BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

BOROUGH OF WANAQUE

 

MINUTES

 

October 3, 2007

Regular Meeting

 

Salute to Flag:

 

This is a Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment and adequate notice has been duly advertised by the mailing of a notice to the Suburban Trends and the Herald & News on the 12th day of January 2007 and a notice has been posted on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk.

 

ROLL CALL: Chairman Dunning, William Grygus, Frank Covelli (came in at 8:25 P.M.), Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig (came in at 8:07 P.M.), Ed Leonard, Art Koning, Eric Willse, Michael O’Hanlon, Attorney Ralph Faasse and Engineer William Gregor.

 

Application #23-06 Realty Associates Redevelopment, LLC, 547 Ringwood Ave., Block 231 Lot 11, Use Variance & Bulk Variances:

A fax was received from Attorney Brian M. Chewcaskie dated September 28, 2007 asking to carry the application to the November 7th Meeting along with an extension of time.

 

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE NOVEMBER 7TH MEETING: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Hoffman, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Leonard, Koning, Willse and O’Hanlon.

 

Application #03-07 Cosimo & Theresa Santoro, 1185 Ringwood Ave., Block 448 Lot 8.01, Site Plan, Use Variance & Bulk Variances:

A fax was received from Attorney James La Sala dated October 2, 2007 asking to carry the application to the November 7th Meeting along with a 90-Day Extension.

 

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE NOVEMBER 7TH MEETING: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Koning, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Leonard, Koning, Willse and O’Hanlon.

 

Application #06-07 Ruth Ann Elwood, 13 Maple Ave., Block 305 Lot 14, Minor Subdivision, Bulk Variances & Use Variance:

Attorney Michael Walker of Higgins & Walker, 130 Skyline Drive, Ringwood, N.J. came forward on behalf of applicant.  Atty. Walker told the Board that back in July, there was an issue raised whether there was a Use Variance required because of the density. After communicating with Borough Attorney, Anthony Fiorello and Atty. Faasse, its been determined that the proper jurisdiction lies before the Board of Adjustment.

Attorney Faasse swore in Ruth Ann Elwood from 4 Phelan Court, Haskell, N.J. Atty. Walker asked Ms. Elwood how long has she been a resident of Wanaque and Ms. Elwood said 69 years and presently owns Block 305 Lot 14 and is the subject of the application.

 

Originally the Lots were 14, 15 & 16 and with the passage of time and changing of the Ordinance within the Borough, those lots had merged into one lot and that’s the reason why Ms. Elwood is here before the Board tonight. The existing lot is presently vacant with an existing framed garage on the back portion of the lot that was part of a previous home that was on the lot. The home was demolished around 2003. The lot area is 16,167 sq. ft. and a fronting on Maple Ave. & Locust St. and the zoning is presently an R-10 Zone which means 10,000 sq. ft. is required per lot. The applicant wishes to subdivide the lots into two different lots that have been designated on the plans. This plan was marked Exhibit A-1 done by John P. Miceli, Land Surveyor dated April 24, 2007. The lot on the corner of Locust and Maple is designated as Lot 15. They are proposing a lot consisting of 8,758 sq. ft. where 10,000 is required and needs a variance of 1,241 sq. ft. They also requested a variance for lot width; the requirement is 80 ft. and they have 78.25 ft. and a variance is not required based on Eng. Gregor’s report because the actual width is taken from the front of the setback lines not from the actual frontage on the street. They need a variance for Lot Depth where the requirement is 120 ft. and they’re proposing 95 ft. for a 25 ft. variance. Lot 15 needs a front yard variance; required is 30 ft. and they’re proposing 20 ft. for a 10 ft. variance. Lot 16 is the interior lot that has proposed footage of 7,409 ft. and 10,000 ft. are required or a variance of 2,591 ft. The width variance is relatively minor and the proposed width of 78.25 ft. or a variance of 1.75 ft. The depth once again is the same variance as being requested for Lot 15 and that is they’re looking for 95 ft. depth or a variance of 25 ft. The front yard needs a variance of 10 ft. and the proposal is for a 20 ft. front yard. The applicant is seeking to have two residential homes erected on the two lots. The footprint is displayed on A-1 plan. Atty. Walker said this plan is consistent with the surrounding area. Atty. Walker pointed out that if you look across the street from these lots; five (5) of those lots are 50 X 100 ft. or 5,000 sq. ft. and what the applicant is proposing is well in excess of that. Atty. Walker went on to say that he believes the site is well suited for residential development; the area is consistent with the remaining area. The site is suited for a smaller home rather than one large home that wouldn’t fit in. What they’re looking to do is by developing a smaller mid-size home you’re marketing people who are middle-income families. Atty. Walker also said that two smaller homes would be a nice tax ratable for the town and this site is well suited for the proposed development. Atty. Walker believes he has addressed most of the issues in Eng. Gregor’s report dated July 9, 2007. 

Atty.Walker said Ms. Elwood has been a long time member of the community and is a senior citizen of this community and requests on behalf of the applicant that the Board approve the application.

Eng. Gregor wanted to let the Board know that when Atty. Walker made a statement earlier with regard to Item 8 in Eng. Gregor’s report, indicating that a lot width variance is not required; that’s not the statement Eng. Gregor. The statement that Eng. Gregor made is that what’s shown on the drawing is not correct; and in order to determine whether a variance is required, the surveyor would need to advise what the lot width actually is. The other statement directly following the previous statement, Atty. Walker stated that made Lot 15 a conforming lot; it is still a non-conforming lot. Atty. Faasse asked Eng. Gregor if  an engineer had drawn the plan and Eng. Gregor said no and the plan is a subdivision plan prepared by a surveyor. Chairman Dunning asked Ms. Elwood if she tried to acquire any other property to increase the size of these lots. Atty. Walker looked through his files to see if that ever took place and he couldn’t find anything. Member Hoffman asked if Ms. Elwood was planning on living in one of the new houses and she said no. Atty. Walker said she is planning on building and selling or transfer it to someone else. Member Grygus asked how they derived at the size of the building envelope that the applicant is seeking? Atty. Walker said they tried to keep the homes of modest size and the engineer involved came up with what he thought was the best configurations as far as size.

Member Grygus said, not having an architectural to look at, it’s hard to see how the driveways, parking etc. is going to look like.

Eng. Gregor asked Atty. Walker about putting modest size homes on the lots as opposed to a large home, and wanted to know if there was a reason why the applicant can’t put a moderated sized home on the existing lot without subdividing. Atty. Walker said you could, but it would be a very small home and it wouldn’t make sense to take a large piece of property and put a very small home on it and the return wouldn’t be there.

Chairman Dunning asked if the size of the homes would blend into the neighborhood and Atty. Walker said they certainly would blend into the neighborhood. They would be larger than some but smaller than many also. Member Hoffman asked if they had any architectural plans and Atty. Walker said they do not and at this point the applicant doesn’t plan on being the developer.

Member Grygus said what’s bothering him is that there is no plans to look at therefore, you don’t know about parking, storm water management and you don’t know how theses houses are going to impact the surrounding neighbors. Atty. Walker mentioned that the typography of the property is flat and there shouldn’t be a water problem.

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC:

Donna Peterson, 16 Maple Ave.  came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Ms. Peterson lives across the street from the proposed site. Ms. Peterson asked about the additional runoff that would be created and there already is a water situation in that area and wanted to know if the new structure would create additional ground water runoff, what type of engineering studies would be available to determine potential problems, what if there are adverse effects against her home. If blasting was needed, would there be any protection to the other neighbors for damage done to their homes? Where would the sewer connection come in from and can the sewerage be handled? Ms. Peterson has already informed the Mayor about the major water problem in this area; the properties in this area are lower than Ringwood Ave., therefore, the water has no where to go. Several of the properties after the last rain storm where pumping water out of their basements. She is also concerned about this application setting a precedent and other homeowners in the neighborhood would also like to sub-divide their properties if this application goes through. She would also like the new home built on the same property where there originally was a home because the other property has a lot of rock on it.

 

Atty. Walker tried to answer all of Ms. Peterson’s questions. Atty. Walker said he spoke with Penny Schlagel from the Sewer Authority and she told Atty. Walker that there is adequate sewer capacity. The lots are listed and they are planning on selling them but only if they get approval from the Board. Atty. Walker said this application wouldn’t be binding upon any future lots in the neighborhood. If the lot is developed and built upon, the Borough Engineer would enforce the storm water management plan and would be monitored by the Borough during the building process whether its one or two lots to be developed.

 

Suzanne Gardella Raoul, 6 Father Hayes Drive came forward representing her Mother who lives at 28 Maple Ave. Ms. Raoul asked if the Board knew if there was going to be a single story or a double story built on the proposed site. The Board responded by saying they don’t know because there are no building plans on this proposed site as of yet. Ms. Raoul said, if someone comes in to build a home and meets the requirements for the size of the home that the Board has allowed, they possibly will not have to get any more variances, and may be able to go right to the Building Inspector and get a Building Permit and then they possibly won’t have to do a Storm Management Plan. Eng. Gregor said that is not exactly what would happen. Eng. Gregor said in his report under Item 16 that reads “A Storm Water Management Plan and calculations should be a condition of any action by the Board to address increased storm water runoff resulting from the increase in impervious area from any proposed construction on these lots”. Eng. Gregor said this report was dated July 9th and has not received any response from the applicant regarding that statement. If the Board follows Eng. Gregor’s recommendation, the Board makes that a condition of any action by the Board.

 

CLOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

 

Atty. Walker said he would address the concerns of the Board at the next meeting. Atty. Faasse said those concerns are; what the buildings will look like, how are the proposed footprints going to relate to the property and the proposed subdivision, parking, storm water management etc.

Eng. Gregor said his recommendation to the Board would be that a storm water management plan be submitted before the subdivision is perfected should the Board vote favorably.

 

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE NOVEMBER 7TH MEETING: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse and O’Hanlon.

 

RECESSED AT 9:15 P.M.

RECONVENED AT 9:30 P.M.: Everyone present as before the recess with the exception of Member Willse who left the meeting at 9:15 P.M. and disqualified himself from the next application.

 

Application #07-07 Antonino & Maria Staropoli, 1283 Ringwood Ave., Block 464 Lot 27, Minor Subdivision & Use Variance:

 

Attorney Alfred Acquaviva of Spinato, Acquaviva, Kane & Randazzo, LLC, 266 Harristown Road, Suite 201, Glen Rock, N.J. 07452 came forward on behalf of the applicants. Atty. Acquaviva said the last time they were here, there was a discussion about  whether the RSIS Standards would apply and how they would go about requesting a waiver. Atty. Acquaviva submitted a letter dated September 20, 2007 from the DCA in which the DCA responded and said that this would not required a waiver under the RSIS and that the Zoning Board of Adjustment has the authority to approve all street improvements in this matter. (Secretary will make copies of this letter for the Board Members).

Atty. Acquaviva announced he has with him tonight, Eng. William Darmstatter and Planner Kauker. Atty. Acquaviva said the application involves two parts; there is a request for a subdivision of the lot into two parcels at 1283 Ringwood Ave., and there is a Use Variance required to convert the existing use from a Business Use to a Residential Use. The existing structure on the lot is a mixed use with a Commercial Use on the first floor and a Residential Use on the second floor. The Commercial Use has not been in use since March 2006. The first part of the application is to convert that existing structure into a two family home. The second part of the application is to construct a one family structure on the newly subdivided lot. There are no Bulk Variances and essentially looking at a Use Variance and Site Plan Review.

Eng. William J. Darmstatter, 202 Black Oak Ridge Rd., Wayne, N.J. came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Eng. Darmstatter has been licensed as a N.J. Land Surveyor since 1979 and a N.J. Professional Engineer since 1984. In 1992 he became self-employed for Darmstatter, Inc. Eng. Darmstatter has testified to Boards throughout N.J. and has appeared before this Board many times. Eng. Darmstatter said the applicant proposes to create a Minor Subdivision to re-create the existing tax Lot of 27.02 where the new proposed single-family dwelling will be and that is an existing tax lot and Lot 27 is like a flag lot that goes around. The current survey was done by John Miceli and shows the property all is one and the present Deed encompasses both Lot 27 and Lot 27.02. The applicant wishes to separate Lot 27.02 from Lot 27 and would front on Ricker Place which is a public road and Lot 27’s current frontage is on Ringwood Ave. and currently will stay on Ringwood Ave. There’s a Zoning Schedule on Sheet 1 of the plan and shows that this property is in a “B” Zone and included is the data for an R-10 Zone because this lot adjoins an R-10 Zone to the rear even though it is considerably away, the lot itself adjoins Lot 10. Both Lots 27 & Lot 27.02 would be 100% conforming to not only the “B” Zone but also the R-10 Zone and no Bulk Variances are required for that use. A Sheet 2 was prepared to this plan and basically it is a plan and profile of Ricker Place and the original plan did not show any improvements to Ricker Place. What they are proposing now is to put a 20 ft. traveled paved right-of-way down Ricker Place that is presently a stone traveled way. The two lots on either corner of Ricker Place are the only two lots that utilize Ricker Place and use it primarily as their driveway. The proposed single family lot or Lot 27.02 would then front on this and it would be actually like a third lot that would be utilizing it. Since it is an unimproved road, what they propose is a 20 ft. paved traveled way and does require several waivers from the RSIS Standards. The proposed 20 ft. paved traveled way within the existing 30 ft. right-of-way and that would come down to service the new home that the applicant is proposing. This road basically dead-ends and there’s no sufficient place to turn around, they are proposing to utilize the proposed driveway as a turn-around for any vehicles that should go down there.

Atty. Acquaviva asked Eng. Darmstatter if there are any other homes or uses that would essentially utilize this newly revamped Ricker Place? Eng. Darmstatter said just the two existing homes that are on either side are the only ones that have access to it and there are no other lots that have access to it.

Eng. Darmstatter mentioned Eng. Gregor’s report dated September 27, 2007 and addressed some of the items.

Item 20, Eng. Gregor would rather see a separate turn-around from the driveway. Eng. Darmstatter responded by saying, if it were a high traffic area, that would probably be a good idea, but the limited people that might come down that driveway or an occasional emergency vehicle, that would be the only people that would use it. A second one could be created but Eng. Darmstatter doesn’t think its practical.                            

Item 17, it was suggested that the applicant service the utilities. The utilities that service the  

Single-family dwelling come off the public road. That would require the improvement of a sanitary main coming down a public road; a water main coming down the public road and then the laterals to the home would be connected off of that. The applicant is proposing to have the utilities come out the back through an easement and connect to the existing utilities that are in Ringwood Ave. and this would make it all private and a benefit to the municipality as it doesn’t need to have additional mains to service this one lot and would be maintained privately. Chairman Dunning said if they sell that lot off, its two property owners would be responsible for maintaining the lot. Eng. Darmstatter said no, because there’s an easement on Lot 27 that requires the owner of Lot 27.02 to maintain it. Atty. Faasse asked if they are proposing two sewer lines going out to Ringwood Ave. and Eng. Darmstattter said one new sanitary line to service the home, one new water line to service the home and one new gas line. Atty. Faasse also asked how they were planning on accommodating Mr. Carroll’s request for a Fire Hydrant on Ricker Place. Eng. Darmstatter said the only way to do that would be to extend the main and there are two Fire Hydrants within close proximity; one is shown on the plan and there’s another one passed Ricker Place that is not shown on the plan and is in close proximity to the existing dwellings. Eng. Darmstatter said there are two water mains within a 300 ft. radius of the building.

Item 11, Eng. Darmstatter said it talks about in the back rear the applicant has his masonry equipment and two existing garages. They are not proposing additional pavement and this is where he presently parks his equipment. The plan shows that this area can be delineated to show six spaces along there. It is existing asphalt and the asphalt does extend within the buffer of the 50 ft. wetlands. There is no NJDEP Permit to leave existing asphalt within a 50 ft. buffer. They’re not looking to construct asphalt parking; all they’re looking for is to delineate that there are spaces there. Eng. Gregor interrupted Eng. Darmstatter and said the plan does not show that; all it shows is existing edge of pavement. Eng. Darmstatter said the original survey done by Surveyor Miceli had a rounded area in there, but the current survey shows it exactly as Eng. Darmstatter has it on the plan and it is all fully paved. Eng. Gregor asked Eng. Darmstatter to get him a copy of the latest survey and also to the Board.

Member Grygus mentioned Item 10 as far as the Borough’s standards for parking spaces are 10’ X 20’. Eng. Darmstatter said the parking spaces as they start going from the house back, they taper down to a minimum of 16 ft. and Eng. Gregor wants to see a minimum of 9’ X 18’, therefore they would have to add about 2 ft. of pavement. Eng. Darmstatter said if the Board wishes the spaces to be 10 ft. they could do that.

Chairman Dunning asked what the parking spaces service? Eng. Darmstatter said there are four spaces that are needed for the proposed two- family dwelling, and the parking spaces in the rear are for the four employees and equipment.

Eng. Gregor mentioned that the Board should be made aware of what is stored outside and what is stored in the garages. Eng. Darmstatter said what is stored in the garages are related to the applicant’s business. 

Atty. Faasse asked how is Item 21 being addressed that is the apparent conflict between the proposed paved area of Ricker Place and the retaining wall. Eng. Darmstatter said if you look at Sheet 2 that shows a small retaining wall and only has two feet of height and there is a small section of the wall within the right-of-way and will be removed and then just graded over. Atty. Faasse wanted to know whose wall is it? Eng. Darmstatter said he would assume that the owner of Lot 30 constructed the wall; at some point in time, it is within the public right-of-way. 

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

Scott Wernli, 1287 Ringwood Ave., came forward. Mr. Wernli said there are a lot of trucks presently coming and going from the applicant’s property. Mr. Wernli wanted to know, if a variance goes through, how much is going to increase as far as there being a lot more noise, trucks, signs and lights. Atty. Faasse said that is not a question for Eng. Darmstatter.

 

James Russo, 1301 Ringwood Ave., came forward. Mr. Russo said when they did the spray paint on Ringwood Ave. it was completely wrong. He said he has maps showing this. Eng. Darmstatter said all they did was establish a base line to shoot the typography and has nothing to do with the alignment of the right-of-way. Mr. Russo wanted to know if the 20 ft. right-of-way will hurt his neighbor’s garage. Eng. Darmstatter said what they are proposing is the 20 ft. paved right-of-way right in the middle of the 30 ft. existing right-of-way. Chairman Dunning asked Mr. Russo how is the apartment over his garage serviced, by water and sewer? Mr. Russo said it comes in from Ringwood Ave. straight in and there’s a separate line for gas and water on the other side of Ricker Place.

 

CLOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

 

The applicant Antonino Staropoli, 1283 Ringwood Ave., came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse.

Attorney Acquaviva asked Mr. Staropoli to described his business and Mr. Staropoli described is as masonry and construction business. Mr. Staropoli has two mason dump trucks, Kodiak 4500’s, pick-up, one of the dump trucks is taken home by one of the employees. Most of the traffic is first thing in the morning when they leave and occasionally they might have to stop in during the day if they have to pick up certain equipment and then they come home at night anytime between 3:00 to 5:00 or 6:00 P.M. Two vehicles remain on the lot overnight and they are the pick-up and dump truck. The pick up is parked right in front of the garage and the dump truck is usually parked in one of the parking spaces; two trailers are parked there right now on the grass side. Attorney Acquaviva asked what other equipment is usually stored outside. Mr. Staropoli said there is a Bobcat, a smaller mini excavator, and in back of the barn there’s a scaffold stored there, some supplies that are left over from jobs, blocks, planks and form boards. The amount of equipment is usually the same. In the garage there is construction equipment such as saws, electrical power tools, hand tools, some cement that’s left over and in the barn is his old Corvette, lawn tractor, quad and upstairs is used as storage from his house.

Atty. Faasse asked Mr. Staropoli the purpose of the subdivision. Mr. Staropoli said basically it’s to add to the house and the other property and turn the original house back to a two family. The first floor of the existing structure was at one time a small commercial business operated by Mrs. Staropoli that closed down in March 2006.

Atty. Faasse asked about the employees who work for Mr. Staropoli. Mr. Staropoli said they start from about 6:15 A.M. to 6:30 A.M. six days a week. Chairman Dunning asked Mr. Staropoli on the conversion to a two family use, if he was going to occupy the second floor of the existing structure that he occupies now or rent it? Mr. Staropoli said they would like to rent out the second floor and occupy the first floor. Eventually, they hope to live in the new proposed dwelling someday. Eng. Gregor asked about the utilities to the barn and garage and Mr. Staropoli said there is only electric to the barn and garage and no water or sewer. Eng. Gregor asked Mr. Staropoli to have his engineer identify the location on his site plan of where the equipment will be so the Board has a chance to look at it and better understand it.

 

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

Scott Wernli, 1287 Ringwood Ave. came forward. Mr. Wernli wanted to know the hours of operation of Mr. Staropoli’s business. Mr. Staropoli said the men have to warm up the trucks at about 6:15 or 6:20 A.M. and come home about 6:00 or 7:00 P.M. Mr. Wernli also was concerned about the noise and will there be more lighting. Atty. Faasse asked Eng. Darmstatter if he was proposing any improvements to the lighting and he said none.

Atty. Faasse mentioned that the Borough Administrator said in a letter dated February 16, 2007 that the Board should require the applicant to put in a Fire Hydrant and Eng. Darmstatter is saying that its not necessary because they have adequate protection within the immediate area.

Discussed by the Board Members was if a turnaround on the property was needed and how would garbage trucks access the property in the back if there was another dwelling unit.

 

Atty. Acquaviva gave the Board a 90-Day Extension on this application.

Atty. Faasse suggested to Eng. Darmstatter that the plans should be sent to the Fire, Police and First Aid Departments for their comments and concerns.

 

MOTION TO CARRY THE APPLICATION TO THE NOVEMBER 7TH MEETING: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and O’Hanlon

 

PUBLIC DISCUSSION:  None

 

RESOLUTIONS:  None

 

CORRESPONDENCE: No questions asked.

 

VOUCHERS: submitted by Eng. Gregor for Application #23-06 Realty Associates for $425.00, Application #07-07 Staropoli for $425.00, for a Grand Total of $850.00.

 

MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Leonard, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and O’Hanlon.

 

MINUTES: from the August 1st and September 5th Meetings.

 

MOTION TO APPROVE:  made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Leonard, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and O’Hanlon.

 

MINUTES: from the July 11th Meeting:

 

MOTION TO APPROVE WITH A MISSING LAPSE OF TIME IN THE MINUTES-MINUTES WERE PROFESSIONALLY DONE BY AN OUTSIDE TRANSCRIPTION COMPANY:  made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member O’Hanlon, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and O’Hanlon.

 

Member Hoffman not qualified.

 

ENGINEER’S REPORT: Nothing new to report.

 

DISCUSSION:

 

Chairman Dunning spoke to Mayor Mahler about the outstanding bills from Engineer Gregor that hasn’t been paid.  Mayor Mahler said he would take care of all the bills that haven’t been paid over the last six years and asked Eng. Gregor to resubmit all the vouchers. Eng. Gregor said he did resubmit the vouchers and at the end of May he was told he would be getting paid shortly.

Chairman Dunning said an Ordinance Committee has been formed to work on the problem of some of the ordinances have to be changed and to develop some new ordinances to deal with the issues that are growing within the Borough. A letter was received from Mayor Mahler asking for one person from the Zoning Board with an Alternate, one person from the Planning Board with an Alternate be present at the Ordinance Committee Meeting. There will be three Council Members on this committee and the Building Inspector, Borough Administrator and a consultant. Chairman Dunning said he and Member Grygus would make the initial appearance at this committee meeting that is October 25th.

 

MOTION AUTHORIZING CHAIRMAN DUNNING & VICE CHAIRMAN GRYGUS OF THE WANAQUE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BE THE REPRESENTATIVES FOR THIS BOARD ON THE ORDINANCE COMMITTEE FORMED BY THE MAYOR: made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Leonard, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and O’Hanlon.

 

Chairman Dunning said they have asked for the Members of the Boards, especially the Zoning Board being familiar with the problematic ordinances that they deal with on a monthly basis, to submit some input to this committee. Chairman Dunning asked the Members to take some time and write down their thoughts and E-Mail to Chairman Dunning and he will print it out and bring it to the committee meeting.

Chairman Dunning also spoke to the Mayor about the Application Package as far as the Board submitting it to the Mayor & Council. They looked at it briefly and were going to show it to the Planning Board. The Planning Board didn’t meet in August so they got it in September. There has been no feedback from the Planning Board yet. The Mayor suggested that the basic Application Package that this Board chooses, they could start using the new packet. But, what they can’t add to the packet is the Fee Schedule because it has to be changed by Ordinance. Chairman Dunning said to Mayor Mahler that the Board gave it to the Mayor & Council to review and let the Borough Attorney look at it and then let the professionals from both Boards take a look at it.  Right now the packet is in limbo, and the question is to get it off the ground.

 

 

ADJOURNMENT: at 11:12 P.M. carried by a voice vote.

 

 

_______________________________

Gerri Marotta

Board of Adjustment Secretary