BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
BOROUGH OF WANAQUE
MINUTES
November 7, 2007
BOROUGH OF WANAQUE
BOARD
OF ADJUSTMENT
Date
of Meeting: November 7, 2007
BEFORE: Members of the Wanaque Board of
Adjustment/Public
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT FOR
THIS MEETING:
Chairman Jack Dunning, Vice-Chairman William
Grygus: Frank Covelli, Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ed Leonard, Art Koning, Eric
Willse, Michael O’Hanlon
OTHERS PRESENT FOR THIS HEARING:
RALPH FAASSE, ESQ., Board Attorney
WILLIAM GREGOR, Board Engineer
REQUESTED
BY: GERRI MAROTTA
G & L
TRANSCRIPTION OF NEW
(973) 616-1051
Page
Application #23-06 Reality Associates 3
Application #08-07 Mazar 9
Application #03-07 Santoro 41
Application #07-07 Staropoli 95
Application #06-07 Elwood 106
Exhibits Evid.
Application #06-07
A-1 - Photograph of House presented by Mr.
Dean 119
Illustrative Purposes.
A-2 Architectural Plans - 2 Sheets 119
A-3 - Notice sent to adjacent Property Owners 136
Page
Vouchers 166
Pledge of Allegiance:
MR. CHAIRMAN:
This is a regular meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment. Adequate notice has been given by a duly
advertised mailing to the Suburban Trends and the Herald News of January 12,
2007. A notice is posted on the bulletin
board in Borough of Wanaque and a copy is on file with the Borough Clerk. Can we have a roll call please?
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Jack Dunning, Bruce Grygus, Frank Covelli, Peter Hoffman, Don
Ludwig, Ed Leonard, Art Koning, Eric Willse, Michael O’Hanlon, Attorney Ralph
Faasse, Engineer William Gregor.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Thank you, Gerri. Okay, first
application this evening is 23-06 Reality Associates,
MR. FAASSE:
Yes, we have a letter dated November 1st it was faxed to me and I guess
mailed to Gerri.
MS. MAROTTA:
It was faxed to me.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay, Brian Chewcaskie.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um-hum.
MS. MAROTTA:
Yes.
MR. FAASSE:
I’ll get that right. Asking for
an extension to December 5th because of a scheduling conflict and he also said
he would grant us an extension of time to consider this through the meeting of
Wednesday, December 5th.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, we need a motion.
MR. GRYGUS:
I’ll make a motion to carry to carry to the December meeting.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Second?
MR. LUDWIG:
I’ll second that.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, Don Ludwig.
MS. MAROTTA:
Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Go ahead.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #23-06 TO
DECEMBER 5TH:
Made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member
Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman,
Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.
MR. HOFFMAN:
Hey, Jack when is this thing up?
Do they need an extension?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
They just granted us an extension.
MR. FAASSE:
They did, they did to the 5th.
MR. HOFFMAN:
Yes, I know but -- all right.
MR. FAASSE:
Well he keeps giving us a month extension.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
We are good month to month.
MR. FAASSE:
We really ought to ask him for like 60 or 90 days, especially if we get
closer to the winter -- you know -- it might snow.
MR. HOFFMAN:
How long has it been -- when was the last time that we heard testimony
from Reality Associates?
MR. GRYGUS:
Two months ago.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Reality, a couple of months ago.
MR. GRYGUS:
Two months ago.
MR. HOFFMAN:
It was in September?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
September I think it was, yeah.
MR. GRYGUS:
No, August.
MR. HOFFMAN:
No, it had to be August, it has been two
months, so it is August.
MR. GRYGUS:
Yeah, the carried last month.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, which was October.
MR. GRYGUS:
And then they carried -- no they carried last month.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It was October. I think we heard
them in September. I didn’t bring their
file, but I am pretty sure it was September.
Well, Gerri would know with her file.
MR. HOFFMAN:
Gerri knows everything.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, Bill when did you get all your reports out that were dated
yesterday to the applicants? Does
everyone have them?
MR. GREGOR:
Everyone has them.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah, let’s just make sure. Mr.
La Sala --
MR. GREGOR:
Everyone has got them.
MR. FAASSE:
Mr. La Sala you have your report on Santoro.
MR. LA SALA:
Yes.
MR. FAASSE:
Right, you had that report.
MR. LA SALA:
Yes, that came in this afternoon.
MR. FAASSE:
Mr. Walker, you have the report on Elwood.
MR. WALKER:
I have that report also.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay, and Staropoli, Mr. Acquaviva, you have that.
MR. ACQUAVIVA: Yeah.
I don’t have a recent report though.
MR. FAASSE:
So that is what we are going to do, let you read it while it --
MR. GREGOR:
Staropoli didn’t?
MR. FAASSE:
Staropoli didn’t the have the --
MR. LUDWIG:
I happen to have printed one out.
MR. GRYGUS:
I happen to have an extra one if you don’t have one Bill.
MR. FAASSE:
Do you? Just for the record what
is the date on that one here? We also
had November the 6th.
MR. LUDWIG:
I got November the 6th right here.
MR. FAASSE:
Right, okay.
MR. ACQUAVIVA: The last one I have is prior to the last
meeting.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay, so we will give that to him.
Did you also, I think in that one we also received a County.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Something from the County.
MR. GREGOR:
You have a County review.
MR. FAASSE:
Right, you have the county letter; I mean there was a recent one.
MR. GREGOR:
October 10th, so it was about a week after our last meeting.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay. And then we had a --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
State.
MR. FAASSE:
-- letter here from the State on that one, correct?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um-hum.
MR. FAASSE:
Well actually it was a copy sent to your --
MR. LUDWIG:
There was a letter from the county from November 5th.
MR. GREGOR:
There was a letter from the State on the wetlands.
MR. FAASSE:
From the wetlands.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
This one.
MR. FAASSE:
It was from Mr. Darmstatter.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
November 5th on Staropoli.
MR. FAASSE:
November 6th, okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Well Don is saying the county letter; I know there is a new county
letter.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah, there is a county letter.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
What is the date on it?
MR. GREGOR:
The letter from the State is dated September 20th.
MR. FAASSE:
Oh, you want everything.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Don is saying it is November? The
State is September.
MR. GREGOR:
September 20th, the County is October 10th.
MR. FAASSE:
There you go, October 10th.
MR. GREGOR:
The County is October 10th.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Yeah, October 10th. What one are
you looking at Don?
MR. LUDWIG:
No, this is --
MR. FAASSE:
That is Bill’s letter, that is what he
needs.
MR. LUDWIG:
Yeah, this is a different one.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
Do you need an extra copy or does somebody have one?
MR. FAASSE:
No, Don has one.
MR. GREGOR:
He has one, okay.
MR. FAASSE:
All right, so everybody should have their reports.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Everybody is up to speed. All
right, the next application we are dealing with is 08-07, which is the Mazar
application,
MR. FAASSE:
Wow, I can’t count this high. Who
is going to be testifying in this group, everybody? Let’s try to get this thing organized here a
little. The applicants are Steven and
Maryanne Mazar. And you people are?
MS. MAZAR:
I am their daughter-in-law.
MR. FAASSE:
You are the daughter-in-law.
MS. MAZAR:
Yes.
MR. FAASSE:
And is that their --
MS. MAZAR:
This is our contractor.
MR. FAASSE:
Everybody is going to testify?
MS. MAZAR:
Whatever you need from us.
MR. FAASSE:
Stand up please. Everybody raise
their right hand.
ALL
WITNESSES FOR THE MAZAR APPLICATION SWORN
MR. FAASSE:
Okay, let’s go. That is Steven
Mazar, one of the applicants.
MR MAZAR:
Yes.
MR. FAASSE:
Maryanne Mazar, one of the applicants, correct?
MR. MAZAR:
Yes.
MR. FAASSE:
Now would you identify yourself, give us a spelling -- don’t jump
ahead. Spell your last name and give us
your address.
MS. MAZAR:
It is Susan Mazar M-A-Z-A-R and I am at
MR. FAASSE:
In Wanaque?
MS. MAZAR:
Yes.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
And Sir?
MR. HOLM:
Jeff Holm,
MR. FAASSE:
The competent person in charge.
You are not a relative.
MR. HOLM:
No, not a relative.
MR. FAASSE:
Oh, okay.
MR. GREGOR:
I have to use that one of these days.
MR. HOLM:
I am actually here for technical testimony if need be.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay. All
right. And what would be your
area of expertise?
MR. HOLM:
Construction.
MR. FAASSE:
Construction.
MR. HOLM:
If there is any construction, added construction questions.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay. Do you have a construction
code number, license number?
MR. HOLM:
No, not with me.
MS. MAROTTA:
I have one in the office probably.
MR. FAASSE:
All right. Well I mean we always
do that with the engineers and surveyors, we will have to start getting it from
contractors now. We are ready Mr.
Chairman, I think.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
The files are in order, the notice was given.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Let’s get the right documents. We have two variance plan surveys. Mr. Gregor?
MR. GREGOR:
Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Which one are we following, the one with the revision date of what?
MR. GREGOR:
The revision date of 10/23/07.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. All right, it is signed by
the engineer on the 24th, right?
MR. GREGOR:
That is correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Does everyone have that document?
MR. FAASSE:
This is the one that came in the packet this month.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The latest packet. Well actually
two came in the packet, one is obsolete.
Right?
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah.
MR. HOFFMAN:
Mine came separately.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
No, I got one on the 19th and one on the 26th. Is this no good?
MS. MAROTTA:
This is the reprint.
MR. GREGOR:
I should number them for you.
MS. MAROTTA:
The one dated the 26th.
MR. GREGOR:
Open that up and look at the review part.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
No, this one supersedes this one.
MR. GREGOR:
Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, just so we all have the same.
MR. KONING:
It is all on the 26th, Bill -- Jack?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
23 - 24, is signed.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah, revised --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Borough stamped October 26th.
MR. KONING:
Okay, got it.
MR. GRYGUS:
Borough stamped October 26th, okay.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay, is that correct? You got
that agreement.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, now, you are going to do this without paper work.
MR. HOLM:
Yeah.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MS. MAZAR:
You guys have all of our copies.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. We all have the right
papers now?
MR. FAASSE:
All right and we also have a letter from Mr. Gregor dated October 31st.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The 31st, right.
MR. FAASSE:
You have a copy of that right?
MR. HOLM:
Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Why don’t you explain your
application to us, what you are seeking to do?
MS. MAZAR:
Well I moved up here about nine years ago and for the last nine years I
have been trying to find a home located close to where I live so that my
in-laws can relocate here. A few months
ago a house went on the market around the corner and we purchased it. It is a very small house on a large piece of
property but the rooms are very small.
So to accommodate their furniture and themselves we just want to expand
the kitchen a little bit and the bedroom a little bit so that you can actually
fit a bed in it.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Now you have supplied us
with a couple of documents. One is a
construction detail Bill, it is really -- this one doesn’t mean much to
us. The floor plan, which means
something, is not labeled.
MS. MAZAR:
It was a home drawing, I apologize.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, except it runs off the paper.
MS. MAZAR:
No, it goes -- well, there is a front porch out there.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, out here somewhere.
MS. MAZAR:
Yeah.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Basically, what you are
showing us in the back is the proposed additions?
MS. MAZAR:
Yes, off to the side a little and to square it. Basically, we are going to square off the
back of the house.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MS. MAZAR:
And go off two feet on the one side.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, a porch just out, you are going to expand the left and right of
the porch and wrap around on the north side of the house.
MS. MAZAR:
Yes.
MR. GREGOR:
Let’s go right to the proposed conditions.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Bill have you checked the
lot coverage on this?
MR. GREGOR:
Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, we are okay with that?
MR. GREGOR:
Yes, we are.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. The
driveway, Bill.
MR. GREGOR:
It is a gravel driveway.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Gravel, will it accommodate two cars?
MR. GREGOR:
Yes, it will.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It is big enough?
MR. GREGOR:
It needs more gravel but yes.
MS. MAZAR:
You can put in four.
MR. GRYGUS:
Does it say a -- I thought it said a macadam driveway.
MR. GREGOR:
No, it is gravel.
MS. MAZAR:
It is just gravel.
MR. GRYGUS:
I thought it said macadam on this.
MR. GREGOR:
Well it is mainly dirt but it is gravel and dirt.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The driveway to the north and south on the other properties is
macadam.
MR. GREGOR:
Well, one of them is partially on this property.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The one for the south yeah runs onto your property.
MR. GREGOR:
Yeah.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Do you intend to pave over that driveway; improve the driveway?
MR. HOLM:
Yes.
MR. GREGOR:
The driveway is going to be paved?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um-hum.
MS. MAZAR:
Not immediately.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MS. MAZAR:
Eventually yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. The addition you are
putting on is just going to blend into the roofline of the house, the existing
house?
MR. HOLM:
Yes. Except on the north side
where they are bumping out two feet.
That will be raised up.
MR. GREGOR:
That will be new raftering from the ridge over?
MR. HOLM:
Yes.
MR. GREGOR:
One of the things that we don’t have is the dimension of the length of
that bump out and the -- we have some dimensions but we don’t have some
details. I think I requested that in
here.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The only place that it shows Bill is on this sketch.
MR. GREGOR:
I know it shows on the sketch but there are only very sketchy pieces of
information on that.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. GREGOR:
We don’t know how long that runs along the side of the building.
MR. HOLM:
I believe it is approximately 20 feet.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay, well if that could be added to the drawings --
MR. HOLM:
Absolutely.
MR. GREGOR:
-- for corrective purposes, that is the type of
information that we need.
MS. MAZAR:
Um-hum, sure.
MR. GREGOR:
We need that put onto the site plan, that information, the
dimensions. You say it is approximately
20 feet.
MR. HOLM:
Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
All right, this says 24.
MR. GREGOR:
24.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay, well he doesn’t have any --
MR. GRYGUS:
Who is right?
MS. MAZAR:
Whatever that paper is exactly correct.
MR. GRYGUS:
Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Are you following this?
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah, but that is going beyond the existing, this is the existing structure
here?
MR. GREGOR:
Well the existing structure stops here, juts out here and goes back
here.
MR. FAASSE:
Right.
MR. GREGOR:
This isn’t dimensioned either, so we don’t know.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah but the question was how long does it go along the side of the
house.
MR. GREGOR:
Right.
MR. FAASSE:
So it is not that whole 24; that is what is going to go all the way to
the back.
MR. GREGOR:
It goes further beyond the house but we don’t know how large that bump out is.
MR. FAASSE:
I understand.
MR. GREGOR:
So we don’t know --
MR. FAASSE:
But it can’t be 20 feet if this is drawn to scale.
MR. GREGOR:
Right.
MR. FAASSE:
Right?
MR. GREGOR:
That is what the young lady said.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MS. MAZAR:
Well this is the paper work that I gave the surveyor to show him what we
wanted to do.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um-hum.
MS. MAZAR:
And that is how he did the survey.
MR. GREGOR:
Well he has got to do a little bit more.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
On the additions here on the new pieces --
MS. MAZAR:
Yes.
MR. GREGOR:
This little area where it says 8 by 6, that is new and then the 12 by
24, this other little wrap around, is new but is this part new the part in the
center where the door are?
MS. MAZAR:
This section here --
MR. GREGOR: Is new.
MS. MAZAR:
Is new.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay.
MS. MAZAR:
Right now it is currently -- this is just like a hallway and we just
want to square of the back of this and then, obviously, the back wall end here.
MR. GREGOR:
That is the existing house.
MS. MAZAR:
Yes. This is existing
all here and we want to square off the back and bump it out because this room
right now is less than 10 by 10. If you
have a 6 by 6 bed in a 10 by 10 room --
MR. GREGOR:
That is going to be a bedroom.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
That is going to be a bedroom.
MS. MAZAR:
That is going to be a back bedroom.
MR. GREGOR:
That is going to be the bedroom and the other part on the left hand side
is going to be the kitchen?
MS. MAZAR:
Yes.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay.
MS. MAZAR:
That is all we are looking to do.
We want to maintain the integrity of the house on the street. We are not looking to put a mansion up or
anything crazy.
MR. GREGOR:
And this room in the front is another bedroom?
MS. MAZAR:
Yes, that is a bedroom in the front, right in front of the bathroom.
MR. GRYGUS:
Bill, I didn’t get a copy of this report.
MR. GREGOR:
You didn’t?
MR. KONING:
No, I didn’t either.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It was in the packet.
MS. MAROTTA:
The one I handed out tonight.
MR. GRYGUS:
Nobody has it.
MR. FAASSE:
No.
MR. GREGOR:
It was e-mailed.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
This was e-mailed on Halloween that is where I got it.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay, I don’t print; I haven’t been printing those because Gerri prints
those copies here.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
Do you have any extra copies; I didn’t bring any extra with me. The only extra I had I gave to Ralph.
MR. FAASSE:
He said he faxed it to me, but he never did.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The second page is here somewhere.
MR. FAASSE:
I have another one. Hey, you want
to look at mine?
MR. GRYGUS:
The four of us can share it over here if you got one.
MR. HOFFMAN:
I have one here.
MR. GRYGUS:
You printed it Pete?
MR. HOFFMAN:
Yeah, I printed it out if you want to look at it.
MR. KONING:
All right, we got one. Can we
have that one?
MS. MAROTTA:
I don’t have one.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Oh, you don’t it
MS. MAROTTA:
It is probably in the file.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
You got one Ralph?
MR. FAASSE:
Yes, I just got one tonight.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, let them look at it for a minute.
MR. FAASSE:
Sure. Basically they are looking
for two variances according to Bill.
MS. MAZAR:
The size here.
MR. FAASSE:
And the total I think?
MS. MAZAR:
It is approximately 105 square feet.
It is approximately 105 square feet.
MR. FAASSE:
What is?
MS. MAZAR:
The total addition.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
That addition.
MR. FAASSE:
No.
MS. MAZAR:
Yeah.
MR. GRYGUS:
Total new.
MR. FAASSE:
No.
MS. MAZAR:
Am I wrong?
MR. FAASSE:
Mr. Builder, what do you have for the total square footage?
MR. GRYGUS:
Looks like about 170.
MR. GREGOR:
He has got 96 in one spot right here.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah.
MR. GRYGUS:
Yeah, it is about 170.
MR. GREGOR:
96 and then you have 6 times 8 is 42.
MR. KONING:
It is the
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, don’t pick on
MR. FAASSE:
Why not, they always pick on us.
UNIDENTFIED MALE: That is why I won’t move to
MR. GREGOR:
A side yard setback of 8.7 feet, two side yard setbacks. Can you read that?
MR. KONING:
Oh yeah.
MR. FAASSE:
Right now you have how many -- how many bedrooms do you have in the
house now?
MR. MAZAR:
Two.
MR. FAASSE:
And how many bedrooms are you going to have after?
MS. MAZAR:
Two.
MR. FAASSE:
Two, still two.
MR. GREGOR:
Still two.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah, still two too.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Just expanding it.
MS. MAZAR:
We are just expanding the one bedroom and the kitchen.
MR. FAASSE:
People have gotten bigger since the house was built.
MS. MAZAR:
The what?
MR. FAASSE:
People got bigger since the house was built.
MS. MAZAR:
Yes, I don’t know how anyone lived in there to be honest with you. The refrigerator was in front of the
window.
MR. FAASSE:
All right, so did we correct how many square feet Mr. Contractor?
MR. HOLM:
Approximately about 196.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah, yeah, that sounds a little bit more --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
200 square feet.
MR. GREGOR:
Actually she was closer than he was.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Yeah, let’s call it 200.
MR. GREGOR:
You were closer than he was.
MS. MAZAR:
You see.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
All right, so Bill what we are looking at is the side yard and the total
side yard, that’s it.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah.
MR. GREGOR:
That is correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. The other question that we are going to deal with is storm water
management.
MR. GRYGUS:
Yeah.
MR. FAASSE:
I’m sorry.
MR. GRYGUS:
Storm water.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Storm water management, which is Item 10 in the engineer’s report.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Have you made any provisions or given any thought.
MS. MAZAR:
Well I did address it to our surveyor.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um-hum.
MS. MAZAR:
And I asked him that there may be a possibility that we may need to have
it done and he advised me that in the State of
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Is that acceptable, Bill?
MR. GREGOR:
Well let me address that.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
First of all the State of New Jersey for new construction does require a
zero net increase for anything over 600 square feet. However, Wanaque, the Borough, requires that
you provide zero net increase so that you don’t negatively impact the neighbors
for any new construction, especially on existing lots and infill lots. As we have discussed, you are going to add a
small addition on to the house --
MS. MAZAR:
Um-hum.
MR. GREGOR:
-- and improving it you are going to pave the driveway, which is now a
requirement under current ordinances, that is going to add significant
impervious surface to the existing property.
So it is our recommendation to this Board that a storm water management
method --
MR. FAASSE:
Plan.
MR. GREGOR:
-- plan be put in place so that you don’t
negatively impact by adding additional runoff to the neighborhood. Just like if your neighbor did the same thing
we would recommend it so that it doesn’t negatively impact you.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
So our recommendation is that we do add storm water management.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, so do you intend to address that, storm water management?
MR. HOLM:
Yes.
MS. MAZAR:
Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
Mr. Chairman, if the Board wishes they can make that a condition of any
action by the Board or they could require that be done
before the Board acts, whichever is their preference.
MR. COVELLI:
The area of the addition is so small that at best you are probably
talking a small pit.
MR. GREGOR:
Yeah, your typical pit is the 1,000 gallon pit.
MR. COVELLI:
Right.
MR. GREGOR:
I mean that is basically the smallest that is available and it is
usually what is required for situations such as this.
MR. COVELLI:
You just put downspouts into it.
MR. HOLM:
Okay.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. COVELLI:
That’s all, that is all you are really talking
about.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
You take the roof water and you put it into a seepage pit and you have
satisfied the requirements and you neighbors are happy and you are happy.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
How does one describe this addition?
I am having problems with Bill’s description.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
What do you mean?
MR. FAASSE:
8 to the rear, 2 to the side and for a length of 24.
MR. GREGOR:
That is all the information I had because they didn’t have the details
on the site plan.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It is 2 feet, Ralph it is 2 feet this way.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah, 2 feet over there, I see that.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It is 8 to the rear, this way, and its 8 to the rear from here to here
and 8 here and 6 this way. It is two
additions, technically.
MR. FAASSE:
All right, this on here.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
This is existing.
MR. GREGOR:
That exists.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
This is the existing but they will call it rear porch.
MR. FAASSE:
All right so we are doing an 8 by 6 addition.
MS. MAZAR:
An 8 by 6, correct and a --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
To the south of the porch.
MR. FAASSE:
Right, south.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
And then a 12 by 8 by 24 by 2 L shaped.
MS. MAZAR:
Right.
MR. FAASSE:
12 by 8 by 24 by 2.
MS. MAZAR:
Right.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Sort of a flag shaped addition --
MR. FAASSE:
All right, now that is making sense.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
-- to the rear and the north side of the house.
MR. FAASSE:
Right.
MR. COVELLI:
Can’t we just call it a first floor addition of approximately 200 square
feet as per a plan.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Well Ralph is trying to put it into --
MR. FAASSE:
I like that too. I just had
trouble; I had trouble with paragraph 1 here, you know.
MR. COVELLI:
You don’t have any dimensions, I mean what else --
MR. FAASSE:
I am saying this is not going to connect here.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It is confusing, it is confusing.
MR. FAASSE:
There is something that I missed.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Because there is existing in the middle
Ralph.
MR. GREGOR:
One of the things that we try to do when we get applications in is get
them cleaned up like what they were talking about with the driveway and stuff
like that.
MS. MAZAR:
Um-hum.
MR. GRYGUS:
The open covered lean-to that you have in the back --
MS. MAZAR:
It is getting knocked down. It is
leaning a little too much.
MR. GRYGUS:
Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Yeah, it is going to fall.
MS. MAZAR:
Yeah.
MR. GRYGUS:
So it is going to be removed.
MS. MAZAR:
Yes, it is.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
Would you have your drawings so indicate that that is to be removed as
well.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay, so basically what you want me to do now is get a whole new
drawing?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
What we are asking --
MR. FAASSE:
We didn’t tell you to do anything.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
We are still working towards something.
MS. MAZAR:
I just want to --
MR. FAASSE:
We are just making suggestions right now.
MR. GREGOR:
What we are recommending that should this be approved.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
That the things such as that, we have a final drawing showing what was
approved if you are so fortunate to get an approval.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
And that would show the lean-to to be removed.
MS. MAZAR:
Um-hum.
MR. GREGOR:
The driveway you are going to pave.
The dimensions on the addition all added in there. So that you do it once and
once only.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
That is what our recommendation is to the Board. They will tell you what they thought on
it.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. GRYGUS:
What we typically do with that is if they want to keep it we ask them if
it can be moved to the five feet off of the property line. But you are taking it down.
MS. MAZAR:
It is leaning a little too much.
It has had a few too many, I think.
MR. FAASSE:
All right.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Bill you have any questions?
MR. GREGOR:
Yeah, the only two questions that I have is I
noticed there are some electrical outlets that are randomly placed through the
rear yard.
MS. MAZAR:
There was a built in pool back there at some point.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay are they --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
A built in or above ground?
MS. MAZAR:
It was a built in that was filled in.
MR. GRYGUS:
It is probably still there filled with dirt.
MS. MAZAR:
Exactly.
MR. HOLM:
Yeah, it is filled in right now.
MS. MAZAR:
It is a nice lush green over the top.
MR. KONING:
Could that be used as a seepage pit?
MR. GREGOR:
Are they currently active? What
are you proposing for those to remain as outlets back there or are you going to
remove them?
MR. HOLM:
We are most likely going to remove them.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay.
MR. HOLM:
I don’t even know if they are active or not.
MS. MAZAR:
I don’t know, we haven’t even tried them.
MR. FAASSE:
Do they constitute a health and safety hazard?
MR. GREGOR:
Well I don’t know if they are hot or not. It is just something that I asked.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
You are just brining it to light.
MR. GREGOR:
Yeah.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
But it is not something that the Board is going --
MR. GREGOR:
It is not something the Board needs to do doing.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, what else Bill?
MR. GREGOR:
That is about it.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
That’s it, okay. Gentlemen any other questions?
MR. GREGOR:
I want a correction to the zoning table because the lot width was
measured incorrectly.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, okay. Is there any other
questions gentlemen? Let’s open it up to
the public. Does any one in the public
have any questions or statements on this application? If you do, please step forward. Seeing and hearing none, we close the public
portion.
MR. HOFFMAN:
I’m sorry, I just got one other question. Do you have storage in the attic and is that
going to be continued on over the addition?
MS. MAZAR:
It is like a crawl space up there.
MR. MAZAR:
That is all there is.
MR. HOFFMAN:
Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. GRYGUS:
I’ll make a motion to approve the application for the construction of a
one story addition of 8 by 6 and a second piece of it of 12 by 8 by 24 by 2
totaling approximately 200 square feet with the following two variances. The first would be a variance for a side yard
variance of 8.77 feet where the applicant is providing 11.23 feet where 20 feet
is required by ordinance. The second
will be a total side yard variance of 15.1 feet where the applicant is
providing 29.9 feet, where the requirement is 45 feet. It would be subject to the following
conditions: 1) That the drawings be modified
as per item #2 for the 200 foot notification line from Mr. Gregor’s report that
the bulk requirement table be corrected and also that the other additional
conditions would be to have the plan to show that the lean-to will be removed,
the driveway will be paved and that the applicant will provide a storm water
management plan that meets the approval of the Board Engineer.
MR. GREGOR:
Item 1, didn’t we need something included on the size of the addition.
MR. GRYGUS:
Oh we need the dimensions of the addition on the plan also.
MR. GREGOR:
Of the existing structure and the addition.
MR. GRYGUS:
Right.
MR. LUDWIG:
I’ll second that.
MR. FAASSE:
What was the one just prior to the storm water management?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Paving the driveway.
MR. GREGOR:
Pave the driveway and remove the lean-to.
MR. FAASSE:
Pave the driveway, yeah, I got to remove the
lean-to.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Oh, okay, before that was pave the driveway.
MR. FAASSE:
Pave the driveway.
MR. HOFFMAN:
And we have a second over here.
MR. FAASSE:
We have a second over there.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, Don was the second.
MS. MAROTTA:
Yeah, I got it.
MR. HOFFMAN:
This was their first, I’m sorry, I need a
parliamentary point of clarification.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. GRYGUS:
This was their first --
MR. HOFFMAN:
This was their first appearance before this Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Yes.
MR. HOFFMAN:
Right here and now.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Yes.
MR. HOFFMAN:
Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Roll Call:
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MAZAR APPLICATION:
Made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member
Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members: Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard,
Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.
MS. MAZAR:
Thank you. Is that it?
MR. FAASSE:
No, no.
MR. GREGOR:
You get the speech now.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay, okay.
MR. FAASSE:
I haven’t been directed by the Chairman yet.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The attorney has to give his speech now.
MR. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Go ahead Sir.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay the Board has saw fit to grant you your variance. However, it is not final and it will not
become final until we adopt a resolution which hopefully will be done next
month. It would be to your benefit to
get these revised plans in here and have them reviewed by the engineer so that
we can take care of everything all in one shot at the next meeting. Thereafter, the secretary has 10 days to put
it in the paper. Thereafter, anyone from
the public including all of those people who didn’t see fit to come here have
the right to take us to court for a period of 45 days to say what we did was
arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
Okay. If you do any building,
once you get passed the resolution and we approve your new plans, you bring in
the plans to the building department and you get a permit. However, if you do any building between now,
the Resolution, the 10 days, the 45 days, you are doing it solely at your own
risk and peril and not at the Borough’s.
Do you understand that?
MR. MAZAR:
Yes.
MR. FAASSE:
Mrs. Please?
MR. MAZAR:
Yes.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay, because we don’t take nods of the head yet because we don’t have
videotape, someday we will the videotape.
Go to the videotape. It wouldn’t
be the first time that a Superior Court Judge could say well that is a nice
addition but take it all down.
MS. MAZAR:
I have a question. Is there any
chance that I can start the addition now due to the fact that -- I mean I have
agreed to do what you asked us to do and we are going to do it.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
She can pull a permit.
MR. GREGOR:
It is at your risk.
MR. FAASSE:
You didn’t listen?
MS. MAZAR:
Well I did but I don’t want to -- you know -- do something that is not
--
MR. FAASSE:
We are not going to tell you what to do because you are doing solely at
your own risk and peril.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
All we are doing is tell you what the law is.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
It is not final until we adopt the Resolution, until it is in the
newspaper and that 45 day period. Okay?
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
See once you get those revised plans in --
MS. MAZAR:
Um-hum.
MR. GREGOR:
-- technically the building inspector can under --
MS. MAZAR:
Can I revise them right now?
MR. GREGOR:
-- Wanaque ordinances can give you a building permit but as the attorney
said it is at your own peril.
MS. MAZAR:
Okay.
MR. GRYGUS:
She seems very anxious, are you staying with her right now?
MS. MAZAR:
I am very anxious because the house on the market and if I don’t get
them in their new house they are moving in with me.
MR. FAASSE:
She doesn’t like her in-laws?
MS. MAZAR:
I love my in-laws and I am making them move up here.
MR. GRYGUS:
I picked up on that.
MR. FAASSE:
Just for the record, again, give us your name.
MS. MAZAR:
It is Susan Mazar.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay, now, Mr. and Mrs. Mazar you have to make the determination, not
Susan or anyone else because it would be at your cost and expense if something
goes wrong. We are not saying it will
but it could.
MR. GRYGUS:
Yeah but I think Susan is trying to say it will be at her peril, that is
what she is trying to tell us.
MR. FAASSE:
I don’t want to get into any family fight there.
MS. MAZAR:
I will be moving them in with you guys, okay, I’m just joking.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Have a lovely evening.
MS. MAZAR:
Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Lots of luck.
MR. FAASSE:
Do you have any other questions?
MS. MAZAR:
No that is it. Enjoy your
night.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, let’s move on. Okay, the
next application that we are going to deal with.
MR. FAASSE:
You know, we should tell you some towns don’t give you the permit until
that whole period goes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. FAASSE:
Some towns, they just make you wait.
MS. MAZAR:
Thank you, enjoy your weekend.
MR. FAASSE:
All right, who is next.
MS. MAROTTA:
Bill, tomorrow can you fax me over a copy of that report because I don’t
have that?
MR. GREGOR:
Mazar, sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
If you had E-mail, you would have it.
MS. MAROTTA:
I do have e-mail.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Why don’t you get on the list, you would get all the reports
instantly.
MR. FAASSE:
All right, who is next?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, next application is 03-07.
This is the Santoro application.
MR. LA SALA:
Good evening, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Good evening, Sir how are you?
MR. LA SALA:
Excellent, excellent and hope you are as well. James La Sala appearing on behalf of the applicant. We have two witnesses this evening, Mr.
Jacobitti and Mr. Gardner. Mr. Gardner
is at the table but perhaps Mr. Jacobitti would be a little quicker which is my
guess based upon the questions that the Board seemed to be raising the last
time.
MR. FAASSE:
We got a new letter from Mr. Gregor dated November 6, 2007 and we got
some revised plans. Somebody want to
list them for the record?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, let’s figure out which plan we are supposed to be using.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
I believe it is the one stamped -- we should have one stamped by the
Borough stamp of October 25, 2007 with the last revision date on it of
10/16/07, Revision G. Everybody got that
plan?
MR. FAASSE:
I’m sorry, 10/16/07 was the last revision?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. GREGOR:
That is correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
And it is Revision G.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay. So this is the one we are
going to be using.
MR. GRYGUS:
And what about the architecturals?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Now, which architectural plan are we playing with?
MR. LA SALA:
Architectural plan that is dated September 21, 2007.
MR. GRYGUS:
Is that the one that is received September 26th?
MR. GREGOR:
I guess. Presumably that would be
about the date.
MR. GRYGUS:
Yup, got that.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
So those are the documents that we need to go with. Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
September -- received September 13th?
MR. GRYGUS:
Received what?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
September 26th.
MR. GREGOR:
The architecture, Ralph.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah.
MR. GRYGUS:
Architecture, September 26th.
MR. GREGOR:
The site is October 25th.
MR. FAASSE:
All right.
MR. GREGOR:
By the way, the dates are all listed in my report.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Did you find them Ralph?
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah, I got them.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
You got a lot of envelopes with this one. Okay, now I think also, if memory serves me
correct, we also have a letter from Mr. La Sala on this application, right?
MR. GREGOR:
Um-hum.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Dated September 25th.
MR. GREGOR:
Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. That we are going to talk
about.
MR. LA SALA:
We need to talk about that? We’ll
have Mr. Jacobitti and Mr. Gardner first but we can talk about anything else
you need to.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Which I think we need to talk about.
Do you have a copy of that letter?
MR. LA SALA:
I’ll pull that out.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
In fact, while everybody is trying to find the right plan, why don’t we
go to your letter? Since nothing is
numbered, it would be -- I got your letter and then I got all the stuff from, I
guess, the Borough Tax Department. You
put a lot of papers together.
MR. LA SALA:
Oh okay, yeah. I have the
September 25 with the documents are received from the tax office.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right. About
the fifth document down. I am a
little confused by this.
MR. LA SALA: What does it -- is that the handwritten one
or?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The handwritten one, yes, that beautiful Borough handwritten
document. It makes reference to the use
and the number of apartments which doesn’t agree with your application.
MR. LA SALA:
What is the date on this?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It says two apartments and storage on the upper floor.
MR. LA SALA:
And storage?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. LA SALA:
I can’t read that, okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It is little hard to read but I can see two apartments and storage. When did the third apartment appear and was
it done legally?
MR. LA SALA:
The town zoning office, speaking to Ms. O’Reilly looking back into her
files, there are no records dated before 1988.
It is impossible for us to determine whether or not there was any
application regarding this property from the time it was built until 1988
because the town does not have any records.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
They have no records.
MR. LA SALA:
The only records that exist are these records which I received from the
township.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. LUDWIG:
Well I got, well it came in the packet, updated on 01/06/04.
MR. LA SALA:
Which one is that?
MR. LUDWIG:
It has the same letter though as of 04, there were two apartments in
there the way that this --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Now where did -- was that part of --
MR. LUDWIG:
That came in with -- that was one of the pieces of information that was
mailed out with this application.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Was that part of
counselor’s letter?
MR. LUDWIG:
No.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Attached to it?
MR. LUDWIG:
It has the same sheet.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. LA SALA:
I am looking for that.
MR. LUDWIG:
Up in the right hand corner it says when it was updated. It was the sales information; it looks like
it was when they bought the property.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, right. Well actually I
think -- well no, that is different.
MR. LUDWIG:
It should be in -- it should be in your files. When did your client buy the property is that
the information from the realtor?
MR. LA SALA:
When did you buy the property?
MS. SANTORO:
I have no idea.
MR. LA SALA:
A few years ago.
MS. SANTORO:
When we started the process.
MR. LA SALA:
About two -- two and half years ago.
MR. LUDWIG:
So that package might have been from the realtor?
MR. LA SALA:
I am not sure which packet you are talking about.
MR. LUDWIG:
There is other paperwork on it, I’m sure everybody has got that same --
MS. MAROTTA:
When did you get that one though?
MR. LUDWIG:
With one of the --
MS. MAROTTA:
But not like this last week, it must have been --
MR. LUDWIG:
No, no, it was in one of the --
MS. MAROTTA:
-- a couple of months back.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Previous ones.
MR. LA SALA:
In one of the prior applications?
MR. LUDWIG:
Yeah, one of them.
MR. LA SALA:
Then that is something that I haven’t seen. It wasn’t with my letter of September 25th, it is something I haven’t seen.
MR. LUDWIG:
But it refers to the same handwritten document.
MR. GREGOR:
I got it from the original packet.
MR. KONING:
Yeah, I got it here too.
MR. GREGOR:
From the original packet.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. KONING.
Yeah.
MR. LUDWIG:
Well it seems to me that it is stating that the realtor said it was two
apartments.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It is the same paper counselor.
Page 2, is the same paper I am referring to.
MR. LA SALA:
Oh, okay, it is the same paper.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. LA SALA:
Two apartments and storage, that one.
MR. LUDWIG:
But it seems to say that in 04 it was still two apartments. According to this, it was updated.
MR. LA SALA:
Is there a date on this paper because I don’t see one?
MR. LUDWIG:
No there is no date on that but I am saying though is this is sales
information from, it looks like, from the purchase of
the property that somebody included in the application to the town.
MR. KONING:
It has your name on it, your name on it.
MR. LUDWIG:
No, that wasn’t.
MR. LA SALA:
No, Mr. DiDonato was the owner.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
That was the former owner.
MR. LA SALA:
That was the former owner.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
See even this document that says two apartments and storage --
MR. LUDWIG:
It was stapled together and handed in with one of the applications and
updated 04 and it has that same sheet.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
There is no date on any of this that is the problem.
MR. LUDWIG:
As of 04 it is still listed as two apartments.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
And what bothers me is the age of the building is 1988, so this would
have been done after that.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. LA SALA:
There weren’t together in the packet of papers I got from the tax
office.
MR. LUDWIG:
Like I said, this was handed in at one time.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. LUDWIG:
And it looks like the realtor --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Something changed somewhere.
MR. LA SALA:
Okay, I don’t have that, I don’t know what that is. I can just tell you what I have from the
township and that is this piece.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
I mean the only thing on the handwritten document as far as a date it
says age of building is 1988. It doesn’t
tell us when the document was made.
MR. LA SALA:
Right, and the building is older than
that. I mean from what we determined in
the prior testimony I think it is in the 70’s.
And, again, unfortunately there is no record -- it is pretty safe to
assume that it wasn’t 1988 because the town records go back to 88.
MR. LUDWIG:
They should probably say 78.
MR. LA SALA:
Yeah, 78 maybe I could believe.
But in the card files that are in the building office, they went back to
1988 and there is nothing on this property in that point in time.
MS. MAROTTA:
Evidently, when you call me whatever I told you that day.
MR. LA SALA:
Well I just happened to be in court that day and I popped in to see
you. We were looking up things, we were looking through the files.
MS. MAROTTA:
And I didn’t have anything going back in my card file?
MR. LA SALA:
Yeah, I was looking for that and something on
MS. MAROTTA:
Well that, by the way, the zoning officer --
MR. LA SALA:
Yes.
MS. MAROTTA:
-- he is on vacation.
MR. LA SALA:
Yeah I know. He’ll be back in
another week or two.
MS. MAROTTA:
So that note is in his bin.
MR. LA SALA:
I am aware of that, thanks. But
the answer is without calling Mr. DiDonato, we don’t have any information other
than what is right here. What we can do
is proceed with everything that we got, we can call
Mr. DiDonato and see what he has to say.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Because that is the only piece of paper in this whole packet that
identifies the second floor.
MR. LA SALA:
Right and I don’t know who prepared it, I have no idea where it came
from, all I know is that it was in the tax files. I don’t know that it was something that was
prepared by the tax office or by the realtor or by Mr. DiDonato, I have no
clue.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um.
MR. LA SALA:
What I was looking at and the reason I missed that is one because it is
kind of faded on my copy but the other is I was looking at all the computerized
and other formal records rather than that particular handwritten one.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um-hum.
MR. LA SALA:
And there is no reference in anything that I saw to the number of units.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
No. The other records don’t
indicate anything within the building itself.
MR. LA SALA:
Exactly, I even reviewed it with the tax collector’s -- tax assessor’s
secretary upstairs. Neither one of us
pick up on that.
MR. GRYGUS:
All right, let’s go.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. That is one issue we will
have to get back to.
MR. LA SALA:
Okay. Hopefully we can make it
legal now.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, let’s move on with this.
MR. FAASSE:
Who is going first?
MR. LA SALA:
Mr. Jacobitti.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, the architect.
MR. FAASSE:
Stand up please. I don’t think we
swore you in, correct?
MR. JACOBITTI: No.
LOUIS JACOBITTI SWORN
MR. FAASSE:
Okay, give us your full name, I think you have plans with the spelling
thereof, Gerri?
MS. MAROTTA:
No, I am going to wait for him to spell it.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay, would you please spell your last name and give us a business
address.
MR. JACOBITTI: J-A-C-O-B-I-T-T-I. Address is
MS. MAROTTA:
Do you have a business card that you could give me?
MR. JACOBITTI: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It is right here on the drawing too.
MS. MAROTTA:
Oh never mind.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It is right on the drawing.
MS. MAROTTA:
It is on the drawing.
MR. FAASSE:
You are offering him as a licensed architect?
MR. LA SALA:
Yes.
MR. FAASSE:
Mr. Jacobitti do you know what your architect license number is?
MR. JACOBITTI: A7435
MR. FAASSE:
Wow. Is it still good in full
force and effect in the State of
MR. JACOBITTI: Yes it is.
MR. FAASSE:
You have paid your most recent dues.
MR. JACOBITTI: Absolutely.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
They don’t call them dues, they call them fees.
MR. FAASSE:
Fees, right, right.
MR. GREGOR:
Dues have a voluntary nature to them.
MR. FAASSE:
That is right, you are right. I’m
sorry. I stand corrected as usual.
MR. GREGOR:
I have a license; they don’t ask me for dues, they ask me for fees.
MR. GRYGUS:
It is not voluntary either.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
You don’t voluntarily pay them?
MR. GREGOR:
No. I am forced to pay them.
DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF MR. JACOBITTI BY MR. LA
SALA
Q All right, Mr.
Jacobitti you had the good fortune to prepare architectural plans for this
project, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And after the original
plans that were submitted with the old application and after a meeting at our
office following the last meeting, we got together and made some changes to the
original concept. Is that right?
A That is right.
Q In particular, there was like a stairway in
the back of the building that was now been moved inside.
A That is correct.
Q All right.
Given that is the significant change from what the Board may have seen
before, could you give us just a general description of what the plans show?
A Yeah. The
plans show an addition at the first floor level of approximately 12 feet wide
by 29 feet 11 inches deep on the left side of the building with a second floor
addition above it that is approximately 62 feet long and 33.11 wide, which
means there is an overhang to increase the second floor footage a little
bit. There is a metal canopy proposed to
go across the whole front of the building to cover the walkway and all of the
store entrances. A new signage will be
on that canopy with gooseneck lighting, it is intended that the signage will
all be uniform in design. The upper
floor, both existing and proposed, will be stucco. The colors, at this point, are intended to be
beige and light tans with a green metal roof.
The original stairway in this building is being removed. The stairway that goes to the second floor apartments
is going to be removed because the entrance to that stairway was in the front
of the building and any of the occupants who were in that apartment, or
visitors, would park in the front. Our
intent is to have the entrance from the rear so that the tenants will be
parking in the back freeing up parking spaces for the commercial uses on the
lower floor. The existing left side of
the building is a garage, a transmission shop, that is
going to be converted into two different stores. One store approximately 794
square feet; the second store 941 square feet. The two new apartments are two bedroom
apartments. The front one is 1045 square
feet; the rear apartment is 899 square feet.
Q With regard to the access now to the
apartments, could you describe what that is going to be?
A Yes. There
is a new stairway that is in the footprint of the existing building so that we
have -- so that we can enter the two apartments from the stairway that comes
from the rear of the building. There are
currently, the other three apartments, the existing three apartments downstairs
that also enter from the rear of the building.
Q So will that mean that all of the apartments
will now enter through the rear of the building?
A That is correct.
Q With regard to the front of the building, I
am looking at the proposed front elevation, where you have gooseneck lighting
shown, is the lines above the gooseneck lighting, is
that the canopy you are talking about?
A Yes.
Q And the lines or the blank space underneath
the gooseneck lighting would that be the new signs? I am not sure what that is.
A The signs have no -- it is just white paper with
the lights coming down on the top of them.
The texture indicates the stucco finish.
Q Gotcha. If the town has a development committee or if
the zoning or building officers have any specific recommendations they have as
to cosmetic modifications to the building, colors, designs, etcetera, are you
and the applicant willing to meet and adjust the specific design with regard to
any such recommendations?
A Absolutely.
Q Is this design somewhat consistent in design
and color with the town center that has been built up the street?
A Yes,
we have tried to give the new addition part of it a residential character and
even though those buildings are, I think, three stories of commercial space,
they have that residential character which I think is appropriate for the
neighborhood.
Q And the stucco with the beige colors and the
tan colors are somewhat consistent as well?
A Yes.
MR. LA SALA:
I open up Mr. Jacobitti for questioning by the Board.
MR. COVELLI:
On the existing apartments, you say that they are all going to exit
through the rear?
MR. JACOBITTI: Yes.
MR. COVELLI:
How are they going to exit through the rear in apartment number 3, that
stairwell now goes towards the front of the building?
MR. JACOBITTI: What we have done is a stairway -- it is
difficult to explain it.
MR. COVELLI:
Does it connect to the proposed stair?
MR. JACOBITTI: Yeah, it connects to the proposed stair.
MR. COVELLI:
Okay.
MR. JACOBITTI: This is -- here is apartment number 3, that
existing doorway.
MR. COVELLI:
Okay you are going to enter it from the rear there.
MR. JACOBITTI: Right, and that is
the reason there is two different -- there is an additional set of two risers
because the floor level there is changed.
The exiting floor levels are at two different elevations so that the
lower landing when we come up to the top of the stairs will service the
existing apartment and then we go up two more risers to get to the two new
apartments.
MR. GREGOR:
Mr. Jacobitti, a couple of questions for you regarding your
drawings. I am looking at Sheet
A-1. You had mentioned a canopy as being
added.
MR. JACOBITTI: Yes.
MR. GREGOR:
And I believe I see some posts which give me a hint that that is
occurring on the partial, proposed partial store plan.
MR. JACOBITTI: That is occurring across the whole building
existing and proposed.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay. That is not dimensioned on
your architecturals as to the length or the width of that and in looking at the
proposed front elevation, it appears to be extending
the entire length of the building and actually partially beyond. Could you tell -- could you put on your
drawings or tell us or both rather what the length of that canopy is and what
the width is away from the base of the existing building?
MR. JACOBITTI: The width is the same as the width of the
sidewalk which I think is --
MR. GREGOR:
The sidewalk is 6 feet.
MR. JACOBITTI: 6 feet.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay, so the width of that canopy is 6 feet?
MR. JACOBITTI: Yes.
MR. GREGOR:
Could you amend your drawings accordingly to show that dimension on
there?
MR. JACOBITTI: Absolutely.
MR. LA SALA:
I might say Mr. Gregor that it is almost certain that the testimony of
the engineer, based upon comments -- discussions he had with you with regard to
parking, may reduce the width of the sidewalk to four feet in which case the
canopy would also be reduced to four feet.
We will discuss that with the engineer.
MR. GREGOR:
Yeah.
MR. LA SALA:
So whatever the width is, yes, it could be noted on the plan.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay and that width will be shown on the revised drawings.
MR. LA SALA:
Yes.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay. By the way, just to follow
up on that, Mr. Gardner and I spoke today and there were a couple of different
options that he was asking me about. I
believe one of them was the possibility of reducing the width of that sidewalk
and relocating some parking. I am not
sure if that is what you are going to propose or not but whatever it is as long
as the Board knows and the drawings show both the width and length of that
canopy.
MR. LA SALA: Exactly, yes.
MR. GREGOR:
Also on --
MR. FAASSE:
So just that it is clear it is stipulated that if we do reduce the
sidewalk, the canopy is going to be reduced accordingly.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
But doesn’t that impact the apartment upstairs then?
MR. JACOBITTI: No, it will change the pitch of the canopy a
little bit.
MR. LUDWIG:
The apartment, it reduces the living room.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Yeah, but you got that new apartment, the south side of the building you
got that front wall all the way up to the line of the canopy.
MR. JACOBITTI: That’s right, that
will reduce it two feet. So it is 2 by
-- I think that was 12 feet if remember correctly.
MR. GREGOR:
Well that is where I was going.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
So then your bump out of two feet would disappear.
MR. JACOBITTI: Yes.
MR. LA SALA:
Let me check on that.
MR. GREGOR:
Well that was my next question I was getting to that portion of the
dimensioning as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right. Yes because then the whole
thing, everything changes in the front of the building.
MR. GREGOR:
This is two feet; it is the proposed living room that bumps out to the
full width of the canopy.
MR. LA SALA:
We will have to make whatever modifications if the sidewalk is reduced
and the canopy is reduced we will have to resubmit and make the modifications.
MR. GREGOR:
I think -- what I am trying to ask is for all of these dimensions on the
proposed canopy --
MR. LA SALA:
Yeah.
MR. GREGOR:
-- and the proposed addition with the bump outs, there are no dimensions
detailing what you are proposing. Could
you dimension all of that so that we can clearly see what is going on?
MR. JACOBITTI: Sure.
MR. LA SALA:
Absolutely.
MR. GREGOR:
Thank you, that was my request.
MR. LA SALA:
And with regard to the -- and just for clarification what we are saying
is the canopy would be bumped back whether or not we bump back the addition and
the kick out of the addition we will discuss after we do the site plan.
MR. GREGOR:
As long as you show it to us.
MR. LA SALA:
It will be shown regardless, yes.
MR. GREGOR:
And could you tell us on the offset, do you happen to know what the
offsets are on the proposed new addition?
I am looking at the proposed partial apartment plan.
MR. JACOBITTI: You mean the overhang part of it?
MR. GREGOR:
Well there is a number of sections. There is the length -- looking along the
rear, it is bumping out to the rear but it doesn’t say how far it is bumping
out.
MR. JACOBITTI: It is both two feet in the front and two feet
in the back.
MR. GREGOR:
So each bump out we see --
MR. LUDWIG:
So then you have bump out along the bump out in the front too.
MR. JACOBITTI: That’s right, that
is another two feet.
MR. GREGOR:
So each bump out is two feet including the one that is bumping out from
the existing building?
MR. JACOBITTI: Yes.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay and although it is not important I know right now, you will also
provide the width of all of those so we know where those bump outs are.
MR. LA SALA:
Sure. We will dimension it as if it
was --
MR. GREGOR:
Thank you.
MR. LUDWIG:
If anybody from the public wants to stop in and look at these plans,
they are not going to be carrying a ruler with them to be able dimension it
themselves, so that is why it really has to be on the plans --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. GREGOR:
Right.
MR. JACOBITTI: Sure, of course.
MR. LUDWIG:
-- for the public to look out.
MR. JACOBITTI: No problem.
MR. FAASSE:
Some of us lay people aren’t capable of doing it even if we have a
ruler.
MR. LUDWIG:
Oh, okay.
MR. GREGOR:
If the canopy is extending past the building as is shown on your plan
you will also have that dimension, correct?
MR. LA SALA:
Yeah. Unfortunately, I haven’t
had a chance to see the revised site plan yet and so we filed the drawing.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
But your plan and the site plan don’t actually match.
MR. LA SALA:
I haven’t seen the site plan so I can’t tell you.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay.
MR. COVELLI:
I have a question, I know in prior testimony, I believe there was some
testimony to the fact that you wanted to leave some of the existing apartments
the way they were because of the stairwell.
But, obviously, this plan shows the ability to add additional stairwells
as you did here. I just want to ask the
question because we know we have a very tight site down there, so I just want
to ask if there was any consideration given to or what is the need -- if you
didn’t put that 12 by 30 foot addition on there, you would still end up with
Store #7 being about 581 square feet which would still be bigger than your
smallest store and, at that point, just revamp the apartments on the second
floor so that you could get away from the one that is below the required
minimum of 750 square feet.
MR. FAASSE:
I don’t know if that is a proper question for the architect.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It is all layouts of the apartments there are no architectural
questions.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay.
MR. COVELLI:
I mean if you did away with that addition you would still end up with a
little over 4,200 square feet of floor space on the second floor that could
probably modify into -- you know -- maybe --
MR. LA SALA:
Is your focus to move the stairway between
MR. COVELLI:
Well my focus is that we know we have a tight site down there and I am
trying to understand the need to put this addition on there which is going to
exacerbate that condition and also at the same time try to get that apartment
that is under 750 square feet and bring it up.
MR. LA SALA:
Right and the only way to enlarge the apartment, Apartment #1, Mr.
Jacobitti, I assume would be either to kick the wall out to the right, away
from the stairwell, or actually move the entire stairwell, would that be right.
MR. JACOBITTI: Yes, the stairway separates those two
apartments.
MR. COVELLI:
But we put a new stairway in going into to one of the other apartments
already on the proposed plan. So,
obviously, the ability to maybe move stairways or whatever --
MR. JACOBITTI: Well to move that stairway would have to then
go out towards -- is that now a paper street --
MR. LA SALA:
MR. JACOBITTI: The street along side would I mean that was
the tightest part of the site right there.
MR. LA SALA:
Is it possible -- I guess the question is --
MR. COVELLI:
Existing, it is the current part of the site. Quite frankly, as we are viewing this
proposal, you are now making the south side of this property equally as
tight. And the intensity on this property
is what we are trying to grapple with because, quite frankly, it is already a
tough site to deal with. And what we are
being told here is that you want to solve the problem by intensifying the use
and we are having a real problem grappling with that. And some how I guess and I might be speaking
out of turn here but I think you have been here for three months, I am not even
going to take all the other time, and you see this Board every month grabble
with the fact that we can’t understand that the applicant continues to testify
or the representatives of the applicant, continue to testify that the way to
solve the problem on the lot is to increase the intensity. So you see a level of frustration here as we
continue to keep grappling with this issue that keeps telling us to intensify
the use of the lot and that is going to solve the problem.
MR. LA SALA:
In order bring the property up to the level of quality that is being
proposed and designed that is similar to say the town center that is up the
street from the subject property, there, obviously, has to be one consideration
for the applicant and that it has to be financially feasible to do so. That is not in it of itself a reason for the
Board to approve it. But it does have to
come into the applicant’s consideration.
MR. COVELLI:
I understand that Counsel, but you used the work quality and I’m sorry
by the word quantity keeps coming into my mind, not the word quality.
MR. LA SALA:
I understand that but if the project doesn’t pay for itself by the
square footage and the rentals that relate to it, then we are looking at the situation
where the improvement to the property in the manner that the owner wants to do
it right now is not financially feasible and we are looking at a paint job
effectively. And she’ll be testifying to
that later on but that is, as I know, and as counsel knows,
the financial aspect of the application is now on which the Board would be able
to hang its hat.
MR. COVELLI:
That is correct.
MR. LA SALA:
So we are minimizing that issue but it is a real issue for the applicant
as a result of that.
MR. COVELLI:
But by the same token we don’t want to create something that is
beautiful but doesn’t work.
MR. LA SALA:
Right.
MR. LUDWIG:
I had mentioned, I think it was the last meeting or the meeting before,
snow removal. I don’t see any possible
way that anybody could maintain this property and not push snow out onto the
public roads. There is no place. And especially with putting this addition on
this end, where are you going to put snow on this property? I mean there are so many things by making
this building bigger --
MR. LA SALA:
And, again, those are questions for the engineer.
MR. COVELLI:
I think the question that I asked is --
MR. GRYGUS:
I think we scared him away he is not sitting there. Oh there he is, hello Mr. Gardner, how are
you.
MR. COVELLI:
Essentially what I was trying to get at is if we didn’t have that
addition and if we just wiped the whole second floor clean and maybe we went
with three or four apartments that would -- you know -- that would reduce some
of the intensity of the site, take away some of the negatives of the parking,
still give you a store that is going to be equal to some of the other stores
that you had on there -- you know -- it might be something that is worth --
MR. LA SALA:
It is more than that because you are also now effecting the stores on
the bottom because moving that stairwell means that you are now reconstructing
the stores downstairs at that level at that end of the building as well.
MR. GREGOR:
Understand counselor that I don’t believe and I don’t want to put words
in your mouth, I don’t believe that the Board Member is saying that he wants to
tell you where to put a stairwell.
MR. COVELLI:
Right.
MR. GREGOR:
What he is saying to you is that it appears that as you presented these
drawings to us that there is some flexibility --
MR. COVELLI:
Right, because we did -- we did move --
MR. GREGOR:
Plus the fact that you, as the applicant, have proposed moving
stairwells, I think that was his only point.
Is that correct?
MR. COVELLI:
Right, right.
MR. LA SALA:
But what I am saying is it is not as simple as it is being painted
because moving that stairwell affects two different apartments, two different
stores that already exist and someone has been living in this apartment for
years at 713 square feet. Moving that
stairwell would impact on three other units in a significant way. That would be, obviously, again a minor point
for the Board and a major financially aspect dramatically increasing the price
of the construction at this end of the project.
But it would be something that would be of marginal benefit when what we
are adding would be approximately 40 square feet to this apartment that already
exists and has already been used for a number of years. It is not like we are proposing a new
apartment that is undersized.
MR. COVELLI:
Well actually what I am thinking about would bring it significantly over
the 750 but whatever.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, any more questions for the architect at this point?
MR. GREGOR:
Oh yeah, I’m sorry, I did forget one thing. Mr. Jacobitti, the front of the building you
show an area for signage for each of the stores, the storefronts.
MR. JACOBITTI: Yes.
MR. GREGOR:
That signage is not dimensioned could you also dimension that and
indicate what type of signage would be on there whether it be a painted sign,
whether it be a raised -- you know -- give the Board some indication of what
signage is proposed and the dimensions of it.
MR. JACOBITTI: Fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It says Bill carved signs.
MR. GREGOR:
Carved signs.
MR. JACOBITTI: There is a note.
MR. LUDWIG:
Under the storefront on the right hand side.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
First block, Bill.
MR. GREGOR:
I see it, I see it. Okay I guess
what we just need is the dimensions then.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
We want to make sure that it complies with our sign ordinance.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. I think what we would like
to do if we don’t have any more questions of the architect, is I think once we
get back to the site that may impact some changes on building --
MR. LA SALA:
Sure, very possible.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
-- and we will have to deal with Mr. Jacobitti at a later date on the
reconfiguration of the building as we go along.
MR. LA SALA:
Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay? Want to open it up to the
public?
MR. FAASSE:
Well for questions and then -- you know -- if there is anyone from the
public that has any questions for Mr. Jacobitti.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
All right. If anyone in the
public has any questions only of the architect on the testimony so far please
step forward. Okay, seeing and hearing
none, we close the public portion. All
right, counsel let’s move on. I assume
we are going to the engineer at this point.
MR. LA SALA:
That’s correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. Hello Mr.
MR. FAASSE:
Sure. Raise your right hand Sir.
GERALD
GARDNER SWORN:
MR. FAASSE:
Give us your full name and do you need the spelling of the last name,
Gerri?
MS. MAROTTA:
Okay.
MR. GARDNER:
Gerald Gardner G-A-R-D-N-E-R.
MR. FAASSE:
And your business address Sir.
MR. GARDNER:
1141
MR. FAASSE:
Licensed as what?
MR. GARDNER:
And it is in place, my fees are paid.
MR. FAASSE:
Your fees are paid and it is in good force and effect as of today but
you are licensed as both an engineer and a land surveyor?
MR. GARDNER:
Only as an engineer
MR. FAASSE:
Only as an engineer.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
We won’t hold that against you, that’s a hard enough license to
obtain. You ready?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Ready?
DIRECT-EXAMINATION
OF MR. GARDNER BY MR. LA SALA
Q Mr. Gardner, given the extension comments
that have been made by Mr. Gregor and the comments that have already been made
during Mr. Jacobitti’s testimony, am I correct in
saying that you had a fairly extensive conversation with Mr. Gregor today?
A Yeah,
we had a nice talk.
Q A nice talk, that is good to hear. Could you tell us what comments you have now
with regard to the application in reply to Mr. Gregor’s letter
after completing that discussion?
A Without
even opening the drawings, there are a number of details, curbing, landscaping
themes, sign sizes, we can address all of those and certainly satisfy the
Board. There are two issues with this
site that we have to resolve or there is no real reason to go ahead. The parking, we have tried 14 different
layouts, you have seen three I think over the last couple of years. The ordinance has a minimum and I don’t know
if Mr. Gregor was successful in finding a reference that he and I were talking
about today but the ordinance has a minimum size parking space which is on the
drawing. Good engineering may direct us
to have a bigger parking space. As I
told Mr. Gregor this morning, 30 years ago this summer I had his job in this
Board and I used to argue with everybody and I argued over many years; I am not
arguing anymore. So if Mr. Gregor
suggests the spaces need to be 22 feet or a 4 foot no parking zone every two
spaces, we are not going to argue with that.
The issue will come down to, we cannot create
parking spaces where there is no property.
MR. GREGOR:
Thank you Mr. Gardner.
A We
still have to drive around on the spot, we still have to get in and out of our
cars, we still have to access the building. If I go to 22 foot spaces and put them at say
60 degrees as opposed to 45 degrees and reroute the parking travel ways a
little bit, I can explain that in a couple of minutes, I can not generate more
than probably 25 spaces on the site, maybe 27.
The addition that is proposed to the building, I think I am correct if I
said there are enough parking spaces there today, even though there are not,
would require an additional 7 spaces, I am creating an additional 10 because I
am putting 10 new spaces behind the building that are not there today. So even though the site is tight and we are
using it all right to the very edges, we are going to create 10 more spaces
that are there for an additional use that requires only 7. Mr. Gregor pointed out something else to me
today which I hadn’t really thought about but he is probably right, we are
going to make a very nice building, we are going to make it attractive, it is
going to be paved, it is going to be lit and it is going to attract more
customers. Maybe the traffic will be
heavier for the existing stores than it has been in the past just because we
are making renovations. That is
something that the Board is going to have to decide because I have clue what is
really going to happen. The second issue
that is covered in the letter that we have to discuss tonight is the access
through the
MR. LUDWIG:
You are proposing not -- that the only entrance is going to be a
circular motion around so to go to one of those stores you have to go around
behind the buildings.
MR. GARDNER:
Absolutely.
MR. LUDWIG:
All the way around.
MR. GARDNER:
That is correct.
MR. LUDWIG:
Wow.
MR. GARDNER:
That is the only way that I can get the trash trucks not to back down
the street. You can’t solve everything
without giving something up.
MR. LUDWIG:
And you think these stores will survive with that.
MR. GARDNER:
Well that is not accurate, that is not accurate as a matter of fact, you
can get in by going down
MR. GRYGUS:
I would submit that the only way you can assure the trash truck isn’t
going to back down Laurie Lane is to be there when he is trying to get the
garbage with a shot gun and tell him no.
MR. GARDNER:
Exactly and that is, of course, that is my point.
MR. GRYGUS:
That is the only way that would ever happen.
MR. GARDNER:
Mr. Gregor and I both said we can show anything we want in the paper;
they are going to back down
MR. GRYGUS:
Truck drivers are renowned to use the easy path.
MR. GARDNER:
And so is the loading zone. The
loading zone right now is the right size at the right spot but it is a one-way
access. You are going to have to back
in, unload and pull out. We can -- you
know -- we can fix that. I think, I’ve
spoken with the applicant, and I think the bottom line here is if we can’t live
with 25 parking spaces, we are wasting a lot of energy, a lot of money and a
lot of time. We just can’t fit anymore
in this bag, if you all know what I am talking about. And adding, putting the addition on the end
of the building, it sounds -- you know -- it sounds difficult, we are making a
tight space tighter, but it is not cost effective to do anything to the
building unless they can generate some revenue so they can pay for the
improvements and part of that is to add apartments and I think maybe they are
going to add a pretty significant store that maybe they actually will own. They have to generate the revenue to pay for
the improvements to the building and if you can’t do that you are not just going
to renovate the building to make it look better and improve Wanaque. I mean that is nice, I wish I could do that
but I don’t think that the applicant is in that position. So I think the Board needs to think about it
and I don’t know if I can get an answer because I know that that is not typically
the way it works. If we can’t live with
25 spaces and we can’t live with the addition; we are kind of wasting our
time. How is that?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Well I have a question for Mr. Gregor.
MR. GRYGUS:
Are you asking to bifurcate, counselor?
MR. LA SALA:
Pardon?
MR. GRYGUS:
Are you asking to bifurcate?
MR. LA SALA:
That might not be a bad idea.
MR. KONING:
You have been itching for a bifurcation for months.
MR. GRYGUS:
Well we have been here for two years really.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Exactly.
MR. GRYGUS:
Let’s get to the end.
MR. LA SALA:
However, this is only by second time.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Gregor?
MR. GREGOR:
Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
In Item 8 of your letter, comment letter.
MR. GREGOR:
Hang on; let me catch up with you because I got a lot of paper out in
front of me. Item #8. Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Item 8, you are saying that the minimum is 37 spaces required.
MR. GREGOR:
Based on the town ordinance.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. GRYGUS:
How many of those, can I just --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
How are you -- in other words we got -- here is the other problem here, we don’t know the use of the stores.
MR. GREGOR:
Correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
If a store puts in seating it changes the parking requirement.
MR. GREGOR:
Well if, in fact, they are proposing a restaurant, which you are saying
if there is seating --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It is possible.
MR. GREGOR:
That has a different parking requirement then general commercial.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. GREGOR:
What is proposed before us here and what we have heard is general
commercial.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um-hum.
MR. GREGOR:
We are not showing and that is one of the reasons why we need to know
what is going in the stores.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. GREGOR:
The 37 is the minimum. You put a
restaurant in there the parking requirements are going to up.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. GREGOR:
So, therefore, an additional variance would be needed and that would
have to come before a Board and any Board would consider that before they
approve such a change.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right. Because
that would impact the number one way or another.
MR. GREGOR:
Yeah. Right now this is general
commercial, which is based on a certain number per square foot, commercial.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The other problem that we have had with commercial buildings is delivery
vehicles. Now you got the loading zone
on this end.
MR. GREGOR:
Yes and just to clarify the discussion Mr. Gardner and I had, is that I
indicated to him that yes he has an adequately sized loading zone the only
trouble is, and the truck can pull in there, but the only problem is if it
pulls in it can’t pull out --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
How does it get out?
MR. GREGOR:
-- based on the circulation pattern.
And I also indicated and this is where I think Mr. Gardner was referring
to my discussion about the success, I said when we are reviewing these plans we
have to assume that by improving the site and the appearance e of the site that
you are going to be a successful business person and the activity is going to
increase. Therefore, we have to make sure
that anything you do will work. That was
my comment.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um-hum.
MR. GREGOR:
And that was -- that is where the comments came from on this garbage
truck, for instance.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. GREGOR:
And the loading zone.
MR. LUDWIG:
I have a question as to the parking to the rear of the building. Does the applicant propose to -- are those
for the tenants upstairs, only?
MR. GARDNER:
Well actually they are labeled.
MR. GREGOR:
They are actually labeled.
MR. LA SALA:
R’s are residential.
MR. GARDNER:
Some are labeled residents and some are labeled commercial R’s and C’s.
MR. LUDWIG:
But there are no -- but I can see that.
MR. GARDNER:
Okay.
MR. LUDWIG:
But there are no rear doors to any of these stores.
MR. GARDNER:
That is correct but you still have --
MR. LUDWIG:
And who is going to enforce that the employees have to park in the rear
and walk all the way around this building, it is not going to happen.
MR. GARDNER:
Well when you go to the mall and all the stalls are filled in front of
Nordstrom’s, you don’t go home. You park
in front of Macy’s and walk over to Nordstrom’s. I assume the same thing would happen here. If you need to go to a commercial --
MR. GRYGUS:
They’ll park at the Staropoli’s and then walk over?
BOARD MEMBER:
Perfect, we are back at the ball field.
MR. GRYGUS:
Bill what is the ordinance requirement for handicapped spots in a
situation like this?
MR. GREGOR:
The handicapped spots are not governed by ordinances, they are governed
by the New Jersey State Law Barrier Free Law and you will need one handicapped
space for the first 50 parking spaces and you must have a least one van
accessible handicapped space. We don’t
have a van accessible.
MR. GRYGUS:
So having one handicapped space is okay?
MR. GREGOR:
That is sufficient for this site.
MR. GARDNER:
As long as it bigger than what is shown on the drawing because it is not
van accessible.
MR. GREGOR:
It has to be bigger than what is shown on the drawing.
MR. GRYGUS:
Van accessible.
MR. GARDNER:
That is part of the reason I am using 25 as the number. I have to make everything a little bit
bigger.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. LA SALA:
And one comment if I may to Mr. Ludwig’s question about the employees;
obviously, if there is a fixed number of spaces in front of the store, I would
think that it would be incumbent upon the owner of the store who wants to have
adequate access to the property that he is going to have his employees park in
the back and walk around the front because that is how he is going to maximize
his business and that is a really simple thing for the owner to do, that is in
his best interest and, therefore, is something that you would expect the owner
to do.
MR. HOFFMAN:
I mean it is just that you have seven proposed stores, two employees per
store and they are not going to be open all the time.
MR. LA SALA: Um-hum.
MR. HOFFMAN:
That is a lot of spots.
MR. LA SALA:
Right.
MR. HOFFMAN:
Just for employees.
MR. LA SALA:
Well one of the things that we discussed briefly the last time and that
the applicant decided to discuss in more detail is that there is an existing
and there is as plan a circulation of store hours by the creation of the bagel
shop and the pizza shop operating at different times of day.
MR. HOFFMAN:
They are both open at 12 o’clock -- you know -- so. They are four employees; they have six
employees there.
MR. GRYGUS:
Yeah but if you got the bagel shop going and a deli moves in, now you
got a bagel shop and deli and pizzeria.
MR. LUDWIG:
And the pizza shop also.
MR. GRYGUS:
You know the bagel shop and the deli are going to fighting in the
breakfast crowd and they are also going to be fighting the lunch and the early
dinner crowd.
MR. LA SALA:
I don’t mean to interrupt but every one of those new uses has to come
here.
MR. FAASSE:
No.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
No.
MR. LA SALA:
They don’t have to go before any Board?
MR. FAASSE:
The Planning Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The Planning Board.
MR. LA SALA:
But the same issue is going to come up.
They are going to say, is there enough parking, don’t bring a pizzeria
in.
MR. LUDWIG:
But even the one use that you just mentioned, those people almost have
to park in the front, the pizza parlor.
Thank God it is not a sit down type of situation.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. LUDWIG:
But those employees are all in the front because it is almost totally
delivery that business from what I have seen.
MR. FAASSE:
We should just make it clearer, I think Mr. La Sala your expert the
planner last month testified that her calculations were too that 37 spaces
would be required; at least that is what my notes show.
MS. THORNTON:
Based on the 1 for 180 square foot requirement. If you look at the ordinance, that was based
on the 1 for 180 square foot requirement that has shown in the site plan. A closer look at your ordinance suggests that
that may not actually apply in every single case. When I looked at the ordinance on parking,
the 1 per 180 actually applies to furniture stores and supermarkets; there are
other requirements for different types of uses.
So we may actually have a lesser requirement if we calculate out for
each use.
MR. GREGOR:
But you don’t know what the use is going to be.
MS. THORNTON:
We have not shown that analysis.
MR. GREGOR:
If you want to fine tune it, right now you got it as general commercial.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, right.
MR. GREGOR:
If you want to fine-tune it, you got to present the calculations to us,
it may come out less; it may come out more.
MS. THORNTON: You are right, you are right, it
could go either way, we haven’t done that analysis.
MR. GRYGUS:
It could go to 40.
MR. FAASSE:
Well I mean I was just reviewing my notes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Anything is possible.
MR. GRYGUS:
Exactly.
MR. FAASSE:
The young lady said 37 last month.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
Or the last time they were here.
MR. GARDNER:
Based upon the 180 standard.
MS. THORNTON:
Based on the 180 that is in the site plan.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Mr. Gardner remember you work for them.
MR. GREGOR:
He has a license to protect as well.
MR. GRYGUS:
At least he is close enough to walk home.
MR. FAASSE:
So Mr. Gardner you are suggesting to the Board that the maximum you are
going to be able to provide is 25 spaces.
MR. LA SALA:
25 to 27 I think that is what he said.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay.
MR. LA SALA:
And that is, again, taking into the account the fact that Mr. Gregor has
made clear his preference and I gather the Board’s preference and despite the
fact that the town ordinance provides for a 10 by 20 space that they really
want a 10 by 22 and --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
No, I don’t think that is what he said.
MR. GREGOR:
Would you say that again I missed that?
MR. GARDNER:
I think that is in the letter.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, but a 10 by 20 is because of the angle space that will require
more depth right?
MR. GREGOR:
No, no, no, he was talking about the parallel parking.
MR. LA SALA:
No we are talking about the parallel parking in the back.
MR. GREGOR:
The parking.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The parking in the back, okay.
MR. LA SALA:
The parking in the back is 10 by 20 and he wants it to be --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
But the other question which we didn’t get to --
MR. GREGOR:
Let me address that 10 by 20 if I may at this point in time.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
Mr. Gardner, as he indicated had once served in the capacity, I believe,
as the Borough Engineer and I think he remembers the ordinance, the same
ordinance that I remember where parallel spaces were 12 feet wide by 22 feet in
length.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um-hum.
MR. GREGOR:
He has asked me to find that in the ordinances, I didn’t have a chance
to look for that, it may or may not be in there.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. GREGOR:
But the fact of life is and both Mr. Gardner and I know this as design
engineers, is that you need to 22 foot in length in order to get in and out of
a parallel parking space with today’s vehicles.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. GREGOR:
What I recommend is rather than the 22 foot in length put two parking
spaces 20 foot each in length with a four foot gap between each two parking
spaces that functions the same manner.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It allows them to get out.
MR. GREGOR:
And cars can get in and out.
MR. GARDNER:
Well also you may end up with people parking not exactly in the spaces
and squeeze another car or two in there on occasions.
MR. GREGOR:
Right, so the point is no matter what you design, it has to work and you
need the equivalent of 22 feet for a parallel parking space.
MR. GARDNER:
And we don’t have any more land.
This is the space so -- you know -- for us to keep going back and forth
and say we hope we get 35 in -- you know -- we are not.
MR. GREGOR:
Even if an ordinance permitted, I wouldn’t recommend that the Board
grant that change.
MR. GARDNER:
Exactly, right.
MR. GREGOR:
Because you want people to get in and out.
MR. GRYGUS:
What parking spaces would you give up for the snow plow in the winter?
MR. GARDNER:
Well you are going to give parking spaces with you go around the back of
the stores and come across immediately two parallel parking spaces on the south
rear corner, they are going to go away or no one is going to go around the
corner if they have anything other than a small car. So I am going to lose two spaces there.
MR. GRYGUS:
Okay.
MR. GARDNER:
During snow removal as with any parking you are going to lose some
spaces. I mean in the A&P, the Stop
and Shop, we all lose spaces during heavy snow removal.
MR. HOFFMAN:
Right, you can’t put it out in the street.
MR. GARDNER:
Exactly, they are going to lose spaces there is no doubt it if we have a
big snow removal. You are going to lose
spaces in the street; you are going to lose spaces in the parking.
MR. GRYGUS:
Not only that, on the north side of the building, you have to clear off
between, in the loading zone area from the building out to the street line plus
whatever the town plows up against the street line to be able to access you
that.
MR. GARDNER:
Right and I don’t know who maintains that -- who maintains that
right-of-way, I don’t know.
MR. LUDWIG:
Plus the fact that you got that sidewalk right --
MR. GARDNER:
Well the sidewalk has been there forever.
MR. LUDWIG:
I understand that but when the county comes down there -- I have been in
the plowing business -- you know.
MR. GARDNER:
Oh, I know.
MR. GRYGUS:
They slow down to pick up an extra five feet of road.
MR. LUDWIG:
And if you are going to have all of the roads -- you can’t plow on to
them --
MR. GARDNER:
But they can plow onto you.
MR. LUDWIG:
They can plow onto you.
MR. GARDNER:
I know that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. GARDNER:
One of the things right now the way that the lot is currently used,
there are people -- everybody parks parallel at the sidewalk side.
MR. LUDWIG:
Both.
MR. GARDNER:
Yeah both and that is going to be switched so that there is only the
angle parking to the building so it may make it a little more difficult if the
county is plowed onto that portion of the parking lot but you are still going
to be able to get in and out of those angled spaces in the front.
MR. GRYGUS:
Well you pretty much have to take all of the snow from the Ringwood
Avenue curb to the building and on both north and south end of the building and
across the entire back of the building into the south east corner of the
property because there is no place else that you will be able to pile it up
without blocking that storefronts or anything else. You got to -- it snows you got to get in
there with flame throwers to clean the snow up, that
is not what is going to happen.
MR. LA SALA:
As indicated by the planner’s testimony the last time, the option that
the applicant proposes is that we would have to take it off site. We recognize that it is a difficult situation
and -- you know -- plowing --
MR. GRYGUS:
What site are you going to take it off to?
MR. LA SALA:
Um?
MR. GRYGUS:
Where are you going to take it off to?
Where are you going to take it to?
Because if that is going to happen, then that should
be part of this whole process as to where it is going to go.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, we are going to take a five minute recess gentlemen. All right, a five-minute recess.
FIVE-MINUTE RECESS
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Are we back on?
MS. MAROTTA:
We are back on.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Let the minutes reflect that everyone is present that was here before
the break. Go ahead counselor.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay yes. Mr. Acquaviva is here
on the Staropoli application. Mr.
Acquaviva based on the time constraints of the evening, it is now 20 to 10, as you know we try to stop the business portion at -- well
the application portion by 10:30 so we have another 40 minutes. Mr. Walker, who is ahead of you on the Elwood
Application he indicates that he will be a good 45 minutes so it would be
highly unlikely that we will reach your application tonight. So rather than keep you here another 40
minutes and then give you the bad news we are willing to say to you would you
like to go home tonight and come back on December the 5th?
MR. ACQUAVIVA: Absolutely.
MR. FAASSE:
And you do grant us whatever extension we need?
MR. ACQUAVIVA: Yes, I waive all time extensions, yes.
MR. FAASSE:
Just one other thing, you do have Mr. Gregor’s letter?
MR. ACQUAVIVA: I do now, yes.
MR. FAASSE:
Yes. So would you circulate that
with your engineers?
MR. ACQUAVIVA: We will.
We will be prepared to address that on the 5th.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay, all right, the question is will somebody move to --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, we need a motion to carry.
MR. GRYGUS:
I’ll make a motion to carry it to the December 5th meeting.
MR. COVELLI:
Second.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, roll call on that Gerri.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #07-07 TO
DECEMBER 5TH:
Made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member
Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman,
Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
All right, now back on the --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Now we are back to the Santoro application.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay, on the Santoro application.
Mr. La Sala, I mean we just heard a very eloquent speech by Mr. Gardner
with respect to the constraints of this site and more particularly as to the
parking that the maximum he could design in accordance with the ordinances
would be 27 spaces. Now it is highly
unusual because the Board of Adjustment usually waits until we have all our of
evidence in before we make any decisions but if the applicant so desires I
would be willing to, with your consent, informally poll the Board as to whether
or not this particular application would have a chance of passing with only 27
parking spaces.
MR. LA SALA:
Yes, I would consent to that procedure.
MR. FAASSE:
All right, I mean because of the fact that there is no sense in spending
more engineering having you come back another night with all your experts and
everything else.
MR. LA SALA:
Exactly.
MR. FAASSE:
And spending a lot of the applicant’s money if that is going to be an
insurmountable situation. So with your
consent then, it would just be an informal poll.
MR. LA SALA:
Yes.
MR. FAASSE:
You will hear the informal poll or the results of the informal poll then
I would suggest that if the informal poll is that it will not pass with the 27
then we just carry it so that you, your clients could then reflect --
MR. LA SALA:
Exactly.
MR. FAASSE:
-- over the -- you know -- adjournment period. Because if you wish to
continue with your engineering and present your full case and then get a
decision at that time, of course, you have that right.
MR. LA SALA:
And I would also welcome informally any comments that any individual
members may have so that we can take them into account as we meet between now
and December 5th as well.
MR. FAASSE:
All right. Well I mean it is a
situation in which you are asking for the -- the maximum would be 27, right Mr.
Gardner, based on the five apartments upstairs and the expansions to the retail
facility on the first floor.
MR. GARDNER:
Yes.
MR. FAASSE:
All right.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um-hum, okay.
MR. FAASSE:
Like I said Mr. Chairman I think that is a rather unusual procedure but
I think in fairness to everyone --
MR. CHAIRMAN: As long as we are safe doing it from both
sides.
MR. LA SALA:
It is perfectly fine for me I have no problem laying it on the record
that --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
I think counsels are in agreement.
MR. LA SALA:
We are in agreement, it is simply an informal
polling.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay. All right do the roll call.
MR. FAASSE:
Oh well --
MR. COVELLI:
You got to frame the question.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Let’s explain to the members, okay, I’m sorry.
MR. COVELLI:
This is like one of those polls depending on how you frame the question,
depends on the answer you get.
MR. FAASSE:
Well -- you know -- Mr. Covelli you are so good at framing the question.
MR. COVELLI:
No, I am not framing it, I would like Mr. La
Sala to frame the question.
MR. FAASSE:
The question would be, they have five apartments upstairs, increase in
retail spaces, we have all seen the plans, we know the
architecturals and everything else. Does
this particular application --- would it result in your voting favorable for it
if, as testified by Mr. Gardner, the maximum number of on site parking would be
27?
MR. LA SALA:
I would like a couple of clarifications on that because of the
discussions that the two engineers had.
Assume in this case that we are able to satisfy Mr. Gregor’s concerns
for the traffic pattern. We understand
that we would not be able to control the garbage truck backing down Laurie
Street for the houses because they would do it anyway but at least with regard
to the subject property, for example, we can address the access of the garbage
truck and, therefore, also the loading trucks so that they can operate on the
property without having to back onto Laurie Street. So make that assumption in the first place. And, again, I would also welcome comments
from the Board if -- you know -- obviously, it is clear that the applicant,
although the Board doesn’t look at the financial aspect of the application, the
applicant must, if there is a tendency of any member or of the Board in general
to think that a reduced but not eliminated addition to the property might be
something that would be more --
MR. GREGOR:
Palatable.
MR. LA SALA: -- palatable, perfect word, I
would appreciate that informal comment as well.
MR. FAASSE:
In comments but I don’t think that is what the Board is voting on today.
MR. LA SALA:
I understand that it is not.
MR. FAASSE:
I think that would be something that you and your clients would have to
consider --
MR. LA SALA:
Absolutely.
MR. FAASSE:
-- in the adjourning period --
MR. LA SALA:
Absolutely.
MR. FAASSE: -- as to whether or not you can --
MR. COVELLI:
It is one thing for us to take an informal code, to start giving
comments is another.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
I think we are going to do a straw yes or no poll.
MR. LA SALA:
That is okay; I’ll take the yes or no.
MR. FAASSE:
And it is based on what is before us, the five apartments up, the retail
down. Maximum 27 parking spaces,
assuming that we can handle the -- you know -- the garbage trucks and the
storage.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, based on the Mr. Gardner’s description of the problems on the
site.
MR. LA SALA:
Exactly, exactly yes.
MR. FAASSE:
I think that we have to limit it to that.
MR. LA SALA:
That’s fine.
MR. FAASSE:
And you have to decide where you are going to go from there.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um-hum.
MR. LA SALA:
That’s fine.
MR. GRYGUS:
Can I just ask Mr. Gardner one clarification for the Board’s
edification?
MR. GREGOR:
Go ahead Co-Counselor.
MR. GRYGUS:
I just want to make sure that - Mr. Gardner this is under the assumption
that there will be no vehicles backing out into a public or easement?
MR. GARDNER:
Yeah, I told you the best way to do it is to
put drop curb across the whole building and have everyone pull straight in and
just go as they please.
MR. GRYGUS:
just wanted to ask that because that is a safety issue.
MR. GARDNER:
Absolutely, that is a given.
MR. GRYGUS:
I’m done.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. HOFFMAN:
Wait, wait hold on a second.
MR. GRYGUS:
I just want a clarification, if we said yes in the straw poll that means
yes we see it as a viable option to continue with 27 spaces?
MR. LA SALA:
Yes.
MR. FAASSE:
Correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Correct.
MR. HOFFMAN:
Based on the flow diagram here.
MR. FAASSE:
No.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Forget that flow diagram. We are
talking about the number of parking spaces.
Whatever Mr. Gardner changes to get it left to right or right to left,
front to back, it doesn’t matter. We are
talking about the basic number of parking spaces.
MR. GARDNER:
To make it easier for everybody.
I understand that you may deny the application for some other
reason. I just don’t want it to end up,
there is no guarantee, but I don’t want it -- you know -- at the end, oh we all
voted no because there is only 27 spaces.
MR. GREGOR:
Right.
MR. FAASSE:
Correct.
MR. GRYGUS:
Because that you can’t change.
MR. GARDNER:
I mean you may vote no because the building is blue and you wanted green
but that is not relevant.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Very good. Okay, is everybody on
board?
MR. HOFFMAN:
They are needed 37. We said he
should have 37.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The way the building is set right now, the general retail 37 is the
number.
MR. FAASSE:
Right, with the proposal.
MR. GRYGUS:
With the additional apartments.
MR. COVELLI:
And retail space.
MR. FAASSE:
By the way the building is set.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Now with the proposal right now --
MR. FAASSE:
The way the application is currently framed we need 37.
MR. HOFFMAN:
I just wanted to make sure that we are saying 37 and they are proposing
27, okay.
MR. FAASSE:
The maximum.
MR. GRYGUS:
Counselor could you tell we are not use to doing something like this.
MR. LA SALA:
I can tell.
MR. FAASSE:
All right so we agree as to how it is, right?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um-hum.
MR. COVELLI:
Yes, we are strictly making an informal poll based --
MR. FAASSE:
Advisement.
MR. COVELLI:
-- upon the information presented with respect to the addition both on
the first and second floor, a total number of 27 parking spaces and you are
saying yeah or nay based on that set of facts.
MR. FAASSE:
Right.
MR. LA SALA:
Assuming that the access is not going to be an issue.
MR. COVELLI:
Right. Access is not an issue and
flow at this point is not an issue.
MR. LA SALA:
Right, that is what I mean, access and flow not an issue.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It is strictly the number of spaces.
MR. COVELLI:
Does everybody understand?
MR. FAASSE:
All right, so now what is going to be the affirmative vote? That would be an impediment?
MR. GRYGUS:
It would be that you would accept it as 27 spaces.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay.
MR. GRYGUS:
Correct?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Correct?
MR. FAASSE:
Right.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Yes you accept it, no you don’t accept it.
MR. FAASSE:
Right.
MR. GRYGUS:
Correct?
MR. LA SALA:
That’s fine.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is very simple.
MR. LA SALA:
As long as we are all on the same page.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. GRYGUS:
Try it again Gerri.
STRAW
VOTE TO ACCEPT THE 27 PARKING SPACES PROPOSED:
Voting no were
Chairman Dunning, Members: Grygus,
Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Willse.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
That’s seven, right?
MR. FAASSE:
That’s it.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
That’s it, seven.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay, so you got your informal polling.
MR. LA SALA:
Okay, thanks a lot.
MR. FAASSE:
Well we will adjourn this to December.
MR. LA SALA:
To December 5th and we’ll let you know.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
We’ll carry it. We got time on
this Ralph?
MR. LA SALA:
Yeah, you have time.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah.
MR. LA SALA:
I believe I extended it 90 days.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. GRYGUS:
I’ll make a motion to carry the application to the December 5th meeting.
MR. LUDWIG:
I’ll second.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay that was Bruce and Don.
Okay, roll call.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #23-06 TO
DECEMBER 5TH:
Made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member
Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman,
Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, now let’s see.
MR. FAASSE:
Mr. Walker, come up and have a seat.
All right, just for the record, this is on the Elwood Application we
have Mr. Walker who is the attorney for the applicant here tonight again and he
has a couple of witnesses.
MR. WALKER:
Good evening, once again Michael Walker.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
One second.
MR. FAASSE:
Well just before you proceed, we got to go through this list here. Since the last time, we have the November 6th
letter from Mr. Gregor.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. FAASSE:
We also have a letter with some documents from a Donna Peterson which
you should have received copies of, she cc’d you and we have revised plans I do
believe, is that correct, 10/23/07?
MR. WALKER:
That is correct.
MR. FAASSE:
From Mr. Miceli and is that all that we have changed, I think so.
MR. WALKER:
That is correct.
MR. FAASSE:
Right, okay. So everybody is on
the same page, when the Chairman is ready.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
10/23/07
MR. FAASSE:
All right, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, thank you. Just let the
minutes reflect that Member Covelli left.
MS. MAROTTA:
I have that down.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
He is recusing himself, I guess.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
He is recusing himself and he doesn’t feel well.
MR. FAASSE:
Oh, that is a better reason.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
So it is a double dip.
MR. FAASSE:
Can I recuse myself because I am not feeling well?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
No, it is not allowed on your end.
MR. FAASSE:
Oh, okay.
MR. GRYGUS:
That is the difference between being a volunteer.
MR. FAASSE:
And a high price professional.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
A high priced attorney, can’t leave. Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Let me just find Bill’s report.
MR. FAASSE:
We have two other alternates so we don’t have any problem here.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay we are good, okay.
MR. FAASSE:
And everybody is qualified right, everybody was here last month.
MR. GRYGUS:
Correct.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah, so everybody is qualified.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
You have a full seven vote.
MR. WALKER:
So how many members do have deciding then Mr. Faasse?
MR. FAASSE:
Well we would have the full seven.
MR. WALKER:
You have a full seven, okay.
MR. FAASSE:
Right, we have eight present I think right?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
We have eight, we still have eight here.
MR. FAASSE:
But we got seven that can vote.
MR. WALKER:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
Unfortunately we have to fall on one of the alternates; the Chairman
decides later.
MR. WALKER:
Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Now you can proceed.
MR. WALKER:
On behalf of the applicant I would like to make reference to the fact
that a revised set of plans have been submitted as indicated by Mr. Faasse they
are dated October 23, 2007 and I submitted them to include that as part of our
application. As a recommendation of the
Board there are certain changes to the plan and, again, I am well aware of the
fact that Mr. Gregor has issued a report and as we go on I will address that
during the course of the presentation.
But I would like to point out to you some of the changes to the
plan. Previously it was a concern of the
Board that the footprint and certainly Mr. Gregor also that the footprint was not
actually shown, the footprint for the construction itself. Now, making reference to the document before
I proceed further, if I can Mr. Faasse, I would like to have sworn in this
evening, Jerry Dean, he is the contract purchaser and also the person who will
be actually constructing the columns on the side if the application is
approved.
MR. FAASSE:
Mr. Chairman, okay?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Yeah.
MR. FAASSE:
Please rise Sir. Raise your right hand.
JERRY DEAN SWORN
MR. FAASSE:
Dean, I assume is D-E-A-N.
MR. DEAN:
Right.
MR. FAASSE:
And give us a business address if you want to or your home address
whichever.
MR. DEAN:
MS. MAROTTA:
I am sorry, would you say that --
MR. DEAN:
MR. FAASSE:
Street.
MR. DEAN:
-- Street in Allendale.
MS. MAROTTA:
And what was your first name?
MR. DEAN:
Jerry.
MR. FAASSE:
With a G or a J?
MR. DEAN:
J.
MS. MAROTTA:
J, okay, thank you.
MR. FAASSE:
It is done both ways.
DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. DEAN BY MR. WALKER
Q Now Mr. Dean I am going to make reference to
the plans. You have seen these plans, is
that correct?
A Yes.
Q All right.
And in fact you sat down with John Miceli who actually prepared the
plans, is that correct?
A Yes,
yes.
Q Now I am going to direct your attention to
the two proposed lots. The proposed lot
#16 is that the footprint of the construction that you are looking to have
built on the site?
A What we did here is made the footprint to a basic
house, like a 2,200 square foot house.
You could build a bi-level on that, you could build a small ranch house
on that. It is not the exact house, just
like the plans you have there. They just
wanted to see what type of house we would build, at two-story colonial or a
high ranch that type of house. There are
certain houses that just won’t fit on these the way they are now so you just
got to get a print that will fit in that building envelope. That is the reason for the building envelope
just to make it -- you know -- whatever configuration you are going to build
will fit inside those -- we are not going to go out and buy sets of plans and
then -- you know -- and then not want to build that particular house. But they have to fit inside that envelope,
these two building envelopes.
MR. FAASSE:
So what is shown on the plans is the maximum building footprint.
A Right, right.
Q It may actually be
less than that, is that correct?
A Yeah,
it could be less, yeah. It more than
likely will be less but -- you know.
MR. FAASSE:
It would have knocks out or something.
A Because if it gets thinner it has to be deeper.
Q But it certainly would not extend beyond the
envelope indicated on these sites.
A No, no.
Q You are looking,
again, just to confirm what you have indicated previously that is a two-story
dwelling that you are looking to build?
A Yes.
Q And what would be the maximum square footage
of the buildings?
A Probably 2,400 square feet.
Q Now, the drawings indicate that there will
be a two-car garage underneath the dwelling?
A On
the -- yes both of them would have it underneath but on grade -- road level.
Q And on
A Right.
Q And also a revision to these plans shows
that the driveway access will be from
A Right.
Q And also, I would like to indicate to the
Board, at their request, we have indicated where the proposed driveway would be
located. Now I make reference to
A Right.
Q And once again that is going to be located
underneath the structure.
A Right.
Q Now what do you plan as far as a basement is
concerned?
A The basements would be -- would have to -- it
would be more than likely road level because the lots do come up about four or
five feet, especially the one by Locust.
So it would basically be -- you would have to dig out the one on Locust,
put the house there and then move some of the fill to the lot to the left of
it. You really wouldn’t be digging in
the ground, you would be basically almost road
level.
MR. GREGOR:
So they would be basements or slab on grade?
MR. DEAN:
At this point, it would be a basement but what they will do is when you
dig into the ground four or five feet, the house won’t look like it is out of
the ground because the grade will come up to the front door. Not the front door but about four feet from
the front door, half way up.
MR. GREGOR:
And that is not going to be your first floor living area though, right?
MR. DEAN: No,
no, no.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay.
MR. DEAN:
You are right, the first floor will be -- you know -- you will be
basically road level and then you would go up to your first floor. That would be like eight feet.
MR. GREGOR:
So you would have two -- so you are proposing two-stories and a
basement.
MR. DEAN:
Right.
MR. HOFFMAN:
What is the height of the structure that you are looking at?
MR. DEAN:
They usually run about 32 to 33 feet.
MR. LUDWIG:
From the first floor elevation or from the garage floor elevation?
MR. DEAN:
Well that is something the building inspector has to answer because I
don’t know where you guys measure from.
Some towns measure from the curb, some towns
measure from the corner of the property.
MR. LUDWIG:
Medium grade I think it is, right Bill?
MR. GREGOR:
Um-hum.
MR. LUDWIG:
Medium grade.
MR. DEAN:
I’m sorry?
MR. LUDWIG:
Medium grade. The
average grade.
MR. DEAN:
Right.
BY MR. WALKER:
Q The lot is relatively
flat, is that correct?
A The one lot is very flat and the other one goes
up around four feet, it just kind of goes up or maybe even five feet.
Q So your testimony is
that it will not exceed 32 feet?
A No, no, no. Well 35 is the maximum.
Q 35
feet.
A Yeah,
it won’t exceed that.
Q From
medium grade then correct?
A Right.
Q Have you had the opportunity at all to take
a look at the site and take a look at the soil on the site for excavation
purposes?
A We
did test holes and it was amazing the one lot on Maple is all sand and the one
next to it is all rock. It is just like
someone drew a line down and made one sand and one rock.
MR. LUDWIG:
Welcome to Wanaque.
A Yeah
and the rock is all -- you don’t have to blast it, we have dug it with a
machine, with jackhammer, and it just kind of falls apart. It is very loose rock, it just -- you can
even see on the surface where it is all braking up already. So there is no blasting or anything like that
involved with that lot.
Q Mr. Dean, perhaps we should have done this
previously, but can you give the Board some benefit of your experience as a
builder?
A I
have been doing it for 40 years. I have
built in
Q Now you have been in and around the area, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q The structures or the size of the structures
that you are looking to build here are they similar to what is in the
neighborhood?
A Not
really because they just look a little different than those houses there, they
are narrower. These are usually, give or
take, 40 feet wide, 20 to 30 feet deep.
It depends on the -- you know -- it depends on the plans you use. But they are wider than the houses that are
there because those houses are really narrow.
Q So it is your testimony that the approximate
size living space would be about 2,200 square feet.
A Right.
Q Would you describe that as a small home, big
home, medium size home?
A Today
it is on the small size but it is not really small home at 2,200 square
feet.
Q Is the relatively consistent with some of
the homes in the area?
A I
would think so, yeah. There are a couple
of capes there, a couple of bi-levels down the block, that type.
Q Now you have some plans here for the Board
which I am going to give the Board in a second but before we do that I want to
make clear this is a structure, a similar structure, at least of the type of
building that you have constructed in the past on other sites.
A Right.
Q And this is something not identical to what
you put here but for the purposes of the Board it would give them some idea of
the type of building, is that correct?
A Yeah.
MR. WALKER:
Mr. Faasse can I just have these for the Board?
MR. FAASSE:
Are they many copies of one plan?
MR. DEAN:
No, multiple.
MR. FAASSE:
Well these are just I think for illustrative purposes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
They are the same but a few are different.
MR. DEAN:
No, no, they are all the same ones.
MR. FAASSE:
They are just illustrative purposes.
MR. WALKER:
For purposes of ease also, the photographs.
MR. FAASSE:
We are going to have to clarify what these plans are too. Is it one photo?
MR. LUDWIG:
One photo.
MR. WALKER:
One photo.
MR. LUDWIG:
With the plan, one plan.
MR. FAASSE:
Well we got the plan identified already.
Yeah I mean the one with the application. We could mark that A-1 I guess, right, and
date it.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The plan A-1 or the picture A-1?
MR. FAASSE:
No, do the picture A-1 and then the plans are two sheets will be A-2, two
sheets?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Three sheets.
MR. FAASSE:
Three sheets.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Oh wait a minute, two sheets.
MR. FAASSE:
Two sheets.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Mark one A-1 and A-3.
MR. FAASSE:
Together they will be A-2 and date them.
All right.
Now A-1 you are describing as what Mr. Walker?
MR. WALKER:
That is -- actually if I can question the witness who would be in a
better position to describe what that represents.
MR. FAASSE:
Yes, okay, absolutely.
MR. WALKER:
Mr. Dean, passed to the Board, you don’t have
the photograph in front of you but you have taken that photograph, correct?
MR. DEAN:
Yes, right.
MR. WALKER:
You know what it depicts. Can you
explain to the Board what they represent?
MR. DEAN:
It seemed like the Board wanted to see what type of house we would put
there and I felt the photograph is -- you know -- pretty easy to understand.
MR. HOFFMAN:
And the approximate size of that home is?
MR. DEAN:
That one there is a touch bigger than that, that wouldn’t be the house
we would have to squeeze it down. That
is 40 by 40 that house there, just like on the plan.
MR. HOFFMAN:
So a touch would be --
MR. DEAN:
Actually it is 38 by 40.
MR. HOFFMAN:
All right but square footage wise a touch is how much, 2,200 - 2,400?
MR. DEAN:
That one there is 2,600 square feet I think.
MR. HOFFMAN:
Thank you.
MR. WALKER:
Mr. Dean also if you can by making reference to A-2 the plans that are
in front of you. Can you explain what
those plans represent?
MR. DEAN:
Well this is just the type of house an idea of what we would build
there. That is the type of house we
would build something on that -- you know -- we would try to make it look nice
for the neighborhood. We want to improve
the area. Of course, you want to sell
the house too.
MR. FAASSE:
I am no expert on that but I mean it sounds like it -- these plans are
showing a house that is different from what you just testified to.
MR. DEAN:
I’m sorry.
MR. FAASSE:
It is different from what you testified to. You said the first floor is going to be 8 foot
up.
MR. DEAN:
Well in this case yeah, this house actually when we built this house,
that house there, it doesn’t have a basement because it was in a flood plain.
MR. FAASSE:
Okay.
MR. DEAN:
But we have them. Well what
happens when you grade it off the grade come up to the first, almost the first
floor. You will have like 3 - 4
steps. You will walk up -- the grade
will be -- if you see the lot the grade is --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
This has got a basement.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah well that is what I am saying; this is a different house then what
he described earlier in his testimony.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. WALKER:
It is Mr. Faasse. What he is
doing is presenting to the Board an idea of what type of house we may
build. All right. That house that you are looking at in the
photograph in A-1 is actually larger than what he is proposing for this
site. But it just an idea of a building
that he has put up in the past just to give the Board an idea of what he is
looking to do.
MR. FAASSE:
So they are for illustrative purposes and not to contradict what he had
testified to earlier.
MR. WALKER:
That is correct.
MR. FAASSE:
All right.
MR. DEAN:
Well this house, this house here you could simply take this house, raise
it out of the ground -- see this is -- this house here and that one there you
can walk the curb and you will walk right in the front door.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. DEAN:
Because their property is level.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Um-hum.
MR. DEAN:
This over here has about a four foot hill in front of it.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MR. DEAN:
So you would raise the house up and then the hill so you would be like
-- between the front door and the road it would be basically the stairs would
start out four feet high. So you come up
in the property, the stairs you would have like six stairs to the front
door. So if you could imagine six stairs
in front of this house, that it what we would have. This has no stairs at all.
MR. GRYGUS:
Could I just back up a minute to before when we were looking at the site
plan. You said you were planning on
taking the fill that came out from Lot 15 and using that fill around Lot 16 to
raise the grade up on
MR. DEAN:
Right.
MR. GRYGUS:
Okay. I am just wondering what
that is going to do to the water run off if water is now for lack of a better
word not being there when it rains, we will say puddling or ponding on 16 and
now you raise that up, where is that water going to go?
MR. DEAN:
Well that is the storm water management.
You will put a seepage pit in both houses, a thousand gallon tank and
all the run off goes --
MR. GRYGUS:
That will cover the roof but what about the rest of the ground --
MR. DEAN:
Well it covers the roof and it covers the driveway.
MR. GRYGUS:
-- that you are now throwing away from the house onto other people’s
properties.
MR. DEAN:
Well it wouldn’t run off on the right side, the one on Locust, that is already on an angle. And then on the other one --
MR. GRYGUS:
Well what I am looking -- what I am saying is -- if you are going to
raise up the grade around the house on Lot 16 and you are going to bring it up,
we’ll pick two feet for a number to pick a number. That water then would be running toward Maple
and toward the --
MR. GREGOR:
MR. GRYGUS:
--
MR. DEAN:
No, no, no, what you do is you take the
MR. WALKER:
No, he is talking about the neighbor on this side.
MR. GRYGUS:
Going toward
MR. DEAN:
Yeah, that you would simple take it from -- which lot is this?
MR. WALKER:
This is 15.
MR. DEAN:
15. So 15 you are basically
cutting a square out of --
MR. GRYGUS:
Right.
MR. DEAN:
-- -- you know -- you are taking that extra --
MR. GRYGUS:
Right. Yeah, 15 is the one that
is sitting up on the high, yeah.
MR. DEAN:
-- and you are really just bringing it in -- because you could see where
the driveway is --
MR. WALKER:
On 16 he is talking about.
MR. DEAN:
No, you don’t have any -- that is all level, that
is not --
MR. GRYGUS:
Right now as it stands 15 is a higher elevation than 16 just looking at
grass to grass.
MR. DEAN:
Right, right.
MR. GRYGUS:
All right. Now what you just said
before you were planning on cutting the hole for the
foundation in 15.
MR. DEAN:
Right.
MR. GRYGUS:
Building the foundation almost right now on grade on 16 and taking the
fill from the hole from 15 and pushing it around the foundation on 16.
MR. DEAN:
Now around the house. Just around
this one -- because the garage is right here.
MR. GRYGUS:
Yeah.
MR. DEAN:
So you are going to be putting it around the front right.
MR. GRYGUS:
Yeah, on the
MR. DEAN:
Right and on the right side of the house.
MR. GRYGUS:
And on the right hand side of the house.
MR. DEAN:
Which is probably already there now because the grade
kind of goes over and dips down now.
MR. GRYGUS:
My concern is that you are going to be throwing more water at
MR. DEAN:
Well you will be actually less because of the zero run off. You are going to have the driveway is going
to have a seepage pit and they both are going to have seepage pits so you
really have less run off.
MR. LUDWIG:
At this point there is no topos as far as elevations goes of the
property.
MR. WALKER:
That is correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
There is some topo on there.
MR. LUDWIG:
Yeah, I guess there is a few.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
There are a couple of spots.
MR. GRYGUS:
There are some spot elevations.
MR. WALKER:
Yeah, I thought he put some on there.
MR. LUDWIG:
There are a few over on this side.
MR. WALKER:
Well I certainly acknowledge because Mr. Gregor had addressed the issue
and I spoke to him briefly about it today.
If this application is approved it would be subject to a storm water
drainage management plan and Mr. Dean I have discussed that with you also.
MR. DEAN:
Right.
MR. WALKER:
And you are aware of the fact that as a result of any construction on
this site, if it is approved, that there will have to be a zero increase in run
off.
MR. DEAN:
Right.
MR. WALKER:
Now we certainly acknowledge the fact that, from the testimony by some
of the residents in the area, that there is an existing water problem somewhere
at the end of Maple and Locust. I spoke
to Mr. Miceli, he prepared the site plan and he has also been a long term
resident, he probably lives right in the area there; he says that problem has
existed for 50 years. It is not caused
by this particular lot. It is not --
this lot has nothing to do with the water problems. We can’t cure the water problems as a result
of any construction on this site but we will not make them any worse and if,
anything, they may be improved because what you are going to do is you going to
have seepage pits on the property and I think that is going to be an
improvement in terms of the water run off and I think anything will
benefit. It is not going to cure the
problem in the area but the problem is not caused by these lots and any
construction on the site, once it is approved, because it will be subject to
the approval by the engineer, Mr. Gregor, if anything it may improve it but it
will certainly not make it any worse.
MR. GREGOR:
Are you proposing any decks as you have on the architecturals that you
showed?
MR. DEAN:
Any decks?
MR. GREGOR:
Yes.
MR. DEAN:
We usually don’t put decks on the houses to tell you the truth but once
in awhile we will.
MR. GREGOR:
There is one -- there is one on the picture and there is one on the
architecturals that you showed us. The
reason why I am asking is because depending upon the size of the deck that you put
you could potentially come close to your lot coverage.
MR. DEAN:
Yeah, we actually never put that -- you know -- what happens when you
are building a house like this, we didn’t -- when we built this house we never
put the deck on this particular house.
That would have to be discussed because we are not going to go over,
obviously.
MR. WALKER:
But right now it is not in your proposal for the deck?
MR. DEAN:
No we weren’t --
MR. WALKER:
So the fact that that is actually indicated in our drawings that is not
being proposed. Mr. Dean, you expect
that the proposed structures will be an improvement to the site?
MR. DEAN:
Yeah, I would think so because it would definitely -- you know -- in the
neighborhood a new house like that would financially benefit the people in that
area.
MR. GRYGUS:
Bill, what is your professional opinion with respect to a distance of a
curb cut from an intersection?
MR. GREGOR:
The rule of thumb is that you like to have them at least 50 feet. Some towns require that they be up to 100
feet away. The distance basically is a
-- it is a safety issue based on the volume of traffic on the road, the
available site distance in the area and the size of the lots and density of
driveways in the area. So but you
definitely want to stay as much as far away as possible from the curvature of
the road with the corner so to avoid any safety issues. Because when you are backing out of your
driveway, which people do constantly in
MR. WALKER:
It is not a heavily traffic area I would gather.
MR. GREGOR:
I beg your pardon?
MR. WALKER:
That is not a heavily traffic area, I believe.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay, I was just answering his question to the criteria.
MR. WALKER:
I understand that, I know that.
MR. GREGOR:
Yeah.
MR. WALKER:
That was my question though.
MR. GREGOR:
Okay.
MR. WALKER:
It was my understanding -- you know -- based on location and the fact
that the street is not a used street, that it is really not a very heavily
traffic area, I would imagine it is only really accessed by people who reside
back there.
MR. GRYGUS:
What was your thought process behind having the driveway for Lot 15
access
MR. DEAN:
I felt it would look better that way.
In other words, you have too many driveways like right next to each
other. This way you have one here, you
have all grass plantings, then you have one around the corner because there is
a big lot next to this one and it just kind of gets -- it just looks
nicer. Otherwise you are going to have
some kind of grade going like this down, up, down, back up again. And to answer your question on that one
there,
MR. HOFFMAN:
You know somebody is going to ask you, have you made any inquiry as to
the ability to hook up into the water and sewer system?
MR. DEAN:
Yeah, I spoke to the DPW one of the guys at the sewer department over
there and they said they can hook up to it.
It is along the steep side but as far as price wise but they say we can
hook up to it. We already have one hook
up from the existing house that was there.
He said he would hook up to that and then you just have one for the
second house.
MR. GRYGUS:
Was the existing house kind of like on the proposed Lot 16 now? Because I see a note here, Existing Water and
Gas Service cap behind curb line.
MR. DEAN:
I don’t see any -- when we --
MR. WALKER:
Yes, that is correct.
MR. GRYGUS:
So it really was on that one.
MR. LADD:
When they tore the house down the current line they had the township
come over and shut the water off, the Power and Light came to disconnect the
gas line that is there; the sewer line that was there right at the curb.
MR. GRYGUS:
So the house is really on the --
MR. LADD:
It was set back.
MR. GRYGUS:
-- the
MR. CHAIRMAN:
We are taking testimony from the audience.
MR. LADD:
It was on the
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Sir, Sir --
MR. FAASSE:
We can’t take that testimony Mr. Walker.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Sir, he is not sworn in.
MR. WALKER:
No, he is not sworn in. Why don’t
you step forward, identify yourself, MR. Faasse perhaps you can swear him in.
MR. FAASSE:
Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
By the microphone.
MR. LUDWIG:
By the microphone.
MR. LADD:
Yeah, the sewer line --
MR. GRYGUS:
Wait, wait, wait we have to swear at you first.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
He didn’t hear you I don’t think.
MR. FAASSE:
I don’t think so either.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
No, okay.
MR. FAASSE:
Could you raise your right hand.
KENNETH LADD SWORN
MR. FAASSE:
Okay, give us your full name, spell your last name and give us an
address.
MR. LADD:
Kenneth Ladd, 4 Fallen Court and Lad L-A-D-D.
MR. FAASSE:
You got all of that Gerri?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MS. MAROTTA:
What was that -- I didn’t catch your name?
MR. LADD:
Kenneth Ladd.
MS. MAROTTA:
L-A-D-D
MR. LADD:
L-A-D-D
MS. MAROTTA:
Okay, got it.
MR. LADD:
4 Fallen Court, Haskell.
MS. MAROTTA:
All right.
MR. WALKER:
Mr. Ladd you began to testify in response to one of the questions from
the Board before as far as the location of the prior structure on the lot could
you explain to the Board where that structure was located?
MR. LADD:
The septic system and the water system and the gas system is all at the
curb line close to the where Shootey’s (phonetic) used to be or to where Mrs.
Shootey’s.
MR. WALKER:
Maybe you could tell us just on the map because they may not know where
that house used to be.
MR. LADD:
Okay, on the map, it actually -- if I had the old map I could show them
right where it is. It is exactly just
about right where that 7825 --
MR. WALKER:
You are pointed to what is proposed
MR. LADD:
Yes.
MR. WALKER:
Okay.
MR. LADD:
That is where the old house used to sit is in this angle here. And right where that 7825 is where the sewer,
gas line and water line is in that area.
MR. GRYGUS:
Yeah he is -- 7825 the footage, it the 7825 he is referring to.
MR. DEAN:
So it is basically on
MR. GRYGUS:
On the proposed
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. GRYGUS:
Thank you.
MR. LADD:
You’re welcome.
MR. FAASSE:
Oh Mr. Walker, anything else from Mr. Dean?
MR. WALKER:
I don’t know if the Board has any other questions.
MR. FAASSE:
No, you are next. Does the Board
have any testimony or any other questions?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Any other questions, gentlemen? Any other questions of Mr. Dean? Okay, let’s open it up to the public, does
any one in the public have any questions or statement?
MR. WALKER:
Before you do that, let me just correct one other issue if I may. The last time there was an issue as to
whether we notified the adjacent property owners with respect to whether they
were interested in purchasing or selling their lots or any part thereof. I just wanted to make it known to the Board
that we sent out certified mail, the originals as certified mail have been sent
to the adjacent property owners and that there has been no response.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Mark that A-3.
MR. FAASSE:
Correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
On your card table there, just lean down and write there.
MS. MAROTTA:
That is A-2.
MR. FAASSE:
No, A-2 is the plans.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
That was A-1, this is A-2.
MR. LUDWIG:
We just mark it packet A-3 or A-3?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
A-3 and then date it. Anything else counselor?
Anything else?
MR. WALKER:
No, that’s it.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Let’s open it up to the public.
Does anyone in the public have any questions? Just questions only at this point for this
witness.
MS. PETERSON:
I just have --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
You want to identify yourself first please?
MS. PETERSON:
Oh Donna Peterson,
MR. DEAN:
A copy of the architecturals you mean?
MS. PETERSON:
Yes.
MR. DEAN:
Sure.
MS. PETERSON:
It is a little hard to visualize what he is saying about a basement then
a two-car garage under the house and then two stories about so that is just
what I am just trying to --
MR. FAASSE:
Well to be very candid with you, these diagrams do not --
MR. LUDWIG:
Accurately represent what he is planning on doing.
MR. FAASSE:
Correct.
MR. GRYGUS:
That might not be the house that is being built.
MS. PETERSON:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
You have to go by his testimony not by which these plans show.
MS. PETERSON:
Okay.
MR. LUDWIG:
I think that you are trying to testify that this the style of the house
not --
MR. DEAN:
The appeal of the house but not the actual.
MS. PETERSON:
Okay. Only because the question
is if it is much higher there the lot of across the street from me is probably
I am guesstimating about halfway maybe three quarters of the way up my first
floor level so if they are going two stories or a garage and two stories above,
that is going to be quite high. So it is
a little hard to visualize if you understand the incline and the height of the
--
MR. DEAN:
Which is your house, I don’t know.
MS. PETERSON:
The one right at the end of the block across on the --
MR. LUDWIG:
Are you
MS. PETERSON:
I am 308
MR. LUDWIG:
MR. WALKER:
So why don’t you just make reference to --
MR. DEAN:
The last house on the right.
MS. PETERSON:
The last house on the right.
MR. WALKER:
It may be a little bit easier for Mr. Dean to address that issue.
MR. LUDWIG:
You are almost on the corner of Maple and Locust.
MR. DEAN:
I understand, last house on the right.
MS. PETERSON:
Yeah, I am across the street from your corner lot.
MR. DEAN:
Oh, okay.
MR. GRYGUS:
Look at your 200 foot circle, she is
MR. DEAN:
This one here.
MS. PETERSON:
Yeah.
MR. DEAN:
Okay. Most of the houses there I
have found --
MS. PETERSON:
So -- you know -- that being that my property is extremely low so.
MR. DEAN:
You have the
MS. PETERSON:
Yeah is that is what you call it.
MR. GRYGUS:
It is a shoebox with windows.
MS. PETERSON:
It is a shoebox with a cable dormer on it. A nightmare.
MR. DEAN:
Most of the houses there are the older houses in there,
they are usually a good 30 to 35 feet high because the roofs are so steep on
them. This wouldn’t be that high. You can see how that roofline is pretty
shallow.
MS. PETERSON:
But what I am already saying is that if you are looking out my front
door, you are already -- you know -- maybe my height grade level.
MR. DEAN:
But we won’t be on top of that. I
know what you are saying, your front door is here and you walk up that lot and
you are upstairs.
MS. PETERSON:
I have two steps and I am in my house.
You are talking six steps up to your first level and your property is already
higher than me so I am just --
MR. DEAN:
We are not going to build on top of that, we are going to be building --
you know -- in other words it goes from Locust, it goes up like this, so the
basement will be down here, the first floor will be like if you could imagine 4
feet higher than that, that mound.
MS. PETERSON:
Even if your first floor level was at what the grade level is right now,
you are already probably 6 feet, maybe 5 feet from where my grade level
is.
MR. DEAN:
Right.
MS. PETERSON:
So I am just trying to get a proportion of how much higher.
MR. GREGOR:
Well just so you know, if he was proposing to
put one house there, he can go to the maximum of 35 foot tall.
MS. PETERSON:
From what point?
MR. GREGOR:
From the mid point of the grade of the property to the peak.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
That is allowed by ordinance.
MR. GREGOR:
That is allowed by ordinance.
MS. PETERSON:
So is he just taking his own lot, like if these lots get subdivided, is
he only going from the mid point of Lot 15?
MR. GREGOR:
It would have to be on each lot.
MR. GRYGUS:
For the house on 15.
MR. GREGOR:
For the house on
MS. PETERSON:
For the house on 15. So if he is
going midpoint, so say he is 5 feet higher than me already --
MR. GREGOR:
Say from the curb to the grade is 5 feet, the
midpoint would start at 2 1/2 feet and then go up --
MR. LUDWIG:
Actually where the building is situated, the footprint of the building,
the grade around where the building sits, the average of that grade to the
peak, do you understand.
MR. DEAN:
No, not to the peak.
MR. GREGOR:
Not to the peak.
MR. LUDWIG:
No, not to the peak but to the maximum.
MR. GREGOR:
You did say peak.
MR. LUDWIG:
Yes, I’m sorry.
MR. GREGOR:
Yeah, to the mid peak.
MR. LUDWIG:
To the average height of the building.
MS. PETERSON:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
Is the average grade of the lot or average grade of the footprint?
MR. LUDWIG:
It is the footprint.
MR. GREGOR:
It is the average grade around the house to the mid point between the
eaves and the peak. That is how the
house is measured; the height of the house is measured.
MR. DEAN:
But this wouldn’t be, in this case, it would be the house -- I know what
you are saying as far as mid point and all of that --
MS. PETERSON:
Where is it on the lot?
MR. DEAN:
-- it would be from the curb because -- you know -- we would be low
enough, even if you measured from the curb.
I know what she is saying because if we take the house and raise it up 5
feet you are going to be way -- we are really starting from the curb line.
MR. GRYGUS:
Wanaque doesn’t measure from the curb.
MR. GREGOR:
I think the point that I was trying to make is that if you were not in
here trying to subdivide this to two and just wanted to build a house on that
-- one house on that lot, they could have come in and just gotten a building
permit to go to the height that they are proposing, just so you know.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
That is what is permitted by ordinance in Wanaque.
MR. GREGOR:
They are not seeking any relief for the height.
MS. PETERSON:
Okay. I am just trying to get a
picture.
MR. GREGOR:
I know, I am just --
MS. PETERSON:
I mean if I am going to have a house right on top of me or not. Also I wrote down that you said that the
house would be approximately 2,400 square feet.
MR. DEAN:
Not much bigger than that, it would be more like 21 - 22.
MS. PETERSON:
And you thought that that was comparable to the homes in the area?
MR. DEAN:
I mean without going in them, I think they are probably more like 17, I
guess.
MS. PETERSON:
15.
MR. DEAN:
It depends on the house.
MS. PETERSON:
Yeah.
MR. DEAN:
If it’s a two-story.
MS. PETERSON:
Okay. I am also not sure, because
I didn’t see your plan, how far you are from the curb because that corner lot
is significantly on the curb. It is not
a very wide street so it would have to be a significant -- it is not a stop
sign.
MR. DEAN:
It would be 20 but then you have the 10 feet, the town has a
right-of-way, that 10 feet, right isn’t that --
MR. WALKER:
Just so you are clear, we are looking for a 20-foot setback, okay, from
the curb.
MS. PETERSON:
And that is on both sides.
MR. FAASSE:
From the property line.
MR. WALKER:
That is correct on both sides.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
From the property line, from the front property line. At Locust and Maple.
MS. PETERSON:
Okay. Questions only?
MR. FAASSE:
At this point yes.
MS. PETERSON:
Okay. Would it be a requirement
with respect to your expertise but there would there be an independent
engineering report to determine that rock base?
He is testifying that they dug it up, the rock crumbles, it is not big
deal, but would that be something that an independent engineer report would
possibly be required?
MR. WALKER:
I don’t think it requires an engineering report at all. What he is looking to do is that he is going
to excavate, if he excavates he is going to have to remove either rock or dirt,
whatever happens to be there.
MR. GREGOR:
I think you are concerned about blasting right?
MS. PETERSON:
Yeah or breaking through any kind of rock ledge that may be under there
with ground water because we do have a significant ground water problem?
MR. DEAN:
When we did it, it was, I guess, six months ago or something like that
and we are not going lower than the road so the water is not going to come up
and -- you know -- that type of thing.
So we have dug down, on this lot here, we dug down, because we were
amazed that it was all sand, we dug down about 12 feet.
MS. PETERSON:
Is that 16, that is where the house, the originally house was.
MR. DEAN: Right, yeah, 16 and that was all sand.
MS. PETERSON:
Okay. And where is the driveway
on 16?
MR. DEAN:
It is right on Maple, it is right here.
MS. PETERSON:
In front of the house?
MR. DEAN:
Correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
In front of this one.
MR. DEAN:
It has to be because it is not a corner lot.
MS. PETERSON:
No because the old driveway was, if you were looking at the house face
on driveway was to the right of the house.
So I was just wondering if it is in the same place.
MR. DEAN:
This would be more to the left of it.
MS. PETERSON:
So it is more straight on so the house would be
set back and you would be pulling into the house, into the driveway.
MR. DEAN:
Right and the one on Locust is on the side of
it.
MS. PETERSON:
Okay. Where would the second
hookup be on Locust? Are you coming down
on the
MR. DEAN:
That would be more up to the town engineer -- I mean I guess the road --
water department and the sewer department where they want to hook those
up. This one is already there. You can see it.
MS. PETERSON:
Um-hum.
MR. DEAN:
I honestly don’t know. Either
way, we can do it from the front or the side.
MS. PETERSON:
Who makes that determination and my concern with that is I have already
talked to the Mayor about the sewer situation and he said that because of the
way our property is pitched we are opposite the pitch of gravity going to
MR. DEAN:
I can see it here. See the water
goes all the way around but the sewer ends here.
MS. PETERSON:
Um-hum.
MR. DEAN:
I guess more or less in front of your house or a little bit to the --
MS. PETERSON:
Exactly, yeah.
MR. DEAN:
I would think they would have to do it somewhere in this area here.
MR. WALKER:
That is the front of
MR. DEAN:
Because it ends.
MS. PETERSON:
So you wouldn’t go out the Locust side?
MR. DEAN:
There is no sewer there.
MS. PETERSON:
There is no sewer but what about the house that is next to there.
MR. DEAN:
I mean it could go -- it could come from this way and stop. Sometimes they do that though they will just
--
MS. PETERSON:
Okay. And I will have a chance to
make a comment to something that he said later, something that he testified
to?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Yes.
MS. PETERSON:
Okay. Thank you.
MR. DASILVA:
Dave DaSilva,
MR. WALKER: No, we are not presenting an engineer.
MR. DASILVA:
Okay. What is on the property now
in reference to impervious surfaces?
MR. WALKER:
Right now the only thing that is located on the property is an old
garage which is indicated to the rear of
MR. DASILVA:
And what relief are you seeking with the bulk variance?
MR. WALKER:
I am not sure of your question.
MR. DASILVA:
What are you -- is it setback; is it --
MR. WALKER:
Yeah, actually we had detailed in the original meeting we set down all
of the variances that we were seeking which is also indicating in the maps, all
right. I can certainly repeat them for
you.
MR. DASILVA:
No that’s fine, I’ll look at them.
My concern is and maybe the builder can address this is with adding
another structure, I understand that you had one structure there at one point,
you took it down, with adding another structure, doubling the impervious
surfaces, possibly adding a macadam driveway in both structures, do you think
that having a pit, a thousand gallon pit on each of those properties is going
to compensate for all that additional impervious surface?
MR. DEAN:
Well what they will do and I used 1,000 gallon because that is -- we
have always put 1,000 gallons in because that is what it seems to cover for
this type of lot. If the engineer says
that you need two of them, and we have put two of them in at times where they
need more and it simply needs two tanks and that is what you do to cover -- I
know what you are saying if you have too much runoff if you have black top for
the roof, the one is not going to cover it, then you end up having two of
them.
MR. DASILVA:
When you add the additional fill on the side of the building on
MR. DEAN:
Um-hum.
MR. DASILVA:
Do you think that you are going to -- by changing the grade there on
that property, do you feel as though that is going to change any of the runoff
to the existing properties?
MR. DEAN:
You really should have less runoff but the only thing we were talking
about what I am thinking -- you know -- right now, is the dirt that comes out
of here, this one here --
MR. WALKER:
15, this
MR. DEAN:
-- 15, we were going to put up just around this area here. We weren’t going to encase the whole house.
MR. DASILVA:
Okay.
MR. DEAN:
Because this driveway here is road level; there is no reason to put fill
over here or over here.
MR. LUDWIG:
So it almost flows off the runoff from
MR. DEAN:
Right, right.
MR. DASILVA:
Do you have any idea where you would put the proposed pits; one or two
per lot?
MR. DEAN:
In this case here, we would put -- most of the time we put them in the
front but you have a little more room in the back of these two lots. I would think the engineer would put them in
the back.
MR. DASILVA:
And you said you have no intention of putting a deck on either of the
houses?
MR. DEAN:
At this point, as long as there is coverages,
if I can fit it, I might. It depends on
how much -- if we can get it into this building envelope.
MR. DASILVA:
Okay.
MR. DEAN:
Usually the decks don’t affect the impervious coverage.
MR. DASILVA:
Okay, all right, thank you.
MS. RAOUL:
Suzanne Raoul,
MR. DEAN:
It is under the house but it is not the under the road. It is road level.
MR. WALKER:
You could look at the picture, right here in the box.
MS. RAOUL:
Oh, okay, I gotcha. Okay. And this is going to come from the side.
MR. DEAN:
This one over here comes from the front.
MS. RAOUL:
Okay.
MR. DEAN:
And this one over here comes from the side.
MS. RAOUL:
Okay. So are you going to level
the property out completely before you begin?
You are going to do one at a time?
I asked because you know that the right side is the rock and the sand, I
guess, is on the left as I am looking at it.
MR. DEAN:
At this point, what I would probably do is build this foundation here --
MS. RAOUL:
Okay.
MR. DEAN:
On 16.
MS. RAOUL:
Right.
MR. DEAN:
If that is the way -- if we do it that way and then take the rock from
here and put it over here. We would have
to bring some topsoil in.
MS. RAOUL:
Who controls how much dirt or fill you can put on a property when you
are leveling it out? How much above
where the present level of property is does the town or Board or whoever is in
charge allow you to fill before you start to construct? Is there somebody that is in charge of that
or can you just come in and put -- I don’t know. I mean how much fill can you put on a piece of
property to level it out, whether you are brining it in from someplace else or
whether you are bringing it in from the lot next door, who decides where you
start from before you start all of this?
Does anybody know?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Bill, do we need a soil removal permit to transfer one to the other?
MS. RAOUL:
I mean I don’t know how much dirt we are talking here but I am just
asking.
MR. GREGOR:
Town ordinances govern that. It
is not decided by an individual, it is decided by town ordinances.
MS. RAOUL:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
And off the cuff, I do know the exact amount that goes beyond the
construction official purview into review by another authority.
MS. RAOUL:
Okay.
MR. GREGOR:
That is something -- you caught me off guard on that.
MS. RAOUL:
I’m sorry I just -- because he talked about bringing it --
MR. GREGOR:
I don’t memorize all the ordinances, I don’t know the answer.
MS. RAOUL:
-- from one part of the lot to the other so I was wondering if he was
going to like start with it kind of flush and then begin his structures. I understand he is probably going to start
one building first and then maybe put that up for sale or whatever he is going
to do. But I am just wondering how much
fill can you bring in because that kind of determines
where you are starting from.
MR. DEAN:
You wouldn’t be bringing in any fill in.
MS. RAOUL:
Okay but you would be moving it.
MR. DEAN:
Yeah you would bring -- take some of this fill here and put it around
this house, this side here.
MS. RAOUL:
All right.
MR. LUDWIG:
But you said you might have to bring some top soil in.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Top soil yeah.
MR. DEAN:
Well the top soil --
MS. RAOUL:
Well that would be different that is really in the finishing process,
right?
MR. DEAN:
That is more a landscape type of thing.
MR. LUDWIG:
Yeah, exactly.
MR. DEAN:
But you wouldn’t be bringing any more fill in by any means.
MS. RAOUL:
Okay. Do you have any idea how
deep the rock is on the right portion of the property? I know you did some test borings.
MR. DEAN:
On 15 I would think it is --
MS. RAOUL:
Only because there is no other visible rock in any other property right
really near there so I was kind of wondering if you had any --
MR. DEAN:
Well there is if you go up Locust you will see outcroppings of rock all
the way up the street.
MS. RAOUL:
Yeah but that’s still -- well where?
MR. DEAN:
This house next door -- this house next door has rock over here and it
has rock next to it.
MS. RAOUL:
But that is really --
MR. DEAN:
There have been a couple of cars over here, they had rock over there.
MS. RAOUL:
That is on the other side of the street.
MR. DEAN:
No, no, same side.
MR. WALKER:
No, the same side.
MS. RAOUL:
The house directly --
MR. DEAN:
It is kind of sits low so you really kind of don’t -- if you are not
looking for it.
MS. RAOUL:
Okay, all right.
MR. DEAN:
If you went there, walked there, you would see it.
MS. RAOUL:
Yeah well I have been there, I have lived there for 40 years, I
know.
MR. DEAN:
Yeah.
MS. RAOUL:
This gentlemen brought up a question also about if you were just going
to build one house you could do so within the 35 foot height regulatory rule
without even asking any permission. But
did they have to ask for permission if the lot is divided into two and they
want to build two houses up to 35 feet, is that something that they are asking
for or is that automatically granted by the town code?
MR. GRYGUS:
That is one of the reasons why they are here because they asked for a
subdivision.
MS. RAOUL:
Right but I am just saying if they subdivide --
MR. FAASSE:
No, no, they are not asking for any height variance.
MR. GRYGUS:
No, they are not asking for any height variance for either of the
structures.
MS. RAOUL:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
If the Board subdivides it they could build two one family houses up to
the maximum as permitted by ordinance.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right.
MS. RAOUL:
So in other words, they get the privileges for one lot into two lots if
you permit them to divide it then they can build anything up to 35 feet on either
one of those two lots or both.
MR. FAASSE:
As defined by the ordinances.
MS. RAOUL:
Okay. Let’s see if I have
anything else. Okay, that is all I have
for questions, I’ll have a comment later.
Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
Any other questions for Mr. Dean, hearing none. Do you have any other witnesses tonight Mr.
Walker?
MR. WALKER:
No, I do not Mr. Faasse.
MR. FAASSE:
Are you prepared to reset?
MR. WALKER:
At this point --
MR. FAASSE:
Because we have gone too far tonight to open up to the public.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
We are ten minutes over our curfew already.
MR. WALKER:
At this point, let me just make sure -- let me take a look as something,
one moment.
MR. FAASSE:
Well we are going to have to carry this application so you can always --
you know -- withhold on that if you want to come in next month.
MR. WALKER:
I just want to make mention of the fact that you have reviewed Mr.
Gregor’s report and he has indicated that there are certain changes still
required to the site plan. I think they
are relatively minor. We have already
discussed the issue of storm water management and we absolutely understand and
Mr. Dean understands that if this application is approved, there would have to
be storm water management plans submitted and approved by the Borough. So other than that Mr. Faasse we really do
not have anything else to add.
MR. FAASSE:
All right, why don’t -- I don’t know what kind of time we have, you’ll
grant us an extension of time, Mr. Walker?
MR. WALKER:
Excuse me?
MR. FAASSE:
You’ll grant us an extension of time to consider this?
MR. WALKER:
Absolutely, yes.
MR. FAASSE:
60 days will assume, okay, at least, and then we will check it. The motion will be to carry this to the
December 5th meeting.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
The December 5th meeting. All
right, who is making that motion?
MR. LUDWIG:
I’ll make that motion.
MR. FAASSE:
Thank you Mr. Ludwig.
MR. KONING:
I’ll second it.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
All right, Don and Art.
MS. MAROTTA:
Who make the motion?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Don and Art’s the second.
MS. MAROTTA:
Don and Art.
MR. LUDWIG:
Do we have a question?
MS. PETERSON:
Can I ask one more question?
Whoever sent the last certified letter out, would you be willing to give
me or send me a copy of that offer to purchase land?
MR. WALKER:
Actually, I just presented it to the Board.
MR. FAASSE:
Yeah, it is in the file.
MS. PETERSON:
Could I get a copy of that?
MR. FAASSE:
You may come here and look at it anytime you want.
MS. PETERSON:
Okay, and that offer is to all property owners.
MR. FAASSE:
No, it was to --
MR. WALKER:
The adjacent property owners.
MS. PETERSON:
So that is next to it, not across the street.
MR. WALKER:
No because we wouldn’t alleviate a variance by buying or selling
property from somebody across the street.
MR. GREGOR:
It has to be touching.
MR. WALKER:
It has to be touching, adjacent yes.
MR. FAASSE:
All right so the motion is to carry this to 12/05.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
All right, let’s vote on it.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #06-07 TO
DECEMBER 5TH:
Made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member
Koning, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig,
Leonard, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
We’ll see you in December counselor.
MR. WALKER:
Thank you very much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, next item is public discussion. Do we have any public discussion? No public discussion. Come on up, okay.
MR. DASILVA:
Dave DaSilva,
MR. CHAIRMAN: A lot of it -- the information comes into the
secretary, by the time she mails it out the Board Members and our professionals
don’t get it until a lot of times the Monday before the meeting, which is a
problem in the system because then by the time Bill or Ralph makes comments to
it, we are at the meeting basically.
MR. DASILVA: By no means am I criticizing.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I know.
MR. DASILVA: I am just curious as to why it seems that
that happens.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
On a new application we have more time when it is deemed complete, those
reports are always dated ahead. But
these submittals come in at the last minute, these revisions, so by the time it
flips through the office and it gets sent back out we have very limited time.
MR. DASILVA: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Which is a problem. Okay.
In some instances, we have tried to get e-mails or contact faxes and
sometimes they get it a day ahead or whatever it may be.
MR. GREGOR: And that is why we try to impress upon the
applicant that even though it is only 10 days, to try to get it in sooner so
that doesn’t happen.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, sooner than later then we can get the
report back faster.
MR. GREGOR: That doesn’t happen.
MR. DASILVA: Is there any requirement in any of the laws,
the Land Use Law, about how you have to communicate with the applicant? Can you do it by E-mail or do you have to
send a letter?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well in the Land Use Law I don’t think --
MR. FAASSE: I don’t think there is anything specific at
all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -- updated since E-mails came out.
MR. DASILVA: I figured as much.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are dealing with some archaic items there.
MR. DASILVA: So you don’t, Mr. Faasse, you don’t see any
reason where communicating via e-mail would be a problem or fax?
MR. FAASSE: No, and that is what we try to do in this, it
is a lot easier when there is a professional involved who is going to be here
or there is an attorney because Mr. Gregor does try to accommodate the
attorneys and send them direct to them as well so that they have it ahead of
time. And there is a lot of -- you know
-- individual people --
MR. GREGOR: For example, all of these reports were faxed
to all of the applicants and their attorneys, the applicants’ attorneys. The one attorney that didn’t have it, as it
happens, didn’t check it faxed.
MR. FAASSE: Well that is unnecessarily true, it went into
the other attorneys pile instead of -- you know what I mean.
MR. GREGOR: Or it didn’t go through.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And the other thing that happens is like you
saw with Mr. Gardner, he got Bill’s report, they have been on the phone today
trying to iron out some details.
MR. GREGOR: Yeah.
MR. CHAIRMAN: If that paperwork would have gotten down
sooner, maybe something could have been presented a little more efficiently
this evening from their end.
MR. DASILVA: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is tough, it works both ways.
MR. DASILVA: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is a communication breakdown that time is
our enemy with this.
MR. DASILVA: And then on to my next pet project, the
application, I have been trying to keep tract of this and what is happening.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The application package.
MR. DASILVA: Have you guys received any information about
what the status is?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The only thing we know is that the Planning
Board looked at it, they have some comments.
MR. GRYGUS: We have not received those comments yet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we haven’t heard anything. Technically, we haven’t heard anything back
other than they did discuss things at the last Planning Board meeting. As far as the Mayor and Council, nothing has
come back to them to review.
MR. DASILVA: And that is the chain it is going to go to
them and then from the Mayor and Council to you?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we also want the Borough Attorney and the
two attorneys for the Boards to review this because we have to look at the
legal end of this. We put his together,
the Planning Board wants to throw a couple of things in, once all of these --
the novice play with it, we got to let the pros run through it, just make sure
we got everything right.
MR. GREGOR: Make sure it is enforceable.
MR. DASILVA: Yeah, I am just getting concerned because
April is the dead line apparently of making sure that the application works and
if we don’t start using it until March --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well we keep asking - we keep asking.
MR. DASILVA: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
The process is moving real slow.
MR. FAASSE: You know, we
shouldn’t have done what we did to Santoro because if that one keeps going we
will be here way into next December.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh yeah.
MR. FAASSE: Because the proposal was, except for pending
work in front of the Board --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well here is the thing, we have some other
ones coming in now, so April is -- whatever happens, we will still be
here.
MR. DASILVA: Well I am not convinced that there won’t be a
change in position on that whole idea.
MR. FAASSE: Well we heard that something will change in
the political makeup of the Board, too.
MR. DASILVA: So I heard.
MR. FAASSE: You never know.
MR. DASILVA: All right, thank you.
MR. FAASSE: We’ll have to go to those meetings and
quiz.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Monday night either you or I will address
that at the Mayor and Council meeting.
MR. DASILVA: I plan on it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. GRYGUS: Will you send us a report.
MR. FAASSE:
They don’t web cast those things yet, do they.
MR. GREGOR: No, not really.
MR. FAASSE: Mayor and Council meetings.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Don’t even start.
MR. LUDWIG: Don’t, don’t, Ralph, back away.
MR. FAASSE: Okay.
MR. GRYGUS: We could tell them we had an ordinance
meeting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I want to update the Board on that.
MR. GRYGUS: Oh, okay.
MR. FAASSE: All right, Resolutions there are none Mr.
Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, no Resolutions.
MR. FAASSE: Correspondence, I do believe we took care
of. Mr. Gregor swears he only has one
voucher tonight.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, which is laying here
somewhere.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Where is Bill’s voucher, I told him we
weren’t going to pay.
MS. MAROTTA: Ralph’s.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I got it.
MR. FAASSE: Oh Ralph’s, they said they are not going to
pay mine?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, that is another argument.
VOUCHERS:
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Bill has a voucher here for services
rendered on Mazar, which is the application we heard this evening. $495. I need a motion
on that.
MR. LUDWIG: Motion to accept.
MR. GRYGUS: Second
MR. CHAIRMAN: Second.
Roll Call?
MOTION TO APPROVE
MR. GREGOR’S VOUCHERS:
Made by Member
Ludwig, Seconded by Member Grygus. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members
Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.
MR. FAASSE:
Mr. Chairman, I would appreciate you directing the secretary to
communicate with the front office or the treasurer or whatever to the
certification that there are sufficient funds in this account after the payment
of Mr. Gregor’s voucher so I get to prepare a resolution and be paid for the
resolution.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
Barring that I will not prepare a resolution or an application in -- you
know.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, I also will bounce off this voucher with something. And Gerri you and I have to work this
out. We are going to establish something
which is going to give us an escrow report at every meeting because we have all
of these outstanding invoices that Bill has been hung out for five or six years
--
MS. MAROTTA:
I was just told today that Bill is being paid completely.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
No, no, forget that, forget it.
How we got there is the problem we are talking about it. The reason he is getting paid is another
issue, finally we won our battle. But in
order to avoid this, we need to get some feedback as to okay,
we put a voucher in, what is in the account.
So we need the treasurer to give us a feedback of what is in these
accounts. We -- you don’t know and we
don’t know.
MS. MAROTTA:
No, I have nothing to do with that.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
No, they have to provide that.
MS. MAROTTA:
Now what are we doing about Ralph’s voucher.
MR. GRYGUS:
And that is kind of what I am going to discuss. Regardless of what is in that account we are
still obligated to approve our invoices for our professionals.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, right.
MR. GRYGUS:
And that becomes the Borough’s issue.
Now but I could see Ralph’s point where we are simply not going to do
the resolution until --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, because --
MS. MAROTTA:
What resolution are you talking about?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Ralph’s resolution.
MR. GRYGUS:
Any resolution that is typed up.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
In every resolution Ralph’s put a standard closing,
that the Resolution is binding as long as all fees are paid.
MR. GRYGUS:
Right.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
And that has been my argument with the Mayor and Council folks that if
the people don’t pay the fees, the Resolution is dead,
tear the building done. It is very
simple, put a lien on the building.
MR. GREGOR:
Well it is easier just to not pay the professional.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, which has been an ongoing problem for a number
of years. Okay, just it has
festered to a point because of some head banging that some certain people don’t
get paid and some people do. This other
issue, do you want to -- we might as well bring that up too.
MR. FAASSE:
What is that?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
S.O.S.
MR. FAASSE:
Oh well -- you know -- we talked about it. I was notified what maybe two meetings ago,
that don’t have enough money. I have a
voucher here for $1,605, it was submitted on September 11th and they only have
a balance in the account of $1,245.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, so we are short $360. And
you haven’t gotten that money.
MR. FAASSE:
No, I didn’t even get the $1,245.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, okay.
MS. MAROTTA:
Well that is because this hasn’t been signed off yet.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
What do you mean signed off?
MS. MAROTTA:
I mean it hasn’t been submitted.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It was submitted.
MS. MAROTTA:
No, that is why she gave it to me.
This is an original. You have to
sign it.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
But we approved this, we approved this.
MS. MAROTTA:
When I handed this into her --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, you never had me sign it.
MS. MAROTTA:
Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
It’s signed.
MS. MAROTTA:
All right. They are going to send
you a check now Ralph for --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay, but we are also going to demand formal payment for the whole
amount because the agreement was one meeting which the attorney dragged out to
two meetings. So you can’t blame our
professionals and they shouldn’t take a pay cut because the application --
MR. GRYGUS:
Let’s not shoot the messenger.
Simply Gerri the word is when the Board certifies an invoice, the
Borough must pay it whether they have the money or not.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Right, right.
MR. GRYGUS:
It is the Borough’s responsibility to get the money not the Board’s.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
That is the actual law.
MR. GRYGUS:
That is cut and dry.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Very simple.
MR. GRYGUS:
And we can just add that on to the ones that we will be filing a lawsuit
over.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MR. FAASSE:
And in fairness to the front office, they have sent out letters
requesting money on other --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
All of a sudden, they are trying to collect, yes. Okay, approval of the minutes of our October
meeting.
MR. FAASSE:
They look good to me Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Yeah, I think we are in good shape.
You have a comment?
MS. MAROTTA:
Well you signed off on Ralph’s -- are we going to take a --
MR. CHAIRMAN:
We approved this awhile ago, we submitted this back in --
MR. FAASSE:
July the 11th.
MR. GRYGUS:
July 11th.
MR. FAASSE:
Should I charge interest?
MR. CHAIRMAN:
You are going to get a -- yeah you get a point in a half a month.
MR. GRYGUS:
I want to see what Bill’s interest is going to be from five or six
years.
MR. FAASSE:
Oh well, don’t get me going with that one will you.
MR. LUDWIG:
I want to make a motion to accept the wonderful minutes.
MR. GRYGUS:
I’ll second the wonderful minutes.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Okay.
MS. MAROTTA:
Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
We are good with the wonderful minutes.
The enginneer’s report, quickly?
MR. GRYGUS:
We need a vote -- we need a vote on that?
MS. MAROTTA:
Wait, we have to vote on that.
MR. CHAIRMAN:
Oh, I’m sorry, I’m trying to get out of here.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE OCTOBER MINUTES:
Made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes
were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning,
Willse, O’Hanlon.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay,
Engineer’s Report, we have one question.
MR. GREGOR: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Which, I
asked you earlier in the day. On Parsico (phonetic) --
MR. GREGOR: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -- which is
the Getty Gas Station.
MS. MAROTTA: Oh, I am
glad you said that. I have a whole bunch
of stuff here but I don’t know if you want me to pass it out.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don’t
want to pass it out yet.
MS. MAROTTA: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let’s
clarify where this is.
MS. MAROTTA: Because it
is not deemed complete yet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Okay, now did they pay their fees?
MS. MAROTTA: Yeah, they
got fees. I did collect the money on
them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Basically what Parsico is is the Getty Gas
Station. It is an application that was
submitted a year ago? Probably. Right, it was a year ago because it had --
MS. MAROTTA: It was quite
some time, I know that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It had an 06.
MR. FAASSE: I think my
copy has yellowed by now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Anyway, Jeff sent it to Bill, Bill deemed it
incomplete, we sent out the letters, he has heard from the people a few times,
they had a problem with the County they finally resolved the problem and now we
got a finalized drawing for Bill to review back which he received about maybe a
week or so or less.
MS. MAROTTA: No, more
than that.
MR. GREGOR: October 26th
it looks like I got it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay so say
a week and a half ago, 10 days ago when he received it. At this point, he is reviewing it to see if
it is still incomplete and what it is.
You have to send a letter back to those people.
MR. GREGOR: Yes. And my letter is going to recommend it
incomplete they haven’t addressed Item #1, #2 in my report, #4 and --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, and
that report is what February, January?
MR. GREGOR: That is
February 9th.
MR. CHAIRMAN: February
9th, okay.
MR. GREGOR: And there are
some additional things with information that they have provided. I realize that they haven’t provided
architecturals on the canopy, we have no idea how high it is.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. GREGOR: There are a
lot of things.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right,
okay, get the letter out to them please.
MR. GREGOR: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.
MR. GREGOR: The letter
will be going out to them probably the end of this week or early next week.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, the
other thing is discussion. Do you want
to start with the ordinance committee or I will.
MR. GRYGUS: Go ahead.
MR. CHAIRMAN: We had our
first meeting with the Ordinance Review Committee a week or two ago. Bruce and I attended; there was Gil Foulon
and Kevin Platt from the Planning Board.
Joe Fiorito, Rob Pettet, Jeff Brusco, Tom Carroll and --
MR. GRYGUS: Ed O’Connell.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ed wasn’t
there.
MR. GRYGUS: Yes he was.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No he
wasn’t. Ed wasn’t there.
MR. GRYGUS: No.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No.
MR. GRYGUS: I thought he
was, okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And the
professional.
MR. GRYGUS: The planner,
whoever that guy is, whoever he was.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ben Sicker
(phonetic) I think his name was.
Basically Jeff Brusco had produced a list of things that he felt were
extremely urgent to deal with and things he has a problem with dealing with
people coming in as far as people wanting to do certain things where he -- it
is a gray area of what to do, mainly it is a big problem with enforcement. Most of our ordinances he has problems
enforcing because they are very vague and antiquated. According to the expert, he is in full
agreement that we need a storm water management plan, we talked about that, we
talked about a lot of things. He is
going to come back with some suggestions and thoughts as to where to go with
this thing. So we finally, after 20
years of trying, have got movement on straightening out the ordinances to some
degree.
MR. GRYGUS: Jeff’s list
was pretty comprehensive because he had pretty much everything that Jack and I
had on list that we had generated. He
did a good job on it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So if he
goes with Jeff’s list and we talked about creating different business zones
maybe a professional zone in some parts of town, I think we had a good couple
of hours of discussion. Now we just got
to keep it moving forward, that is going to be the difficult thing I
think. If you gentlemen have any
suggestions or thoughts, just get them to me or Bruce and we’ll bring them to
the next meeting. We are still open to
help from the outside as to where to go with some of these difficult ordinances
and ordinances that you feel are totally outdated and how to deal with the --
the biggest problem is going to be how to deal with the R-10’s, 20’s, 15’s,
20’s, 30’s and 40’s. The thought was to
redo them as 5’s and 7 1/2’s, which is not going to work.
MR. GRYGUS: Well I think
we convinced them of that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, we
won the point on that. Now it is a
matter of how do you deal with it.
Change the bulk; change this; change that; these are things that they
are going to have to bang heads about.
It was a better meeting than I thought it would be, let’s put it that
way.
MR. FAASSE: Good.
MR. CHAIRMAN: A lot of
stuff got talked about. As far as the --
we got to talk to the Planning Board a little bit, they are in full agreement
with us that combining the Boards is a huge mistake. They are dead against it.
MR. GRYGUS: They want no
part of it at all.
MR. FAASSE: Really?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.
MR. FAASSE: Gee, isn’t
that interesting.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. GRYGUS: They don’t
want to get involved with the stuff that we get involved with at all.
MR. CHAIRMAN: They want
no part of that.
MR. GRYGUS: And they
don’t want any part of two nights a month either.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. FAASSE: Well I think
we have to adjourn now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything
else gentlemen? All
right. All in
favor of adjournment?
ALL MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. FAASSE: Everyone have a nice Thanksgiving.
CERTIFICATION
I, Joyce Fleming, the assigned transcriber, hereby
certify the foregoing transcript of proceedings is a true and accurate
non-compressed transcript of the proceedings recorded.
Signature
G & L Transcription of N.J.