PLANNING BOARD MEETING
BOROUGH OF WANAQUE
MINUTES
May 18, 2006
BEFORE: Members of the Wanaque Board of
Planning/Public
BOARD MEMBERS
PRESENT FOR THIS MEETING:
John DiMeglio,
Mayor Thomas Balunis, Joseph Graceffo (Acting Chairman), Kevin Platt, William Rucci,
David Slater, Eugene Verba, Ed O’Connell, John Shutte.
OTHERS PRESENT
FOR THIS HEARING:
STEVEN VELTRI,
ESQ., Board Attorney
MICHAEL CRISTALDI,
Township Engineer
REQUESTED BY: THE BOROUGH OF WANAQUE
G & L TRANSCRIPTION OF NEW
(973)
616-1051
Page
Application #05-06 “Valley View at Wanaque.” 4
Application #11-06, Bald Eagle Urban 134
Exhibits Evid.
A-1 - Architectural Drawing 55
Vouchers 161
Pledge of Allegiance:
MR. CHAIRMAN: Roll call.
ROLL CALL: John DiMeglio, Mayor Tom Balunis, Joe
Graceffo, Kevin Platt, William Rucci, Dave Slater, Eugene Verba, Ed O’Connell,
John Shutte, Attorney Steven Veltri, Engineer Mike Cristaldi. Gilbert Foulon,
absent.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a regular meeting of the Wanaque
Borough Planning Board and adequate notice has been given; and it has been duly
advertised by placement of a notice in the Trends and the Herald News mailed on
January 20th, 2006. A notice
thereof has been posted on the bulletin board in the
Okay, in reference to last week’s minutes, call for an approval of the minutes. Do I have a motion?
MOTION FOR AN APPROVAL OF
MINUTES:
Made by Mayor Balunis, seconded by Mr. Rucci; voting yes were John DiMeglio, Mayor Balunis, Kevin Platt, William Rucci, Ed O’Connell, John Shutte.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, communications and reports as listed in the packet, any questions from the Board members? If not, just file, please. Application status, we’ll get the engineer’s report.
MR. CRISTALDI: Everything I have is on the agenda.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, good.
Application #05-06
Wanaque Associates, LLC, “Valley View at Wanaque.”
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, so we’ll hear our first application, Number 05-06, Wanaque Associates, Valley View at Wanaque, Block Number 432, Lots 36 and 38, Haskell, New Jersey. It’s the Final Site Plan Approval for construction of Adult Housing for 70 Condominium Units and 44 Townhouses.
Are the representatives here? All right, you step forward, please.
MR. HANLEY: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Board. My name is George Hanley and I’m with the firm of Weiner, Lesniak. We represent the applicant in this matter, and we’re prepared to proceed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, you’re going to have to speak a little bit louder into that microphone, please, for us --
MR. HANLEY: I’m sorry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And, again, maybe give us the information over again --
MR. HANLEY: Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -- so we have it on the official record.
MR. HANLEY: My name is George Hanley. I’m an attorney with the firm of Weiner, Lesniak. I represent the applicant in this matter, and we are ready to proceed at the pleasure of the Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hanley, how many witnesses do you have tonight?
MR. HANLEY: I have the engineer, the planner, traffic expert, an environmentalist, and the representative of the company that will do the blasting on site, if the Board wishes to hear from him.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so potentially five witnesses, correct?
MR. HANLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can they step forward so I can swear them in at one time, please?
MR. HANLEY: Sure, absolutely. Oh, and did I say the architect?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Six witnesses, then.
PATRICK MCCLELLAN, KEN
OCHAB, GENARO SALIERNO, MERWIN KINKADE, KENNETH MALTZ, RAYMOND VAN PEENAN,
SWORN.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We’ll take your names as you testify. Okay, Mr. Hanley, you can proceed.
MR. HANLEY: Okay. I’d like to call the engineer first, Mr. McClellan.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think at the preliminary hearing Mr. McClellan testified, and you were qualified as a civil engineer.
MR. MCCLELLAN: That’s correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that correct, sir?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yes, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And is that what you’re testifying to tonight, as an engineer?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yes, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We don’t need to hear his qualifications again, Mr. Hanley.
MR. HANLEY: All right. As the Board may recall from the preliminary site plan approval which was granted earlier this year, there were a number of items that the Board had requested that we address in the final site plan application; and we have been working extensively with the Borough Engineer in that regard. And I would suggest that perhaps the best way is for Mr. McClellan to review and highlight those items which would in effect pretty much cover the waterfront, I believe, in terms of the application as it has been supplemented and revised for final site plan.
MR. CRISTALDI: That’s fine.
MR. HANLEY: If that’s acceptable, Pat, do you want to proceed?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McClellan, can you do us a favor, please, could you pronounce your name and spell it for the secretary?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yes, sir.
Patrick McClellan, M-c-C-l-e-l-l-a-n.
Okay, the plans that I have posted on the board are the same plans that
have been submitted to the Board. They
are entitled “Site Plan/Soil Removal Plan For Valley View at Wanaque, Lots 36
and 38 and Block 432, Borough of Wanaque,
These plans that were presented to you we believe are in accordance with all the conditions of the preliminary site plan resolution, and what I’d like to do is go through Mr. Cristaldi’s letter dated May 8, 2006 so that I can identify how each of these items have been addressed.
I’m referring to page one, a traffic study, not plan related, but has been submitted by Mr. Maltz, the traffic engineer who will testify later. Landscape plan, providing buffer for residential properties, if I can draw your attention to sheet seven, we’ve supplemented the landscape plan by doing a couple of things. We -- we have some limited area behind the townhomes here (indicating) that are along the rears of the homes on Decker, but we’ve provided some more planting in there. We have also raised the height of the proposed wall from 4 feet to 6 feet, which will be at the top of the wall to help for screening purposes.
In addition, along the rear of the development we’ve supplemented the planting with some dark arborvitaes. We had opportunity to speak with some of the neighbors back in December and January, and we’ve tried to incorporate their suggestions to provide some further screening in this area (indicating).
In addition, there’s some other site planning changes that we’ve made that have given us opportunity to enhance landscaping, such as in front of one of the condominium buildings over here (indicating).
The next item, architectural plan, showing a breakdown of the unit numbers and the number of bedrooms, that information is contained on the architectural plans but it is also contained on the site plan for convenience on sheet three. In the lower right corner we provided a breakdown of the condominium units, the number of bedrooms, the square footage. In addition, we did the same for the townhomes. There are both four unit townhomes and six unit townhomes, and those are broken down as well. And that information is consistent with the architectural plans.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Can you just put on the record what -- what it is rather than referring to it? Can you read into record what -- what the numbers are?
MR. MCCLELLAN: I can. The 114 units, though.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. MCCLELLAN: For the 35 unit condo building there’s a -- there’s a unit schedule for the first and second residential floor, and there are 13 -- actually there are 12 units. Unit A is 1,150 square feet. It’s a one-bedroom, one and a half bathroom. Unit B is 1,136 square feet, one bedroom, one and a half bath. Unit C is 1,266 square feet, one bedroom, one den, one and a half bath.
MR. CHAIRMAN: On units -- I don’t mean to interrupt you but --
MR. MCCLELLAN: It’s okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -- on Unit A you told us there were 12 units but you didn’t tell us the number of units for B or C. You gave us the square footage but not the number of units.
MR. MCCLELLAN: The 12 was referring to the number of different units in the 35 unit condo, not -- not that there were 12 of Unit A, --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, okay.
MR. MCCLELLAN: -- and the number of units within the building itself I’d have to ask the architect to provide you because I -- I can tell you the different units but I don’t know how many of them are in each building.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you give us an overview, how many one bedroom units and how many two bedroom units?
MR. HANLEY: If I may --
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don’t want to interrupt but that’s --
MR. MCCLELLAN: That’s okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -- I need that for my information.
MR. MCCLELLAN: That’s okay.
MR. HANLEY: May we -- Mr. Genaro Salierno has been sworn and qualified previously as well if you’d like him --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, he has. You’re under oath, sir. If you could just answer that question and we’ll get back to the engineering.
MR. SALIERNO: They’re all one bedroom units. In the first and second floor there are 12 units, and the
third, a residential floor, there are 11 units. That’s how we have 35 units.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And total, total, how many one bedrooms?
MR. SALIERNO: They’re all one bedrooms. All the units are one bedrooms.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 71 bedrooms?
MR. CRISTALDI: 114 one bedroom.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There are 114 --
MR. SALIERNO: Yeah, 114 one bedrooms.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 114 one bedroom?
MR. SALIERNO: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Can I ask a question? Even the townhouses are one bedroom?
MR. MCCLELLAN: The townhouses are listed as one bedroom.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As one bedroom?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yes, sir.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With a library and a den.
MR. HANLEY: Yeah, there is a den. Is that right?
MR. SALIERNO: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So that could be used as a bedroom.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: (Inaudible) parking spots available.
MR. MCCLELLAN: The next item, Passaic County Planning Board
approval, I indicated I submitted, and I’ll update the Board, we have obtained
the
Next item, regarding steep slopes, due to steep slopes and a lack of useable recreation area the applicant was amenable to an offsite recreational approval. I think the Board --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Improvement.
MR. MCCLELLAN: -- improvement, correct. If the Board wants more detail on that, I would refer back to Mr. Hanley.
MR. HANLEY: We have agreed to basically resurface and rehabilitate some tennis courts that the Borough requested in this regard.
MR. CHAIRMAN: In the back beach area, correct?
MR. HANLEY: I’m sorry?
MR. CHAIRMAN: In the back beach area of town?
MR. HANLEY: Ah --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, that’s where it is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you.
MR. MCCLELLAN: Under the heading of “Drainage calculations for the storm scepter system,” the water quality device that’s proposed, those calculations have been provided under separate cover to Mr. Cristaldi and are consistent with the item that’s proposed on the plan.
“Maintenance plan for the detention system and water quality system,” we have included that information on sheet four of the plan. In the lower right corner we have our storm water management maintenance plan.
“Test pit data for ground water recharge,” we asked Mr. Cristaldi to consider that that item be deferred to a more appropriate time when construction begins as this site is developed with buildings. The areas we’d want to test are inaccessible.
“Drainage outfall review,”
we are -- if I can draw your attention to sheet four of 16, our original plan
had our storm water outfall connecting to the sewer in
MR. CRISTALDI: You may just, you know, let you guys know, it’s -- they’re still going to have to -- they may still have to complete the design. We’re not sure if they really need or not need any permits yet, but, you know, the application is going to have to be subject to that -- that drainage succeeding the way they have it planned.
MR. MCCLELLAN: We know from the information we’ve collected so far -- just as late as this afternoon, I received some surveying data -- we know that it will work. We have enough elevation difference for the distance we have to travel. So now we just have to put a design together and submit that to Mr. Cristaldi for his review.
MR. CRISTALDI: And I think we have a note on the drawing there on Fourth Avenue about the -- about the -- about the drainage that would have to be completed -- the design would have to be completed and functional before any construction goes ahead, right, we have a note on the plans?
MR. MCCLELLAN: We -- we -- we have a note that says the outflow must be resolved prior to the commencement of any construction.
MR. CRISTALDI: That’s noted on the plans, too, so.
MR. MCCLELLAN: The next item --
MR. CHAIRMAN: The question (inaudible) resolved or constructed, Michael?
MR. CRISTALDI: Well, when I say “resolved,” I mean it can be built and will be built as part of the project.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.
MR. CRISTALDI: This way we know it can be done. I mean obviously if it can’t be done, if it runs into a problem where it can’t be done, that’s why we have to make that subject to that if they can’t, they’ll have to come back and see where we’re gonna run their drainage. And actually the plan says before they do anything onsite, so we’re going to work out the drainage problem before they do anything.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is important because part of the application is the soil removal permit. So what you’re saying is that’s got to be resolved before the soil removal?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, what we would ask, from our perspective, we would want to know that the outfall feasibly can be built and if that would -- for us that would involve, you know, the surveying work that’s been completed and then a design of that outfall which -- you know, which we’ll be able to submit hopefully in the next two week’s time. I guess the one thing I’d ask the Board to consider, if, you know, there’s an extensive amount of building removal and excavation for the site, that it would be -- it would make sense to me if that part of the project could proceed while if any permits were needed, that those were being obtained. You know, because NJDEP with regard to discharge permits can take anywhere from a month to eight months.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s up to you, Mike.
MR. CRISTALDI: Well, I mean, do you want to have them start clearing the site before they know they can do the drainage, I mean that’s -- that I couldn’t tell you. I mean whether or not the buildings need to be there -- what they -- I mean, the buildings would come down I guess or start -- I don’t know if -- once they start clearing the site or -- I mean that’s really up to you guys, the condition that you want to put on it, how far you want to let them go before they have everything in hand.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would this be clearing the site, no cut and fills, just clearing the site?
MR. MCCLELLAN: No, it would -- there’s -- there’s an extensive amount of excavation to happen on the site so the activity of removing the buildings, clearing the site, and rough grading the site we would -- we would wish to be able to proceed with that portion of it once we know that this is a feasible outfall, that it’s, you know, technically correct.
MR. CRISTALDI: Excavation to include blasting?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yes, sir.
MR. CRISTALDI: So you’re basically getting headstrong right into the project?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yes, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: This project -- the project, though, will take place on your site, though, initially, correct? But eventually it’s going to go offsite. How far offsite is the continuing trenches?
MR. CRISTALDI: The drain -- the drainage?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.
MR. CRISTALDI: It goes across the street and then back out through the -- where the -- there used to be a composting facility -- I think that NJDOT took it -- I’m not quite sure who owns -- where the -- who owns all the properties where it goes through.
MR. MCCLELLAN: We’re still -- we’re still learning that but
I believe we’re going to find it to be NJDOT and the Borough of Wanaque
properties. And the -- the pipe -- the
outlet of the pipe is approximately 425 feet outside the right of way of
MR. CRISTALDI: See, there is an outfall there. It’s not that they’re planning to put one there. There is one there already but you -- we’d like to see it refurbished with what they’re going to put in on this site.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. CRISTALDI: So I mean it -- I mean they have a little advantage in the sense that there is an outfall existing there. It’s not like they’re trying to put something in where there never was one before. It’s there. It has to function because it does collect the drainage at that point from their site and from that immediate area. So I mean --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, what is the time frame, Mike, in your opinion going to be until this can be worked out?
MR. CRISTALDI: It all depends on whether or not you -- what permits might be necessary from DEP, you know. I mean, you could submit something to them, I think they have, what, 90 days to decide whether or not it’s even complete; and they can come back the 89th day and say, hey, we want this and you have to submit it. You got -- they got another 90 days, and they can drag it on. How long I couldn’t tell you.
MR. GRACEFFO: Now, there appears to be two issues; first of all, the engineering ability to do it, which you claim now you have that.
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yeah, I believe we have a good grasp that -- that physically this can happen.
MR. GRACEFFO: It can be done.
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yeah.
MR. GRACEFFO: And then the second thing would be the approvals to create that -- to construct that and drop it in that area. So that’s the big question, how soon we get the approvals. My suggestion would be that we would -- once we know it can be designed and constructed, that the entire resolution would be based on the final approval before anything else gets going on. I mean, they can work onsite and then it’s a matter of determining if it can be done.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Joe, I don’t think it’s a question of construction, it’s a question of --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Excavation.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- is it useable. In other words, has it, perhaps, collapsed, is it a big enough diameter to carry what discharge they’re going to have and then will the DEP permit them to use that outfall. Isn’t that where we’re going, Mike?
MR. CRISTALDI: Well, it -- it -- it’s not -- they’re already using it. That site already drains to that drain.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what Mike is -- what Michael is saying is simply that there’s outflow going there now.
MR. CRISTALDI: Correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And we just want to be certain that with the new construction we have a new designed outflow.
MR. CRISTALDI: Well, yeah, you --
MR. CHAIRMAN: So you’re not going to do away with an outflow. You have to -- you still have an outflow. We have one presently. We need one for the future. The question is going to be redesign and -- to appropriate the present project.
MR. MCCLELLAN: And I’m confident that we can do that. We’ve done some preliminary calculations. We’ve done -- we’ve looked at the survey data so it -- from a practical perspective this can be done; and, again, it’s something we can pull together in a short period of time, approximately two weeks. And then, you know, if permits are involved -- and I -- and I think that that might be the case, but we can submit it right away. But I think this is more of an issue of can it be done, and once we decide that it can I think the permitting is more of just an administrative process. Is this -- you know, where this pipe is discharging, I know it’s sensitive areas. The environmental consultant has looked at it and advised us that, you know, this is a simple, general permit and didn’t see any -- any reason why we’d have a -- any issue there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I’m going to suggest that we maybe go on the premise that we’re going to allow the engineer, our engineer to keep track of the development and be certain that it’s being done within the proper scope with the rules and the laws and the DEP. And if that’s the case, we’ll continue the project because obviously it’s there already. We’re looking -- the Town is looking for it to be refurbished and redesigned --
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yes, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -- which will aid the area and the development so --
MR. MCCLELLAN: That’s correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -- you have to prove that it can be designed and it can be constructed; and then eventually once that’s done, under the direction of our engineer, that you get the approvals for it.
MR. MCCLELLAN: Right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And we move forward.
MR. MCCLELLAN: Good.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So we’re going to ask that our engineer monitor the development of this particular drainage outflow development, all right?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And we’ll have that in the resolution.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: But let me be clear because I’m a little unclear. Are we saying that we will not allow any excavation or soil removal onsite until the Borough Engineer believes that this system can be designed and constructed, is that what we’re saying?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Or approves as designed, correct? Approves as designed?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah. So we’re saying no soil removal or excavation onsite until that point, until you determine that this system can be designed to construct it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does that include permits? I mean, that’s the -- I mean, I can’t -- yeah.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: No, it does not include permits. Right up to that point.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You’re saying after two weeks.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Subject to DEP --
MR. MCCLELLAN: We can submit in two weeks for review.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that what the Board wants?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sounds fair.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I mean, you -- we’re going to hear from the public and we’ll, you know, have time but if -- if that’s where we’re going I’d rather put it in my notes now so we don’t have to come back to it two hours from now and decide again.
MR. CRISTALDI: I’ll point one more thing out for you. I mean, assuming in the end with their detention calculations they have a zero increase in runoff and whatnot, the drain that’s there, I -- I think it has some problems. It needs to be cleaned out in a few spots. But assuming that they have zero increase in runoff, the drainage is there and that’s what drains this property now. So, I mean, it needs some improvements. I mean, do we have to wait until they actually get their permits back in hand before they start doing any work, I don’t -- I don’t -- I don’t know. It’s there now, the site. It’s pretty much impervious now; the buildings, the rock, the pavements. So, I mean, I would -- so -- you know, agree with what you’re saying that at some point when they finish the design and they get it off the DEP, at that point they’ve done what they can and we’re going to have to assume the DEP is going to allow us to at least keep what we have and maintain what we have and get it up to snuff for what it should be.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, when you approve their -- when you approve, subject to DEP obviously, their system, then the soil permit would -- would be activated.
MR. CRISTALDI: Okay.
MR. MCCLELLAN: I thank you. The next section regards to the water. Two comments; one, the lock tight gaskets for 12 inch DEP water main to be submitted and a trench detail to be submitted. Both of these items are contained on sheet 13 of the plans. The lock tight gaskets are indicated by a note right in the center toward the bottom of the plans, and the water main trench details are located in the lower right corner. There’s separate trench details for pipes that are in paved areas and pipes that are not in paved areas.
MR. CRISTALDI: Did you get the second letter -- I sent out a -- I had spoken to the Water Department. Did you get that --
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yes, sir.
MR. CRISTALDI: Is there any problems with anything in that letter?
MR. MCCLELLAN: No problems. And I was -- when I completed your May 8th memo, I was going to --
MR. CRISTALDI: Oh, okay.
MR. MCCLELLAN: -- then refer to that one --
MR. CRISTALDI: I’m sorry.
MR. MCCLELLAN: -- just to -- that’s okay.
MR. CRISTALDI: Yep.
MR. MCCLELLAN: Next item for sewer. “Sewer approval must be made by the Sewer Authority so review is necessary by William Kelly, the engineer for the Sewer Authority.” We actually -- we have submitted the plan for his comment for the Board’s benefit, and actually a letter has come back today, which we have a copy of. We also recognize we have to submit under the auspice of a Treatment Works Approval Application as well.
Next item, under “Site Circulation” showing the ashtoe site distance on the plans. Refer to sheet three for the next few comments. The plans on sheet three --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. McClellan, can I just go back to one thing. You do say you have receipt of the letter from W.J. Kelly, the engineer representing the Wanaque Borough of Sewage Authority --
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yes, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -- indicating what needs to be accomplished for the project to go on?
MR. MCCLELLAN: That’s correct, dated May 16.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, and you are in agreement with what they are stating?
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yes, sir.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I just want to make certain it’s in the record.
MR. MCCLELLAN: The ashtoe site distances are shown on the plan. It’s not constructured (sic) elements so they’re -- they didn’t (inaudible) lines but at each of the intersections we provide sight lines in accordance with the ashtoe standards to show the proper sight distances provided and also at the intersection, the access to the site, and Fourth Avenue
“Radius increase for the coldesac,” the area back here near units 13 through 22, we’ve made some changes to the coldesac area to remove some of the potential impediments; the parking that was previously shown in the center and we also had some parking spaces shown along the southerly edge of that coldesac. Those spaces have been removed to increase the flexibility for emergency vehicles to turn around.
“Parking area across from unit 23 shares the access drive lane and conflicts that need to be remedied.” That’s referring to this area here (indicating) in front of the condo building. We have actually removed the parking spaces that were in that area, and we’ve also modified the traffic flow in that area so that we’ve eliminated all of the potential conflicts of cars backing out and cars merging from the two access lanes that we previously had.
Item five under Site Circulation, “Provide a note on the plans addressing how garbage will be handled since no dumpsters are shown.” On sheet five of the plans we have added a note to that effect. Under the construction notes item two states that “Refuse pickup for the Townhouse units is proposed to be handled at the curb. Refuse in the condo building shall be collected in refuse rooms at the garage level.” And those will be both by private contractor.
“Provide a note on the plans how snow will be snacked for plowing since there is no space provided for that purpose.” And we’ve indicated by note on sheet four under Miscellaneous Utility Notes, number seven, “Snow shall be removed from site by private contractor.” We discussed at the preliminary -- with the acknowledgement that snow would need to be removed and that will have to be the responsibility of the association.
“Show the proposed garage dimension.” The architectural plans that were submitted indicate the garage dimensions for all the units. Mr. Salierno will speak to that when I conclude.
Item eight, “Parking needs to be eliminated to provide spaces for adequate radius and clear driving lanes.” Then “The applicant should consider reducing the open space and providing alternative parking by moving back the westerly retaining wall and shifting over the Townhouse building.” And, I guess, best shown on sheet three, we’ve taken that advice and implemented it into the plan. On the westerly side of the property under --near units 13 through 22 we’ve modified the layout to include a 20 foot wide aisle between the buildings opening to a parking area behind these buildings.
This modification has required these buildings to move I think a foot or two so of no significance with regard to surrounding areas. We just really -- just units 17 to 22 we just needed to pull a little closer to the property line, and if I’m not mistaken this -- units 13 to 16 is where it was prior. This modification to the plan provided us an opportunity to remove the parking spaces in the coldesac and the parking spaces out in front of condo -- this condo building, and as a result we’ve actually netted four additional parking spaces over the preliminary plan. We had 269 spaces before. We have 273. So we’ve resolved some potential conflicts and added some spaces while we were at it.
The one thing to discuss, though, is this additional parking now is why we have asked the Board for the waiver for the slope constraints because we have increased that a little bit. The original plan indicated a disturbance area of 258,143 square feet, and when you apply the total adjusted disturbance area computations yielded a total adjusted area of 361,683 square feet. That represents the plan that was approved in September of 2005 on the Preliminary Site Plan. This additional disturbance is approximately 16,263 square feet. That creates a disturbance area of 274,406 square feet, and a total adjustment disturbance area of 390,217.
We -- if the Board may recall, in March of 2006 Mr. Hanley and I appeared to show the Board this concept because we were incorporating the comments that your engineer had suggested -- recognizing it was going to increase those numbers a little bit we -- we did draw from the Board’s opinion at that time and the result of which are the plans that are before you.
Next item, Site Grading, “Provide the retaining wall material type of appearance and details and include them on the plans.” Referring to sheet five, I draw to the Board’s attention at the bottom of the drawing close to the center we have what’s called the Stone Strong System illustrative details. And the statement that we make is that the intent of this plan is to utilize, expose rock face where feasible. And, again, those determinations, you know, can really only come during construction when the -- when the quality of the rock face can be evaluated. But where -- where expose rock face is not feasible we are proposing a -- what we would call a modular block system. What’s unique about this Stone Strong System is that it’s a larger stone, it’s a very heavy stone, it’s a gravity system, it’s appropriate in cases like this, and I think it would work very nicely on this site. And that is presented on sheet five.
The next item under Miscellaneous, “Details of the clubhouse,” Mr. Salierno, the architect, will -- will discuss that with you as they are included in the latest architectural plans.
Next, “Patio Detail,” referring to sheet 11, we have included a concrete patio detail just about in the center of the plans. It shows what -- what -- in accordance with the ordinance specifications what that detail will look like. Item three, under Miscellaneous, “Show detail on plan for excavation in borough roadways to be backfilled with DGA, Dense Graded Aggregate.” That construction detail is included on sheet 13. All of the trenching details that are in the roadway are indicated to be backfilled with DGA.
The next item is more of just commentary, “The preliminary resolution of approval in paragraph five requires all revisions to be incorporated in the plans.” And that’s what our intent was with these documents.
Item six, “Applicant must submit a schedule for project completion. Schedule should list major construction items and a sequence of operation for clarification for both the board and the affected public.” On the cover sheet, sheet one, we’ve included a -- a construction schedule to the best of our ability at this time that outlines those major items.
Item seven, “A blasting schedule listing time of the day and days of the week blasting will occur and whether -- whether or not pre-blast surveys are planned. This must be provided for use by both the Board and the affected public. Also description of whether rock to be crushed onsite and the hours and days of such operation.” Also on sheet one, right in the center toward the bottom, we have a blasting schedule of notes, and in there we indicate blasting time, Monday through Friday, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. We have rock crushing time from Monday to Friday 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. We’ve indicated the blasting warning schedule, the horns, and then also that pre-blast survey shall be submitted to the Borough of Wanaque prior to any blasting on site. And we’ve listed the blocks and lots that those -- that will be included in a pre-blast survey.
Item seven, “Cross section information,” referring to sheet 15 of the plans, we had previously submitted this information but we have amended it because of the change in the parking area. These are the sections that we’re utilizing in accordance with the soil movement portion of this application, and after doing an analysis of the soil movement we have a net -- total net cut of 18,727 cubic yards.
Item nine on page four of the report, “Storm Water Management Plan covered in paragraph five above,” again that’s -- that’s a redundant comment. We’ve discussed that earlier.
Item 11, just some issues complying with all ordinances including submissions to the Fire Department, the Police Department, the Water and Sewer Department. Those submissions have all been made.
Item 14, “Supply the Board with NJDEP and ISRA reports,” and, Mr. Hanley, I believe that information has been provided to the Board?
MR. HANLEY: Yes.
MR. MCCLELLAN: Okay.
Item 15, “Signs are shown on the plans.”
Those had always been shown on sheet three of the plans but they
indicate the locations of stop signs and other -- other traffic control signs
as well as a sight identification sign.
And then item -- a resolution item 19, “Sidewalk connecting Fourth
Avenue to
MR. HANLEY: That was, I believe, a condition of the plan.
MR. MCCLELLAN: Yes, yes, it was, Mr. Hanley. And basically the changes on this plan were
Mr. Cristaldi asked us to consider extending the sidewalk further -- closer to
Those are the items contained --
MR. HANLEY: Let me just add one thing, we’ve looked at to see if you could put a curb in there and you really can’t because of the way the road is -- the way the road is graded. If you put a curb on it, you just cause a drainage problem. So we just put the sidewalk in. Otherwise you would have to tear the whole road out, so that we didn’t do that just in case anyone’s wondering. Sorry.
MR. MCCLELLAN: If I can briefly refer to Mr. Cristaldi’s letter of May 16, 2006, which is a technical review more so of the plans. Referring to page two under the header of “Water,” Mr. Cristaldi met with Mr. Kostrow, Water Superintendent and identified six items to be considered, and we have no objection to those items.
Under the header of “Miscellaneous,” there’s a note saying that “Fence should be provided along the tops of any rock cuts or retaining walls higher than six feet to prevent any individuals from falling.” That certainly was the intent; and if we’ve got some areas where we haven’t provided it, we will amend the plans to show that. And I think that’s really the end of the -- correspondences that I need to respond to.
MR. HANLEY: Do you have anything else?
MR. MCCLELLAN: No, sir.
MR. HANLEY: Are there any questions of this witness?
MR. CRISTALDI: Maybe we could just fix that last comment there, the fence on the -- I guess one of the spots where there was a concern is the way it really cut that rock wall, and it’s kind of high, they’re going to have to put some kind of fence up along the top of that wall. It might be a little hard to anchor them there because if you’re in a rock, I don’t know how you’re -- where -- how you’re going to get the posts in. You may have to drill or --
MR. MCCLELLAN: We may have to drill -- drill for that.
MR. CRISTALDI: The question is really what kind of fence would you like to see at the top of that rock wall, four foot fence, six foot chain link, stockade fence. I think it’s mainly there to keep anyone from accidentally falling off the edge. I mean a four foot fence is enough to alert you to the fact that there’s something beyond it. You’d have to climb over a four foot just as much as a six foot. The question is what kind of fence do you really want to see up there. I don’t --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Much of the perimeter is done with a six foot, more decorative type fence. Depending on where those areas are, it may make some sense to just be consistent with the fencing, if the Board would be amenable to that.
MR. CRISTALDI: Would that be okay? Yeah, okay, that would be fine.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are we talking about six foot fences or higher than six foot like -- because I’m looking at your comment and I just want to be sure that we agree on the heights.
MR. CRISTALDI: I -- my comment where --
MR. MCCLELLAN: In the report it says, “Fence should be provided along the tops of any rock cuts or retaining wall higher than six feet” --
MR. CRISTALDI: That’s if the wall or the drop is more than six feet, not the fence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Well, how high -- how high are we saying the fence should be?
MR. CRISTALDI: Well, we’re going to use what they have on the rest of the site, it’s a six foot decorative fence.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Six foot decorative, okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, are there any other questions from Board members for the engineer? If not, Mr. Hanley, if you want to bring your next witness forward.
MR. HANLEY: Thank you, Pat. I’d like to call the planner, Mr. Ochab. He has been sworn and has been previously qualified. Ken, do you want to give the secretary your full name and --
MR. OCHAB: Yes, it’s Ken O-c-h-a-b.
SECRETARY: I’m sorry, say that again, please.
MR. OCHAB: It’s Ken, last name’s Ochab, O-c-h-a-b.
MR. HANLEY: Okay, Mr. Ochab, you -- you’ve obviously had the opportunity to review these plans in detail. I wonder if you could review for the Board how it is that they comply with the ordinance that was adopted previously which sets forth the criteria for this particular development and any other matters relating to design that you think are pertinent.
MR. OCHAB: Okay, as the Board will remember, I testified during the Preliminary as well and indicated that we are under Ordinance 10-0-05, which is the Adult Housing Ordinance -- District Ordinance that was established during the redevelopment process and is adopted as part of the Zoning Ordinance. Even though there had been some changes made, as Mr. McClellan just went over, my review of the plan indicates that we meet all of the requirements of that -- of the Housing -- Adult Housing District. By that I mean we are permitted uses -- the uses we are proposing are permitted, we meet all of the bulk requirements regarding setback, regarding height, regarding coverage, regarding parking, all of the requirements in the Zoning provisions of the Ordinance are met by this application. So we met them under Preliminary. We continue to meet them under the proposed final application. Therefore, obviously no variances are required by this application or by the plan that’s being proposed.
The only relief requested at this point, as Mr. McClellan also indicated, was because of the addition of the rear parking area there’s a disturbed area waiver which is required by the Board; and even though you had granted that waiver under the Preliminary approval because of the additional area added you need to also grant an addition waiver for that again. And I think obviously the positive aspects of that waiver are -- are good from a planning standpoint because we’re taking parking that was within the main access road and within the coldesac of the -- of the site and moving it to an area where it can be more effectively and efficiently designed; and it opens up that previous area to more green area, more landscaped area than had been previously proposed.
So from that context it’s -- it’s good planning I think to -- to relocate the parking area. We’ve also gained four additional spaces as -- again, as Mr. McClellan had indicated. So from that standpoint I do think it’s -- it’s a good plan. And even though we’re not variance oriented here this evening, the parking lots where it’s located is obviously depressed within the site behind buildings -- Units 17 to 22. And so, therefore, the visibility of that parking area is not going to be pronounced in any way so I think from that standpoint it’s a good idea to do it. It was a suggestion of the -- of Mr. Cristaldi, and I think it’s a positive aspect to the overall --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me one second. Mr. Hanley, I’m just concerned, is your engineer leaving for the evening, in case there are questions --
MR. HANLEY: No, I certainly hope not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I’m sorry, excuse me. You may continue.
MR. OCHAB: That’s okay, that’s a great question because I’m concluded at this point so --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good timing, huh?
MR. OCHAB: Yep, my time is up.
MR. HANLEY: So in conclusion and -- in summary I should say, we meet all of the standards set forth in the Ordinance that applies to this development.
MR. OCHAB: Yes, we do.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, any questions from the Board members? Thank you.
MR. OCHAB: Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hanley, your next witness, please.
MR. HANLEY: Yes, sir. I’d like to call Genaro Salierno, the architect. Mr. Salierno, again, has previously testified and been qualified and has been sworn.
MR. SALIERNO: I’m going to continue with the three last points from Mr. Cristaldi’s letter. The first one being the -- Mr. McClellan already covered it -- the breakdown of the units, and if you see them -- if you take a look at the architectural plans, page one, there is -- there is a table -- a schedule that lists all the units, the square footages and the bedrooms and the unit -- the rooms that each unit has. If you -- if you would like -- if you would like me to read the table, I can proceed to do so.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We’re going to ask you to put it on the public record, okay, Mr. Salierno.
MR. SALIERNO: Yes. 35 Unit Condominium Buildings, there are two of them, Unit schedule first and second residential floors. Unit A, 1,150 square feet, one bedroom, one and half bath. Unit B, 1,136 square feet, one bedroom, one and half bath. Unit C, 1,266 square feet, one bedroom, one den, one and half bath. Unit D, 1,469 square feet, one bedroom, one den, one and half bath. Unit E, 1,265 square feet, one bedroom, one den, one and half bath. Unit F, 1,100 square feet, one bedroom, one and half bath. Unit G, 1,203 square feet, one bedroom and one bath. Unit H, 701 square feet, one bedroom, one bath. Unit J, 754 square feet, one bedroom, one bath. Unit K, 1,013 square feet, one bedroom, one bath. Unit L, 1,108 square feet, one bedroom, one and half bath. Unit M, 1,265 square feet, one bedroom, one and half bath.
On the same 35
Townhouses. There is six Unit Buildings, there are six of those buildings, and the breakdown is Unit A, 1,600 -- excuse me, 1,725 square feet, it’s one bedroom, one den, two and half bath. There are two -- two units per building. Unit B, 1,620 square feet, also two Units per building, one bedroom, one den, one and half bath. Unit C, 1,622 square feet, two Units per building, one bedroom, one den, one and half bath.
Four Unit Buildings, there are two of those, the breakdown is Unit A, 1,715 square feet. There are two Units per building. One bedroom, one den, two and half bath. Unit B, 2, 153 square feet, one per building, one bedroom, one den, one library, two bath. Unit C, 2,149 square feet, one per building, one bedroom, one den, one library, two baths. And that’s all that is in this -- in this table.
The next item is -- you will find --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Salierno, just let me interrupt for a second. Do the Board members have any understanding of what just took place here? These are the exact square footages, am I correct, of each of the designed units?
MR. SALIERNO: Correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But do you have -- what we’re looking for, obviously, Mr. Salierno, is a breakdown in a summary form as to so many units at X number of square feet or so many that are just one bedroom and so many is one bedroom and a den and so many -- not this -- because it’s very difficult to follow, unless maybe I can summarize by saying that in the 35 Units on floors first and two you have basically 12 different styled apartments?
MR. SALIERNO: Correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So there’s no -- there’s not many of the same size and design?
MR. SALIERNO: Correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And that is also the same for the third floor, which again -- how many units are actually on the third floor?
MR. SALIERNO: Eleven.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Eleven, and of those eleven there are eleven different square footages, just about?
MR. SALIERNO: Correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All of them are noted as just one bedroom but many of them are noted with one bedroom, a den -- does that den -- could it be included as an additional bedroom, if needed?
MR. SALIERNO: It doesn’t have a closet but it could be.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does it have a door?
MR. SALIERNO: It doesn’t have a closet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No closets but --
MR. SALIERNO: No closet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just has it as a room, is that what you’re saying?
MR. SALIERNO: It’s a -- it’s a room. It’s a separate room.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With a door?
MR. SALIERNO: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: How many units are just one bedroom with no den and how many units are one bedroom and one den? And, thirdly, how many units have one bedroom, one den, and one library?
MR. CRISTALDI: Yeah, that’s what I think you got. You got either one bedroom, one bedroom with a den, or one bedroom with a library and a den; and then they have different numbers of bathrooms. But assuming that --whether you have one or two bathrooms, we’re -- we’re not going to really care. Just -- what you want to know is how many one bedrooms, how many one -- of them have a one bedroom and a den, and then how many have one bedroom, a library and a den.
MR. SALIERNO: Okay, if you give me a couple of minutes so I can figure this out.
MR. CRISTALDI: Yes.
MR. SALIERNO: Okay, there are -- in the 35 Unit Building there are nine apartments that have one bed only and there are three apartments that have one bed and one den. The Town -- excuse me, this is the first and second floor. On the third floor there are eight apartments with one bed and three apartments with one bed and one den.
The Townhouses, there are -- on the six Unit Buildings they’re all one bedroom and one den. The four Unit Building, there is -- there is Unit A that are two Units per Building that has one bedroom and one den and the rest are one bedroom, one den, and one library.
MR. CRISTALDI: How many total --
MR. SALIERNO: And those are --
MR. CRISTALDI: How many total have one bedroom, one library and one den? Total number of units that have one bedroom --
MR. SALIERNO: One bedroom, one den, and one library, two -- four.
MR. CRISTALDI: A total of four.
MR. SALIERNO: Yes.
MR. CRISTALDI: And how many have one bedroom and a den?
MR. SALIERNO: One bedroom and a den, four -- there are 40, one bedroom and a den, Townhouses.
MR. CRISTALDI: Okay, and the total number of units was 140 --
MR. SALIERNO: Townhouses we have 40 that are
-- Townhouses -- there are 44 Townhouses.
MR. CRISTALDI: Total -- wait, what’s the total number of units altogether?
MR. SALIERNO: 114.
MR. CRISTALDI: 114. So if you have 40 with one bedroom and a den and 4 with a one bedroom, a den, and a library, that means you must have 70 units that are only one bedroom. That’s what’s left out of the 114.
MR. SALIERNO: That’s -- that’s not correct.
MR. CRISTALDI: All right.
MR. SALIERNO: Maybe I miss -- misexplained (sic) this. If talking about the Townhouses alone --
MR. CRISTALDI: But we don’t care if they’re Townhouses or Condos, how many have one bedroom, one den, and one library?
MR. SALIERNO: Four.
MR. CRISTALDI: A total of four. And where --
MR. CHAIRMAN: In the entire complex?
MR. CRISTALDI: In the entire complex.
MR. SALIERNO: In the entire complex.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we’re talking the entire complex?
MR. SALIERNO: In the entire complex.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. CRISTALDI: How many in the entire complex have one bedroom and one den?
MR. SALIERNO: 52.
MR. CRISTALDI: 52. So you have 114 -- so you have a total of 58 units that are only one bedroom?
MR. SALIERNO: Right.
MR. CRISTALDI: All right. No den, no library.
MR. SALIERNO: No library.
MR. CRISTALDI: So you have four units that have one bedroom with a library and a den, 52 units that have one bedroom and a den, and then the remainder is the 58 units has just one bedroom with I guess a kitchen and a dining room or whatever you got?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: One bedroom, no den, no library, right?
MR. CRISTALDI: Right.
MR. SALIERNO: Right.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That’s 114.
MR. CRISTALDI: 114.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: With a possibility of 60 other bedrooms. And that’s the -- that’s the numbers.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does the library have a door as well?
MR. SALIERNO: I’m sorry?
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Does the library have a door as well?
MR. SALIERNO: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So your distinction between a bedroom and a den is that there’s no closet in the den, is that what I heard?
MR. SALIERNO: Correct.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And there’s no closet in the library either?
MR. SALIERNO: No closet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, you may continue, Mr. Salierno.
MR. SALIERNO: Yes. Page number two, it actually covers the next two points, shows the garage with all the dimensions and there are overall dimensions of the building, there are dimensions of the base, and it also shows the information about the Townhouse. I’m sorry, information about the club house.
MR. CRISTALDI: It’s sheet number two.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s on the architectural plans, right?
MR. SALIERNO: That’s correct, right.
MR. CRISTALDI: It shows -- does it give you -- do you give dimensions on the garage?
MR. SALIERNO: Yes.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right, not on the architectural. There’s no information on the architectural. There’s no Townhouse information. There’s no --
MR. SALIERNO: The dimensions, the overall dimensions are 245 feet by 72 feet.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We don’t -- I don’t see any dimensions on this particular plan on the garage. Do you have a plan there that you’re looking at?
MR. CRISTALDI: If he can approach the bench.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yeah, I just want to know how big the garage is so that we can open up some of the dimensions.
MR. CRISTALDI: Oh, this is the Condominium. When we say “garage,” we meant --
MR. SALIERNO: Oh, oh, okay.
MR. CRISTALDI: -- the Townhouse. The Condominium is just going to be just an overall parking layout like a parking lot down there, right?
MR. SALIERNO: Yes, yes, that’s right. Page one shows the garages --
MR. CRISTALDI: Okay, yeah, yeah, we got the wrong -- but before we go onto the Townhouse, let me just ask you a question about the Condominiums, when you place the columns in the underground park -- are they in the parking area, the columns?
MR. SALIERNO: They are 27 feet on the center and that’s three -- three parking units.
MR. CRISTALDI: Yes, so then the parking spaces won’t be 9 feet, right, because you got the columns -- you got the column space 27 feet. How wide are the columns? One foot, so you lose a foot. You only got 26 feet to make your parking spaces, right? So you don’t have 9 foot wide parking spaces?
MR. SALIERNO: No.
MR. CRISTALDI: Clear.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You know, they were having problems over both of the parking spaces, they weren’t big enough.
MR. CRISTALDI: With that same --
MR. CHAIRMAN: It would be the same problem.
MR. CRISTALDI: You have columns in the parking spaces. It’s only a few inches but -- I mean, you may look at it as being nominal, a few inches, but --
MR. SALIERNO: There are ways that we have handled that in other buildings. This is a common margin of 27 feet. And what we have done is we have painted double stripes so -- to make sure that -- you know, to orient cars better and that is what we could be proposing for these as well.
MR. CRISTALDI: Well, you know, it’s not the point that you’re orientating them right, it’s -- the point is that when you’re all done, you don’t have a 9 foot wide parking spot. I mean, like I say, it’s nominal. You may have, you know, instead of 9 foot you have 8 foot --
MR. CHAIRMAN: What’s the depth of the parking space, though, from where the post is to the wall? Is it --
MR. CRISTALDI: It’s still 18 -- still 18 feet, the parking space.
MR. SALIERNO: Yes, it is --
MR. CRISTALDI: Yes, the depth isn’t affected, it’s just that when you pull your car up, you know, the front fender of the car is next to the column so instead of you having a 9 foot wide spot, you maybe have -- you lost a foot over -- so you got -- you lost 4 inches on each side. You got an 8 foot 8 inch wide parking space instead of a 9 foot wide parking space.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If it stays exactly that way.
MR. CRISTALDI: Right, if it’s --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Somebody could have an 8 foot parking space --
MR. CRISTALDI: Yeah, right, if they -- you know, assuming everything is perfect and --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Right.
MR. CRISTALDI: -- the columns are exactly where they’re supposed to be and -- I don’t -- I don’t know where that leaves us but --
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, Mr. Salierno, please continue.
MR. SALIERNO: Okay, the garages’ dimensions are -- they are shown on page one, each Townhouse shows on plan -- on page one -- on page one you could see the first floor plan of the Townhouses you will see the garages there and each garage’s dimension.
MR. CRISTALDI: So the garage is -- you know, the garages are all 12 by 20, which is -- which is pretty decent, 12 by 20.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, Mr. Salierno.
MR. SALIERNO: Also, you can notice that all doors swing out. No doors swing inside of it towards inside of the garage, that was one of the comments that a member of the Board had.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, you may continue, please.
MR. SALIERNO: So if you focus your attention on page two, you will see there again the plan of the Condominium, the first floor, the garage floor, where you see the club house laid out and that was the last point, the last architectural point on Mr. Cristaldi’s letters.
MR. CRISTALDI: What are they going to have in the club house, it’s just like a meeting area?
MR. SALIERNO: It’s going to be -- yes, it’s going to be like a -- there will be kitchenette, a multi-purpose room, lounge area, small room for reading room.
MR. CRISTALDI: Yeah, how big is it? What are the dimensions on that?
MR. SALIERNO: The community area is about 2,200 square feet, the multi-purpose room is the larger room here, it’s about 50 by 19.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Are there going to be sprinklers in this building?