Pleading Wizard

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 notice to the Suburban Trends and the Herald News on January 12, 2007. A copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk and posted on the bulletin board in Borough of Wanaque. 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, Attorney Ralph Faasse, Engineer William Gregor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Gerri. Okay, first application this evening that we are going to talk about is 23-06 which is Reality Associates, 547 Ringwood Avenue, it is on bulk and use variances. Counselor, I believe we have some communication.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, we have a letter from Mr. Chewcaskie dated December the 4th. This will serve to confirm my telephone conversation with Ralph Faasse, the Zoning Board Attorney, that the applicant Reality Associates Redevelopement LLC hereby consents to an extension of time for the Zoning Board of Adjustment to render a decision with respect to this matter until March 31st. Previously I sent a letter, faxed, requesting an adjournment to be carried until the January meeting and he was going to give us an extension through the end of that meeting I think.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well here it is through that meeting.

MR. FAASSE: No, no, no, no, no, no, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh the prior one.

MR. FAASSE: In fact before I received his first communication, I talked to him and I said don’t give us January because I said -- you know -- we could have snow and everything else as we had tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: So, I said give us at least 90 days and he said March. So he is asking for an adjournment today. Carry to, I guess, the meeting would be January 3?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The 2nd.

MS. MAROTTA: January 2nd.

MR. FAASSE: January 2nd. The extension is through March 31st, so we will have to notify him that it is the 2nd.

MR. LUDWIG: All right, I’ll make a motion to carry that to the January 2nd meeting.

MR. WILLSE: I’ll second it.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, roll call.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #23-06 TO JANUARY 2, 2008:

Made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Willse, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. So anyone here on Reality, that is carried until the January meeting. Okay. Next application is 03-07, which is the Santoro application. 1185 Ringwood Avenue, Site Plan, Use Variance and Bulk Variances. We have some communication.

MR. FAASSE: Do we -- did we get something on that Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: Yes, I got it today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You got it Gerri?

MR. FAASSE: All right, I had a conversation with Mr. La Sala when I hadn’t heard anything from him by Tuesday and he told me that he was going to send a note but I never saw a copy of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: You want me to take care of that one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, let’s see what we got here.

MR. FAASSE: December 5th, as you are aware this office represents the property owners with regard to the above captioned matter. After several discussions following our last appearance before the Board the clients have decided to withdraw their application. Accordingly the motion would be to dismiss the application without prejudice based upon the applicant withdrawing the application.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll make the motion to dismiss that application without prejudice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, a second on that?

MR. GRYGUS: I’ll second it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Roll call.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPLICATION #03-07 WITH PREJUDICE:

Made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Okay the next application we are moving to is 06-07 which is the Elmwood Application. 13 Maple Avenue, Minor Subdivision and Bulk Variance and also a Use Variance, they never added the use to that.

MS. MAROTTA: Oh, they didn’t?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. WALKER: Good evening, Michael Walker from the firm of Higgins and Walker on behalf of the applicant Elwood.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good evening.

MR. FAASSE: To just refresh our memory, he was here the last month, right?

MR. WALKER: He was, he was sworn in also.

MR. FAASSE: Your name is?

MR. DEAN: Jerry Dean.

MR. FAASSE: Dean and we swore you in last month and your oath continues tonight.

MR. DEAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: You understand, okay.

MR. WALKER: Actually, as of the last meeting, we had concluded presenting information. What we have done is there were several comments made by Mr. Gregor with respect to the application and the revisions of the plans. Those revised plans have been submitted to the Board and I am certain that the Board had the opportunity to review them. I believe they were dropped off at the Board’s office about two weeks ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um-hum.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah the last revision is 11/12/07?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um-hum.

MR. FAASSE: Everybody has that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, stamped by the Borough November 16th.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. WALKER: November 12, 2007.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. WALKER: And if we could just have those marked as part of the application. We have already presented all the evidence and the testimony that we are gong to present in connection with the application. Just to summarize very briefly if the Board would wish me to do so, I will certainly do that. But I believe as we indicated during the course of the presentation to the Board that this application is beneficial to the community. The site is particularly well suited for residential development. It is in an existing residential area. I know there has been certain issues raised with respect to run off and what have you. All the issues that have been raised in opposition to the application interesting enough would not be negatively affected by this particular proposal. If anything, I think it would be positive. Right now there is existing water problems in the area and that seems to be one of the main complaints. There is also complaints regarding the construction itself but there has been testimony by Mr. Dean what measures can be undertaken to elevate that. But the fact is that if anything, as a result of this proposed project, the problems with respect to water and drainage would be improved. It certainly would not have a negative impact and we would certainly anticipate that it would have a positive impact. I would also indicate that this is a Use Variance as the Board is well aware and, again, this development is very consistent with the area. We are looking at a small to midsize home essentially I think this is beneficial because it is more affordable to middle income families. The proposed use is certainly the best use of the property involved. It is beneficial to the surrounding business community in that, once again, you would have families moving in, it would benefit the surrounding business community as it within walking distance, quite a short walking distance to Ringwood Avenue and it would certainly be a tax writeable and it will increase and enhance the value of the surrounding properties. We certainly request and we certainly will respond to any other inquiries that the Board may have but we request that the Board consider the application which I know you have done and approve it. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: Mr. Chairman, I do have a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. GRYGUS: You had just indicated and I don’t believe that you submitted any documentation but you did just indicate that the proposed would improve the drainage situation. Are you stating that two houses would create less run off than one house, is that what you are stating?

MR. WALKER: Well I think what we are indicating is and Mr. Dean had indicated that there would be certainly no increase in the run off from the development to the property. It is not our position that the proposal would create less or more but it certainly would not create more. But you are talking about zero run off as a result of the development of this area but it certainly would not increase run off.

MR. GRYGUS: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions gentlemen? Are we done with the public?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, I don’t remember. I was just trying think of the same thing. Our minutes went to be transcribed.

MR. GRYGUS: I think we only opened it for questioning.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, I think so too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: I don’t think we ever open it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I think we have to have closing statements on this.

MR. FAASSE: I don’t think we opened it up to the public for statements one way or another.

MR. GRYGUS: No, we had questions.

MR. WALKER: I know you opened it up to the public on several occasions before.

MR. FAASSE: For questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For questions.

MR. WALKER: Oh, okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But at the end we let them come up and --

MR. WALKER: I though you did but perhaps I --

MR. GRYGUS: And I don’t know if we carried those or if we closed that.

MR. WALKER: Questions of Mr. Dean or?

MR. FAASSE: Pardon. No we had it for questions now this would be the public portion to make any comments on the application. Okay. Is there anyone from the public who wishes to be heard on this application?

MS. MAROTTA: You said we are opening it to the public?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, we opening it to the public for comments on the application now.

MR. FAASSE: And you are going to testify this time right?

MS. PETERSON: I was sworn in already.

MR. FAASSE: Well recent?

MS. PETERSON: I was.

MR. FAASSE: I don’t think so.

MR. GRYGUS: I don’t think so because you only had to give your name.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Well let’s cover it anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let’s play it safe.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

DONNA PETERSON SWORN:

MR. FAASSE: Okay, give us your full name; spell your last name and an address please.

MS. PETERSON: Donna Peterson P-E-T-E-R-S-O-N, 16 Maple Avenue, Haskell, New Jersey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MS. PETERSON: Basically you received my information that I sent including the tax map showing all the properties in the area. I am not really sure exactly at what point what to say anymore about this except that there are other properties that would also be within the same means of coming for a subdivision. The water situation has been an increased problem over the last maybe four years due to something in the area. I have lived there for 20 years and have not had this problem until recently. My question about who is going to be legally held responsible or is there any accountability should this building create more of a problem. The attorney here said that it is not going to. Is he the contractor, the property owner, are they willing to take responsibility to guarantee that there is not going to be any additional problems from this? Are they willing to put it in writing, carry an insurance policy or something because -- you know -- as a property owner and living here for 20 years I shouldn’t have to encounter any additional cost or expense or harm to my own property. Right now the water coming through flows through on a cement floor it doesn’t accumulate inches wise to like ruin the raised floor. It flows into the sump pump. The last rain that we had, that real heavy rain where the town had some flooding, I pumped out a flow not four feet of water it doesn’t flood like that; it is ground water. I literally think I pumped the dirt road water through the ground through my basement and I pumped for eight days from one rainstorm. So my concern and if this is not the right venue to present this, I need to know where else to go but there is a problem in the neighborhood over the last four years -- you know -- I wish I could fix it. I wish I could move if that were the last resort but what guarantee do I have as a property owner because I will not have money to afford to fix damages that might accrue for this. I am already -- you know -- I don’t what else to say about it; that is my concern. The town has set a lot size for new construction, I am requesting that the Board honor that at least to some point that there can be a resolution of what is happened in this neighborhood to cause this increased water to be accumulating in this area before you allow any additional construction. Thank you.

MR. WALKER: Okay, just very briefly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. WALKER: It is my understanding; I know that you have appeared at several meetings and you voiced which, obviously, is a very general concern of yours. As you indicated tonight, you have had -- you have water problems, you’ve had water problems in the basement; there are water problems in the surrounding area and they have existed for at least four years now.

MS. PETERSON: Right.

MR. WALKER: And this property has nothing at all to do with those water problems is that fair to say?

MS. PETERSON: But there is no existing home on that end lot and my concern is is that I don’t know what is under the ground, is there rock outcrop is there -- I don’t know what is going to happen. I don’t see that you could guarantee or you could possibly know what is under that ground and if there is any potential for it to cause more damage or more water. And if that is the case, who do I legally come to when I can’t afford to fix my home or I have mold coming because now my floors are saturated. So this is what I want to know is --

MR. WALKER: You understand that once this construction progress is in full force that the town is going to monitor it. That the applicant -- that the contractor is going to have to submit the plans and that there can be no increase to the water run off as a result of the project. Do you understand that?

MS. PETERSON: Then who do I come to if the water problem becomes worse?

MR. WALKER: Who do you go to right now? Is this the proper venue for you because you got water concerns right now?

MS. PETERSON: Right and I have already -- I have already contacted the Mayor and I have been writing to the Mayor and Council. I am dealing with it in another venue. I just want to hold up or stop a potential for more.

MR. WALKER: You may have -- you may have a benefit from this construction. Do you understand that?

MS. PETERSON: But that is what I am asking. You can’t guarantee that, you don’t know.

MR. WALKER: But they must -- you understand they must guarantee --

MS. PETERSON: Who is guaranteeing?

MR. WALKER: Let me finish. They must guarantee that there will be a zero increase in run off and that will be monitored by the Borough.

MS. PETERSON: Okay.

MR. WALKER: Do you understand that?

MS. PETERSON: Okay so then maybe put it on the record, tell me straight out who do I go to, do I come if I have a legal claim, do I come to the contractor because his building on that property is causing me harm? Do I go back to the current owner? Do I come in and try to sue the town for damages? Who is responsible if this causes more damage?

MR. WALKER: The question is the same right now. Who do you go to, who do you address?

MS. PETERSON: So you are telling me that I come to the Board and I sue the town.

MR. WALKER: If there is something that is done and the builder does not do something that is consistent with what the town requires --

(Audio Skipped)

MR. WALKER: In fairness maybe Mr. Faasse can answer that but in fairness to everybody right now she has problems right now, she does, and she has certainly substantial problems with water. Our position is that this application has nothing to do with that. If anything, now the Borough has some control over this particular lot because they have to see engineering plans, they have to know where the storm drainage is going. So to some extent, if anything, it may help alleviate the problem.

MS. PATERSON: It may, it may help.

MR. WALKER: It will not make it worse and that is the best the town can do.

MS. PATERSON: See the words that you are using is what concerns me. You guaranteed that there will be no additional problem. You are saying that it is not going to -- I don’t understand how you can say these -- use these definitive words to guarantee it. It is not a guarantee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The statement was really; there is no increase in the run off that exists now.

MS. PATERSON: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is just saying what is going to come off the property in normal rain so.

MS. PATERSON: I also had a question and maybe the engineer can answer me this. The flooding, the water that is coming into the property, it is not because it is so deep that it is coming in over the windows, it is ground water. Now they mentioned about sinking tanks into the ground.

MR. GREGOR: Um-hum.

MS. PETERSON: If they sink tanks into the ground do those tanks flow the water to Ringwood Avenue or does that water just accumulate and saturate the ground water anyway?

MR. GREGOR: What?

MS. PATERSON: Is it really alleviating a problem by sinking a tank.

MR. GREGOR: Let me try to answer your question. Since they have not submitted a design they spoke and testified about seepage pits. Seepage pits recharge the water back into the ground water and add to the existing ground water. What they are proposing to do, as the attorney explained, is to have a zero net increase in the rate of water leaving the site. There will be more water leaving the site than leaves it now because it is now open field. They are going to put a house or two houses on there, is what they are proposing, with the associated driveways and concrete. That water would normally run off into the street. What they are required to do is to make sure that the water that initially soaked into the ground will continue to soak into the ground, that is the reason they are using seepage pits. They are increasing the run off but they are decreasing the rate of run off. The run off is now being put back into the ground not running into the street. That is what they are proposing as I understand their proposal. Again, it was verbal so I am doing my best to reiterate what they have stated.

MR. FAASSE: The net zero increase is only on the rate not the quantity.

MR. GREGOR: That is right, the rate and that is the rate leaving the property.

MR. LUDWIG: And another thing if I can speak out of turn here, I am not an engineer but I have been a builder for a good many years. Your house is across the street basically.

MS. PETERSON: Correct.

MR. LUDWIG: The pits that they are talking about putting in, I don’t know how deep your foundation goes, are going to be below the level of the existing elevation that is there. If I had to guess I would say that the bottom of the pit would probably be at about 8 foot depending upon what size tank he puts in. So the water is not going to be at the same level. They probably actually, if it is ground water, pick up ground water from up the hill. And as far as you being concerned about once they leave, the engineer has Completed Operations and Errors and Admissions Insurance. If he designs something that didn’t work, that is who they go after. The builder has got, should have, Competed Operations Insurance on his business. I know I carry it on my own. And that is what -- he could walk away from it but that insurance company is still liable for that forever is my understanding.

MS. PETERSON: How do I document what exists now versus if something happens and additional water comes in? How do I document that that this is what exists now and now it has increased and additional? How do I represent that?

MR. LUDWIG: That is going to be hard unless you get an engineer in there.

MR. FAASSE: You are never going to be able to duplicate the two scenarios, before and after. You are just never going to be able to.

MR. KONING: As he said, something has changed in the past four years as it is.

MS. PETERSON: Yes and I am trying to --

MR. KONING: What caused that, that is the same thing, you know.

MS. PETERSON: Well I have some guesses but I am not an expert to know what happened. There is only two things that I know of that have changed in the area so whether that is the case or not and I have communicated that to the Mayor in several letters. I haven’t gotten any response.

MR. GREGOR: Are there any water stains on the walls inside the basement of your foundation?

MS. PETERSON: There is like silt and stuff that comes in, I guess the soil is very sandy. So as it comes through, it comes through the back corner of the house and then it just flows in.

MR. GREGOR: Usually, fortunately, you probably never been in a situation of being in a house with a basement that has been under water for a while.

MS. PETERSON: No, no.

MR. GREGOR: You can always see like a high tide line if you will on the wall.

MS. PETERSON: No, no, it doesn’t get depth -- you know -- it maybe is like this deep -- you know -- and it flows through and the house is pitched so that it goes. Luckily I have my furnace on a pad, a raised pad, so it doesn’t effect the furnace and then the next room over has like maybe a four inch -- maybe a three inch raised wooden floor and the water flows under that to the sump pump. But I can’t pump it out the sump pump -- oh my gosh, you don’t even need to hear all of this. But the situation is that the only way for me to get rid of the water is to run hoses out my front basement window across the street to the other side which would be to his or their property to let the water flow down Maple Avenue to finally get to Ringwood Avenue. Because if I pump it out the main sump pump hole without redirecting it, it goes right back to the dirt road and it is just a vicious circle and I will be just circulating water forever. So the only way for me to get that water out is to run a hose, the town has kindly even given me my own cone, so that I put it in the street and run the hose, the piece of plastic, across the road so that people don’t drive over it and I have to literally flow that water down to Ringwood Avenue to their curbing.

MR. WALKER: You find that when you pump it on to the property that is the subject of this application, it is less likely to flow back into your home?

MS. PETERSON: Could you repeat that?

MR. WALKER: When you pump it across the street onto this property, is it less likely to flow back into your home?

MR. FAASSE: I don’t think she said she pumps it onto the property, she pumps it into the --

MS. PETERSON: To the road, I have to -- I get the hose --

MR. WALKER: Across the road though.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MS. PETERSON: I do, I put it over the crown of the road so that --

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. WALKER: Right across the streets, okay, on the side of the street where this property is.

MS. PETERSON: The hose is in the middle of the road, yeah.

MR. WALKER: It is less likely to flow back into your property if that is the case if you pump in that direction.

MS. PETERSON: Right, because it makes no sense to let it flow on my side of the road because it only goes right back to the dirt road. I need to get it over the center of the road so that it flows.

MR. WALKER: The flow of the water to the best of your understanding from the other side of road does it flow down the block away from your property?

MS. PETERSON: Yes but it goes right through the front, I don’t know what your driveway situation but I don’t think that is going to make a difference but that is the situation now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is an issue for the Borough Engineering Department, not this Board.

MS. PETERSON: Do you have the person’s name?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Borough Engineer is Mike Cristaldi.

MR. COVELLI: Mr. Gregor?

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. COVELLI: I am going to ask this question while Ms. Peterson is standing here. In your November 21st letter to us --

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. COVELLI: -- with regard to your review of this application.

MR. FAASSE: I’m sorry, November 21st?

MR. GREGOR: November 21st.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MR. GREGOR: When Ralph wrinkles his nose I just got to make sure I got the right letter in front of me.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. GREGOR: All right, I got the right letter. I don’t want Ralph wrinkling his nose at me.

MR. COVELLI: Number 15.

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. COVELLI: Could you read that please?

MR. GREGOR: Number 15, a storm water management plan and calculation should be a condition of any action by the Board to address the increase of storm water run off resulting from the increase in impervious area from any proposed construction on these lots. No Storm Water Management Plan has been provided.

MR. COVELLI: Okay, so I asked him to read that for two reasons. One is because you made a statement that to be honest with you I think certainly took me back a little bit that, of course, there is going to be an increase in run off whether it leaves the property or not is another story. There will be an increase in run off because there is an increase in impervious surface. But you made the statement and I am not going to mince the words, I don’t remember exactly how you worded it but the point of the story is just so that people here are clear, obviously, when you take something that is impervious surface, the undisturbed land, and add a home with roofs and gutters and driveways and concrete did you just say that before --

MR. GREGOR: Yeah.

MR. COVELLI: -- you are going to increase the run off. Now how you handle it on the property before it leaves the property is another story. But you can’t make the statement that there is not an increase in run off. But I am not sure what your wording was so that is why I am raising the question.

MR. WALKER: Well I think that Mr. Gregor has already addressed that issue and what we will be doing is controlling the run off on the property. And I wasn’t certain of your inquiry Mr. Gregor before but it was my understanding that if the Board was going to consider this application for approval, in that case it is a condition of that approval.

MR. COVELLI: The Board is considering it for approval. We are considering it for approval.

MR. WALKER: Yeah, I understand that but as a condition of that, okay, we would have to submit a storm water management plan.

MR. COVELLI: Including calculations.

MR. WALKER: Including calculations but that would be only if it was approved not prior to the approval process.

MR. LUDWIG: And that storm water management plan would be to capture all water that lands on the property and prevent it from leaving the property in a heavy flow.

MR. WALKER: That would be my understanding.

MR. GREGOR: Zero run off, that is what they have now is zero run off.

MR. LUDWIG: Zero that departure from the property.

MR. GREGOR: Right.

MR. COVELLI: Ms. Peterson, to your knowledge, you have lived across the street from the property and it has been -- I don’t know how long it has been it its current state, but have you seen water during a heavy storm run off the property?

MS. PETERSON: Maybe off of the side street where the rock is because the way the street is it kind of like pitches down. Their hill kind of has rocks and a driveway on the side, so that water comes down, puddles a little bit on their corner but because of the angle of the street it goes across that -- it is like a, not really a cul-de-sac but it is not a T or a cross intersection, it just goes around the curve. So when it comes off of that property and it flows that way, it goes across the street on the bend that is on my side, accumulates there and flows onto -- you know -- some goes on to my property and a lot of it goes down and goes on to that dirt road and puddles right off of the front corner of my property.

MR. COVELLI: There was a house on the property at one time.

MR. WALKER: There have been houses on the property, correct.

MR. COVELLI: Do we know what happened to the house?

MR. WALKER: The house was torn down. How long ago, Mr. Owens, was the house torn down? How long ago was the house removed from the property?

MR. OWENS: Three years, about three years.

MR. WALKER. About three years.

MR. OWENS: They said that there was water in there that it is built up in that old ware wolf den. The ware wolf den is lower than our property.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can’t take testimony from the audience like that. Okay.

MR. WALKER: You can have the opportunity to speak later.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ms. Peterson do you have any other comments on this?

MS. PETERSON: Just to ask the Board to consider the situation and if --

MR. LEONARD: Can I ask -- you said there were two conditions that you think caused -- made the situation worse now, what are those two conditions?

MR. GREGOR: Well they had nothing to do with this application.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Well he has a curiosity.

MS. PETERSON: One potential I think one of the reasons might be that there is a property off of North Maple closer to Orchard Street and the property owner put up a two story garage so one of the things that I was thinking is maybe when he dug his foundation for that two story garage there is from -- this kind of like right at the base of the water company where the water company property runs down like that slope that end of Orchard Street, there is house way in the back, they actually have a pipe that runs across the whole length of 18 Orchard Street and it would go to his property. So I am thinking that maybe there was a natural run off from that area that maybe his building maybe deferred the water run off. That was one possibility. The other possibility is the guy who is diagonally across from their property, he owns that 700 foot lot, he has 117 feet across the front of his property and yet he brought in tons of dirt and leveled that whole piece of the water company’s property, New Jersey Water Company, he leveled it out and that was kind of like a gully and that could be the other problem that by him filling in that natural run off, now the water doesn’t have -- it use to go through there and come back into like that little swampy area on that property. So those are the two things that I have noticed and that guy keeps bringing dirt onto his property, raising, raising, raising, so. I don’t know if that is the --

MR. LUDWIG: Have you brought that to the Borough’s attention?

MS. PETERSON: I have. I spoke directly to the Mayor. He came and was on site looking at the area and I pointed out the circumstances to him. But I haven’t heard anything back. The only thing that he told me was that because of the pitch of the street, there was no way to put in any kind of drainage to alleviate the run off because our street is lower than the pipe in Ringwood Avenue. So really no resolution, no suggestion for any kind of relief. I am not trying to prevent these people from doing what they want to do, all I am trying to do is to try to find out a resolution either what is going on with the property now and not to have additional -- you know -- right now I can manage it. The water comes in, I have to pump it, I have to be up, I have to take days off of work to make sure that I am rotating the sump pumps. I just would like to find if there is some resolution that can come out of it before additional problems are created so that I don’t incur more problems with the water.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is more of an issue for the Borough not his Board.

MS. PETERSON: I am standing in front of you the same way that I addressed them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But they control --

MR. LUDWIG: Didn’t you testify though that when you pump it out across the street to the crown in the road it runs down to Ringwood Avenue?

MS. PETERSON: It does.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is pitched that way but then the street comes up like this to Ringwood Avenue.

MR. LUDWIG: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So it doesn’t --

MS. PETERSON: The water goes across the crown, I am the first house, it goes across the crown, it runs the entire length of Maple Avenue --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MS. PETERSON: -- down to the drainage on the corner. I can’t even run it down my own side of the street because my neighbors are also low and the one time that I did put it down, I was putting all the water into my neighbor’s driveway. So I have to crown it over the top of the street, you know.

MR. GRYGUS: You said the corner; you mean the corner of Ringwood Avenue?

MS. PETERSON: Yes, that is the only place that there is a storm drain unless you go all the way over, two and a half, three blocks away to where the Police Chief lives, there is like four storm drains, that is the next closest storm drain. Well thank you for your time.

MR. GRYGUS: Thank you for your testimony.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any one else have any statements on this?

MS. RAOUL: I really have more of a question but I will be happy to -- whatever you need me to do.

MR. FAASSE: Well if it is only a question; you are not going to testify?

MS. RAOUL: Well have a couple of facts if that would be appropriate now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let’s swear you in and make it legal.

SUZANNE GARDELLA RAOUL SWORN:

MR. FAASSE: Give us your full name, spell your last name and an address.

MS. RAOUL: Okay. Suzanne Gardella Raoul R-A-O-U-L. I am here representing my mother Gloria Gardella, 28 Maple Avenue. Mr. Dunning, I think, understands what this lady just said. This is just a clarification of point is that both Maple Avenue and Orchard Street, which is directly parallel, are lower as you go towards the railroad bed and since they have redone Ringwood Avenue in recent years, Ringwood Avenue is higher so none of that water flows anywhere near towards Ringwood Avenue and that is why this lady has a problem. It all stays at that end because there are no drains, there is just a catch basin and once the catch basin becomes filled there is no way to pump the water from that far end of the streets, both streets, up to Ringwood Avenue. So it all pools down there. Also as a point of clarification, my family has lived at 28 Maple Avenue since 1965 and we didn’t just have these problems in recent years, I have photos home and I’m sorry I didn’t think about even bringing them but of water that has laid in that area where the old railroad bed was and where Hackensack Water owns now, in the general area sort of across the street from these folks and Ms. Peterson as well, there has been water there for years at varying degrees of difficulty. How it has affected all the homeowners, I am not really sure. I am sure that some of them, a lot of them, have sump pumps even over as far as Orchard and back towards Maple but it has been a problem that has been there for many years and I am sure that every time there has been some sort of building or improvements of someone, no matter what it was, it has effected that. So that is just a point of clarification. I just want to ask a question. Number 15 that Mr. Covelli brought up on the report from the engineer mentioned about considering the storm water management plan. Yet I believe I understood correctly that right now the Board of Adjustment is not considering a storm water management plan because none has been submitted. Is that correct?

MR. GREGOR: No, no.

MS. RAOUL: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: My report recommends --

MS. RAOUL: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: -- recommends that the Board if they propose a favorable motion --

MS. RAOUL: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: -- that this be made a condition of any application, any approval of the Board.

MS. RAOUL: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: So that is my recommendation.

MS. RAOUL: Right, I understand that.

MR. GREGOR: What the Board is going to do --

MR. LUDWIG: Just like we did with your house on Father Hayes.

MS. RAOUL: I understand that.

MR. LUDWIG: We said if you built the house you had to put the --

MS. RAOUL: I think that what I am asking I guess is that there is --

MR. LUDWIG: So you should be familiar with that.

MS. RAOUL: -- no visual plan. Right now it is just a plan. That plan could be anything, correct, because you don’t have a specific plan.

MR. GREGOR: It has to be reviewed --

MS. RAOUL: You are just suggesting a plan.

MR. GREGOR: Excuse me, it has to be -- it will have to be reviewed and approved by my office, that is my recommendation.

MS. RAOUL: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: The Board has not required that as of yet because they have not -- that is my recommendation to the Board.

MS. RAOUL: I gotcha.

MR. LUDWIG: We don’t know what sort of house he is going to build.

MS. RAOUL: Sure.

MR. LUDWIG: And how much roof it is going to have.

MS. RAOUL: Okay.

MR. LUDWIG: That is all going to have to be factored in.

MS. RAOUL: Okay.

MR. LUDWIG: Like I said when you put your house up --

MS. RAOUL: When you see what is going to -- okay.

MR. LUDWIG: -- we requested your engineer supply us with the calculations as to how much water and then you -- I assume you put the storm water management back in.

MS. RAOUL: Yes we did. It was done during the construction phase.

MR. LUDWIG: That is not up to us, once we do it, it is up to the building inspector and the engineers in town to make sure you did it.

MS. RAOUL: Yes it was done during the construction phase and then building inspector came back and checked it and approved it before it before it was filled in.

MR. LUDWIG: But you came in with a specific plan.

MS. RAOUL: Right.

MR. LUDWIG: Whereas he is coming in basically with an idea for a couple of houses and it make dictate -- you know -- whatever it is most marketable at the time --

MS. RAOUL: Correct.

MR. LUDWIG: -- as to what design he is going to go with.

MS. RAOUL: All right, okay, that is fair enough.

MR. LUDWIG: The engineer is going to have to base his calculations on what he builds.

MS. RAOUL: On that, okay. And I have only one other question and that is before you decide to put the motion on the floor, before your vote and if you would repeat for us in the audience, I am just looking to see what our original letter said and I would like to know what number and how many variances or exceptions you are going to be approving in whatever the motion is because here it says lot area, lot width, lot depth, front yard setback, use variances, any other variances, if you could be specific and just let me know what all of those things are that you will or will not be approving.

MR. LUDWIG: As part of any approvals we just about --

MR. RAOUL: I mean you covered everything here but I don’t know if there are specifics that you are going to be voting on or maybe you don’t do that with a footprint, I don’t know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That will all come out as we move on.

MS. RAOUL: So just so that I could understand that it is like this. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anyone else in the public have any statements on this application? Seeing or hearing none, we close the public portion.

MR. KONING: I would just like to briefly comment. This is to the concerns of those who have testified tonight, there seems to be a genuine problem with the water in the area. And, again, all of the testimony seems to indicate that it is generated from areas other than this lot and it seems to be somehow connected to perhaps the construction that was done on Ringwood Avenue. That is Ringwood Avenue was raised, therefore, the water that use to flow up in that direction now comes to a standstill and goes into a storm water drain which apparently doesn’t go too far. But in any case, I think they have valid complaints. I don’t think it impact upon this application. I think the Board has listened to testimony from the applicant from those who have testified and asking questions and we don’t have anything that we can offer on this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we are ready to move on this.

MR. FAASSE: We have to figure out who is entitled to vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, now we have heard -- I think you have been here three times.

MR. WALKER: That is correct.

MR. FAASSE: What were they, November -- October - November.

MR. WALKER: The testimony would have been October, November and December.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Now who is qualified to vote on this? All right, we have three here, three, seven, so we have seven members.

MR. FAASSE: All right so Frank is the only one that --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Frank hasn’t caught up to the tape on this one.

MR. FAASSE: Okay so then Frank will not be participating.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, gentlemen we need a motion on this application.

MR. LUDWIG: Are you figuring out how many variances are needed Bruce?

MR. GRYGUS: There are seven that I count.

MR. GREGOR: It is all in my report.

MR. LUDWIG: Do you have them all --

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, we have them -- the variances that are required I think are listed in Mr. Gregor’s report. Now we have the November 21st one. All right, it would be --

MR. LUDWIG: I got it.

MR. FAASSE: If you are going to do a motion that is going to be in favor of it would be for the subdivision and then the variances as listed in the report plus the use variance. Does he have that? I don’t think is listed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It might be in the file. It is number 2, we talked about it.

MR. FAASSE: Well he is saying that it is my advice and that was determined by the Borough.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But that is the main focus is the use variance to start with.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. LUDWIG: 7 wasn’t one, 8 is one, 10 is one, 11, 15 has this one here. It doesn’t give the amount.

MR. GREGOR: It is 7.

MR. FAASSE: Okay because it is different, okay.

MR. FAASSE: Some of those were broken into sub-paragraphs.

MR. LUDWIG: Yup.

MR. GRYGUS: So I have eight then.

MR. LUDWIG: Actually maybe it is just as easy to read the whole thing.

MR. GRYGUS: What was that?

MR. LUDWIG: I said maybe it is just as easy to read the whole thing.

MR. GRYGUS: I am counting eight, it is seven plus the use.

MR. LUDWIG: One, two, three, four, five, six, seven --

MR. GRYGUS: This one, that’s eight.

MR. LUDWIG: No, that is this. That ties in with this one.

MR. FAASSE: All right, so we got lot area, both lots. Right.

MR. GRYGUS: According to Bill’s report it would be number 6, 8 through 11, 13 and 14 and the use.

MR. GREGOR: Right.

MR. FAASSE: 8 through 11, 13 and 14, right.

MR. GRYGUS: And the use.

MR. FAASSE: And the use. Here you go.

MR. LUDWIG: Now where is the use listed on here?

MR. GRYGUS: In number 2, it is a gray area.

MR. GREGOR: There is a lot in here, I’m sorry, I didn’t organize it for a motion.

MR. LUDWIG: Yeah, I know.

MR. GRYGUS: You got it, go.

MR. FAASSE: It is lot width and front yard on both.

MR. LUDWIG: Yeah, I think.

MR. FAASSE: And the specifics there.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll make a motion to approve this application for a density variance, including a use variance with the following specific items: Proposed Lot 15 needs a variance of 1,241.56 square feet. Lot 15 also will require a variance for lot depth of 25 feet. Lot 16 will require a variance for lot area of 2,590.98 square feet. Proposed Lot 16 will require a variance for lot width of 1.75 feet.

MR. GREGOR: That is the variances required.

MR. LUDWIG: Yes, that is what I said.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MR. LUDWIG: I thought I said that. Proposed Lot 16 will require a variance for lot depth of 25 feet. Proposed Lot 15 is going to require a front yard setback of 20 -- no a variance of 10 feet, for both front yards and I think that’s --

MR. GREGOR: No that is 16.

MR. LUDWIG: Huh?

MR. GREGOR: Front yard variance for Lot 16.

MR. LUDWIG: Oh for both front yards on that one and proposed Lot 16 is requiring a variance of 10 feet --

MR. GREGOR: For one front yard.

MR. LUDWIG: -- for one front yard. Okay. And the condition that a storm water management plan and calculations should be a condition of any action of the Board to address increase storm water run off resulting from the increase in impervious area from any proposed construction on these lots.

MR. LEONARD: I’ll second it.

MR. GREGOR: You have to repeat it if you second it.

MR. LEONARD: I will if you want me to, it will just take awhile.

MS. MAROTTA: Who made the second, Eric?

MR. GRYGUS: No, Ed.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay.

MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION #06-07:

Made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Leonard, voting no were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman.

Voting yes were members Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse.

MR. FAASSE: Okay I have 4 in favor; 3 against.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 4 to 3.

MR. FAASSE: Since it is a use variance we would need five affirmative votes to carry it. So the application has been denied.

MR. WALKER: As I have indicated to the Board at the outset we had indicated our exception to the Board’s decision with respect to -- but we proceeded before the Board and we had reserved our right with respect to that Mr. Faasse as you recall but I certainly thank the Board for its consideration.

MR. FAASSE: Mr. Walker that is your right, we understand what you did and you did your best to protect your client and we appreciate that.

MR. WALKER: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Now are going to take a five minute recess. If you want to get set up here in those five minutes, we would appreciate that and then we can move on.

RECESS

MS. MAROTTA: Okay, we are on.

MR. KONING: We are missing somebody. We are missing one.

MS. MAROTTA: Who left, Eric?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Eric has gone.

MR. FAASSE: While for the record Eric has recused himself on this particular application.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Eric has recused himself. So he decided to leave.

MS. MAROTTA: So he left at what time, say 9 o’clock?

MR. CHAIRMAN: 9 o’clock, give him a break, 9 o’clock.

MR. FAASSE: He didn’t stay around for the good part.

MR. GRYGUS: Yeah, make it 9 o’clock so you round out his pay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, he only gets one hour, make sure you put that in. Okay, now we are going to go to 07-07 the Staropoli Application, 1283 Ringwood Avenue. It is a minor subdivision and a use variance. Counselor are you ready?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Good evening everyone, Alfred Acquaviva on behalf of the applicant. Just briefly, we have taken testimony back on October 3rd, I guess the first meeting in October. When we appeared in November, we weren’t reached and, at that time, on November 6th we were provided with the final review I guess of Mr. Gregor which we have had a chance to look at and which Mr. Darmstatter has reviewed. Just briefly, when we completed the testimony back on the 3rd of October, there were five issues that were basically pointed out by the Board and by Mr. Gregor, I just wanted to comment on those, very briefly, and then I would like to recall Mr. Darmstatter to address not only those issues but issues that Mr. Gregor raised in his November 6th letter. When we concluded our meeting back on October 3rd the issues that I basically came up with after the meeting was there five. One was the Board seemed to lean toward making a condition, if there was an approval, that there would be no parking in Ricker Street, which we don’t have a problem with. We don’t have any comments on it, we are not going to take a position on it either way. The second comment also dealt with the street and the maintenance of the street after the approval. Mr. Gregor basically recommended that the street be offered to the Borough for maintenance if the application was approved. Again, we are in agreement with that and obviously we will make whatever application needs to be made to the council if this application is approved. The other point that Mr. Gregor pointed out at that meeting was that he wanted a revised site plan and a survey reflecting the survey revisions through April 13th. Mr. Darmstatter submitted that and we have a revised plan dated October 15th, which was submitted. The other issue that we are going to address, we will address tonight is basically the design parking area with the adequately sized spaces. But that issue as well as a couple of others were reflected in Mr. Gregor’s November 6th letter and that is what we are prepared to -- Mr. Darmstatter is prepared to give testimony on tonight. Just one other point, one of the major concerns was also the turn around radius at the end to Ricker Street and what we were requested to do, which we did do, was get letters from the First Aid Squad, the Police Department and the Fire Department, which we did get. There are three letters, I believe you have them all, if not I do have a copy. And they were all were --

MR. FAASSE: Do we have them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: They didn’t really address any concerns with that. So without any other delay I would like to call Mr. Darmstatter to testify in response to points made in Mr. Gregor’s letter of November 6th.

MR. FAASSE: All right and his oath will continue, right Mr. Darmstatter.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Excuse me.

MR. FAASSE: The oath?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Yes, he is sworn in.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Yeah, I was sworn in. Do you want to swear me in again?

MR. FAASSE: No, no, no. Your oath continues, I just want the record to reflect that.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Yes, yes, I realize I’m sworn.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just so we are all on the same drawing, Bill, what is the correct revision date of the drawing?

MR. DARMSTATTER: The last revised date is October 15, 2007.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: That is correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Which is the Borough Stamp of October 22nd.

MR. FAASSE: Correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: All right everybody is on the same page here.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Then in reference to Mr. Gregor’s Nov0mber 6th report which is just prior to that last meeting. I am just going to touch on the items of concern which I think need to be addresses and the Board can ask any questions from that point on. Item 4 talks about the parking spaces labeled as 9 by 18, those are existing parking spaces. Actually some of them are only 16 feet deep but Mr. Gregor asked that they be expanded to 18. They will all wind up to be 9 by 18. 9 foot is generally the minimum width and 18 is generally the minimum depth of most parking spaces. And as I said, they are existing and we feel that those are adequate. Item 5 has to do with --

MR. GREGOR: Excuse me Mr. Darmstatter if I may.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Sure.

MR. GREGOR: Just so we don’t skim over it. I also, I recommended -- I mentioned in that Item 4 the parking spaces and aisle widths.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Right, I was going to jump to aisle widths in Item 5 because we’ll cover it there a little more.

MR. GREGOR: Very good.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Okay. Aisle widths are really addressed Item 5 where Mr. Gregor is recommending additional widening. If you recall, the county required us to widen it to 24 feet for the first 50 feet, then the actual existing aisle width tapers from between 16 to 18 feet to get to the back. I spoke with the applicant about this. He has been using that driveway and those parking spaces were used by a residence and a store prior to over the last several years. Having two apartments there would certainly be less traffic. He feels that that is adequate, however, if it was a problem with the Board the applicant would be willing to do it but at this point he would rather just leave it at the existing width; he feels that is satisfactory for his use. Next would be to jump to Item 7. This has to do with existing parking in the back. We are not adding parking spaces to the back, what we are is just delineating, that is existing asphalt. There would be no NJDEP Permit required for the existing condition that encroaches into the buffer there. We are just proposing to paint those spaces so that it is clearly delineated and that is where the applicant now presently parks his commercial vehicles.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Darmstatter I have reviewed the surveys that you submitted and referenced in the site plan and if you look at the survey that you referenced there is a pavement detail.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Let me find it.

MR. GREGOR: Certainly. This is -- I just want to make sure that you are clear on what I was referring to.

MR. DARMSTATTER: I want to make sure I had the right one. Okay I have Mr. Miceli’s survey in front of me.

MR. GREGOR: Okay. And you see on the left hand side of his survey, you see a pavement detail?

MR. DARMSTATTER: Left hand side of the survey, yeah I see his pavement detail but the survey itself is different and what is physically out there is different.

MR. GREGOR: And when I look at your site plan I see something different than that.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Right I see the pavement detail I think he failed to modify that correctly if you look at the survey itself it is consistent except for he has a bulge and that bulge actually does not exist. What you see on my site plan I physically measured and went out and checked and that was fairly consistent with what he has on the survey plan itself, it is not in the pavement detail.

MR. GREGOR: Okay, so unfortunately I don’t any --

MR. DARMSTATTER: But I understand what you are saying.

MR. GREGOR: Unfortunately dimensions, but it appears that you are squaring this off.

MR. DARMSTATTER: We are not squaring it off, that is the way it exists.

MR. GREGOR: All right. That creates a bit of a problem because we got a document which is a signed and sealed survey --

MR. DARMSTATTER: Right.

MR. GREGOR: -- which shows something different that the signed and sealed site plan.

MR. DARMSTATTER: You actually got three in front of you. You have his pavement detail; you have his survey portion which differ from what my site plan has.

MR. GREGOR: Yup.

MR. DARMSTATTER: And I said the main difference between his survey and our site plan is only -- he has a little bulge out there and that little bulge doesn’t exist.

MR. GREGOR: All right.

MR. DARMSTATTER: But basically --

MR. GREGOR: I don’t care how we resolve this but obviously I have no problem if you are stating that what is on your site plan is what exists on the site.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Correct.

MR. GREGOR: I have no problem with that but I am going to need some documentation for the file to correct --

MR. DARMSTATTER: What you would like us to do is have Mr. Miceli go out and check it.

MR. GREGOR: We need the drawings --

MR. FAASSE: Yeah confirm what you did is right.

MR. GREGOR: We need the drawings to agree.

MR. DARMSTATTER: I have confirmed it a couple of times.

MR. FAASSE: I am pretty positive you have so we got to get --

MR. DARMSTATTER: By way of a letter or by way of a new survey, what would you prefer?

MR. GREGOR: What I would like to do is to have the survey and the site plan agree.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Be consistent, okay.

MR. GREGOR: Because obviously five years from now somebody is not going to look for a letter they are going to look at these drawings.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Okay, that is reasonable.

MR. GREGOR: And it might be a good idea when you do that to respond to my letter of November 7th and indicate that no new pavement, just so it is clear.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Okay, all right.

MR. GREGOR: If that is your intention. I am not telling you what you are proposing but if that is your intention as you have stated, fine.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Okay, that would be fine. The next item of concern is Item 14 which has to do with the utilities that service the proposed single family dwelling that we going. Now we can certainly extend the mains up Ricker Place but those mains would be -- you know -- 8 inch lines with manholes to service our single family dwelling and what happens is the municipality is then going to be responsible for maintaining those mains. Since the only building that is going to be serviced is our single family dwelling running the private lines in there, which would be more reasonable and certainly less costly to the applicant, and then they would be maintained privately. So in my opinion it is better to have the private lines in there that the applicant will maintain rather than install a public line that is only going to service this lot which then the municipality will have to maintain at some point in time. So in my opinion, the way we have it on our plan is better. If it is a condition of approval that the Board requires us to extend the mains, we can do that but to me it doesn’t make a lot of sense.

MR. COVELLI: Mr. Darmstatter, what if these lots were subdivided in the future?

MR. DARMSTATTER: That would be up to the Board and anybody who want to try and subdivide it in the future. They would have to come before the Board to do something like that.

MR. COVELLI: I understand that but the point is that then the utilities become part of the issue because now they have to be rerouted or there has to be easements formed to maintain the existing.

MR. DARMSTATTER: The two existing lots and then the hopefully future single-family dwelling would be fully improved at this point. There would be no other land to improve.

MR. COVELLI: No but the new --

MR. KONING: You are not saying it right. You got this guys property with stuff on his property.

MR. COVELLI: What if the applicant sold off, what if he didn’t control both properties?

MR. DARMSTATTER: But there is still no other land to improve. There are the two existing lots and then our lot.

MR. FAASSE: No, no, no, no, you are not answering his question.

MR. COVELLI: Thanks, I am not crazy then.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Oh, I’m not understanding the question then.

MR. FAASSE: If he sold off, all right, the existing lot would have an easement that runs in front of the new house.

MR. COVELLI: Right, right.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, so the new house, whoever owns it, if it is under different ownership, could go on to the other property to maintain his sewer line --

MR. COVELLI: Right.

MR. FAASSE: -- his water line etcetera. Correct Mr. Darmstatter?

MR. DARMSTATTER: Correct.

MR. COVELLI: Let’s say that the applicant -- you know -- retires and moves to Florida and just from a construction standpoint, can a mark out be completed if that was constructed in that manner? If the utility companies were --

MR. DARMSTATTER: Certainly, it is a private easement for that lot.

MR. COVELLI: So it would have to be recorded then, an easement --

MR. DARMSTATTER: Oh absolutely, absolutely.

MR. COVELLI: It would have to be recorded and then the utility company could do a mark out in future.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Absolutely. In fact, since the Board decided to deem this as a major subdivision because of the variances even though it is kind of like a minor, the Passaic County is requiring that we file a map so it will be recorded by a filed map in the County Courthouse.

MR. COVELLI: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: And the easement would show on that.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Yes, it would.

MR. FAASSE: As a condition of any approval you could have them include the metes and bounds of that easement.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Yes, it would be a requirement of any filed map to put metes and bounds on an easement. Okay, any other questions on 14?

MR. KONING: Can we back up for one minute?

MR. DARMSTATTER: Sure we can.

MR. KONING: Not one of the items that you are addressing but either I am missing something -- Item 10.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Item 10, that has to do with architectural plans.

MR. KONING: Okay. I didn’t see plans for --

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are architectural plans somewhere.

MR. KONING: I saw for the house but I didn’t see for the apartment.

MR. FAASSE: I think we had asked for that at the October meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well Bill has them, he referenced them in the letter. Existing floor plan.

MR. KONING: That is for the house, I think.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thought they were all submitted.

MR. KONING: Number 10 says floor plans have been provided for the two proposed apartments in the existing two story structure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. That is what this is. This is the existing house showing the proposed apartments.

MR. KONING: What is the date on that?

MR. GREGOR: It should be referenced in my --

MR. CHAIRMAN: October 22, 2007.

MR. FAASSE: That was part of the October 22 submitted.

MR. GREGOR: It is referenced in Page 1 of my letter. Floor plans prepared by Thomas Ashbahian, dated October 19, 2007.

MR. KONING: Okay, I’m sorry, go ahead.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Okay. Items 15 and 16 are kind of together they have to do with Ricker Place and the improvements we are proposing to Ricker Place. We are proposing a 20 foot wide paved access coming in. Obviously, waivers are required of the RSIS and of course we submitted a letter from the DCA that says that this Board has jurisdiction over that matter. Obviously a 20-foot wide travel way, two-way travel way, is permitted under RSIS without parking. Normally on a normal residential street you have 28 feet but that is 20 feet of travel way and an 8 foot parking lane. There would be no parking lane on here; we just don’t have the width to do that. The existing right-of-way and we are restricted by the existing right-of-way is 30 feet so 20 feet travel way seems reasonable and that is what is proposed on the plan. So we are requesting waivers of the other items of the RSIS at this point for that. And that really addresses Items 15 and 16. Item 17 has to do with a possible cul-de-sac and, of course, that came up at the last meeting and that was discussed and we obtained those letters from the municipal agencies stating that what we were proposing was acceptable to them and that is how we are handling that. And Number 18 is I have an old RSIS standard on there, I have to update that to the new one and Mr. Gregor is absolutely correct on that. And that is the items we feel need to be addressed at this point. If the Board has any questions on any items in there, if I could address it, I would certainly be happy to but I will leave it at any question that you might have.

MR. GRYGUS: Bill, Item 4 would be a variance, correct?

MR. GREGOR: Yes. The Item 4, the 9 by 18 parking spaces would be a variance that you could grant and it would function. I strongly recommend that you increase the aisle width to 24 feet behind any parking space, whatever size you proposed.

MR. FAASSE: Aren’t they preexisting parking spaces?

MR. GREGOR: They are preexisting.

MR. GRYGUS: So there would be no variance then?

MR. FAASSE: You don’t have to treat it as a variance if it is a preexisting but because they are asking for a subdivision approval and everything else you might want to.

MR. GRYGUS: And an intensity, a use intensity.

MR. FAASSE: You may want to increase it.

MR. GRYGUS: All right and there are -- how many of them are there? I see eight in the front and six in the back.

MR. DARMSTATTER: It would be from where we widen it for the County for 24 feet to just beyond the parking spaces. It tapers to 18 but we could taper that all in so that it is 24 the whole length. We could do that if that is what the Board requires.

MR. GRYGUS: I am talking about the parking spaces.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Right, the parking spaces there are eight up by the dwellings --

MR. GRYGUS: And six in back.

MR. DARMSTATTER: And six in back.

MR. GRYGUS: So there are 14 all together.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Correct.

MR. COVELLI: The ones in back don’t currently exist as striped parking spaces right?

MR. DARMSTATTER: No there is no painting out there right now correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So then the area of 16 feet Bill --

MR. GREGOR: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- is a paved area but there is enough area to the south to make that wider then.

MR. GREGOR: It could be. It appears there is no physical restriction why that couldn’t be widened.

MR. DARMSTATTER: There is no physical restriction.

MR. GREGOR: And I am recommending that that is one standard that -- well actually Wanaque Ordinances require the you have a 25 foot aisle width, I am only recommending a minimum of 24 which is the functional required by most parking standards behind any size parking space, whether it be 9 by 18 or 10 by 20.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And that is to get flow through it properly, double directional.

MR. GREGOR: That is so you can get out of the parking space comfortably no matter what is your age, I’m getting older.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So then basically the 16 tapers out somewhat as you go back to where you got this thing marked at 18.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah it does widen out a bit. The County required that the first 24 feet --

MR. DARMSTATTER: 50 feet.

MR. GREGOR: For the first 50 feet, what I am recommending is that that 24 feet be carried through at least behind each of the parking spaces.

MR. GRYGUS: Do you have a problem with that Mr. Darmstatter?

MR. DARMSTATTER: No, we have no problem with that if it is a condition of the Board.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Darmstatter already took care of the sub-sized parking spaces in that he made them all -- there were some 9 by 16, he make them -- he extended them to make them 9 by 18.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Mr. Darmstatter, just to revisit Ricker Place for one moment.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On Page 2 of your drawing --

MR. DARMSTATTER: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I know we talked about this but just clear my foggy head up. The couple of garages with the apartments up to the south of Ricker Place.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Right, off site.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We talked about this but we never really fine-tuned, how close is that going to be to the paved roadway?

MR. DARMSTATTER: Well there is five feet between the paved roadway and the right-of-way and that sits about five feet back at its closest point. So there is about 10 feet there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 10 feet and then it comes out --

MR. DARMSTATTER: Right and the other side maybe 15 feet. I’m guessing, I mean it could vary a little bit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um-hum.

MR. DARMSTATTER: It would really be no different then what it is. This is actually a stone travel way now and we are just paving over.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh I know but if you look at it, people park all over the place.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Yeah and you know they are probably going to continue to do that.

MR. COVELLI: See that was my question.

MR. GRYGUS: That is the scary part.

MR. COVELLI: Well my question was where you said you had no problem if it is not going to be a Borough street, if the Borough is not going to accept the street than how is that enforceable?

MR. GREGOR: Well see there was some discussion last week and I was unaware that this is a Borough right-of-way, it a Borough.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is.

MR. GRYGUS: It is a Borough right-of-way.

MR. GREGOR: So if he is paving it, the Borough owns it.

MR. DARMSTATTER: We could put up no parking signs.

MR. GREGOR: He has to get the Borough’s permission to pave it, which I’m sure they will give him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. DARMSTATTER: We could put up no parking signs.

MR. GREGOR: And the Borough may require no parking signs.

MR. FAASSE: The Borough is going to have to adopt an ordinance then.

MR. GRYGUS: I was just going to say that. They just can’t post signs without the Borough.

MR. GREGOR: No, an ordinance, it would have to be done by ordinance.

MR. DARMSTATTER: No, we would definitely need approval for that, we understand that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And the reason you can’t make a cul-de-sac at the end instead of this proposed driveway, turn around.

MR. DARMSTATTER: You really don’t physically have the room to do it as the cul-de-sac bubble would stick up 80 feet and 80 feet is a huge huge turn around. And since there is minimal traffic coming down here, certainly a turn around is it. I mean that only people that are ever going to come down here are the people who live here.

MR. GRYGUS: Or the people who get lost.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We live in Wanaque, people get lost.

MR. DARMSTATTER: I seriously doubt that, they could do that now.

MR. GRYGUS: Don’t doubt that.

MR. COVELLI: Mr. Darmstatter, as someone who lives at the end of a dead-end street, whose driveway comes right into it from a dead-end street, and where the road actually narrows before it gets to my driveway, just the use of the fact that I live there, I have visitors, I have people who think that they can detour around Ringwood Avenue so they come down my street and find out that it doesn’t go through, there is a whole host of -- there is a paperman that comes and delivers the paper down there. There is a whole host of things. I thought at one point we discussed and you were going to consider not doing the cul-de-sac but at least widening the pavement from the driveway back as a compromise so that there would be an ability -- you don’t need a fancy cul-de-sac but you need some kind of mechanism and earlier in the testimony before that I thought we had some kind of understanding or agreement, you can’t just place the requirement on that driveway as that is the means for people turning around. They figure, oh well here is a driveway and I’ll back into this or pull into this and turn around, that there would be a separate means.

MR. DARMSTATTER: We can widen that if you wish, I think 24 feet there is more than sufficient. It allows for two parking in the garage, two parking in the driveway and still turn around in there. So it allows for four off street parking spaces along with a turn around. But if you would wish it and the rest of the Board wishes it that it be widened, we can widen it. I just feel that 24 is more than sufficient.

MR. COVELLI: But we are talking about just at the end piece there, you understand what I am referring to.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Um-hum.

MR. KONING: It is not further parking for the residents; it is for somebody that has to go in there and turn around.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Turn around but 24 feet wide by 25 feet is --

MR. COVELLI: What you don’t want somebody doing -- the dead-end street that I live on happens to be the one right back here and if somebody backs up, it is no big deal because there is no traffic. This street backs into Ringwood Avenue. The worse thing that would happen is someone going back there being confused and choosing the wrong option which is oh I can’t negotiate a turn around here let me back back out to Ringwood Avenue. That would be catastrophic.

MR. DARMSTATTER: There is -- I mean I don’t know what you want me to do here. Making it wider isn’t going to make it any easier for anyone to turn around in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Here is the other thing, how do you stop a future family, the house is sold 10 years from now, they put six cars in there, there is no turn around.

MR. COVELLI: That is what I am asking if he understands what I am saying.

MR. DARMSTATTER: I don’t know if I can answer your question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because what happens with our winter ordinance where you can’t park on the street, if you ride around people are parking on their lawns and all over the place. I mean it is a problem in town. A lot of houses have a lot of cars.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Right. Usually if you have that many, I mean I have five cars in my family we have two that pull up to the garage and we have spaces on the right for the other three so no one blocks anybody in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. DARMSTATTER: And that is what you do. So I mean if another -- if a future family has six cars, generally they are not going to park behind each other, they are going to set it up so that they can add pavement to park off to the site that is generally what most families do.

MR. COVELLI: Mr. Darmstatter I think you might be misunderstanding me. My colleague thinks you might be misunderstanding me.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Okay.

MR. COVELLI: I am not talking about -- you understand I’m not talking about the driveway, widening the driveway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What Mr. Covelli is talking about is the end of the street.

MR. COVELLI: Talking about your running the pavement with inside the right-of-way.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Okay.

MR. COVELLI: Like where it says 218 --

MR. DARMSTATTER: Yes.

MR. COVELLI: -- in front of that area.

MR. DARMSTATTER: You want to widen that, we could only get as wide as 30 feet. I mean we can’t even do that because we have to do grading on either side.

MR. COVELLI: Yeah but your proposed width, pavement width there is what?

MR. DARMSTATTER: 20 feet.

MR. COVELLI: 20 feet. So what if you made it another 2 feet on each side from that section back. Pretty much only in front of the house.

MR. DARMSTATTER: I think we could probably do that.

MR. COVELLI: That is what -- I am not saying touch the driveway.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: I don’t want to touch their private property. I’m saying when somebody is going down that street, what do they do, I don’t know what to do and you want them to be able to say I am going to maneuver myself around here and turn around versus throwing the car in reverse, either going in their driveway, or worse yet going back to Ringwood Avenue.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Right, which they would be permitted to go into the driveway and turn around but we can certainly widen that to 24 feet.

MR. COVELLI: They are permitted, I don’t think they are going to put a welcome sign and say feel free to turn around in my driveway. I’m trying to do this in a cost effective manner yet not create a problem as someone who live at the end of a cul-de-sac.

MR. DARMSTATTER: We can certainly widen it to a width of 24 feet. If I look at the grading and I can go to 26, I’ll do that, if you like.

MR. COVELLI: Okay. Thank you. You were right, he didn’t understand me.

MR. KONING: Well he kept on referring to 24 feet, 24 feet.

MR. COVELLI: Yeah, he was in the driveway. So that would be to the west of --

MR. DARMSTATTER: That would be to the west of our proposed driveway.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Darmstatter this is small point that I just wanted to clarify.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Sure.

MR. GREGOR: I did miss something in my letter which I had in the previous letter. Your westerly most bearing reads North 4 degrees, 3325 East.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Yeah.

MR. GREGOR: I believe that is supposed to be southeast.

MR. DARMSTATTER: I’ll take a look at it because it is southeast on the other side.

MR. GREGOR: Yup.

MR. DARMSTATTER: I see what you are saying; it would be southeast or northwest.

MR. GREGOR: I had it in my letter and I removed it.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: And I just spotted it again.

MR. DARMSTATTER: I’m sure the surveyor would have picked up on that.

MR. GREGOR: You got the other one, there were two of them and you got one of them but yeah I missed that one. That one it looks like you did as well.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Any other questions for Mr. Darmstatter?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is really a question for you and Bill to hash out. If you pave Ricker Place what does that do to the water that presently now goes into the ground?

MR. DARMSTATTER: If you have been out there, I think very little goes into the ground now. It is a very high-packed stone, granular thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. DARMSTATTER: I think very little goes into the ground; I don’t think it is going to change it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But you are going to probably raise it up a little bit. Is that going to change --

MR. DARMSTATTER: No, we are basically we are going to profile on it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are going to scrape it down.

MR. DARMSTATTER: We are going to basically remove most of it. The county is requiring us to extend that inlet up around the corner there so that we pick up the drainage before it gets onto the County right-of-way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, they don’t want anything on their street, right.

MR. DARMSTATTER: So there is a small amount of the water that will go towards the east and there will be a small amount of water that goes to the west and the one going to the east will go onto the county road into a new county inlet and the one going to the west will flow overland down and into the flood plain down at the bottom.

MR. GREGOR: And just on that point, in the County’s review letter of October 10th --

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is what I am looking at.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, if you look at Item 2, that is what they are recommending.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Going back to that same letter now, they have viewed this driveway as the turn around. If we are going to change that, do you have to resubmit a plan to the county for approval?

MR. GREGOR: What I would recommend --

MR. DARMSTATTER: We would have to resubmit in accordance with their letter, yes.

MR. GREGOR: Right and what I would recommend if I may regarding that issue, right now the applicant is proposing to permit turning around in the driveway, Mr. Covelli was concerned that the driveway may be blocked, as I was in my report. He is asking for a widening of the roadway at the end. I would recommend that in addition to permitting a turn around in the driveway so that you have, you still have both. I would not eliminate the turning around in the driveway as an easement for the simple reason, if it is available, it is easier. If it is not available there is still an alternate and I think it is a very good suggestion you made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question is you would have to go back to the county and get another, a reapproval, on the turn --

MR. ACQUAVIVA: We still have to go down there.

MR. DARMSTATTER: It is really not in their jurisdiction; it is in this Board’s jurisdiction.

MR. GREGOR: As long as you don’t eliminate that, the county shouldn’t have a problem by adding something additional that shouldn’t have a negative impact on the county’s comments.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Correct.

MR. GREGOR: That would be my thought anyhow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right then well here is another question then Bill. They are saying revised plans indicating that that turn around easement, will be an easement to Wanaque that means they would have to give Wanaque an easement on the driveway?

MR. GREGOR: I would want it to be a recorded easement in the deed. Basically I’m saying to Wanaque, it is to the motoring public. Anybody that uses the public street.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, no, I am just reading what they put, their Item 7 on the County letter is saying that the easement should be given to Wanaque for the driveway then.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Right, because they don’t want it is all they are really saying, I have dealt with the County before.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: They are going to require a filed map; it is going to be on the filed map that way. So it will be recorded through the filed map.

MR. COVELLI: And who would the easement be too? That is a good question. I don’t know.

MR. GREGOR: To Wanaque, it is the Borough of Wanaque which is the public, for a public use.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For a public use. It becomes technically part of Wanaque’s Ricker Place then as a turn around.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, it would be.

MR. FAASSE: The bigger question we have here too is somewhere the Board is going to look favorable upon this application and as specified what we would consider to be an adequate roadway, I think we would have to refer the applicant over to the Borough Engineer because the worse thing I think we could do for this applicant would be to say okay, here it is approved, then you go to the Borough Engineer and say we don’t want it this way.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: We did send, two months ago, we did sent a copy to Mr. Cristaldi.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah but not with all of your changes.

MR. GREGOR: Did he comment from two months ago?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: No, I have not seen anything anyway.

MR. FAASSE: No I am just thinking that it is prudent from the applicant’s point of view, if you catch my gist on this. Because if we go all the way through and everything else --

MR. ACQUAVIVA: If the Board does approve it once we revise the plans in accordance with the Board’s wishes and Mr. Gregor’s report and the County Report, I would be happy to send a completed copy to Mr. Cristaldi for his review.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah but then if he says no, we are done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is a good point, then we are back to square one.

MR. FAASSE: You follow what I am saying Mr. Acquaviva?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Yeah.

MR. FAASSE: I know it is what comes first the chicken or the egg. But if I am saying if we lay the egg, right, and we are done because these plans and everything else is to our approval, then it goes to the Borough, the Borough says no, we don’t want it this way, you have to come back, a new application; the whole thing.

MR. COVELLI: So what you are saying is that we have to put a condition in any resolution subject to the approval of the Borough of Wanaque?

MR. FAASSE: Oh yeah, we don’t have the right to accept any kind of roadway or anything like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, we can’t -- right. Ralph has got a good point.

MR. COVELLI: Right, we can’t right. So we have to put that condition in any resolution, right?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: But assuming that happened, I don’t think it would affect the bulk of the application, it would effect the approval as it pertained to Ricker Street. So essentially let’s assume that happens, we could come back before the Board just on that issue as to Ricker Street without effecting the use variance and the -- well it is really only the use variances, there is no bulk variances being requested.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But you would still have to file a whole new application, pay all the fees again and come back again.

MR. FAASSE: All right, well let’s see; let’s see where we go because we have more to do tonight, right?

MR. COVELLI: Well don’t we have another -- Ralph, we have an issue that there are two ways that this can play out.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. COVELLI: The one issue is the town says we are not taking it but you can go ahead do what you want to do which then our recommendations prevail.

MR. FAASSE: No, no, no, no.

MR. COVELLI: The other scenario is the town says they will accept it but we want x, y and z done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah but Frank, they own the right-of-way.

MR. COVELLI: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They have to approve it to the Borough’s standard, acceptable standard of the Borough and the Borough Engineer.

MR. GREGOR: He has to get the permission of the Borough to pave the street.

MR. COVELLI: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They are not dedicating something to the Borough; the Borough already has the street.

MR. GREGOR: The Borough has to give him permission before he can pave that street.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. COVELLI: But the Borough doesn’t maintain this street.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They own it.

MR. FAASSE: Their whole application is predicated upon certain approvals being made to the public right-of-way, whatever that public right-of-way is.

MR. COVELLI: Yeah, but when we say the Borough owns it, the Borough owns it on paper; the Borough does not currently maintain it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. COVELLI: The Borough just says that yeah there is a road on paper there and we don’t touch it. And by the way if somebody has property and they happen to be using it, that is nice, we are not saying for them not to do it.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, I know we are going to get another --

MR. COVELLI: Sorry, remember I come from a different animal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. COVELLI: A different perspective. I know how that works. It doesn’t mean that they formally acknowledge that.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. COVELLI: What I don’t know won’t hurt me.

MR. FAASSE: Right, and the kid can do no wrong.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: So the acceptance of which and the improvements to be determined by the Borough.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, in other words, what this Board’s jurisdiction would be is what are the improvements that are necessary if you were to act favorably on this subdivision where you are creating a new lot which would have access on this roadway which is “substandard”. All right. But then before they can do any work on that roadway, they have to get the permission of the Borough. So we can say, okay, widen it to 20 feet, that Frank just said, or the extra two feet on both sides, and the Mayor and Council and everyone else and the Borough Engineer can say, no, we want 24 or no we want a full cul-de-sac.

MR. COVELLI: Right. But that is what I am saying there are two scenarios.

MR. FAASSE: There are a lot of scenarios here.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: So I am not quite -- so where does that leave us?

MR. FAASSE: Well I do not think that we are going to be able to bring this to a conclusion tonight. So at some point I think if the Board is looking favorably on this then we have to at least give the applicant some directions as to what these improvements are going to be on Ricker Place so that the Borough Engineer could be contacted prior to this Board making a final decision.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Well couldn’t we make a condition of what we said subject to the actions of the Borough with respect to how they would handle the roadway? Again, like I said they may just say --

MR. COVELLI: What if the Borough says widen it 24 feet at the end but don’t pave it? You still get the 24 feet.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. COVELLI: In other words we can’t speak for the Borough but if the Borough chooses not to respond for lack of a better term then our provisions prevail.

MR. FAASSE: The only choice like Mr. Acquaviva just said -- like he just said, Mr. Acquaviva just said is that then if they don’t accept the improvements then we can come back and hash that out. That is a question as to whether or not it is another application or are we just modifying a site plan that was approved.

MR. GREGOR: I wouldn’t want to put the applicant through that.

MR. FAASSE: No. All right, let’s continue for tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Anything else for Mr. Darmstatter?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: I don’t have any more questions for Mr. Darmstatter.

MR. FAASSE: Any of Board Members? Because I know we have the planner that has been eagerly waiting to take a shot at this.

MR. GRYGUS: Any questions for the engineer?

MR. FAASSE: From the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The public that is the next thing.

MR. FAASSE: Oh don’t run away.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Don’t run away, okay.

MR. FAASSE: Anyone from the public have any questions of the engineer? Now you can run away, no body has any questions. Don’t leave tonight though.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Seeing and hearing none we close the public portion. Next witness.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Mr. Kauker?

MR. FAASSE: And he we never put under oath right?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: No he wasn’t.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, don’t get too comfortable.

MICHAEL KAUKER SWORN:

MR. FAASSE: Give us your full name spell your last name and you could use a business address.

MR. KAUKER: Michael D. Kauker K-A-U-K-E-R, the business address is 356 Franklin Avenue in Wyckoff, New Jersey.

MR. FAASSE: You have all that Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Mr. Faasse I know that Mr. Kauker testified before this Board does the Board want me to qualify Mr. Kauker?

MR. FAASSE: Well just very briefly. What is his area of expertise that he is going to be testifying in?

MR. KAUKER: I am a licensed professional planner in the State of New Jersey.

MR. FAASSE: Do you know your number?

MR. KAUKER: Pardon me?

MR. FAASSE: Do you know your number?

MR. KAUKER: I do, 5737.

MR. FAASSE: Okay and it is in full force and effect as of today?

MR. KAUKER: Yes it is.

MR. FAASSE: You have paid all of your fees?

MR. KAUKER: As far as I know. No, I have.

MR. GREGOR: That is a good answer.

MR. FAASSE: I had a very embarrassing situation in the Borough of Hawthorne one time, I had someone testify, a professional testify, and he didn’t pay his fees and he had been suspended -- you know -- whatever, terminated.

MR. KAUKER: I do every year, I remember exactly when it comes due.

MR. FAASSE: All right, good.

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. KAUKER BY MR. ACQUAVIVA:

Q Mr. Kauker, you have been hired to testify on this application as a planner, is that correct?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q Now, you have had a chance obviously to review the application, have you had a chance to review the plans that were submitted and more appropriately inspect the property that is the subject of this application?

A Yes, I have.

Q Okay. Can you briefly describe the property and from a planning perspective the conditions that surround the property?

A Sure, certainly. What I did is I prepared an Exhibit and I don’t have an easel but --

MR. GREGOR: We have one up there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is an easel right there Sir.

MR. KAUKER: You do have one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yup.

MR. KAUKER: Oh, there is it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ed is going to do it and he is going to be the easelman.

MR. KAUKER: The Board is obviously familiar with the property and the application so I will go over the --

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Excuse me one second, Mr. Faasse do you want to mark that or are we just going to have him testify as to the --

MR. FAASSE: Well is he going to leave it, oh my goodness, absolutely

MR. ACQUAVIVA: I don’t think we are going to leave it.

MR. FAASSE: You got to leave it, once it is marked.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If it is marked, it stays.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Would you like me to mark it.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, what are we A-1?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: All right, A-1 and then date it today too.

MR. KONING: You might want to move the microphone.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, he is a soft talker do we have a microphone.

MR. KONING: Do you want to move it this side, microphone wise.

MR. KAUKER: Do you want me to move it.

MR. GRYGUS: Or pick the microphone up.

MS. MAROTTA: Or if he just moved the microphone on the table, move it towards you.

MR. KAUKER: Is that better, is that picking up? Okay. Briefly I will just identify the Exhibit, it is entitled Borough of Wanaque, Passaic County, Land Use Map of 1283 --

MS. MAROTTA: No, you are going to have to either speak louder or use that one.

MR. GREGOR: Do you want to hold the microphone, you are a soft talker?

MR. KAUKER: Sorry, I have never been accused of that before but.

MR. GREGOR: Well you are tonight.

MR. FAASSE: You know, funny thing, I get that too nowadays.

MR. KAUKER: It is basically a Land Use Map it depicts the subject property which is shown in red along with the surrounding conditions and I’ll go over the color coded table in a minute. Essentially the property in question, it is essentially a very very large flag lot. It has about 139,000 square feet on it and it is about 3.4 acres and it is encumbered in the back by wetlands and environmental constraints. There currently exists a two-story building on the front of the property. There is an apartment on the second floor and there is a vacant retail store on the ground floor, I believe it was used as a gift shop most recently. In addition, the property is also occupied by the owner’s masonry business; there is use for a limited storage of vehicles and other stuff associated with his business. If you take a look at the surrounding area, one thing that is interesting is that even tough this property and most of the surrounding area along the westerly side of Ringwood Avenue is located in the B Business Zone, it is predominately utilized for residential purposes. If you take a look at the reddish color, these are identifying mixed type uses. As I mentioned the subject property essentially is a mixed use having a residential component, a retail component and also another business component on the property. Two properties down, there is another property that is used for similar purposes. There is a landscaping business in what appears to be a residence on the property as well. The properties that are highlighted in yellow are all used for single-family homes. One thing I would point out is that on the opposite side of the street these properties are all located in R10 District and this area is generally located in between two R10 Districts. As I mentioned, the easterly side of Ringwood Avenue is an R10 and located to the rear there is a number of homes that are also located in the R10 Zoning District. If you look on either side, more specifically, there is a single-family home located immediately to the north, two single-family homes located immediately to the south adjacent to Ricker Place. There is a property that the Board had talked about before, there is a residential structure located on the front and then there is a structure located to the rear, I think it was confirmed by the owner of the property that it was a one resident, one apartment building, located above the garage. Further to the south are three additional single-family properties and adjacent to that there is one property, it is one tax lot, and on that property are two two-family residential homes. So this section of Wanaque with respect to Ringwood Avenue, in my professional opinion, can be generally characterized as predominately residential in nature with respect to the existing surrounding land uses.

BY MR. ACQUAVIVA:

Q Mr. Kauker, have you had an occasion to review the Borough’s Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance?

A Yes I did have an opportunity to review the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the community.

Q Now in regard to obviously the project and the application at hand, do you believe that it fits in with the Borough’s Master Plan and Ordinance and you can specifically delineate how that would be so?

A Sure. With respect to the Master Plan Document the last Reexamination Report was prepared in 2002. I did review that document and I do believe that one of the goals this project does further. It is generally compatible with all the goals and objectives but I think one somewhat stands out. Goal #2 of the Master Plan reads to encourage the development of appropriate commercial, industrial employment and recreational facilities to serve the needs of all Borough residents and help maintain a stable tax base. I think that this site, given the fact that it is proposed to be developed with residential uses, I think is appropriate given the fact that it is located in an area that is residential in nature. Notwithstanding the fact that it is located in a B Business Zone and I think it is going to make a productive use of the property with the two lot subdivision, it is something that will help to stabilize the tax base of the community. With respect to the Zoning Ordinance, as I mentioned before, the property is located in the B Business Zone. The proposed uses of the property are not specifically permitted uses in a B Zone; therefore, we are before this Board requesting a use variance at this point in time. The permitted uses, there are a number of retail and commercial and business type uses that are permitted. The one thing that I would point out is that residential is permitted in this zone but above ground floor retail type use.

Q Mr. Kauker, although it is not -- although you just indicated that this is not a permitted use and obviously this is a use variance application.

A Correct.

Q Based upon your review of the surrounding area in your testimony, it would be fair to say that the proposed use of the property fits in with the use of the surrounding area?

A Yeah I think that, obviously, as I had mentioned before the proposed use of the property, in my opinion, does fit in with the existing uses, as I documented on the exhibit that I had prepared.

Q Okay, before we get into the positive criteria and the negative criteria, is there anything else that you think the Board specifically needs to know, from a planning perspective, about this particular application other than what you have already testified to, obviously?

A I think with respect to, from a planning standpoint as I mentioned before and obviously I will get into a little bit more when I discuss the criteria for the variance relief but I think from a planning standpoint -- you know -- it makes sense. I mean what we are doing here is we are taking a property that is very very large, especially as compared to the zoning ordinance. The minimum lot area requirement for the B Business District as well as the R10 Zone is 10,000 square feet. We have an existing property that is 3.4 acres. We are going to subdivide it into two lots. The first lot, the larger lot will be about, I believe it is going to be about 129,000 square feet and the second lot, which will contain the new single family home, is proposed to be 19,000 square feet. So I think that these properties are sufficiently large enough to accommodate the uses.

Q Okay, now in regard to the use variance can you identify -- I should say explain the positive criteria as it relates to the use variance as being proposed for the Board?

A Certainly, with respect to the use variance criteria, the Municipal Land Use Law outlines the statutory criteria for a variance approval. Essentially what the applicant has to do is they have to make an affirmative showing of both the positive and negative criteria. The positive criteria, as I am sure the Board has heard before, states that an applicant or a variance for a use variance can only be granted in particular cases and for special reasons. In addition to the showing of negative criteria as required, that is an analysis and essentially the applicant must show that the grant of the variance will not have a substantial impact on the public good and there will not be a substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the Master Plan or the Zoning Ordinance. With respect to this particular property, it is my opinion that the general welfare is promoted in that the site is particularly suited for the proposed use. Particular suitability is one of the things that the applicant shows in order to make a showing of the positive criteria. With respect to this particular site, it is my opinion that it is particularly suited for the following reasons: Namely because of the location of the property and the size of the property in its relationship to the surrounding land uses. As I mentioned before, the subject property is very very large especially as it relates to the zoning ordinance. It is my opinion that this very large property can adequately accommodate the proposed uses of the property. In addition, the location, as I mentioned before and went over when I addressed the surrounding conditions, it is my opinion that it is located in an area that is used predominantly for residential use and I think that a use variance to use this property for residential uses is something that would be compatible and something that would fit in with the existing character of the established neighborhood in the area.

Q In -- I’m sorry.

A Go ahead. I was just going to say so for those reasons it is my opinion that this site is particularly suited for the proposed residential use.

Q In going forward in the review of the negative criteria, do you believe approving this application or granting the requested variance would have any negative impact on the Borough or the particular surrounding area?

A It is my opinion that with respect to the first part of the negative criteria that there would be no detriment to the Wanaque. I know the Board has talked substantially on the fact of the roadway along Ricker Place, I think that all of those things are things that, according to our engineer, can be accommodated. With respect to any other potential impacts as a result of the use variance request, one thing I would point out is that we are replacing essentially one commercial use with a residential use. So the larger property is going to be utilized -- the existing structure will be used for two residential units where formerly it was used for one residential unit and a commercial or a retail type use. Generally and typically a residential use with respect to what is proposed would have a lower intensity of use than a retail or a commercial type use. The second floor apartment use is remaining the same and the use of the remainder of the property is remaining the same with respect to the applicant’s masonry business. Again, this property is very very large, it is 129,000 square feet so I think it is large enough to accommodate all of the uses that are proposed. In addition, the single family home that is proposed on the 19,000 square foot lot, again, that is 9,000 square feet larger than the 10,000 square foot requirement for both the B Zone and the R10 Zone, so I think it is large enough to accommodate the use without any impacts.

Q In going forward on the negative criteria assessment, do you believe that this application or I should say the approval of this application would impair the purpose of the Master Plan or Zoning Ordinance?

A No, as I mentioned before I think that this proposal does not conflict with any of the main goals and objectives of the Master Plan and did further the one that I did mention. I think, also, given the fact, as I mentioned previously a number of times with respect to the zoning criteria for lot area, we are much larger so I think, given that fact we can, obviously, whatever development that is proposed can be easily accommodated and will not impair the intent of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, as I had mentioned before, this is really an area that is used predominantly and can be characterized as residential in nature. So I think given that fact that it is used for those purposes and the majority of the neighboring uses are residentially used, I think it is something that will not substantially impair the Master Plan.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: I have no further questions of Mr. Kauker.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Kauker I have basically two questions for you.

MR. KAUKER: Sure.

MR. GREGOR: Number one, you mentioned a number of times that the larger lot was 129,000 square feet and, therefore, it is adequately sized for the proposed two-family house and the commercial use.

MR. KAUKER: Yes, that is correct.

MR. GREGOR: Due to the fact that the majority of this 129,000 square feet is encumbered by wetlands, post brook and flood plains and what portion of the property is not encumbered? Do you have a rough number?

MR. KAUKER: No, I don’t have any, I didn’t --

MR. GREGOR: Does that affect your opinion whatsoever?

MR. KAUKER: No, I don’t think it affects my opinion, I think that the property was formally used for the three uses, notwithstanding the fact that a portion will be portion will be subdivided off but I think the site plan clearly shows that those three uses can co-exist together and that they can work efficiently.

MR. GREGOR: And there is adequate usable land for those three uses that is not wetlands or flood plain in your opinion?

MR. KAUKER: Yes, I believe so.

MR. GREGOR: Okay. And the second question was the lots, specifically Lots 28, 28.01 and 30 are currently used for residential. I will give you a chance to locate those so you can follow along.

MR. KAUKER: Yeah, I am looking at the tax map.

MR. GREGOR: I am looking the area map.

MR. KAUKER: I’m sorry, 20, 28.01?

MR. GREGOR: 28, 28.01 and Lot 30.

MR. KAUKER: Yeah, they are all used for residential purposes.

MR. GREGOR: They could be developed tomorrow for a business use. If businesses were located -- if someone came in with an application tomorrow, they could build businesses there.

MR. KAUKER: Yes, they could.

MR. GREGOR: Retail.

MR. KAUKER: They could build whatever is permitted in the zone. I think, obviously, it looks the homes are -- you know -- they have been in existence for quite awhile. I mean I’m not exactly sure of the entire history but it appears from viewing them that they have been used for residential purposes. I think, given the fact that the existing retail use that was located on the ground floor -- you know -- was vacated I think is an indication that maybe this area is more appropriately suited for a residential type use. But you are correct, one thing I would add though is these types of uses I think if they were to convert to something it would be probably more along the lines of an office type use rather than some other retail use.

MR. GREGOR: Okay. Do you feel there is sufficient buffer availability or protection that you could provide to that single family residence that is being proposed back there should they become buffer use -- commercial uses?

MR. KAUKER: Yeah I do, I think given the fact that the property is 19,000 square feet, I think that in it of itself is large enough to accommodate. And, again, just remember that there are a number of existing residential uses along Ringwood Avenue that are adjacent to commercial type properties. And if these two properties were utilized in the existing structure I mean they still look and appear residential in nature. So I think given that fact, it is not going to have any real impact on that property.

MR. GREGOR: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions gentlemen? Okay. Let’s open it up to the public. Does anyone in the public have any questions on the testimony just given? Step forward please. Give us your name and home address.

MR. WERNLI: Yeah, Scott Wernli. Last name is W-E-R-N-L-I, the address is 1287 Ringwood Avenue in Haskell. Really what I wanted to say is -- you know -- considering the construction company that might be put in there if the variance is approved, we are not really talking about like an office or a retail store, I mean it is a big difference with the construction company going in there. I mean right now there is trucks starting up at 6 in the morning -- you know -- we have noise, we got diesel fumes, you got -- I mean a lot of stuff, a lot of commotion going on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the question portion of this. Do you have a question on the testimony just given?

MR. WERNLI: No, no question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. If you want to make a statement, reserve that for later.

MR. WERNLI: Okay, I’ll do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any one else from the public have any questions on this testimony? Okay. I’ll close that. Let’s move on.

MR. FAASSE: Any further witnesses, any further evidence?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: No further evidence, no further witnesses.

MR. FAASSE: So the applicant will rest.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: The applicant rests.

MR. FAASSE: All right, now we open it up to the public and we hear testimony.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Are there any last questions gentlemen at this point? Okay. Now we can open it up to the public.

MR. LUDWIG: Now you can come back up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now you can come up and make your statement.

MR. FAASSE: But you are going to be sworn first.

MR. WERNLI: Okay.

SCOTT WERNLI SWORN

MR. FAASSE: Okay now, I know you did it, but just please state your name, spell your last name and give us an address.

MR. WERNLI. Okay. Scott Wernli, W-E-R-N-L-I, address is 1287 Ringwood Avenue in Haskell. I mean I just want the Board to consider what is going to happen to the property values of the neighbors if there is a construction company operating there. I mean it is not just like a store or a retail business, I mean there are trucks coming and going, there is a storage, there is a lot of noise, there are fumes. I mean we hear back up beepers and stuff and -- you know -- diesel trucks warming up in the morning and all of that. So there is just a lot involved with more than just -- you know -- a business moving in there. Basically I’m -- actually I don’t know what my block and lot number is but where the house sets immediately adjacent --

MR. GREGOR: 28.01?

MR. WERNLI: That could be it.

MR. GREGOR: Sounds familiar?

MR. WERNLI: Right.

MR. GREGOR: 28.01 that is correct.

MR. WERNLI: But I just wanted to say I mean I would just like you to consider what is going to happen to -- you know -- property values of the neighbors. I mean it is pretty much a residential area -- you know -- especially for our house which is right next door.

MR. GRYGUS: I was going to say, you are certainly welcome to give your thoughts and opinions but this application is not about the operation of his business that is already there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. That was created by a condition -- an approval by the Planning Board a couple of years ago I think when they came in for an application.

MR. WERNLI: Right, but I mean this is --

MR. CHAIRMAN: For a dual use of the property when they came in for the retail store.

MR. GRYGUS: And the applicant has testified that he is not changing that business unless I misunderstood something. That business is existing and this application does not impact the operation of that. If you were here for prior testimony, the applicant at one point testified.

MR. FAASSE: He was here from the beginning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. WERNLI: Yeah. Now the variance for the business use I mean what is that about then?

MR. CHAIRMAN: He is applying for a variance to build a house.

MR. WERNLI: Right, oh I now that.

MR. FAASSE: There are two variances okay. He is in a B-1 Zone, which is a business zone. Okay, he had a retail on the first floor. He is asking permission, the applicants are asking permission to convert that front retail to residential. Then they are asking to subdivide the lot in back and build a one family house.

MR. WERNLI: Right, okay.

MR. FAASSE: So they are both residential types of uses that are proposed from what is there now.

MR. WERNLI: Right, okay.

MR. FAASSE: All right?

MR. WERNLI: All right, I mean well in that case I mean also another one of my points I just would like the Board to consider what is going to property values of the neighbors -- you know -- if the house is built there. I mean right now it is basically an open area -- you know -- grass, trees things like that and it is just be a little more congested with another house right there and I just think it is going -- you know -- adversely affect the property values. It is just something that I just wanted to really comment on.

MR. FAASSE: How long have you owned your property there?

MR. WERNLI: It has been about three and a half years.

MR. FAASSE: And was the business there when you moved there?

MR. WERNLI: There was some stuff going on yeah.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. WERNLI: That is basically all I have to say. Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: Do you have any questions?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: I have no questions.

MS. MAIELLO: Grace Maiello, 26 Rhinesmith Avenue.

GRACE MAIELLO SWORN:

MR. FAASSE: Give us your name again and spell your last name.

MS. MAIELLO: Grace Maiello M-A-I-E-L-L-O, 26 Rhinesmith Avenue, Wanaque. I just want to ask a question I am vigorously listening to all of this information that is coming through. They are now turning the retail section of this house into an apartment. Can I ask what the square footage is on that apartment?

MR. FAASSE: Sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is for the architect.

MR. FAASSE: We have to testify.

MR. COVELLI: The architect, let him testify.

MR. FAASSE: You got the plans, you submitted the plans.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Darmstatter get a ruler out.

MR. FAASSE: How about the applicant does he know the square footage?

MR. STAROPOLI: 700?

MR. FAASSE: Well don’t guess.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill you got your scale ruler.

MR. GREGOR: That is what it is, they are all dimensions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well we are assuming this and this are the same. There is no dimension.

MR. GREGOR: Oh, I’m sorry, there is one here. Yes I do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have the depth this way, we don’t have the front dimension.

MR. GREGOR: You are looking at an architectural plan right.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Yeah.

MR. GREGOR: Here is an architectural scale.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Thank you.

MS. MAIELLO: I’m sorry, I didn’t mean to create a problem.

MR. GREGOR: No problem. It is a valid question, it is a fair question. If it is a valid question, I will give you a valid answer. We got 37 1/2 feet.

MS. MAIELLO: It should be 750, right?

MR. GRYGUS: 750 is the minimum.

MS. MAIELLO: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: They are between 11 and 12.

MR. GREGOR: 35 by 37 and 22 by 12.

MR. COVELLI: And what was the other one?

MR. GREGOR: 22 by 12.

MR. FAASSE: It is only 264.

MR. GREGOR: No but that is added together, that is your first floor. There is a jog in the building.

MR. DARMSTATTER: 1547.

MR. GREGOR: Right, so it is about 1,500 square feet on the first floor.

MR. DARMSTATTER: 1,550 rounded off.

MS. MAIELLO: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: Any one else in the public?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have one question while we are looking at this architectural plan.

MR. FAASSE: That is a question for the applicant?

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the applicant.

MR. FAASSE: All right so there is no one else here from the public so why don’t we close the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, let’s close the public.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The counselor the question and someone is going to field an answer from your group out there.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Looking at the lower and upper floor plans, okay, in the lower floor plan in an area marked computer area, there is an up and a down. Where does the up go?

MR. STAROPOLI: That was before when it was a one family house years ago and the stairs they actually go to the second floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Come forward, we have to hear who is talking.

MR. FAASSE: He was sworn in I think.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I know, just identify who the voice is.

MR. STAROPOLI: Anthony Staropoli.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. STAROPOLI: Applicant. It is the stairwell that when it was a one family home when we bought it, it went from the first to second floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, so technically that should be noted that that is going to be removed like it says on the second floor.

MR. STAROPOLI: Yes, I have every intention of blocking that up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay and the access to the second floor comes up off of the deck.

MR. STAROPOLI: Yes, from the rear.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And then there is a basement under this first floor.

MR. STAROPOLI: Yes there is a Bilco door access and also access from the first floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There are two accesses from the first floor.

MR. STAROPOLI: Yes to the basement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: Just a quick question, since you are removing the stairs there, what is that area going to become?

MR. STAROPOLI: Nothing. We are just going to put flooring up on the second floor and nail up the door on the first floor. No body will be mistaken and no body will get trapped in there and become a fire hazard.

MR. GREGOR: Thought you might make a closet out of it or something.

MR. STAROPOLI: No, we are going to seal it all up.

MR. COVELLI: Mr. Staropoli while you are here I got to tell you, I only got one little issue because I do wear other hats in this Borough. I have a little concern and I am not looking to put forth any financial burden on any one, just looking to avoid problems in the future and maybe make your life easier going forward. Would you reconsider separating those utilities such that the proposed house is not connected to the existing but rather had its own service to Ricker Place? Is that a huge financial difference that you would impose?

MR. STAROPOLI: Are you running public lines on Ricker Road?

MR. COVELLI: No, not running a private line but connecting separately so that if that these structures support themselves independently with respect to the utilities.

MR. STAROPOLI: Oh yeah, yes we have every intention --

MR. COVELLI: Because right now you are proposing them to be tied.

MR. STAROPOLI: No, no.

MR. GREGOR: They are separate.

MR. STAROPOLI: We are separate.

MR. COVELLI: Yeah but they are separate but the proposed new dwelling would run along the property of the existing property to connect.

MR. STAROPOLI: Right.

MR. COVELLI: It has its own line but it is on a private piece of property, it doesn’t have a direct connection. It is running through somebody else’s -- it is running through property that currently he owns.

MR. STAROPOLI: Right.

MR. COVELLI: Okay, but is going through that property to get to the connection as opposed to treating it as a separate utility.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: I think I follow what you are saying.

MR. COVELLI: The problem is he is not concerned about the size of the three services that you are proposing but the location of it.

MR. DARMSTATTER: I understand what he is saying. The problem is and it is a municipal problem and it is certainly acceptable to the applicant, I think, once we put it out in that public roadway, it is a public line. It is no longer a private line at that point. And the reason for running it the way it is, it is obviously it is a smaller line it is a lesser cost to the applicant but it is also a private line that he would have to maintain. Once we put it out in Ricker Place it becomes a public line and the municipality would be responsible for maintaining it.

MR. COVELLI: Yeah, but that would be considered a lateral. You are saying because he has to run into the pipe this way, it becomes an extension of the main versus the lateral.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Correct.

MR. COVELLI: Well how about if there was a way for us to draft that such that if the local sewer authority were to grant that as a private connection and treat it that way considering the fact that at least as we speak there is no plan or need for that to be an extension of the main and it could be done that way. It is actually then cheaper for you to go that way than it is to go all the way out through the existing.

MR. DARMSTATTER: We can certainly run private laterals the same way we run up the easement up Ricker Road but I can, to tell you the truth, I don’t know what Wanaque’s position is on that. There is no municipality that I know of that wants private lines in their public right-of-way.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Isn’t there a maintenance issue then?

MR. FAASSE: Sure.

MR. COVELLI: What if the township agrees to accept paving of the road. Now he has an issue with the water or the sewer line as opposed to just digging up the yard. To get to any easement he has got to dig up the road.

MR. GRYGUS: He has to repave later.

MR. COVELLI: Repave and possible disrupt the traffic on the road for the time that he is doing it.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Frank is looking at a shorter route to the road.

MR. GRYGUS: Well he is looking at something that doesn’t require an easement.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah what he is looking for is for the future.

MR. COVELLI: I am looking at a situation that if anyone ever divides these, that easement now has to remain and that pipe goes through somebody else’s yard and then you sort of --

MR. DARMSTATTER: It is not an uncommon situation.

MR. COVELLI: Yeah I know but we work in this Borough to remove them because there is too many of them as it is. They are also a headache. Somewhere along the line they turn into a headache.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Actually the way I laid it out I thought I was trying to avoid headaches for the municipality.

MR. STAROPOLI: With all respect I had an easement on Eastside Avenue when I lived there and I had no problem with it. I bought it knowingly that there was an easement in the corner of my property which went up to the house up on the hill, I had no problem with it. And the people bought it from me I don’t think had no problem -- you know -- they knew about it, so.

MR. COVELLI: I cease.

MR. FAASSE: You can sit down sir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Okay, now. Counsel bought up a good point.

MR. FAASSE: I did?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You did. You only had to say four words that was enough.

MR. FAASSE: Are we ready Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have anything else in closing Counselor?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: I don’t Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: I think that everything has been testified to and all of Mr. Gregor’s concerns have been addressed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we move to a motion our counselor had come up with this going back to the Borough to accept what you propose to do to Ricker Place.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Well it think that we can --

MR. CHAIRMAN: How are we going to --

MR. GRYGUS: I think that could be handled, might be able to be handled in a motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is your thought Ralph? You are protecting the applicant right now.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Oh I understand that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think they understood that.

MR. GRYGUS: My thought is this. If a motion were to be made that incorporated improvements to Ricker Place to be as shown on the drawing with the addition of the two foot on each side west of the driveway for the remaining length the final improvements of the -- so in other words we are going to delineate what we want there as far as width but the actual improvements of the roadway would be as per the Borough acceptance. So in other words we are going to get that 24 feet at the end whether it is gravel or paved, the actual improvements would be as per accepted by the Borough.

MR. FAASSE: Well yes but the problem is that --

MR. GRYGUS: At a minimum of --

MR. FAASSE: -- the Borough could say we don’t want 24 feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: We only want 20 or we want 28.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They are proposing 20, the Borough could want 24.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: I was going to hit upon that point but I think you did it before I did it. I mean, I think based on the dialogue that the Board has indicated tonight, if the application is approved there is probably going to be a condition that the end of the road be widened to 24 feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: And in addition that there be permitted turn around in that driveway at the end. So both bases are covered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: I think that if the Town, Council sort of speak or the engineer has a concern we have done everything we could. I don’t think they are going to require more than what we have done. They could certainly come back -- they could certainly come back and say we don’t want all of that and, okay, but it is less than what would be approved if that was a condition. I mean I think if it was the other way around, in other words if the Board were going to blatantly accept whatever we were proposing and it was, I guess, 20 feet, I don’t have the plans in front of me, then I think it is more of a concern because then the Town could come back and say well no we want 24 feet and now we have a problem

MR. GREGOR: I think that we would put it that the improvements to be at a minimum of 20 feet and then 24 feet westerly of the driveway and that the driveway is permitted as a turn around.

MR. LEONARD: We could also just to bring up another point, the motoring public is not going to know whether they can turn around into the driveway so didn’t we consider putting signage up saying --

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, there has to be a sign as per the county.

MR. COVELLI: You know Ed I am glad you brought that up because I was going to bring it up before. Again with the signs in the street, we would have to go before the Council before that anyway so maybe one of the things to do is to put a sign close to Ringwood Avenue -- you know -- no U-turn or whatever.

MR. GRYGUS: No outlet.

MR. COVELLI: Because again, I don’t know what kind of deterrent that is going to make -- that is going to be.

MR. LEONARD: Well I think -- I’m surprised that the county -- you know -- maybe a No Outlet sign.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: We are also talking about the county also. I mean we are still going before the county as far as the intersection anyway. So I mean I think we are going to have all bases covered one way or another.

MR. GRYGUS: I think what would happen if we worded, Ralph, if we worded it that way where the improvements to be a minimum of and then if the township comes back and wants more well -- you know -- if he can’t comply then that would -- you know.

MR. FAASSE: I have no problem with the minimum.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: I am just saying for the applicant’s sake and everything else it may be prudent to ask the Mayor and Council and the Borough Engineer as to what is going to happen before we take an action. Especially in light of and I am looking for it, somewhere in this file I had a letter from our Borough Administrator.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Saying that --

MR. CHAIRMAN: That the sanitary and water would be given.

MR. FAASSE: Saying that we shouldn’t consider this unless boom boom boom boom boom.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, we wanted them in Ricker Place, right.

MR. GREGOR: He wanted them in Ricker Place.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah but didn’t he also want certain minimum standards?

MR. GREGOR: Let me see if I can find the letter.

MR. FAASSE: That is what I am looking for. That is why I -- you know -- I am just -- I would gladly go along with what you are suggesting Bruce I mean if the applicant’s is agreeable to it. But if you run into a road block, you are done.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Obviously, I know what you are proposing protects us, I understand that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We want to close it and be done with it.

MR. GRYGUS: So the risk --

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Knowing all of that, I discussed it with the applicant and they would like to bring to at vote tonight.

MR. GRYGUS: All right so the risk that would run is that you could possibly have to come back with another application.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: We understand that.

MR. FAASSE: February 16, 2007.

MR. GREGOR: Do I have that letter or would it just be the Board?

MR. CHAIRMAN: He is saying here --

MR. COVELLI: Do have a copy of that letter?

MR. GREGOR: I don’t think so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think so.

MR. FAASSE: Fire Hydrant; Mr. Darmstatter testified with respect to this.

MR. GRYGUS: Well he is claiming that as RSIS standards, the road would have to be brought up to RSIS standards.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: And an 8-inch main with a fire hydrant would be required.

MR. FAASSE: Right and we are not doing RSIS Standards.

MR. GRYGUS: So the question would be could we grant them relief from RSIS Standards.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: You have a letter from the PCA that says you can.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: That is how we got on this issue back in October.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: I don’t have any problem with that. The problem I have is if the Borough is going to insist on it, then why should we go ahead and do it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. As far as the State, that is the September 20th letter you are referencing.

MR. GREGOR: Is that the date, I don’t know, I know we discussed it back in the October meeting. I don’t have a copy of letter in front of me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is the one written back to Mr. Cristaldi.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah there was a fire hydrant and everything else he wanted. And we can be convinced on Mr. Darmstatter’s testimony that the fire hydrant is not necessary but then the Mayor and Council say you got to do it. All right, which way do you want us to go? You want to roll the dice?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Yes, we would like the Board to roll the dice or I should say we are rolling the dice.

MR. FAASSE: Both your applicants?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Darmstatter, did you identify any fire hydrants in the neighborhood?

MR. DARMSTATTER: Yes, there were two of them. One to the north and one to the south along Ringwood Avenue and both of them were within 300 feet of the proposed home.

MR. GREGOR: I can explain to you why the fire hydrant is in here. With a termination of any water main it is always recommended that terminate in a fire hydrant rather than a blow up valve because blow up valves get lost. With a fire hydrant you can clean the line so you don’t get sediment in the line.

MR. DARMSTATTER: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: That is my understanding as to why he wants a fire hydrant. Would you agree with that?

MR. DARMSTATTER: But we are not extending the main we are making a private connection.

MR. GRYGUS: They are not extending the mains up the roadway, they are coming from --

MR. DARMSTATTER: We are making a private connection.

MR. GREGOR: That is my speculation as to why he wanted the fire hydrant.

MR. FAASSE: Okay guys we got six more minutes yet.

MR. GRYGUS: I’ll make the motion to approve the application that is requesting a Use Variance on Lot 27 which will permit a second residential use on the first floor in a business zone, a Use Variance for a single-family dwelling on proposed Lot 27.02 where single family dwellings are not permitted in the Business Zone and there will be one additional Bulk Variance which will permit 14 9 by 18 parking spaces where 10 by 20 are required by ordinance.

MR. FAASSE: I think they were existing though.

MR. GREGOR: Five were being removed over here and six were being added to the back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is relocating.

MR. GREGOR: Just let him approve the 14, that’s fine.

MR. GRYGUS: Subject to the following conditions: #1, the Site Plan and the Survey will be resubmitted to conform with the Site Plan. #2 would be to widen the aisle to 24 feet behind the parking spaces off of Ringwood Avenue. The third condition would be to grant an easement for the utilities. I don’t know if I need to put that in there but that will service Lot 27.02.

MR. FAASSE: I’m sorry, what are saying again Bruce?

MR. GRYGUS: What is that?

MR. FAASSE: That you just said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: About an easement.

MR. GRYGUS: Proving an easement.

MR. FAASSE: Okay so you are going allow them to go through the easement?

MR. GRYGUS: Yes from 27, Lot 27 to 27.02, to the proposed Lot 27.02.

MR. GREGOR: Actually it goes the other way.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: That’s okay.

MR. GRYGUS: And then with respect to Ricker Place, the roadway will be improved as proposed to a minimum width of 20 feet in the westerly direction from Ringwood Avenue which will widen out to 24 feet west of the driveway, proposed new driveway, to the end of the proposed improvements and those improvements will be at a minimum and the rest will be determined as per the Borough of Wanaque.

MR. GREGOR: Do you want to add the word paved roadway?

MR. GRYGUS: I didn’t want to put paved as a minimum.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: Because what if the Borough says we don’t want it paved.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MR. COVELLI: I’ll second that motion.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay, ready.

MR. GRYGUS: Did we cover all of the --

MR. FAASSE: And then there will have to be a developer’s --

MR. GRYGUS: Oh I am sorry there will be one other condition if I could just amend that and that is that the storm water management plan and lighting will be provided and subject to a separate approval of the Board Engineer as a final condition.

MR. GREGOR: I include that revision in my second --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Storm water management on what lot?

MR. GREGOR: 27.02.

MR. GRYGUS: Well if there is no proposed improvements on 27 so it will be 27.02.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I know but I am saying we are just saying storm water management.

MR. GRYGUS: 27.02

MR. GREGOR: 27.02

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, applied to that one lot only.

MR. FAASSE: 27.02 we are going to need a developer’s agreement okay and it is all going to be subject to the county as well.

MR. GRYGUS: Correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um-hum.

MR. GRYGUS: Condition upon County approval.

MR. FAASSE: Did we cover everything in Bill’s list?

MR. GREGOR: I think so.

MR. FAASSE: You understand that you are going to have enter into an agreement with the municipality to do -- you know -- the work on.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Yes, yes we understand that.

MR. LEONARD: So we don’t put that signage as a minimum.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: What is that?

MR. LEONARD: We don’t, as a condition, we don’t put the signage that we were discussing earlier.

MR. GRYGUS: I am not really worrying about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The signage is going to be required by the County and then the Borough.

MR. GRYGUS: And with the Borough which also has to be granted by the Borough in order for there to be enforcement on the signage.

MR. COVELLI: It was stipulated by the applicant that there is no parking. Do you want to put that in the resolution too?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I meant the request from the County as far as stop signs and things. It is in their letter.

MR. FAASSE: You mean on Ricker Place?

MR. GRYGUS: We can’t do that. We are not enforcement.

MR. FAASSE: The applicants can say all they want but they don’t control Ricker Place.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. LEONARD: I am just saying do you want to put that in the resolution also.

MR. GRYGUS: We can’t put it as a condition because we can’t enforce that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. FAASSE: Well we can say that the applicants won’t use Ricker Place for parking but that is about all we can do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, that is an issue for the Borough and the Police Department to form an ordinance.

MR. LEONARD: I mean we could say that to every applicant saying you can’t park -- it is the same situation. Why don’t we say that it every --

MR. FAASSE: We haven’t so far.

MR. LEONARD: Right, that is all I am saying.

MR. GRYGUS: All right there is a motion and a second.

MR. COVELLI: And correct the pavement in accordance with the RSIS with the engineer’s. That was the only thing that you didn’t mention.

MR. GRYGUS: What was that?

MR. FAASSE: What are you talking about, you are mumbling.

MR. GRYGUS: We did, we did mention that.

MR. COVELLI: That the pavement detail was going to be upgraded to the RSIS.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no.

MR. FAASSE: He is saying he could care less if they don’t pave it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Leave it up to the Borough if they want to pave it.

MR. FAASSE: It is up to the Borough if they want it paved.

MR. COVELLI: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: I want a minimum improvement of 20 feet width and 24 feet west of the driveway.

MR. FAASSE: And how are we going to improve that?

MR. GREGOR: How what?

MR. FAASSE: How are we going to improve that if we don’t pave it?

MR. GREGOR: Gravel just like they got not.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah but what’s -- wait a minute. How far now does the gravel road go?

MR. GREGOR: It is whatever is on that site plan that is what we want to see.

MR. COVELLI: But the county has already required them to pave certain -- 50 feet in.

MR. GREGOR: No that was on the left of the driveway. That was on 27, Lot 27.

MR. GRYGUS: No that was on the driveway, the existing driveway on 27.

MR. GREGOR: However it is on the site plan that is how I want to see it, paved or gravel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because right now it shows it stops just passed the proposed driveway.

MR. GREGOR: Correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want it to go up further to create a better turn around.

MR. GREGOR: It goes further than that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. GRYGUS: You want to go to the end of their lot line, the end of the lot line.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You want it to go to the end of their property to make a better turn around or do you want it where it is, it is?

MR. GRYGUS: The end of Ricker Road.

MR. GREGOR: Right here. This is the end of the driveway here, it goes right here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right so it is going to go 10 feet passed the driveway.

MR. GREGOR: Right, as shown on the drawing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: If you go too far they tell us that is wetlands.

MR. GRYGUS: As shown on the drawing with the only exception that it be 24 feet west of the driveway in width.

MR. FAASSE: Mr. Darmstatter has to draw all of this up so you are hearing all of this right?

MR. DARMSTATTER: I am. I am listening carefully; I already have notes on my plans.

MR. GRYGUS: The length is no longer than on the drawing; no longer than it is on the drawing already it is just that the width will be 24 feet west of the driveway to the end.

MR. DARMSTATTER: I fully understand that.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: So we are going to have revised plans as a condition too.

MR. GRYGUS: Correct, well I said, yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On this plan, this is the reason I asked, on this plan, Page 2, it shows the new improvement coming 20 feet passed the existing the driveway.

MR. GREGOR: Which is probably the same as is if you scale it off.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are going to stay with that, we are not going to go the length of the paper street.

MR. GREGOR: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: It is the way that it is shown on the site plan.

MR. GRYGUS: Ralph brought up a point that we started getting into -- we can get into wetlands issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, you will, you basically will.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, that is a motion.

MR. GRYGUS: A motion and a second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, roll call.

MR. FAASSE: Wait, wait, wait, wait, who is entitled to vote? It was October. Who was here October and today, right? Everybody is qualified.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION #07-07 - STAROPOLI:

Made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning.

MR. FAASSE: All right, motion passed.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Thank you.

MR. COVELLI: You are not going to give your speech?

MR. FAASSE: You want me to insult Mr. Acquaviva. Are you going to have these plans in by next month when we do the Resolution so we can look at the plans?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Possibly.

MR. FAASSE: You have to have them here -- you know --

MR. GRYGUS: 10 days prior.

MR. FAASSE: 10 days prior.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: I will do my best.

MR. FAASSE: Well I mean it would facilitate things for the applicant that’s all.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: Any questions give me a call.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: I will, thank you.

MR. FAASSE: Don’t expect an answer but give him a call.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Good night, Merry Christmas.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, public discussion. The room is empty, we close public discussion. Okay, we have one Resolution.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, that is on Mazar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 08-07.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

RESOLUTIONS

MR. FAASSE: Whereas Steven Mazar and Maryanne Mazar have applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment of Borough of Wanaque for permission to construct additions onto a dwelling located on lands and premises known as 12 Beam Avenue in the Borough of Wanaque, more particularly lots 3 and 5 and Block 225 on the Borough Tax Maps. Whereas the Board of Adjustment having conducted a public hearing on said application on November 7, 2007 at which time the Board heard the testimony in support of the application, reviewed the documentation submitted by the applicants and the Board having opened the meeting to the public and having considered all of evidence so adduced makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: 1) The lands and premises, the subject of the within application are located in the R-15 Zone and are presently improved by a non-conforming single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot. 2) Applicants seek permission to construct two small additions to the existing dwelling. One would be along the north side of the structure and wrapping around to the rear and the second would be in the rear on the opposite side of the structure. Both additions would total less than an additional 200 square feet of building space. 3) As proposed this application for development requires two bulk variances as follows: A side yard setback variance of 8.77 feet, as the applicants proposed a setback of 11.23 feet instead of the minimum 20 required by ordinance and a total side yard variance of 15.01 feet as the applicants proposed total side yards of 29.90 feet instead of the 45 required by ordinances. 4) During the hearing considerable discussion was held concerning the need for the additions, the drainage conditions of the lot and the development within the immediate neighborhood. 5) The Board is of the opinion that the applicants have displayed sufficient hardship for the grant of the request of two bulk variances and that the same can be granted without detriment to the public good and welfare and would not substantially impair the intent and purposes of the Borough Zoning Plan and Scheme, especially considering the conditions added to the grant hereof. Now, therefore, be resolved by the Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Wanaque on this 5th day of December, 2007 that the within application to construct two small additions to the dwelling being is hereby granted subject to the following: Please listen to these because I didn’t have the benefit of the minutes. 1) That prior to the issuance of any building permit the applicant shall provide a storm water management plan and revised drawings for review by the Board’s engineer and the Board, these plans will show the necessary calculations and other information as discussed at the hearing. 2) That prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy for the additions, the applicant shall remove the lean-to presently located on the property and pave the existing driveway. 3) That all construction work to be performed in conformance with the plans, documentation and testimony utilized in support of this application. 4) That all construction work be performed in accordance with all the remaining Borough, County and State Building Codes and Regulations. 5) This approval is conditioned upon the applicant paying all professional fees incurred by this Board and the Borough in conjunction with this application, its review, approval and enforcement. That is the proposed resolution.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, you agree with that Mr. Gregor?

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I think everybody can vote on this one.

MR. COVELLI: So moved.

MR. GRYGUS: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, roll call.

MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION

Made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Next thing is correspondence, do we have any correspondence?

MS. MAROTTA: Whatever I mailed out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We will get to your area later.

MR. COVELLI: We didn’t get any certificates from the DCA? You and I didn’t get certificates from the DCA Gerri?

MR. LUDWIG: For what, we got ours a long time ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, what she passed out last month.

MR. COVELLI: No, what she had for tonight.

MR. GRYGUS: No, she passed it out last month.

MS. MAROTTA: I didn’t pass them out tonight, that was last month.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Last month.

MR. COVELLI: We didn’t get them last month, did we?

MR. GRYGUS: You took the class after us.

MR. GREGOR: Did you fail the test?

MS. MAROTTA: In fact when I gave it to you I said -- I probably said to you here go buy a frame or put it in a frame or something like that.

MR. LUDWIG: We got ours before them somehow or another.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That Frank.

MR. COVELLI: We did get ours last month?

MS. MAROTTA: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. You got that Don?

MR. LUDWIG: A long time ago, I thought it was mailed to me. Maybe it is not the same one I am thinking of.

MS. MAROTTA: I either gave them to you last month or the month before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am going to say last month because it was in last month’s folder so it was last month.

MR. LUDWIG: All of us went to take that course, didn’t we get a certificate for it.

MS. MAROTTA: I didn’t do it, it came from the DCA.

MR. FAASSE: I know, if you would have done it, you would have done it right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are right. It doesn’t say when. It is in my possession and I got it before the 18 month thing was up.

MR. COVELLI: Vouchers?

VOUCHERS:

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are right vouchers. We have one from the counselor here. We have professional services rendered for October, November, December, January, February, March and April, $900.00. Resolution 08-07 Mazur, 135 for a total $1,035.00. We need a motion on that gentlemen.

MR. GRYGUS: Motion.

MR. COVELLI: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Roll Call.

MOTION TO APPROVE MR. FAASSE’S VOUCHERS:

Made by Member Grygus, Seconded by Member Covelli. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning.

MR. FAASSE: Thank you, I’ll go home.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay that’s it, Ralph’s paid. Bill. Bill got a lot of money recently so maybe we could slack these for a while.

MR. FAASSE: I got a little money from S.O.S.

MR. GREGOR: I got all of mine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What did you get $12,000?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, whatever they had left.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, we are still fighting for the balance. I need you now to send me the balance.

MR. GREGOR: And you will still have another bill so.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, whatever it was $240.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don’t remember what it was, faxed me the --

MR. FAASSE: I have the whole thing, I got four or five resolutions in this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have Mr. Marsh you didn’t get paid for either I assume.

MR. FAASSE: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay fax me what you are behind.

MR. FAASSE: I did. I’ll tell you the payments since my last fax.

MR. COVELLI: If Mr. Gregor didn’t run a tape, throw it away.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No I have it, he made a tape.

MR. COVELLI: All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. We have Mr. Gregor’s heavy Christmas bonus here.

MR. FAASSE: He had to buy a new house.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is right, we are paying off the new dwelling, his new office space.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, services rendered October, November and December of 07 $300 each for $900. We have Parsco for $285 which is --

MR. FAASSE: Still incomplete.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Still incomplete. Santoro for $495, Elwood for $430 and Staropoli for $355 for a total of $24,065.

MR. LUDWIG: Wow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is an expensive office.

MR. LUDWIG: Motion to approve.

MR. GREGOR: Elwood was two reports in one month that is why that was high.

MR. COVELLI: Don made it, I’ll second it.

MS. MAROTTA: Oh Don did?

MR. LUDWIG: You can take it, I don’t --

MS. MAROTTA: Okay, Don and Frank.

MOTION TO APPROVE MR. GREGOR’S VOUCHERS:

Made by Member Ludwig, Seconded by Member Covelli. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. The next item is the approval of the minutes from the November meeting which we don’t have back yet so we can’t approve.

MR. COVELLI: Motion to adjourn.

MR. FAASSE: No, no, no, no, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So we will carry that until we get the minutes. Engineer’s report is --

MR. COVELLI: Very short, right Mr. Gregor?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, one incomplete application. When we get to it, we’ll get to it. It is still incomplete. Now the next thing is discussion and do we go into executive session?

MR. FAASSE: For what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: To talk about the lawsuit.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, no, no, no, no, no, I can just bring up the information unless you need to get into specifics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, all right.

MR. FAASSE: But before we get into that though we should go with our reorganization meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I got that right here.

MR. FAASSE: Oh you want to do that afterwards?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we are going to do that in the mix of somewhere.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. All right we’ll do it definitively. I mean we received Mr. Schepis brief, I filed our brief last week, I got one from Mr. La Sala today. I don’t know if Tony Fiorello is going to be filing a brief because the Judge did split the action between a review of our denial versus that inverse condemnation. In other words --

MR. COVELLI: Is this Fennelly?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah Fennelly, I’m sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You said La Sala.

MR. COVELLI: You said La Sala.

MR. FAASSE: La Sala filed a brief.

MR. CHAIRMAN: La Sala is -- you lost us there.

MR. FAASSE: All right. Let’s go a little bit slow. Okay. Fennelly --

MS. MAROTTA: Schepis was the attorney.

MR. FAASSE: Right, he filed a lawsuit. Sued the Borough of Wanaque, sued the Board of Adjustment and the Barriero’s.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is right, the neighbors.

MR. COVELLI: Those are the downhill people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Rita and Glen. Okay. They have retained Mr. La Sala to represent them.

MR. COVELLI: Oh, how nice.

MR. FAASSE: So there are four attorneys in here. One of the causes of action was that if we denied the application for development we in effect have zoned the property into inutility and, therefore, we have to inverse condemnation. The Judge, after Mr. Schepis’ agreement split that away from the first round. The first round is now basically reviewing what this Board did in denying the application. There are a couple of other little counts in there. 1) That they are saying that they have the right to drain water over against the Barriero’s property and also they want an easement to affirmatively set forth that right. We had a Case Management Conference prior to last month’s meeting, set a briefing schedule. Mr. Schepis has on behalf of the plaintiff filed his brief, he did a very competent job. I responded with our brief last week when it was due, it was due the 29th and Mr. La Sala filed his brief -- well I got my copy today. So we are scheduled to have oral argument on this on December the 19th in front of Judge Passero.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Two weeks from now.

MR. FAASSE: Pardon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Two weeks from now.

MR. FAASSE: Yes.

MR. LEONARD: Is there a possibility that any of us could be called for testimony?

MR. FAASSE: No, right now it is just on the record.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. There are no issues other than on the record as to whether or not the Board was justified. I mean he makes a very good case, he is a skilled attorney and -- you know -- he looks at one little variance and says well that is not so bad -- you know -- I mean but you got to look at the overall picture on that particular site. I also -- we were scheduling to have a site review and then it ended up that I went up there by myself but I went up and traveled up there and I am going to strongly encourage the judge to say before you make a decision here, you ought go out there and look at this property.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well look at it from the top and from the bottom.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you ride to the lower street and look at it?

MR. FAASSE: Well that is where Barriero lives. So I had to -- she was definitely there to say -- you know -- this is my house, this is my property.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: I tried walking up a little bit but I don’t want to get too -- because I was still my --

MS. MAROTTA: Who did you say the judge was?

MR. FAASSE: Passero, Robert Passero.

MS. MAROTTA: He is retiring.

MR. FAASSE: Well I think he has a mandatory retirement coming up.

MR. COVELLI: Hopefully he won’t retire before the 19th.

MS. MAROTTA: Because I think he is 70.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They will bring him back like they did with your buddy.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. COVELLI: Humphreys, is that what you said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He is 90, ain’t he.

MR. COVELLI: Humphreys is 90?

MR. CHAIRMAN: They brought him out of retirement and did the same thing with -- who is it, DiDonato.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, but I think only 70 is the maximum on that.

MR. COVELLI: No he is 80 I think.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah Humphreys was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Humphreys is old.

MR. COVELLI: He is 80, I don’t think he is 90.

MR. FAASSE: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No but he is up there.

MR. FAASSE: So that is where we stand.

MR. COVELLI: 80 is the new 50.

MR. FAASSE: I put a call out to Tony Fiorello today to ask him, hey you going to file a brief and he was in court, he never got back to me before I left the office. I left a little early today because I had to go somewhere. But I don’t know if he is going to be filing a brief but that is where it stands right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What did you find about the test on the property?

MR. FAASSE: Well I asked him about that whether or not there was a test on there. I am surprised he didn’t supplement his submittal.

MR. COVELLI: While Ralph is reading that, can I bring up a discussion item which could be part of maybe the reorganization or whatever. Well maybe Ralph should finish his.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah let’s finish Fennelly.

MS. MAROTTA: Did you guys pass them all down already.

MR. COVELLI: No they are by Jack.

MR. FAASSE: Tony basically said he didn’t problem with having a test there but I don’t know what the results are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah but I think since it was done by the Borough on behalf of the applicant at least they should have the courtesy --

MR. FAASSE: No, it wasn’t done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I was told it was done.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah but not by the Borough.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Read what it says. Tom Carroll sent Alimo there to do the test. Somebody called Alimo who did the test. Alimo is the Borough Engineer. I was told that an employee of Alimo Engineering performed the test.

MR. GREGOR: I hope not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I told you a long time ago.

MR. GREGOR: I hope that is not true.

MR. FAASSE: I will have to look back in my correspondence because there was a memo from Bill that when I looked at it --

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is another letter somewhere.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah that was a copy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That says Alimo was doing the test on behalf of Tom Carroll.

MR. FAASSE: The question was who was going to witness the test.

MR. GREGOR: I wouldn’t go to the site or witness the test because I told them it was a closed application.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, you got a call for that.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah. He wrote me a letter, I think I faxed it over to Ralph.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I know that there is more than this paperwork that came in.

MR. FAASSE: I’m sorry, what is the next issue?

MR. COVELLI: I think I might have mentioned this before but I think it is something that we have to really think about going forward with the reorganization, it might be a good time to do it. I have gone before a lot of Boards in doing stuff for work and I think there has got to be a way where perhaps your resolutions Ralph, rather than taking the time to sit here and read them. I think that maybe like a copy could go to Bill and if you guys agree to them -- you know -- maybe you have a copy to go to all of the Board Members or whatever. Just to take the time to sit there and read it, I have never seen them read at any other --

MS. MAROTTA: No, they don’t.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Somebody just got sued on that, I think it is Paterson.

MR. COVELLI: That it didn’t get read.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is something in the paper about how they handle the resolutions in Paterson, there is a lawsuit.

MR. FAASSE: There did it by the minutes. Bob DeMere’s who is a -- works for -- right now he is a member of the Board of Elections. He used to be the attorney for the Board of Adjustment. Is this the story that you are telling us?

MR. CHAIRMAN: In Paterson.

MR. FAASSE: In Paterson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was something in the paper recently.

MR. FAASSE: He was directed by a judge to perform or -- you know -- to create resolutions as required under the Municipal Land Use and the Board just says well we don’t have time for that, we just do it in the minutes.

MR. COVELLI: Okay, so --

MR. FAASSE: So now he has an ethics charge against him.

MR. COVELLI: All right. So my recommendation would be moving ahead is that -- you know -- --

MR. FAASSE: My only problem is I mean if -- you know -- I do not prepare the Resolutions until -- you know -- I mean like today I prepared this one today.

MR. COVELLI: So what if your brought copies and handed them out to the Board the night of the meeting or whether we read them at break or read them -- if we took two minutes --

MR. CHAIRMAN: E-Mail them to us.

MR. COVELLI: What?

MR. CHAIRMAN: E-Mail -- you know.

MR. COVELLI: He doesn’t e-mail.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh that’s right.

MR. COVELLI: Well get them to Bill and Bill will e-mail them to us. But 99 percent of the time --

MR. CHAIRMAN: We don’t catch anything wrong.

MR. COVELLI: Bill catches it if it is wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. COVELLI: We don’t.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s true.

MR. COVELLI: So I am saying if Bill was comfortable with it.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah but I am getting lazier as I get old.

MR. FAASSE: My only problem with that situation is like I said I rely on the minutes, it was very difficult today without the minutes to do this one. I had to go by my notes and my notes aren’t the greatest because I rely on the minutes. But --

MS. MAROTTA: You know why I didn’t do them.

MR. FAASSE: No, no, no.

MR. COVELLI: Because she wanted to screw you up on the resolution.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We know why we are just saying without them it made it a little difficult.

MR. FAASSE: I’m just telling you that usually you do such a great job and that makes my job easier so.

MS. MAROTTA: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: So I rely on you. It is not my resolution, that is the only problem and if I would prepare the way you would do it with just filling it out and looking at it then it doesn’t look like -- it becomes my resolution.

MR. COVELLI: Okay, well if you faxed a copy to Bill, Bill e-mailed a copy to the Board or give us a hard copy when we -- just like we get our reports that Bill -- you know -- handed to us the night of the meeting.

MR. FAASSE: At the meeting.

MR. COVELLI: I just think to sit here --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Some nights we have three or four.

MR. GRYGUS: To me it is easier for me to look at something and maybe find something wrong than it is to listen to what you are saying and --

MR. GREGOR: I have to tell you in my sorted past as well as my current, I am involved with a lot of resolutions and they are mostly read by title if even --

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. GREGOR: -- if not on the consent agenda.

MR. FAASSE: But that is usually when you can -- you know -- you pick up your packet on the weekend before and they are all in there. I mean some of these -- you know -- we old practitioners still do it like Hawthorne --

MR. COVELLI: I am going to refer to you the following question.

MR. FAASSE: --they read most of the resolution.

MR. COVELLI: I am going to refer to you the following question. Do you feel that it is important to read it because you feel that there is an additional legal protection by doing that?

MR. FAASSE: Well I don’t know. Do you take these Resolutions actually and make them a part of our minutes?

MS. MAROTTA: I take the Resolution and give a copy to the front office.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MS. MAROTTA: I mail one to the applicant. If there is an attorney the attorney gets one and one goes in my file.

MR. FAASSE: And do you ever put them with the minutes?

MS. MAROTTA: I give them to Kathy with the minutes.

MR. FAASSE: Oh you do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does she post it on line with the minutes?

MS. MAROTTA: I don’t know what she does.

MR. COVELLI: Well I was going to say, that should be always done.

MS. MAROTTA: My minutes go on.

MR. COVELLI: Your resolution should be made a part of the minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The public minutes.

MR. FAASSE: Well see that’s -- you know -- that is why I always liked to have read it because at least it was always there on the tape if you ever went back to the tape.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, if a judge went back it was right into the minutes.

MR. COVELLI: Yeah but under that section Gerri could write resolution made a part of the minutes.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. COVELLI: You should make every Resolution a part of the minutes. In other words, a copy --

MS. MAROTTA: I don’t understand what you are saying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: When we get bigger.

MR. COVELLI: A physical copy of the Resolution should be attached to the minutes.

MS. MAROTTA: I do for -- you mean start giving it to everybody like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, no.

MR. FAASSE: No, in the book.

MR. COVELLI: In your file, you have a copy of -- a file of Resolutions let’s say, right?

MS. MAROTTA: Right.

MR. COVELLI: Okay. Also when I look at your file of minutes, that same Resolution should also be found there. You should be able to cross-reference it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So the motion we just approved, the Resolution --

MS. MAROTTA: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- will be attached to the minutes of the December meeting.

MR. COVELLI: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is what Frank is saying.

MS. MAROTTA: Attached where on the internet?

MR. GRYGUS: No in your file.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, in your file so if anybody had to reflect back --

MR. COVELLI: Well also on the internet. If the internet is a reflection --

MS. MAROTTA: I can’t do that.

MR. COVELLI: Why?

MS. MAROTTA: Because his resolution is not in my computer.

MR. COVELLI: He scans it -- you scan it.

MS. MAROTTA: I can’t do that.

MR. GRYGUS: Well just keep reading it then.

MS. MAROTTA: I mail my minutes over to Richard. As soon as they are approved, I go into my computer and I e-mail them over Richard, he puts them on the internet.

MR. COVELLI: I opened a can of worms.

MR. GRYGUS: Ralph with all due respect -- you did open a can of worms. But with all due respect, she should have an electronic copy that can be made a part of the minutes so that it can go on the internet.

MR. GRYGUS: If they scanned it to an Adobe file that can be attached.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah a PDF.

MR. FAASSE: It is either me buying a new computer or I am buying --

MR. GRYGUS: You can put it in a Microsoft Word file it is just same as an adobe file. I mean I do --

MR. LUDWIG: When do you retire Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: I don’t know anymore.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, you are not retiring. I am rescinding the retirement.

MR. LUDWIG: I was just going to say, say you will start doing it as of that date. Pass the buck.

MS. MAROTTA: I like that idea.

MR. LUDWIG: Give me about 8 to 12 months to get it on line.

MR. COVELLI: The December minutes would have two attachments, one would be minutes, one would be resolutions. And if they are doing the whole thing as in the Adobe File they would just scan all the pages and it would be one attachment.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. COVELLI: Minutes and Resolutions. I think she is doing them as a word file because she says she e-mails them to her and she puts them on the website. So she is e-mailing that Microsoft Word file.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ed your term is up. We want to make a couple of deals before you get --

MR. LEONARD: What, more candy, what do you want?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well we want to make some better choices with the candy. Ralph, what did you want Ralph?

MR. FAASSE: Milk Duds.

MR. GRYGUS: I have no request, the candy is fine the way it is, I like it.

MR. COVELLI: Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: What?

MR. COVELLI: They don’t have the mechanism to scan in this building?

MS. MAROTTA: I don’t.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In the building, they have to have a scanner in the building somewhere.

MS. MAROTTA: They probably do but I don’t.

MR. GREGOR: I have a scanner in my office, we have to have one here somewhere.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MR. COVELLI: Because I am just saying you could literally -- you could e-mail her the minutes and you could give her the physical copy. Even now, she should be putting that it in because that is a copy of the minutes. That is part of the minutes, that resolution.

MR. FAASSE: That is why I read them.

MR. LEONARD: That is what it is when he reads them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It should be on file upfront, right? It should be.

MR. COVELLI: Yeah but when she is typing the minutes, she is not typing --

MR. LUDWIG: Yeah but you watch it on the video.

MR. FAASSE: I am not expert on the Open Public Records Act which would be -- you know -- part of the minutes and all of that.

MR. LUDWIG: Ralph, they listen to it on the video.

MR. COVELLI: Ralph, when she is typing the minutes, she is not typing verbatim what you just read.

MR. FAASSE: I know.

MR. COVELLI: She is probably just putting -- referencing the resolution.

MR. GRYGUS: The approved minutes -- approved Resolution 08-07.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, that’s it.

MR. COVELLI: So the only place that your entire Resolution is getting recorded is on that tape.

MR. CHAIRMAN: True.

MR. FAASSE: Which years ago meant something -- you know -- when minutes --

MR. COVELLI: Okay, you can keep reading it.

MS. MAROTTA: It is in the file thought. I have it in my file, Kathy has got it in the front office, I mean -- you know.

MR. FAASSE: Send us more of your proposals.

MR. GRYGUS: You did open a can of worms.

MR. FAASSE: I ought to work for the Post Office, I don’t think they work hard enough they get the time to think about all of these things.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, is there any other discussion. Okay. Now back to the -- you have to put a notice in the paper.

MS. MAROTTA: That is right, notice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: For the reorganizational meeting. Now here is the thing, the Mayor and Council’s reorganization is the same night.

MR. COVELLI: What?

MR. CHAIRMAN: They are not reorganizing on January 1st this year for whatever reason.

MR. COVELLI: They are not?

MS. MAROTTA: How come?

MR. COVELLI: Oh I know why, because they have to go to the High School.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They are going to the High School.

MS. MAROTTA: Oh that’s right because that is Karen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They new councilwoman --

MR. COVELLI: Has family that is handicapped.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- Karen Sisco, some of her family is handicapped and they can’t get in the building. So they are relocating that meeting to the High School.

MR. GRYGUS: How could that be the same -- I thought it was going to be on a Saturday.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The notice I saw in the paper said the 2nd. They usually do it on the 1st.

MS. MAROTTA: I know they are going to the High School but I didn’t know the day.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe the newspaper was wrong but I saw it in the --

MR. GRYGUS: They won’t have anybody here to swear in the members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is other item.

MR. COVELLI: We have new members coming up this year?

MS. MAROTTA: Well we’ll just have to cancel our meeting then.

MR. COVELLI: The Mayor has to open the meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We would have no representation.

MR. FAASSE: You can’t now, you should have told us that before we adjourned Reality Associates. We adjourned that down to January the 2nd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well we have had the situation before and you’ve sworn in new members.

MR. FAASSE: Oh I can swear people in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. LUDWIG: Well if you postpone that to --

MR. FAASSE: You know you an invite the judge here.

MR. LUDWIG: If you postpone Reality Associates to February I won’t be here so. Somebody else has got to listen to some tapes.

MR. GRYGUS: He was a judge, he can do it.

MR. LEONARD: Listen if you postpone to February we’ll only have three meetings.

MR. GRYGUS: To the deadline.

MR. LEONARD: February, March and April.

MR. LUDWIG: We are in deep du-du, we only have one.

MR. COVELLI: That’s it, we could work ourselves right out of a job.

MR. LUDWIG: We got rid of three insurance policies tonight.

MS. MAROTTA: Do you want me to find out from Kathy tomorrow what is going on?

MR. FAASSE: Well listen we got to make a decision now.

MR. GRYGUS: It really doesn’t matter Ralph. We have to go because we carried that.

MR. LUDWIG: I want to adjourn. Ralph, that is my suggestion, I want to adjourn, that is my suggestion.

MR. GRYGUS: If the governing body cannot be in attendance them the attorney will --

MR. CHAIRMAN: You did it once before Ralph.

MR. GRYGUS: We don’t know what attorney it is going to be.

MR. FAASSE: I wouldn’t be surprised; it was probably 25 years ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it wasn’t --

MR. GRYGUS: It was not that long ago. It has been since I was here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It wasn’t that many years ago. Somebody didn’t show up --

MR. FAASSE: There are only two things that the Mayor does.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I know.

MR. FAASSE: He swears in the new members and he chairs the meeting up until the --

MR. GRYGUS: The Chair is elected.

MR. FAASSE: -- the Chair is elected.

MR. GRYGUS: You can do that.

MR. FAASSE: And there is no reason why you can’t --

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Vice-Chairman can’t start the meeting.

MR. FAASSE: You can start the meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, that is true.

MR. FAASSE: You can start the meeting and you can go all the way down the nominations and at that point you can just say okay, so and so is going to assume the chair for the purposes of --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: You could assume the Chair for the purposes.

MR. FAASSE: I could.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. So let’s not worry. Let’s do our meeting and be done with it.

MR. GRYGUS: Because all you are acting is as a moderator for us to --

MR. COVELLI: The Board Attorney will take care of that, we don’t know how that will be at this point.

MR. FAASSE: That’s right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are going to work it out.

MR. FAASSE: I might apply for prosecutor or public defender in this town now after this.

MR. COVELLI: There you go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. LEONARD: But what time is the Town Council meeting?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not sure; there was a notice in the paper, I know it said the 2nd.

MS. MAROTTA: It is usually at 7 o’clock when they do have them.

MR. LEONARD: Well theoretically then he could do his thing quickly and somebody could come over here with --

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, he can’t do his thing.

MR. GRYGUS: How are they going to record that over there?

MR. FAASSE: They have to bring the equipment.

MS. MAROTTA: I don’t know, Kathy has got a problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just like they had meetings there before, didn’t they?

MR. COVELLI: Bruce, do you have nothing to do tonight; we would like to go home.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, gentlemen the Motion is that the Wanaque Board of Adjustment will reorganize at the --

MR. CHAIRMAN: January 2nd.

MR. FAASSE: January 2nd, 7:30.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Reorganizational Meeting. 8 o’clock regular meeting.

MR. FAASSE: All right and the secretary is directed to give the required Open Public Meetings notices for those two meetings.

MR. GRYGUS: Didn’t we do that in 07?

MR. CHAIRMAN: What’s that?

MR. FAASSE: What’s that?

MR. COVELLI: Notice the Reorganization Meeting.

MR. FAASSE: No.

MR. COVELLI: When we printed the Schedule of Public Meetings.

MR. FAASSE: Not for January.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. Because the meetings in 08, Frank.

MR. COVELLI: What?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Frank, there are new meetings in 08.

MR. COVELLI: I’m sorry, when we do our thing we do 12 months and we do January of the following so we save on the notice, whatever.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. COVELLI: I thought we did that here.

MS. MAROTTA: Are we adjourned?

MR. LEONARD: I’ll make the motion I guess.

MR. COVELLI: I already did.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll second it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. All in favor.

ALL MEMBERS: Aye.