PLANNING BOARD MEETING
BOROUGH OF WANAQUE
MINUTES
March 20, 2008
Regular Meeting
Meeting called to order by Chairman Foulon with a salute
to the flag.
ROLL CALL:
John Di Meglio David
Slater
Kevin Platt
PRESENT: Attorney Steven Veltri and Engineer
Michael Cristaldi
ABSENT: Mayor Dan Mahler, Members Joseph Graceffo,
Eugene Verba, Ed O’Connell and John Shutte.
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 18, 2008 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 February 21, 2008 Meeting.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Di Meglio,
seconded by Member Platt, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Di Meglio,
Platt and Rucci. Member Slater
abstained.
COMMUNICATIONS/REPORTS: No questions asked.
Chairman Foulon told the Board Members that there was a
joint meeting two weeks ago with some members of the Council and Board of
Adjustment with regard to ordinances coming to the Board for review which is
necessary to allow the Building Inspector to do his job without the gray area
and make it either black or white, so he can say either yes or no. There probably will be about seven or eight ordinances
that will be coming within the next month.
APPLICATION STATUS: Engineer Cristaldi reported no
new applications, but something came up on an older application that is “Valley
View”. Eng. Cristaldi said when the Board heard the
application, the Board had requested that they try to increase the size of the
outfall and “DEP”is giving them some resistance. The
trouble is that the Board didn’t leave any room in there to come back to Eng.
Cristaldi and make any changes; technically they would have to come back to the
Board but in the end Eng. Cristaldi will still have to do the review and what
they’re proposing he thinks will still work and fix the line that’s there but
we can’t make it bigger.
Atty. Veltri said, to make the record clear, the proposed
change in
MOTION TO AUTHORIZE THE ENGINEER TO APPROVE THE
RECONFIGURATION OF THE STORM WATER DISCHARGE PIPE: made by Member Rucci,
seconded by Member Slater, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Di Meglio,
Platt, Rucci and Slater.
Chairman Foulon wanted to know what they are specifically planning on doing. Atty. Martin said the services would be; manicures, pedicures, waxing and skin care. Atty. Martin said back in January, the Board wanted more information about the skin care and that is why he submitted a document explaining that it is a scrub of dead skin in which dead skin cells are taken off the skin and is not any where close to a massage. The dead skin is removed by using a friction towel and this is done all over the body and certain body areas are covered that would be subject to anything remotely concerning a sexual nature. Member Rucci asked if this service is offered to both men and women and Atty. Martin said yes. Atty. Martin said he quoted the ordinance in his letter and the ordinance references physical contact that would result in contact of a sexual nature. Atty. Martin said he truly doesn’t believe this is that at all and that this procedure is a scrubbing of the skin to remove dead skin and is not a massaging in the term that’s normally used in. The ordinance does make reference to massage but not anything that Atty. Martin believes that would be close to this procedure that is very common. Atty. Martin said his client’s wife does have certification in both massaging and body scrubbing.
Atty. Veltri said to Atty. Martin, that there is no hand
to body contact in the body scrub and a towel involved in the scrub? Atty. Martin asked his client if that was correct.
Atty. Martin said his client said they use a friction
towel and no hand to body contact between the therapist and the patron. Atty. Veltri asked what is a friction towel? The applicant’s daughter explained that a friction towel
is much firmer than an ordinary cotton towel so they can scrub off the dead
skin. The towels are washed before using again on
another patron. Atty. Veltri asked the applicant’s
daughter to describe the size of the towel and what it is made out of. She said it is about 2 ft. long and 1 ½ ft. wide and is
made out of a course material. At this point Atty.
Veltri swore in Mei Ling Piao, the applicant’s daughter. Ms.
Piao doesn’t work for her father and is only here
tonight to translate. Atty. Martin asked
Ms. Piao if the towel used is like a canvas used on a beach chair and she said
it is thinner than that but firmer. Atty. Veltri asked
Ms. Piao if the scrub was done with the towel and not the hands and Ms. Piao
said yes. Atty. Veltri named a few body parts that the
scrub might be used on and said; face, back, legs below the thigh down and Ms.
Piao said yes. Atty. Veltri asked if the scrub was
ever done in the pelvic area at all and Ms. Piao said they do it on the stomach
area. Atty. Veltri asked if they could put on the
record that the scrub is never performed in the pelvic region.
Atty. Martin tried to explain to Ms. Piao that the Board is trying to
make sure that the scrubbing never takes place in the pelvic area because it
could get sexual in nature and she agreed. Atty.
Martin asked if the patrons have clothing on in the private area and Ms. Piao
said they are covered with a towel.
Chairman Foulon said when this application first came to
the Board, it was approved for a Nail Salon & Facials because that’s what
they said they were going to do; now there are new owners but Chairman Foulon
doesn’t really care about that. Atty. Martin responded
and said he read the minutes and the minutes don’t seem to reflect that. Chairman Foulon suggested that Atty. Martin should listen
to the tape of the meeting. Atty. Martin wanted to
know if that meant the minutes were inaccurate? Chairman
Foulon said he hasn’t listened to the tape and is only going by memory of over
a year ago and he could be wrong, but his memory is recollecting that first it
was going to be a spa and the Board said no because they didn’t want a spa and
then they came back and said it was going to change to nail and facials and
that’s what it was approved for. Chairman Foulon went
on to say that now; they’re into body scrubs, saunas, steam rooms and other rooms
with beds in them and wanted to know how did this come about?
Atty. Martin said all he can say again is that he was provided with the
minutes and assumed the minutes were approved and the minutes do seem to
suggest or state that Mr. Cho who was the predecessor to his client, did ask
for the ability to do manicures, pedicures, skin care and waxing. Chairman Foulon said his description of skin care was
facials. Atty. Martin said his client
was asked to come back and do this process again so whatever Mr. Cho may have
said or didn’t say, the Building Inspector, Mr. Brusco obviously did have a
problem with what was happening so he asked us to come back and file a new
application which his client did before they retained him. Atty.
Martin said whatever Mr. Cho may have said back then and maybe it’s contrary to
what they’re saying now, he would ask that the Board not hold that against his
client. Atty. Martin doesn’t know Mr. Cho and what he was
planning on doing and he doesn’t know why he didn’t pursue what he asked the
Board to do, but they have asked to do these things. As
stated in Atty. Martin’s letter, he did an exhaustive search of the
administrative code as well as Wanaque Statute’s and he doesn’t see anything
that references this not being permitted and it is a State sanctioned activity
or service. The ordinance does not speak of this
procedure and is not something that is made up by his client and is in
administrative code sections and they are legitimate business people. Atty. Martin said Mr. Paio’s
wife, daughter, son and son-in-law are all here
tonight to support him and has another facility that the Board has literature
on and is a legitimate businessman who wants to enter the Wanaque community and
will not break laws or violate ordinances in this space.
Member Slater told the Board that he visited the other
site of Mr. Piao’s in Closter and didn’t see anything to give him cause for
alarm, Member Slater said the shop here in Wanaque is much more extravagant
than the one in Closter and there weren’t any saunas or showers in Closter like
there is here in Wanaque.
Chairman Foulon said the point is that in the original
application there was nothing said about saunas or steam rooms etc., the
original application is what we’re going on because that is what was approved. Atty. Veltri said this applicant is here asking to broaden
the scope from the original CO to add these other services. Atty.
Veltri said they’re also concerned about some construction that occurred inside
the unit and wanted to know if any permits were necessary to install saunas and
steam rooms and if permits were necessary and they weren’t obtained, that’s an
issue not necessarily for this Board, but for the Building Department.
At this point, Sal Falciglia, owner of the building came
forward and was sworn in by Atty. Veltri. Mr.
Falciglia said he didn’t get the permits and that Mr. Cho got the permits but
Mr. Falciglia submitted all the plans to the Building Department Secretary and
the plans do show the saunas, showers, steam rooms, locker rooms and bathrooms. The project Manager, Fred would walk through with the
different inspectors in case anything had to be redone because Mr. Cho’s
English wasn’t too good. Mr. Falciglia said the
permits were legally taken out and the construction
was done in a legal fashion.
Atty. Martin told Atty. Veltri there is a recent letter
from Mr. Brusco to his client and didn’t mention that there were any problems
with permits but more concerned with the issue of massaging. Atty.
Veltri said what they are here for is that they’re
alerting us to a change of ownership, and the services that are going to be
utilized inside the premise.
Atty. Veltri explained that the Board is concerned with
this being a professional business.
Mr. Falciglia did remember at
one of the meetings he came to with Mr. Cho and he did mention skin care where
they take the dead skin off the body.
Atty. Veltri said the Board is obviously concerned
because things happen subsequent to the last application and the Board was not
aware of. The Board is concerned with this being a
professional business and we’ve all read the papers about
what happens in other towns and we don’t want that to happen in this town. Atty. Veltri would like this to be as specific as possible
so we don’t have a third hearing on what the applicant thought he meant to say
and he didn’t say. We also need the owner to be as
diligent in looking at all of his businesses in his building to make sure there
are professional uses and no embarrassing moments for this municipality. Atty. Veltri added, that if it gets to a point that there
is hand to body contact to scrub skin off, and in his opinion that’s a massage;
if someone decides to slide from the friction towel into other things and call
it a body scrub, there’s going to be a problem and summons’ will be issued and
a revocation of a use. Atty. Veltri then asked if
everyone understood what he said and Mr. Falciglia asked the owner’s daughter
if she understood that the towel must remain between the therapist and the
customer and she said yes.
Atty. Martin told Atty. Veltri that this has been
discussed many times, and never has his client said to him that they plan on or
that they’re going anywhere near what they consider to
be a massage. Atty. Veltri said to Atty.
Martin that he would like to see if they can stipulate for the record that if
there’s any massage done hand to body contact in that use, that they understand
and Atty. Martin understands there will be an immediate revocation of that use
and wanted Atty. Martin if he could make that stipulation for the record. Atty. Martin said he thinks they would be entitled to due
process on that and whatever process normally takes place should take place and
told Atty. Veltri that he doesn’t know what he means. Atty.
Veltri explained if there was a finding that there was a massage, a summons
would be issued and there’s a procedure in Municipal Court or Superior Court
and there’s a finding, Atty. Veltri would like a stipulation on the record
tonight that Atty. Martin understands and agrees that this use will be revoked. Atty. Martin took a few minutes and asked his client’s
daughter if she understood everything Atty. Veltri was saying. Mr. Falciglia told the Board he even
contacted the Closter Police Department and they never had a problem with Mr.
Piao’s business.
Atty. Martin said that his client asked hypothetically
for example; lets assume he wanted to do someone’s forearm and takes the hand
of the customer and therefore he’s concerned if he’s using the towel would he
be violating some provision that we’re trying to agree on. Atty.
Martin is pretty sure he understands exactly where the Board is going in terms
of the private areas etc., but he really wants to be as literal as possible and
that certainly would not be a contact that would be of a sexual nature. Atty. Veltri said what he’s concerned with and the Board
is, he’s been told there are private rooms in the business and he does not want
to see a violation occur and a guilty plea occur in a court or a guilty finding
occur and then your client comes back and the Board hears “well that was one
bad employee and how could we know because the door was shut”.
Then this approval is going to stop and maybe all the private areas will
be taken out and if we don’t have that understanding tonight, this can go on
and on. Chairman Foulon suggested curtains instead of
doors. Mr. Falciglia spoke up and said
there is a men’s and women’s area and are not coed
saunas and have one in each area.
Atty. Martin said that it was just explained to him that
normally the doors are open all the time and the reason there are doors is more
for noise so the customer can enjoy the experience of a relaxation type of
thing. Atty. Martin was also told that there are
windows and its not like something could be going on in there without it being
seen. The doors can stay open if that is an issue for
the Board. Atty. Veltri said no its not an issue and
what he’s trying to convey is if there’s a problem there, the Board doesn’t
want to hear they didn’t have control of an employee or had a bad apple working
there and the owner will be held responsible as owners, to control that place
and if there is a problem, the Board will revoke the approval.
Atty. Martin said his client absolutely understands that and agrees. Chairman Foulon said that is a
good compromise and if they were willing to keep the doors open that would be
fine. Chairman Foulon asked how many employees are
working there and was told there were four (4) but business has been slow and
now there are three (3). Chairman Foulon asked if
there is only one person doing the body scrubs and Atty. Martin said yes and
that would be his client’s wife. Chairman Foulon also
noted that there is a manicurist and a hair stylist.
MOTION TO ENTERTAIN A CERTIFICATE OF
OCCUPANCY FOR THE STATED USE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE PUT ON THE
RECORD AND AUTHORIZE ATTORNEY VELTRI TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO PUT THIS IN
WRITING SPECIFICALLY TO TRY TO COVER NOT ONLY THE CONVERSATION THE BOARD HAD
TWO MONTHS AGO BUT ALSO THE CONVERSATION TONIGHT: made by Member Slater,
seconded by Member Platt, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Members Di Meglio,
Platt, Rucci and Slater.
Atty. Martin asked if his client had to wait for the
Resolution to be formally adopted or could they start immediately. Chairman Foulon said they could start that particular service
but no big signs that say body scrub or massage. Chairman
Foulon complimented Atty. Martin since it was his first time before this Board,
on what a professional job he did.
NEW BUSINESS APPLICATION: “Dog Day Care” (Overnight Care,
Grooming and Boutique). 16
Ms. Sparks came forward. Chairman Foulon said before the Board goes too far, he thinks this application has to be referred to the Board of Adjustment because what he can see, this is not a permitted use and there’s already a business in the building and you’re not allowed two businesses in one building. Therefore, Chairman Foulon said they will have to go to the Board of Adjustment for a variance; Atty. Veltri added, or for an interpretation on whether or not they should hear it or refer it back to the Planning Board. Atty. Veltri explained they are the Board that makes those decisions. If there’s an agreement that they should hear it, if Ms. Sparks feels that they should hear it because of the multiple uses in the building, she just applies straight to them. If she says no, and she really wants to go back to the Planning Board on a Certificate of Occupancy Application, the Board of Adjustment will listen to what she’s doing and decide whether they should keep it there for a variance or refer it back to the Planning Board. But because of the multiple use situation, the Board of Adjustment in the past has written to the Planning Board explaining they want jurisdiction on those types of applications and that’s why the Planning Board is sending her there. The Board Secretary told Ms. Sparks she should come in and talk to Jeff Brusco, Building Inspector about going to the Board of Adjustment.
NEW BUSINESS APPLICATION: “Skylands Preschool” (day care
center),
Jennifer Lippe came forward. Ms. Lippe explained that she would like to open a pre-school for children 2 ½ to 6 years of age with no infant care. She needs a license up to 30 children and can’t get a State License until she has a CO. Ms. Lippe had preliminary drawings with her and handed it over to the Board. Ms. Lippe explained right now, there is one handicap accessible bathroom and all she’s doing is adding one more bathroom in order to comply with the smaller size toilet seats. She’s also taking an area of the carpeting out and replacing it with a vinyl floor in order to have an arts and craft area. Atty. Veltri asked if the State has reviewed this site and Ms. Lippe said no. Atty. Veltri said they will come in and give her recommendations and the Board would like a copy of whatever recommendations they give her. Ms. Lippe said she already spoke to them and has their recommendations with here and also spoke to the person who would be doing her inspections and was told that the State won’t come near it until she obtains a CO for the building. Atty. Veltri asked how many children would be there and Ms. Lippe said up to 30, with two toilets and two sinks and has to be 35 sq. ft. per child. Ms. Lippe said there is an outside recreation area and is 60 X 20 and is located at the back end of the building and right now is just a lawn that has to be fenced in. Atty. Veltri said, generally there’s a certain criteria that the State requires and he knows they require the outside area and the Board will also require, for safety purposes, a drop-off pick- up area so that it is safe so that they can see where the children are going to be dropped off and how they’re going to enter and how they’re going to leave; also would like to see how they’re going to leave the interior of the site to get to the play area. Atty. Veltri asked Ms. Lippe if she is serving food and she said no. Generally CO’s are not given until you see a sketch of the building and they see what’s going on in the interior as well as the exterior because the State has their requirements and he thinks they’re going to probably require certain things with a lot more detail than what he’s hearing tonight from her. Atty. Veltri said there’s also a safety health concern so the Board would like to see the site plan and keep it in the record just in case there’s a problem; such as a child runs out and gets hit by a car and why and how did it happen, is there proper parking, and these are just general site plan questions that the Board asks. Atty. Veltri said in non-residential areas it is a permitted use by statute and Ms. Lippe fulfilling all the conditions that he mentioned tonight and some other conditions. The only way to know whether these conditions have been met is to see a site plan and the Board Engineer has to look at it.
Chairman Foulon said this is tough and the Board wants to
help her do this, but the Board can’t even think about issuing a CO because
there’s a lot of work that has to be done to the building. Chairman
Foulon said looking at all the inspection reports that came back, not a single
department approved any of these inspections; therefore a lot of work has to be
done. The Board will issue a CO when all of these
inspections come in approved; whether she gets a license from the State the Board doesn’t know. Atty. Veltri said generally the people he
represented got criteria from the State and put together a site plan based upon
the criteria and presented the site plan to the appropriate Board in town. Atty. Veltri explained the Board couldn’t grant a CO
without looking at the site plan. Engineer Cristaldi
recommended that Ms. Lippe let her architect know that the Board needs to know
about the impact of traffic on this business especially with children being
dropped off and there are residential apartments also in the building and she
will be required to have so many parking spaces. Atty.
Veltri said its not that simple to give a CO for a day care because there’s
health, safety, traffic and State requirements involved. Atty.
Veltri told Ms. Lippe that she should give all of her State material to her
architect so he can start preparing a site plan and then she has to deal with
the traffic issues as Eng. Cristaldi mentioned because she’s on a County road
and they may have a say in things such as turn-arounds. The Board is going to be looking at drop-off and pick-up
areas, parking and whether or not there’s enough of room so cars don’t stack
onto
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None
RESOLUTIONS: None
VOUCHERS: submitted by Atty. Veltri for Arrow Group Industries, Inc. Application #01-08 for review of application and site plan etc., for a total of $275.00
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Di Meglio, seconded by Member Rucci, voting yes were Chairman Foulon, Member Di Meglio, Platt, Rucci and Slater.
MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 9:20 P.M. carried by a voice vote.
_________________________________
Gerri Marotta
Planning Board Secretary