SPECIAL MEETING

“HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS”

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

ROLL CALL:

John DiMeglio William Rucci

Mayor Thomas Balunis David Slater

Joseph Graceffo Ed O’Connell

Kevin Platt John Shutte

PRESENT: Attorney Steven Veltri and Engineer Michael Cristaldi

MEMBERS ABSENT: Chairman Gilbert Foulon and Member Eugene Verba.

READING: Open Public Meeting Announcement

This is a Special Meeting of the Wanaque Borough Planning Board for the purpose of having a public hearing for Application #22-06 “Holiday Inn Express”, 303 Union Avenue, Haskell, N.J., Block 468 Lot 3.01 for Amended Site Plan Approval to allow the proposed building to be constructed 170 feet in length rather than the approved 241 feet design, size of parking spaces requested are less than the 10 X 20 required although the Planning Board previously has granted 28 spaces at 9 X 20 and 50 spaces at 9 X 18. The original site plan proposes 91 parking spaces and the amended site plan seeks 93 parking spaces. Authorized Agent is A. Michael Rubin, Esq. and adequate notice has been give and has been duly advertised by the placement of a notice faxed to the Trends and Herald & News on October 23, 2006 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.

Atty. A. Michael Rubin, 1330 Hamburg Tpke., Wayne N.J. came forward on behalf of the applicant.

Atty. Rubin explained this application was before the Board of Adjustment on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 for a Use Variance and are here tonight for an amended site plan. Atty. Rubin explained that sometimes mistakes are made and a mistake was made in the design phase of this building. During the pre-construction phase of the building, the Construction Code Official brought to the attention of the builder that there was a violation of the ADA (American’s for Disability Act) requirement as to the distance between a wall and a proposed swimming pool inside the building. Atty. Rubin said there is suppose to be 5 ft. between the swimming pool edge and the wall and they didn’t have enough room. The simple way to fix this was to make the building a little longer but they couldn’t do it because they would be encroaching on a transition wetlands area. Therefore, they had to redesign the building and up a story and by going up a story they were in violation of the zoning ordinance by about 8 or 9 ft. and thus made it a Board of Adjustment matter as to height because that triggers a Use Variance. They went to the Board of Adjustment and it was approved on Wednesday, November 8, 2006. Atty. Rubin went on to say that the Board of Adjustment felt it was more appropriate to have the amended site plan heard by the Planning Board rather than retaining jurisdiction by the Board of Adjustment because the Planning Board was more familiar with the site plan issues.

Arthur Hanson, Site Engineer came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Veltri.

A rendering of the building was put on an easel for the Board to see what it will look like and was marked A-1. The second page is the site plan and is the same site plan drawing that was submitted to the Board of Adjustment and was marked A-2.

Eng. Hanson said the biggest change is on the south side of the building; before it was considerably wider and has been brought back. The location of the canopy has been changed and is more centered on the front of the building. All the handicap parking is now in front of the building just off the left hand corner. In essence it looks similar to what had been previously approved except the building is shorter.

The original building was 3 stories and this new one will be 4 stories with the same number of rooms. Eng. Hanson said he was asked if he could push the building further back towards the lake in order to eliminate the small variance that they need for the canopy up front and Eng. Hanson indicated to the applicant he could not. As part of the original approval they had to get approval from the DEP regarding the wetlands along the sides and the state open water, which is the lake behind the site. The state dictated that they had to be a certain distance off of the property line or the water line and in that area they had to provide an emergency access so if a fire truck has to get in the back they won’t be running on dirt but instead on grass pavers, but they were not permitted to go further towards the rear with the building. The variance they need because of the canopy is 48.9 ft. and the requirement is 50 ft.

Eng. Hanson went on to say there are fifty-two (52) 9 X 18 parking spaces and is the stretch along the Burger King property line, forty-one (41) 9 X 20 parking spaces which is the center court and the handicap parking on the left side and that total is 93 stalls. Atty. Rubin asked Eng. Hanson if he sees any problem with these parking spaces and Eng. Hanson said he has used this design before and it’s sufficient and there is no parking variance being requested. Vice Chairman Graceffo asked Eng. Hanson if he were to make the spaces the required sizes (10 X 20) how many spaces would he lose? Eng. Hanson said he could probably go for other variances and show on the site plan that along a certain strip they kept 10 ft. from the curb to the property line and if they went to 8 ft. all of the stalls could be 20 ft. deep. Member Rucci added that width is more important. Eng. Cristaldi said what about making the stalls 10 ft. and how many could he provide. Eng. Hanson said he probably would lose a total of 10 spaces. The parking variances have already been approved previously by the Board and this plan is exactly what was before the Board last time.

Atty. Veltri said, just for the record, the Board approved 28 parking spaces at 9 X 20, 56 spaces at 9 X 18 from the prior approval. Eng. Hanson said now it is 52 & 41.

The isle width is 24 ft. and gives you sufficient area to back up and go left or right. There is 18 ft. to the curb line and most people when they park into a curb they drive up until the tire hits the curb; therefore the front part of your car is actually over hanging into the green space on all sides.

Atty. Rubin asked Eng. Hanson if he received a copy of Alaimo Engineering’s Report dated November 28, 2006 and Eng. Hanson said he did. Eng. Hanson proceeded and said on Page 2 under Water with regard to updates to this water plan and the two water mains on Union Avenue that the County does not want. Eng. Cristaldi handed him tonight the map that was going to be attached to the report. Eng. Hanson reviewed it and feels he can accomplish this and will talk directly to Eng. Cristaldi to get this resolved.

Eng. Hanson said there are questions about easements throughout this report. There are easements between this site and the Burger King site adjacent from the proposed site. There’s an easement for the area for the parking stalls that encroach onto the Burger King. There’s a cross access easement for flow of traffic back and forth across both sites and there’s a specific easement for the detention basin to be used in common with the two parcels. Eng. Hanson said this was all part of the original approval. Atty. Rubin told Eng. Cristaldi that somewhere in the archives of the Borough, those easement documents are sitting and if the Board needs new ones, he will obviously get them. There will also be sidewalk in front of the proposed site, which has been requested by the County. Eng. Cristaldi asked that the grass paver be shown on the plan.

Atty. Veltri mentioned a report prepared by Eng. William Gregor of the Board of Adjustment dated October 31, 2006, which Atty. Veltri received from Atty. Ralph Faasse of the Board of Adjustment. Atty. Veltri asked Atty. Rubin if he is willing to comply with all of Eng. Gregor’s recommendations and conditions. Atty. Veltri assumed this report was reviewed at the Special Meeting the applicant had with the Board of Adjustment on Wednesday, November 8, 2006 and wanted to know if they had any problems with it. Atty. Rubin said as they went through the report at the Board of Adjustment Meeting, the Board noted that they were treading on this Board’s jurisdiction and they really didn’t want to do that. Atty. Rubin said the Board of Adjustment really wanted the Planning Board to handle the site plan, therefore Eng. Gregor advised the Board that they should kind of disregard his comments on site and let the Planning Board handle it. Atty. Veltri said what he’s trying to avoid in the future, because it is a bifurcated application, that report from Eng. Gregor is now generated and is certainly going to be in a Borough file and if there are any problems with it Atty. Veltri would like to highlight them now and embody them in the resolution rather than someone point out something two years

from now. Atty. Rubin said some of the issues were not discussed because Eng. Gregor said and the Board and the Board Chairman agreed to let the Planning Board be involved with site issues. Atty. Veltri said, the only problem with that is that they sent him the report as the attorney for the Planning Board and he doesn’t want a problem with the Board of Adjustment a year or two from now. Atty. Veltri said he looked at the prior resolution that he drafted and he knows one of the reasons and the basis they granted the parking variance last time because there was testimony that the applicant would not have trucks parked overnight on that site. Atty. Veltri said he is going to recommend to the Planning Board if they approve this amended site plan that all of the conditions in the prior resolution will certainly apply to this amended site plan. Atty. Veltri will leave it up to the Board tonight if they wish to review or incorporate Eng. Gregor’s report in their resolution.

Another question Atty. Veltri wanted to explore and according to Atty. Faasse a member of the Board of Adjustment had access to a cross easement document that apparently has been recorded. The comment that they wanted this Board to address tonight was that there was a provision in it saying that the cross easement could be cancelled by an agreement between the two property owners. The comment to this Board is to ask the applicant tonight is that they want the Borough also to consent to the cancellation of the cross easement. Atty. Veltri said what he thinks they’re trying to avoid is if the two owners can cancel the cross easement without the Borough being involved, then there could be a problem with access. Atty. Rubin agreed and said if Burger King for example said, Holiday Inn can’t use the driveway, they would be in a courtroom fighting it out or back before some Board to ask for a new driveway opening. Atty. Rubin said he believes that if any of the easement documents that have been recorded were changed materially to change the concepts that the Board knows and approved, they would have to come back.
Eng. Cristaldi said there is no reason to get rid of the easements as long as these two properties are kept at the use they’re being granted for now; so to make the Borough a party, for some reason if the Holiday Inn and the Burger King were to be demolished and start all over again with a vacant property and those two property owners decided they didn’t need the easements anymore, certainly the Borough wouldn’t stop them. Atty. Rubin suggested that perhaps in the resolution that there be a clear condition that none of the easement documents that have been recorded (copies will be provided by Atty. Rubin) can be changed or materially/substantially
amended without coming back to the Board. Renegotiating and having new agreements, would be a monumental task. Atty. Veltri said Atty. Rubin has no objection to the Board putting that wording in a resolution and obviously they would not have to re-record but if they were changed, there would be at least a resolution in the Planning Board files to say that they would have to come back. Member Rucci wanted to know the other concerns in Eng. Gregor’s report of October 31, 2006. The Board Secretary made copies of this report for the members and then passed them out. Atty. Rubin mentioned at the Board of Adjustment Meeting of November 8, 2006, they brought down the height of the building to 47’9”, therefore, the variance became 7’ 9” and that is what was approved. Member Rucci asked about the issue of tractor-trailers not being allowed to park in the lot and he assumes that includes RV’s, towing trailers and travel trailers. Atty. Rubin said that wouldn’t work for this site and you wouldn’t be able to go in or out. It was recommended that RV’s be added to the resolution.

Mayor Balunis asked about the garbage and Eng. Hanson said there is no dumpster on the site plan and there wasn’t one the first time.

Atty. Rubin said on Eng. Gregor’s report the address should be 303 Union Avenue and not 133 Union Ave. Atty. Rubin said there are no comments on the first page. Eng. Hanson said Item #18 on Page 3 the sidewalk would be widened to 6 ft.

Item #17 Page 3 a fence will be provided around the existing detention basin.

Item #7 the proposed canopy of the hotel will require a variance for front yard setback of 48.9 feet and will be changed to 48.2 feet.

Item #14 oversized parking spaces for trucks are recommended, but there will be no truck parking.

Item #15 a loading area is required but there will be nothing to load.

Atty. Veltri asked Eng. Hanson if he’s going to comply with everything in this report except for Item #15. Eng. Hanson asked if the Board wanted them to move the building. Eng. Cristaldi said if the Board wants the 6 ft. sidewalks that will change the variances they’re asking for.

Vice Chairman Graceffo asked about the meeting room. Atty. Rubin said the meeting room is very small and is for the convenience of guests and is about 300 sq. ft. A breakfast will be served such as a continental. Vice Chairman Graceffo wanted to make sure the members understood they were accepting Eng. Gregor’s report with the exception of Item #15 for a loading area. Atty. Rubin said the first time around there was no dumpster but obviously the Board is requesting one. Eng. Hanson said there is no need for a dumpster because there will be very little garbage. Member Rucci said you have 81 rooms with people coming in with bags etc. and if they go across to Burger King, there will be garbage. Eng. Hanson said the garbage would be stored internally and bring it out on garbage day. Mayor Balunis said that’s a lot of cans of garbage. Mayor Balunis added they will need a covered dumpster because the garbage cans will blow all over the street creating a mess. Eng. Hanson said he can fit one in the southeasterly corner of the building and will be screened in and easily accessible by a truck. It was decided there will be a maximum dumpster area of 8 X 20 feet.

MOTION TO OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION: made by Member O’Connell, seconded by Member Slater, voting yes were Members DiMeglio, Mayor Balunis, Graceffo, Platt, Rucci, Slater, O’Connell and Shutte.

Nancy Beck, 164 Greenwood Ave., came forward. Ms. Beck has two concerns: one is the parking issue and anyone coming in with an RV that’s too big to fit in a standard size parking spot and goes in and sign in at the desk and no one knows they have an RV outside. Member Rucci said you can’t park an RV anywhere and if there is a complaint it probably would go through the Police Department. Atty. Rubin said the Board of Adjustment asked the applicant to put up a sign that lets people know they can’t park trucks etc. on this site. Ms. Beck’s second concern is the dumpster issue. She said if there is a dumpster or a loading dock, she lives across the street and is concern about noise. Ms. Beck said the Laundromat across the street has a dumpster and they come and collect at awful hours. She would like some kind of reassurance that the collector would not come before 7:00 A.M. and if possible the dumpster area be tucked around the back of the building rather than at the side.

MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION: made by Member Rucci, seconded by Member DiMeglio, voting yes were Members DiMeglio, Mayor Balunis, Graceffo, Platt, Rucci, Slater, O’Connell and Shutte.

Atty. Rubin announced that the owner of Burger King and the eventual operator of the “Holiday Inn Express” are here tonight in case the Board had any questions for them.

Eng. Cristaldi mention Item #16 in Eng. Gregor’s report stating no signage is shown on the site plan. Eng. Cristaldi said one of the signs prohibiting RV’s would be one of the signs that would be required to be submitted on the site plan.

Member DiMeglio wanted to know if the laundry was going to be done on the premises and the answer was yes.

Atty. Veltri, said his understanding of the application is an Amended Final Site Plan Application. The site that the Planning Board approved back in 2004 is going to be modified as follows: The building will be constructed at 170 ft. in length rather than the 241 ft. design that was approved, the parking spaces are going to increase to 93 spaces rather than 91, they are applying for variances for size of the spaces 52 of the 93 spaces will be 9 X 18 and 41 spaces at 9 X 20, the height of the building which was approved by the Board of Adjustment will now be a 4 story 47.9 ft. building rather than a 3 story 40 ft. building originally approved, the applicant is applying for two variances, size of the parking spaces and also for a front yard setback variance to allow the proposed canopy to be placed at 48.2 ft. instead of the 50 ft. setback that’s required by ordinance. Other things added to the plan are; a dumpster area at 8 X 20 ft. to be added to the southeast corner of the site, a perimeter fence around the existing detention basin, a vehicle gate should be provided in the fencing to permit maintenance of the detention basis, the sidewalk servicing the handicap parking area and the area to the eastside of the hotel should be widened to a minimum of 6 ft. to accommodate the overhang of parking vehicles. If the Board votes to approve, subject to and contingent upon the following: that all the representations that was heard tonight and heard previously are true and accurate, the project will be built in accordance with the rendering that was marked A-1. Secondly that all the conditions set forth in the Planning Board Resolution dated January 15, 2004 need to be complied with. The applicant needs to comply with all conditions that maybe established by the Wanaque Board of Adjustment and the Use Variance approval that they voted on November 8, 2006. The next condition would be that the applicant should comply with all the comments and conditions in Eng. Cristaldi’s report dated November 28, 2006 and that they shall also comply with all the comments and conditions set forth in Eng. Gregor’s report dated October 31, 2006 except for paragraph #15. The next condition would be that no overnight parking of trucks, tractor-trailers or RV’s, which do not fit into the parking spaces on site and any parking of those vehicles, will be prohibited and that the applicant will erect signage on the site to indicate that. The final condition would be that in the event any cross easements to the site are cancelled between property owners, that the owner of this property will be required to re-appear before this Board for site plan approval.

MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION: made by Member DiMeglio, seconded by Member Rucci, voting yes were Members DiMeglio, Mayor Balunis, Graceffo, Platt, Rucci, Slater, O’Connell and Shutte.

ADJOURNED AT 9:18 P.M.

__________________________________

Gerri Marotta

Planning Board Secretary