr. Maltz, Traffic Engineer for the applicant with Hamal Associates, Inc., testified that the Borough needed to widen Susquehanna Ave. between the rear of the Burger King and the proposed site drive and provide two way pavement width and the current width is 16 ft. The question that night and again tonight is who owns the roadway and do we have permission to widen it? Atty. Presti said that Bi-Coastal was responsible for replacing the bridge for $250,000.00 and based upon that, if Bi-Coastal was responsible for replacing the bridge, Atty. Presti is pretty confident that the title work is going to show that the applicant has the ownership interest or the right to do whatever needs to be done to the bridge. Eng. Cristaldi added that he didn’t think Bi-Coastal did it and thinks the Borough paid for it and went after Bi-Coastal who only paid half of it.

Mayor Mahler said looking at the plan, it appears that some of the units indicate driveways and other ones it doesn’t; for instance Bldg. 6 doesn’t indicate any driveway on the north side. Mr. Gurkovich answered by saying that on the north side of Building 6 and the north side of Building 1 does not include any COAH units. Mayor Mahler said the plan indicates that there are two COAH units in Building 6. Mr. Gurkovich conferred with Eng. McClellan about this and Eng. McClellan will clear that up when he testifies.

Eng. Patrick McClellan from MCB Engineering came forward. Eng. McClellan said there are 11 buildings proposed; 9 of which are 180 ft. long buildings, Buildings 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11. Those 9 buildings each having 10 units each comprise 90 of the 96 units; their configuration is 4 flats (condos) on the northerly side and on the southerly side 6 townhomes. Therefore, you end up with a mix of 36 flats (condos) and 54 townhomes in those 9 buildings. All those buildings require driveways on the north side to service the flats (condos) and on the southerly side driveways to service the townhomes. The confusion comes in because there are 6 more units to put on the site and the architect has designed a 4 unit building which is Building #1 and a 2 unit building which is Building #6. Both of those buildings, because of their configuration, do not require access from both sides. Building #1 are 4 units accessed from the south side of the building townhomes. Building #6 also accessed from the south side logically should be 2 townhomes, but if you do the math, there should be 1 condo unit to comprise the 19^th COAH unit and that’s the confusion that has to be clarified with the architect by the next meeting.

Eng. McClelland went through Eng. Cristaldi’s report of April 18^th (all members have copies). On Page 3 under Parking, Eng. McClellan concurs that the summary of parking spaces that was on the plans and repeated in Eng. Cristaldi’s report is absent of the condominium driveway parking spaces. There is in fact more parking than is indicated. The on street stripped parking spaces of 48 is consistent with the RSIS Standard which requires a half of a parking space per unit for guest purposes; in addition to more than twice the number of spaces required, they have also met RSIS from that criteria to provide sufficient parking for guest parking. Referring to Page 4 on Steep Slopes, they are requesting a waiver from the criteria and have included calculations in the plans to show the maximum allowable disturbance and the total adjusted disturbance area calculations based on the latest plan. Under Site Circulation that states a break in the barrier on Lake Road should be provided to allow access to the driveways of the existing homes so neighboring properties can access their driveways traveling in either direction on Lake Road; Eng. McClellan concurs with that and will make the necessary changes. On Page 5 the road profiles indicate the applicant has made good use of the topography by maintaining road grades mostly at less than 5%. Eng. McClellan said they managed to have road network with road profiles that are far less than permitted by RSIS and it enhances pedestrian traffic and enhances vehicular/emergency services traffic. Page 6 under the section of Drainage/Wetlands they are well aware that this application will require some permits from NJDEP and any action by this Board, if approved, would be subject to those approvals and at that time will provide drainage calculations, detention and water quality for NJDEP consideration. Under the Section of Retaining Walls an alternative plan must be indicated should the rock face be unsuitable to be left exposed. The applicant’s intent for these walls to be sheer rock faces in the event that is unsuitable the applicant will provide an alternate plan for the Board’s Engineer’s consideration. Page 6 is a rather extensive commentary regarding the water. The applicant is well aware of the existing water system and clearly they need to make several improvements to the system to provide service to this site. Page 7 under the section of Sewer; again there are certain improvements that must be made and permits that are required and the applicant does understand that and at the appropriate time will make those applications. Page 8 under Landscape Plan Eng. Cristaldi made a couple of recommendations to increase the number of trees proposed and the applicant has no objection. Under the section of Lighting the fixture used is the same fixture used in the downtown improvement plan for Ringwood Avenue and will make sure the lighting footprint has no spillage onto neighboring residential properties.

Eng. Cristaldi went over the variances with Eng. McClellan; Minimum Frontage along a County Road there is none, Minimum Distance From Buildings to Internal Roadway they have 15 feet and when Eng. Cristaldi scaled them off and got a little less like the southeast corners of Buildings 4 & 5, Minimum Distance to a common parking area, since everyone has their own parking and their own unit, the only thing that would have a common parking area would be the Clubhouse and that basically has the parking adjacent to it, Maximum Building Length is 180 ft. as oppose to 150 ft., and the horizontal breaks is something the architect has to clarify but as Eng. McClellan understands it, it’s a minimum of every 50 feet you must have a 4 foot break.

Vice Chairman Graceffo asked if Eng. McClellan had any figures in terms of height and cutbacks for the rock wall. Eng. McClellan does expect for the finish rock face from toe to top, counting all the tiers, would be about l40 feet at its highest.

Eng. Cristaldi mentioned the Traffic Study and doesn’t know if the Board thinks the Traffic Study should be revised, because it’s the same number of units with a little different layout and most of the problems that came up were related to the way the site was laid out with the parking and circulation and now with the revised plan seems to be mitigated. Vice Chairman said he thinks the Traffic Study should be reviewed and if it needs to be changed and updated, it should be.

Mayor Mahler mentioned he would like to see more off-street parking for this project; he knows they have more than what’s required, but there is a problem at the Hovnanian Condominiums by Back Beach. A lot of people don’t use their garage because they need the garage space for their belongings. Mayor Mahler also mentioned about snow plowing during a big storm, they would need a place to put the snow. Mayor Mahler said if there was a way to put something at the end of each street where they could plow snow to and if we got big snowstorm like 1996, what would we do with the snow there. Atty. Veltri suggested that Eng. Cristaldi give them some suggestions on some areas where they could add some additional parking. Eng. Cristaldi said the problem down at Hovnanian was that the garages were so narrow that when people pulled into the garage they couldn’t open the car door and get out, therefore, people automatically stopped using them and started using the garages for storage. Eng. Cristaldi also said when the Board gets to the architectural plans the important thing is that the driveway and the garage is actually wide enough to really function.

Mayor Mahler asked about the garbage collection. Atty. Veltri said, normally the town does collect the garbage and if they don’t there will be a private pick-up. Mayor Mahler said at Brookside Heights they have dumpsters and the town’s contractor picks it up. Mayor Mahler said when Brookside Heights was first built they had to do their own garbage but the law changed a few years ago and requires the town to pick up the garbage.

Atty. Veltri said the applicant has to tell the Board their intent and if their intent is to have the town do snow plowing and garbage pick-up then that’s the way it will be handled, but if the bi-laws of the condominium association have other ideas they need to notify the town.

Eng. Cristaldi asked about the homes near the site and if they have water and sewer and was told they’re on septic. Eng. Cristaldi said he wondered if at some point those homes would have to be connected because they’re within so many feet of a new sewer. Eng. McClellan said when this project is done the sewer will go all the way down to Susquehanna Ave. Eng. Cristaldi asked how many homes would be involved and Eng. McClellan said he thinks there are three (3) along Lake Drive and could provide the stub for them.

Atty. Veltri asked if access from the roadway to these homes is through an easement on the applicant’s property and Atty. Presti said it may very well be. Eng. Cristaldi added that once the title search is completed, the Board should have some kind of plan that shows from the title search what the applicant owns and what areas are in discrepancy. Atty. Presti said the title search would provide answers to these questions.

MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION: made by Member Slater, seconded by Member Rucci, voting yes were Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Rucci, Slater, Verba and Shutte.

Sandy Lawson, 28 Haskell Ave. came forward. Ms. Lawson said she is concerned about the retaining walls and thinks 140 ft. equates to about 14 stories and thinks that is absolutely huge. She mentioned in Eng. Cristaldi’s report it says the wetlands delineations have been done and wanted to know if the applicant has an LOI? Eng. McClellan said an LOI has not been obtained yet.

Ms. Lawson also mentioned that she didn’t hear anything about Drainage or Storm Water Management and believes that the Borough has a Storm Water Management Plan but this project will probably require a revision to that. Eng. Cristaldi said the applicant would have to comply and the problem is that the DEP is going to end up having so much jurisdiction over all of this and we will need something back from the DEP. Ms. Lawson also commented on the sewer and its been established that this project is not in the sewer service area. Ms. Lawson said she’s been reading the minutes from the Sewer Authority and this applicant will have to apply to the USEPA for a grant waiver and there’s a good possibility that that may or may not be approved. Ms. Lawson asked Eng. McClellan to go through the applications that the applicant will have to get. Eng. McClellan proceeded by naming the applications; Sanitary Sewer Extension, Water Main Extension, Wetlands Letter of Interpretation, Wetlands General Permits, Stream Encroachment; applications for the Wetlands & Stream Encroachment will also cover the jurisdiction of the Storm Water Management and these are the applications that are certain at this time. Eng. McClellan said there might be others, but at this time, he believes that is all of them and the NJDEP will advise them when they submit if there is anything additional that they need.

Ms. Lawson summed up by saying; she hopes the Board will not grant preliminary approval until they have some of these serious issues out of the way.

David Da Silva 108 Monroe St., came forward. Mr. Da Silva said, in reference to the Storm Water Management Plan, early on he said there was a discussion about snow going into a catch basin or retention basin somewhere on the east side of the property. Mr. Da Silva wanted to know what happens to that after it melts. Eng. McClellan said, just to be clear, the catch basin that Mr. Gurkovich was talking about is in response to Eng. Cristaldi’s letter. You won’t see it on the plan, so its something they have to amend for a collection system to show the snowmelt that would enter into that system and would ultimately get into the eventual Storm Water Management System that will be designed. The jurisdiction of this is with NJDEP and this design is so sensitive to the scope of development that they want to try and do it one time because it is an extensive design. Mr. Da Silva said he didn’t see letters from the First Aid Squad, Fire Department or Police Department, but did they give an opinion as to whether or not in six inches of snow their vehicles can make it up a 20% grade? Eng. McClellan said if he is referring to the driveway, no opinion to that but again that driveway grade is a little bit flatter than exists today. So despite the fact that that’s not an ideal situation, it is better than what exists today. Mr. Da Silva finished up by saying the height of the cliff on either side of the property, is higher than the Statue of Liberty and he thinks that this a huge cliff that the applicant is asking for and Mr. Da Silva is offended that its even being considered.

MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION: made by Member Di Meglio, seconded by Member Slater, voting yes were Members Di Meglio, Mayor Mahler, Graceffo, Platt, Rucci, Slater, Verba and Shutte.

Mayor Mahler wanted to clarify that the height of 140 feet is the sum of the three retaining walls. Eng. Mc Clellan said that is correct and the total height from the toe of the lowest wall to the top of the highest wall at its highest is 140 feet. The wall is constructed in tiers set back so that the scale of it is not to create the impression that its 140 foot sheer face but 140 feet in height total and is set back about 50 feet from the toe of the lowest wall.

Atty. Presti said next month he will probably just have the architect testify and Eng. Mc Clellan will be back and probably Mr. Gurkovich.

Atty. Veltri wanted to clarify for the record that the applicant is stipulating and extending all time limitations on the Board to make a decision on this application and Atty. Presti agreed. The Board Secretary verified with Atty. Presti that he would be sending the revised plans on to the Fire Department, First Aid Squad and Police Department.

Eng. Cristaldi said he may have some comments for the architect and he’ll put it in a letter. Eng. Cristaldi is concerned about some things like the width of the garage openings and inside the garage. Atty. Veltri asked Eng. Cristaldi if he could, in that letter, let the Board know what the minimum width should.

RESOLUTIONS: None

VOUCHERS: None

MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 10:14 P.M.: carried by a voice vote.

_____________________________

Gerri Marotta

Planning Board Secretary