PLANNING BOARD MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 17, 2003
BOROUGH OF WANAQUE
Meeting called to order by Chairman Gilbert Foulon at 8:00 P.M. with a salute to the flag.
ROLL CALL:
Joseph Graceffo (came in at 8:15 P.M.) Eugene Verba
Tony Brindisi Thomas
Balunis
Kevin Platt
PRESENT:
Attorney Steven Veltri and Engineer Michael Cristaldi
MEMBERS ABSENT:
Member Di Meglio and Mayor Warren Hagstrom
Reading:
Open Public Meeting Announcement:
This is a Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Borough Planning
Board and adequate notice has been given and it has been duly advertised by the
placement of a notice in the Trends and the Herald & News, mailed on
January 17, 2003 and a notice thereof has been posted on the bulletin board in
the Municipal Building in the Borough of Wanaque and a copy thereof has been on
file with the Borough Clerk.
MINUTES:
from the June 19, 2003 Meeting.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Platt, seconded
by Member Verba, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Brindisi, Platt,
Slater, Verba and Balunis.
COMMUNICATIONS: Chairman Foulon mentioned the memo
from Borough Administrator, Tom Carroll with regard to the Borough’s Master
Plan and the proposal to conduct a re-examination report by Planner Jill
Hartmann. The area to be studied is Ringwood Ave. from the Reservoir north to
Conklintown Rd. Chairman Foulon said, before the Board approves this proposal,
he would like Tom Carroll to appear at the next meeting and explain why this
has to be done.
Chairman Foulon announced that Ordinance #16-0-03 to
amend Chapter 114-12(4) to permit Commercial, General and Professional Offices
on Upper Floors in “B” District was introduced by title at a Regular Meeting of
the Mayor and Council of the Borough of Wanaque held on July 14, 2003. (All
members received copies)
APPLICATION STATUS: Eng. Cristaldi reported that
the only applications are on the Agenda for tonight’s meeting.
NEW BUSINESS APPLICATION: “Curves” (Women’s
Fitness), 1135-1141 Ringwood Ave., Haskell, N.J., Block 436 Lot 7 & 9. Owners of building are Orlando & Mary
Renna, owner of business is Dominic Cirigliano, 123 South Church St., Goshen,
N.Y. 10924.
Mr. Renna, owner of building came forward along with
owner of business, Dominic Cirigliano. Mr. Cirigliano explained this is a
women’s health facility and is a 30- minute exercise program franchised. Mr.
Cirigliano said there probably would be about 12 members there at one time.
There is construction work being done at the location at the present time and
will be completed before the new business moves in.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO ALL WORK BEING COMPLETED
AND REINSPECTONS MADE: made by Member Brindisi, seconded by Member Balunis,
voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Brindisi, Platt, Slater, Verba and
Balunis.
APPLICATION #05-03 “SASSAFRAS PROPERTIES, L.L.C.”, Union Ave., Block 468 Lot 3.02, Site Plan for a Free-Standing Sign is required for site identification of Burger King Restaurant on Lot 3.02 and future motel on Lot 3.01 in Block 468. Authorized Agent is A. Michael Rubin, Esq.
Atty. Rubin stepped forward on behalf of applicant. Atty. Rubin said, since the last meeting the applicant was asked a number of questions and hearing from the neighbors and questions generated by the Board, they have submitted additional plans.
Mr. George Kennedy, President/CEO of DVS Sign Systems
came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Veltri. Mr. Kennedy said he has been the
President and CEO of this company for the past 23 years. Mr. Kennedy said the
proposed sign would be made out of a material called pana-plex which is a 3M
Product and is a stretched vinyl that goes over the steel and aluminum sign
cabinet. The product is extremely strong, has a 10- year warranty, can’t be
shattered and is virtually indestructible.
The frame inside the sign is a steel frame and the sign
is constructed in the facility in New Jersey and the people working on the sign
are certified welders, so the internal
steel frame is put together by skilled craftsmen and has
an aluminum skin around the outside perimeter. The general construction of the
sign is engineered and the pole is engineered to support up to 110 mile per
hour wind load capacity. If they are
granted the approval, they will submit a New Jersey Engineer’s calculations
with the wind load capacities on the application as well.
Atty. Rubin mentioned at the last meeting, the neighbors
were concerned about the glare from
the sign. Mr. Kennedy recommended to
Mr. Mund who in turn recommended to the site engineer that the location of the
sign be changed. Mr. Kennedy said the location and the figuration of the sign
was changed. Mr. Kennedy said, he wasn’t at the first meeting, and Mr. Mund related
to him the feelings of the Board and the neighbors and they put together a plan
that they feel would be acceptable to the neighborhood. Mr. Kennedy said you
talk about the glow from the sign, its important to know that when you put
lights behind a sign face its called defused light so the glow is dropped 10
times what it would be from a parking lot light. At the height of this proposed
sign, you will see no glow of the sign and from the ground you will see no
light wash and is completely defused. The location of the sign has been changed
in such a manner that the neighbors will not see the face of the sign. Atty.
Rubin asked Mr. Kennedy in his opinion, based upon his years of experience, if
he sees any detriment or harm to the neighbors in the event this sign is
erected. Mr. Kennedy said, with the replacement of the sign and
reconfiguration, in his opinion that it would be nil.
Eng. Arthur Hanson came forward and had already been
sworn in from the last meeting. Eng.
Hanson said he did speak with Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Mund about the relocation of
the sign. Eng. Hanson said the sign would be relocated on the side of the
Burger King and just about opposite the drive-in window. Eng. Hanson submitted
revised plans dated 7-7-03 and members have copies.
MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING: made by Member
Slater, seconded by Member Graceffo, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members
Graceffo, Brindisi, Platt, Slater, Verba and Balunis.
Richard Walters, 3 Seminole Path came forward. Mr.
Walters wanted to know if anyone did a “static load test” on the pole. Mr.
Kennedy said a N.J. Licensed Engineer will visit the entire structure and the
steel purchased will be ASTM approved and a certified welder will do the
welding. Mr. Kennedy said he’s not familiar with the term Mr. Walters is using
“static load test”. Mr. Walters said it means how much weight the pole will
support. Mr. Kennedy answered and said that’s part of the calculations the
engineer will supply. Another concern of Mr. Walters was the snow and ice
accumulating on top of this sign and if it should slide off. Mr. Kennedy said
they could crown the top of the sign if that is an issue. Another issue with
Mr. Walters was about the sign ever falling down. Mr. Kennedy
said anything is possible and the sign will be of the highest integrity and is not one of the largest signs his company has built.
Atty. Veltri said, comparing last month’s plan to tonight’s plan and with regard to the structure, on the first plan there was a 30 x 500 steel pipe designation that went to 48” X .500, 54” X .500 as you go down the pole. Atty. Veltri went on to say, when you look at the new plan, that information is absent, and will the steel pipe be the same or not as it was proposed at the first meeting? Eng. Cristaldi spoke up and said that they were preliminary numbers and the pole hasn’t actually been designed yet. Atty. Veltri said there were no numbers on the new plan and will the pipe on the sign be any less than the approximations that were on the first plan? Mr. Kennedy said that the 54” diameter pipe on the first drawing could be done with a 54” diameter pipe if that’s an issue. Mr. Kennedy said, generally standard pipe for this size sign would be 60”, but you can go to 54” and make the thickness of the pipe to code.
Nancy Beck, 164 Greenwood Ave., came forward. Ms. Beck
said she doesn’t understand exactly where the sign will be and where it will be
facing. Ms. Beck was shown on the plan where the sign will be and where it will
be facing. Ms. Beck also wanted to know the dimensions of the illuminated
portion of the sign. Mr. Kennedy said it would be 300 sq. ft. per face and
illuminated facing the highway.
Chairman Foulon announced that the applicant has shown concerns from the last meeting to this meeting tonight with regard to the neighbors in the vicinity of the sign.
MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION: made by Member
Slater, seconded by Member Platt, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members
Graceffo, Brindisi, Platt, Slater, Verba and Balunis.
APPLICATION #16-02 “RSK Development Corp.”, Mountain Ave., Block 240 Lot 14. Application for Preliminary and Final Site Plan Approval to allow the construction of 18 Townhouse Dwelling Units. Authorized Agent is A. Michael Rubin, Esq.
RECESSED AT 8:45 P.M.
RECONVENED AT 9:00 P.M. WITH A ROLL CALL: Chairman
Foulon, Members Graceffo, Brindisi, Platt, Slater, Verba and Balunis.
Atty. Rubin came forward on behalf of the applicant.
Atty. Rubin announced that this application consists of 18 townhouses and 14 of
them are destined to be market rate and 4 units will be “Affordable Housing
Units” which means the price of those 4 units is dictated by a formula which
the State of N.J. through the “Council on Affordable Housing” requires through
its regulations. Atty. Rubin went on to say that this site is zoned for this
use and as we know this is a site that was zoned by the governing body of the
community in order to fulfill the borough’s “Mt. Laurel” commitment. Atty.
Rubin also said, this site has sanitary sewer potential and the capability of
having sanitary sewer at the regional sewer plant because of the “Mt. Laurel”
component, and if there was no “Mt. Laurel”, there could be no sewer.
Chairman Foulon told Atty. Rubin, due to a prior
commitment later this evening by the Board’s Traffic Engineer, would it be all
right if the traffic study for this application is heard first.
John Desch, Traffic Engineer for the applicant came
forward. Atty. Rubin said that Mr. Desch promised the Board at the last meeting
he was going to go out the next day and do some counts. Mr. Desch said the concern
was that this development would feed like a funnel down to one of three roads
that will accept the traffic eventually onto Ringwood Avenue. Belmont Ave. was
the biggest concern being right across the road from the Municipal Building.
Mr. Desch said they only counted the morning traffic because they realized that
school was not going to be in session in the afternoon. Mr. Desch said they
evaluated the counts by way of performing a capacity analysis for Belmont Ave.
& Ringwood Ave. They then projected the number of trips that will be
generated by this project and combined those trips onto the existing count to
determine whether there was going to be any additional level of service or
capacity delay that would be increased. Their computer program that they used,
determined that it was a level of service at “F” which is the lowest level of
service possible in the rating system. It means that there are delays that
would be somewhat excessive during certain times of the morning. Based upon the
number of cars that went through the intersection during a two (2) hour period,
the computer analyzed and calculated the amount of delay if someone were coming
out of Belmont. Mr. Desch said at no time did he see anywhere near the amount
of delay that the computer said what was suppose to be there during that entire
two (2) hour period. Mr. Desch said he did see some cars that had to wait about
a minute, which is the same amount of time you would have to wait at any
traffic light. Mr. Desch said he believes this project will cause a little
delay, but by an insignificant amount. This report was given to Mr. Alexander
Litwornia, the Borough’s Traffic
Engineer. The other issue Mr. Desch said, was to look
into the turning radius of a fire truck and to determine whether the fire truck
could access the project from Mountain Ave.,
if it could negotiate the cul-de-sac, but more importantly whether it
could fight a fire if it were in the two Mountain Avenue facing units that were
along the driveway. They took the turning radius of the fire truck and
superimposed it on the roadways and they found that you could not make a turn
from Mountain Ave. and come directly into that driveway. Mr. Marra, Architect,
and Fire Chief, Scott Montegari and the applicant discussed how they could
possibly improve this plan so that they would be able to make that turn. The
solution was to install paver-blocks, which is permanent blocks in the
pavement. In all other turning radiuses around the cul-de-sac from Mountain
Ave. into the road, the truck will easily make that turn. Atty. Rubin asked Mr.
Desch if he took a look at any of the other accesses in or out of this site or
in or out of this general neighborhood. Mr. Desch said the typography in or out
of this site does restrict any other driveways that could be constructed and it
would require significant blasting. The type of road the applicant is building
is wider than many of the roads that serve this area. Mr. Desch summed up by
saying, that the amount of traffic that would be generated by this project will
not significantly impact upon the traffic conditions and the flow in this
neighborhood.
Mr. Litwornia of Litwornia Associates said, one of the
things he had asked for in his first review dated May 12th and the
second which was a follow-up dated Jun 11th, was the fact that the intersection at
Prospect St. & Grove St., there is no other way in or out of this
development. Mr. Litwornia went on to say, that normally what you would do is
try to dualize the road in or provide two ways of ingress in case of an
emergency and its not a function of the amount of traffic but its also a
function of the safety of handling that traffic. Mr. Litwornia’s asked Mr.
Desch if he did the analysis he requested to see how many single family homes
are on Park St., Mountain Ave. and Short St. etc. which all form this one big
cul-de-sac. Mr. Desch said Mr. Litwornia’s question speaks more to the “RSIS”
requirements. Mr. Desch said, with respect to this applicant, there is no need
to dualize the roadway to serve this project. If you consider this project and
all the other homes that are existing and then consider their all dead end
streets. Mr. Desch said he believes that “RSIS” has recently made an adoption
of a new amendment that considers specifically that issue and that existing
traffic is not to be considered in any type of an analysis as to whether you
need dualization. Mr. Litwornia said he believes the Board would need an
interpretation of that fact from the “DCA” itself. Mr. Litwornia also said, he
thinks that interpretation only dealt with multi-family homes and not
single-family homes. Mr. Litwornia added, that if you put two or three single
family units on Mountain Ave. at this site, it probably wouldn’t be a problem,
but if you’re going to put fifteen or twenty homes then you’re going to have a
greater amount of traffic and will exceed the 250 daily living on the
cul-de-sac. Mr. Litwornia said that safety aspects should be considered like an
emergency access to Colfax Ave. or providing some dualization or widening Park
Street. Mr. Litwornia said he doesn’t believe
“DCA” would allow the additional increase without some
widening of Park Street and some other safety improvements. The amount of
traffic itself would not be a problem if in fact there were two accesses in and
out of the site or if there were a loop road into the site or an emergency
access through Colfax Ave. through the rear, or if Park St. was widened. Mr.
Litwornia said he feels that the analysis that was done showing level service
criteria and adjustments is adequate as far as levels of service go, however,
he has a safety concern that has to be addressed with the Fire Department and
fire access. Mr. Litwornia said the fire access on site has been addressed but
he thinks there are still some intersection changes that might be made like at
the intersection of Mountain Ave. & Park St. Atty. Rubin asked Mr.
Litwornia if he discussed this with the Fire Chief or fire staff of the
community. Mr. Litwornia said he did not discuss this with them. Atty. Rubin
also asked if Mr. Litwornia was aware of the COAH regulations for off site
improvements as to an application that has affordable housing basis. Mr.
Litwornia said he is not familiar with COAH in any way creating a safety hazard
and saying its ok. Atty. Rubin asked Mr. Litwornia, where today does the safety
hazard exist on the streets adjoining the subject site. Chairman Foulon said he
believes Mr. Litwornia already stated that in his testimony. Mr. Litwornia
answered and said basically the width of
Mountain Ave. & Park St. and the increased traffic that will result
from the proposed development. Atty. Rubin asked if there was adequate right-of-way
without going on private property? Mr. Litwornia said he addressed this in a
memo twice and he would expect it to be up to the applicant to look at this and
not for Mr. Litwornia to design it.
Atty. Rubin responded by saying is it feasible and can you go on private
property in order to accomplish this? Atty. Rubin said the Board asked the
applicant for all of the right-of-way widths several months ago and it was
done. Mr. Litwornia looked at the plans
and said he thinks there is some room for widening Mountain Ave. & Park St.
Chairman Foulon asked Atty. Rubin would Mountain Ave. & Park St. be
widened? Atty. Rubin said, that this is a Mount Laurel Project and could ask
for a waiver. Chairman Foulon responded and said to him it also has to be within
DCA and would like to see a waiver from DCA.
Mr. Desch spoke up and said, if the applicant can provide
the Board and Mr. Litwornia with the recent “RSIS” Amendment that would
indicate that an application such as this is only responsible to provide two
way access when the site traffic exceeds the 250 vehicles per day, then you
cannot add this traffic to existing network traffic and then go down stream and
find the constraint point.
Atty. Veltri said, what Mr. Desch is saying is that the
Board’s expert opinion for interpretation is wrong based upon the “RSIS”
Amendment and possibly that could resolve it but we don’t know what it says
yet. Atty. Rubin reminded everyone, that the governing body of the Borough
rezoned this area and made it available for this use, therefore, they had to
know or assume what the adjoining streets looked like. Chairman Foulon added,
that the governing body might have also assumed that the
developer would make the necessary improvements to the streets for the additional houses.
Planner Jill Hartmann spoke up and said, when the Borough
first approached COAH with the “Housing Element Fair Share Plan”, this site was
not part of the Borough’s proposal. The Borough was seeking an adjustment to
the Borough’s vacant land recognizing that there were some steep slopes on this
site. COAH came back to the Borough and basically said if the Borough wanted to
get approval, and its pretty clear in the 1998 report, it says a variety of
sites must be included not only
because it’s in the sewer service area but also located
in the Town Center. Planner Hartmann went on to say, yes the Council did rezone
it, but it was not something that was foremost an idea on the Board’s or Council’s
mind. They recognized the neighborhood and type of neighborhood it is, but it
was not the Borough’s choice nor the Borough’s desire to do that. Atty. Rubin
responded and said he realizes this was forced upon the Borough, but we have
what we have.
Mr. Litwornia said there are two things we’re looking at
and one is at the intersections and the other is the roadway width itself, and
if there is a fire and another emergency comes up, the road is to narrow to let
another emergency vehicle through. Atty. Rubin added, if the roads are widened,
all the applicant would have to pay is his pro-rata share and the community
would have to pay the rest.
OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING:
looked at the pedestrian traffic, in particular the children walking to the Wanaque Elementary
School. Mr. Desch answered the question and said in the morning, currently
there is going to be one (1) vehicle coming into this site because of this
application and there will be seven (7) leaving based upon the analysis.
Ms. Monique Jerram, 36 Mt. Ave. came forward. Ms. Jerram
said her daughter walks to Lakeland High School and there are no sidewalks on
Mountain Ave. and can’t believe out of 18 units there will only be seven (7)
people going to work everyday.
Tim Trossman, 9 Mountain Ave. came forward. Mr. Trossman
asked about the computer analysis done on the traffic study and the grade being
“F”. Mr. Trossman wanted to know if
that was the worst possible grade and he was told yes by Mr. Desch. Mr. Desch
explained the “F” represents a one-minute delay in traffic.
Sandy Lawson, 28 Haskell Ave. came forward. Ms. Lawson
asked about the “F” grade at the intersection of Belmont Ave. & Ringwood
Ave. Mr. Desch said that is correct but the grade of traffic for Ringwood Ave.
flows at an “A” grade in both directions.
Joseph Gerard Marra, Jr. Architect and Planner for
applicant came forward. Atty. Rubin asked Mr. Marra to tell the Board what
changes were made. Mr. Marra said he has not filed any amended plans since the
last meeting. Mr. Marra said he does have a set of suggested revisions based on
Mr. Litwornia’s recommendations and he
does have reduced size copies if the Board would like to
see them. These copies were passed out to the Board Members.
Mr. Marra said that Mr. Litwornia basically asked him to
realign the roadway and eliminate a curb that was in the plan that was
submitted. Mr. Marra showed the Board this curb on the plans. Mr. Marra said he
was also asked to address the curb radiuses from their roadway onto Mountain
Ave. and according to “RSIS” standards they should be 25 ft., therefore, Mr.
Marra included the 25 ft. curb radiuses. Mr. Litwornia also asked for
indications to be added to the plan Stop Bars and Stop Signs be shown at all
the driveways where required as well as street signs, a No Outlet Sign and a
Stop Sign which have been indicated on the plan. Also requested was that the
site distance triangle be added to the drawings. Mr. Marra told the Board he
had an opportunity to meet with Fire Chief Scott Montegari to discuss the fire
truck access. Mr. Marra said on sheet SP-4, that was handed out earlier, shows
the Wanaque Fire Truck and the fire truck access to the site. Mr. Marra and
Fire Chief Montegari specifically discussed the accessibility to the two front
units for the proposed project. Fire Chief Montegari told Mr. Marra that it
would be required for the fire truck to get down the driveway, therefore, Mr.
Marra redesigned the corner unit to be brick-paved with a lengthen dropped curb
and concrete apron. Mr. Marra said the garbage issue mentioned by Mr. Litwornia
in his report, is going to be just like any other single-family residence in
the Borough which would be stored inside until garbage day. It was suggested by
Mr. Litwornia that the sidewalk that was in front of the fourteen (14) cars
that were parked off street be changed from 5 ft. to 6 ft. because of a 2 ft.
overhang of a car. Mr. Marra decided to move the sidewalk back, it’s a 4 ft.
sidewalk and there’s 2 ft. between the curb and the sidewalk. Mr. Marra added
that this project is exempt from the requirements of the “Handicap Accessible
Code” because it’s a townhouse project. Mr. Marra continued saying, all the
dimensions are shown on his SP-2 original drawing including parking spaces that
are 9 X 18. Mr. Litwornia suggested they remove three (3) parking spaces along
the easterly driveway and make it a 20 ft. driveway as well as allow for a
backup for the car at the end unit. Mr. Marra did revise the site plan and
eliminated those three (3) spaces and has a 7 ft. backup area for the cars at
the end unit. Mr. Marra said if they are able to put sidewalks in along
Mountain Ave. he doesn’t believe that will be an issue, however, there are no
sidewalks anywhere else on the road and that would be at the discretion of the
Board. Mr. Marra said there were some references to garbage pick up in Mr.
Litwornia’s report as to signing and sealing of plans by an architect. Mr.
Marra said under the state licensing laws, that is a non-issue and he as an
architect is licensed to do site plan and drainage designs for up to 10 acres
and he did not do the drainage design on this site. Mr. Marra has a copy of the
state law if the Board wishes to see it. Mr. Marra was asked to address some
issues on the site lighting plans and specifically Mr. Litwornia wanted Mr.
Marra to show that all light poles be constructed three (3) feet in back of the
face of the curb where possible to allow for
vehicle overhang. Mr. Marra said the recommendation for
lighting along the wood chip walkway, he personally thinks is not a good idea
because the less light you have coming from this site the more desirable it
would be for the neighborhood. The applicant is providing streetlights and
focusing the light down and the only other lights on site would be a small
light at the front door of each unit. If the Board wishes, Mr. Marra said, they
can put light bollards along the path, but Mr. Marra doesn’t think that’s a
very good idea and he said he thinks it would be objectionable to the
surrounding neighbors. Chairman Foulon told Mr. Marra to work that out with the
neighbors and the Board would go along with whatever the neighbors wanted. Mr. Marra went on to say, that Mr. Litwornia
also indicated that all trees be 7 ft. tall and all shrubs to a height of 30”
and that was noted on the revised plans and several revisions were made to the
landscape plan. Planner Hartmann had requested at the last meeting that a
variety of shade trees be planted and Mr. Marra said five (5) different
varieties were on the previous plan and now there are twelve (12). Also added
was some heavy landscaping along the backs of the units along the east which
Planner Hartmann requested and also provided screening and landscaping along
the side yard of the unit in the front. They also put a lot of landscaping
along the foundation of the units toward the back of the property and also
added some Weeping Cherry Trees. Chairman Foulon asked how much topsoil would
these trees be planted in? Mr. Marra said they have typical planting details.
Chairman Foulon told Mr. Marra that the town has a problem with trees and
there’s not a development in town that doesn’t have raised sidewalks because of
the roots of trees. The reason being is because the earth is either clay or
stone and there’s no place for these roots to go but up and that is what causes
the raised sidewalks. Mr. Marra said there are different root systems for
different types of trees. Mr. Marra also said, there is root barrier material
that can be used along sidewalks to prevent roots from getting underneath
sidewalks and Mr. Marra would be happy to include that as part of the planting
detail. Chairman Foulon told Mr. Marra to send two sets of full size plans to
the Board Secretary for her file.
Member Kevin Platt asked Mr. Marra if he was sure the
Fire Chief gave his ok for the radius. Member Platt said the Fire Chief relayed
to him that he didn’t want the fire trucks going into the other lane and what
Member Platt sees, is that they will be going into the other lane. Mr. Marra
said he did meet with the Fire Chief three times and went over this with him. The
Fire Chief indicated to Mr. Marra that he would come to the meeting tonight if
necessary and Mr. Marra didn’t think it was necessary. Chairman Foulon said the
Fire Chief would be at the next meeting, which will be September 18th.
OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING:
Howard Conklin, 10 Park St. came forward. Mr. Conklin
wanted to know what happens when the fire truck goes into the cul-de-sac and
there is a car there. Chairman Foulon said he thinks it would get moved. Mr.
Conklin responded by
saying, if there is a party going on and there are
several cars, what happens? Chairman Foulon said that is a condition that could
happen anywhere in town.
Janet Conklin, 10 Park St. came forward. Ms. Conklin said last month there was an issue about drainage and wanted to know if it was clarified. Eng. Cristaldi said he did receive some data. Mr. Marra said what the applicant is going to do is to continue the survey of the existing drainage system all the way down to the brook and this has been added to the plan. Mr. Marra went over Eng. Job’s report with regard to drainage and said that the study shows the capacity of the existing pipes, that this project does not alter the existing runoff pattern and in fact reduces the peak runoff rate. Eng. Cristaldi spoke up and said that statement made by Eng. Job about not altering the existing runoff pattern, is not true. Atty. Rubin said he will have Eng. Job come back to amplify on his report.
Paula Capella, 16 Colfax Ave. came forward. Ms. Capella is concerned about the drainage coming down from the hill. Mr. Marra showed Ms. Capella on the plan how the drainage is going to work. Ms. Capella was also concerned about the privacy that the existing neighbors will not have once the townhouses are built above the existing homes. Mr. Marra said there are several large oak trees in addition to the rock face and the natural vegetation will be remaining.
Howard Conklin, 10 Park St. came forward again. Mr. Conklin said after listening to Mr. Marra, he’s under the impression that this project is going to actually improve the water flow. Mr. Marra said yes and they are redirecting a good portion of the water into the existing storm water system.
Jeanne Stark, 40 Main Beach Rd., Ringwood came forward.
Chairman Foulon wanted to know why Ms. Stark was here since she lives in
Ringwood. Ms. Stark said she works at “Skylands Clean”. Chairman Foulon said he
would not recognize that organization and he stated it quite clearly at a
previous meeting because of a newsletter that was published.
Dan Jerram, 36 Mountain Ave. came forward. Mr. Jerram’s
concern was about blasting in this area because there is a great deal of rock.
Mr. Marra spoke up and said prior to any blasting, notification has to be given
and photos taken of all existing structures prior to blasting and blasting is
heavily regulated by the state.
Mr. Jerram also wanted to know about the town ordinance
on hours of construction. Planner Hartmann told him to call the Building
Inspector for that information.
Sandy Lawson, 28 Haskell Ave. came forward again. Ms.
Lawson said, during the recess, they were looking at the transition area and
commented that one of the buildings is in the transition area. Mr. Marra told
Ms. Lawson that the building she is referring to is not in a transition area.
Ms. Lawson addressed Chairman Foulon
about the way he treated the woman from “Skylands Clean”
and said the woman had a right to speak.
Lori Bull, 14 Prospect St. came forward. Ms. Bull wanted
to know if gas was being brought into this project or just electricity. Mr.
Marra said, gas, electric and water will be brought into this project.
Olympia Luciani, 11 Belmont Ave., came forward. Ms.
Luciani said her mother’s property is 22 Colfax Ave., which is right behind the
proposed project. Ms. Luciani said there aren’t enough barriers in the parking
lot, driveway and houses to keep the lights from shining down on the properties
behind the project. Mr. Marra went over the proposed landscaping for this area
that Ms. Luciani is concerned about. Chairman Foulon said he doesn’t think the
developer would mind by putting up a fence in this particular area if that’s
what the neighbors want. The applicant said he would be more than happy to set
up a meeting with the neighbors to decide what would be acceptable.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING:
Chairman Foulon announced the Board would resume this
application on September 18th.
Attorney Veltri told Atty. Rubin, he doesn’t think their
at the 95 day timeframe, but just in case, would he waive the timeframe and
Atty. Rubin said yes.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed
RESOLUTIONS:
None
VOUCHERS: submitted by Litwornia Associates, Inc.
for $3,573.50 to be paid out of “RSK” Development Escrow Account, Atty. Veltri
for litigation on Wanaque Manor v. Borough of Wanaque for $3,687.50, Atty.
Veltri for “RSK” Development for review of application for $765.00, Planner
Jill Hartmann for “RSK” Development for $900.00, Richard A. Alaimo Engineering
Associates for Invoice #15201 Project #P-495-157 Sassafras Properties for
Engineering Services Rendered for $528.20, Invoice #15200 Project #P-495-156 “RSK”
Development for Engineering Services Rendered for $104.00, for a Grand Total of
$9,558.20.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Brindisi,
seconded by Member Graceffo, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Graceffo,
Brindisi, Platt, Slater, Verba and Balunis.
MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 10:50 P.M.: made by Member
Slater, seconded by Member Brindisi. Carried by a voice vote.
_____________________________
Gerri Marotta
Secretary to Planning Board