BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING
BOROUGH OF WANAQUE
MINUTES
February 1, 2006
Salute to Flag:
This is a Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Board of
Adjustment and adequate notice has been duly advertised by the mailing of a
notice to the Suburban Trends and the Herald & News on the 6th
day of January 2006 and a notice has been posted on the bulletin board in the
Municipal Building and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk.
ROLL CALL: Chairman Jack Dunning, Members William
Grygus, Frank Covelli (came in at 8:10 P.M.), Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ed
Leonard, Art Koning, Eric Willse, Attorney Ralph Faasse and Engineer William
Gregor.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Ted Roberto.
Application #11-05 Cosimo & Teresa Santoro, 1185
Ringwood Ave., Block 448 Lot 8.01, Bulk & Use Variances. Atty. Faasse
received a letter from Atty. Carlo Coppa asking for this application to be
carried to the March 1, 2006 due to the fact the newspaper notice required did
not meet the appropriate time requirements.
MOTION MADE TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE MARCH 1, 2006
MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were
Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
Application #19-05 Biggio Brothers, Inc. (New Century
Gunite), 835 Ringwood Ave., Block 306 Lot 7, Site Plan, Commercial & Use
Variances: Atty. Faasse received a
letter from Attorney James R. Gregory asking to be carried to the March 1, 2006
Meeting because of the heavy agenda. Atty. Gregory feels that his application
might not be heard and considering the number of experts that he would call as
witnesses, he is requesting the application be carried.
It was recommended that a letter be sent to the attorney
advising him that if testimony is not given at the March 1, 2006 Meeting,
re-notice will be necessary to the newspaper and public.
MOTION MADE TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE MARCH 1, 2006
MEETING AND THAT THE BOARD SECRETARY SEND A LETTER TO THE ATTORNEY ADVISING HIM
IF TESTIMONY IS NOT GIVEN AT THE MARCH 1, 2006 MEETING, HE WILL HAVE TO
RE-NOTICE: made by Member Ludwig,
seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus,
Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
Application #20-05 Steven M. & Rebecca Abma, 38
Furnace Ave., Block 220 Lot 7, Bulk Variance: The Board Secretary received
a letter from E. David Becker, Esq. asking for the application to be carried to
the March 1, 2006 Meeting. The applicants are still in the process of revising
plans and drawings for the professionals and the Board to review.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE MARCH 1, 2006
MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were
Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
Application #03-06 Robert Barrett, One Decker Rd.,
Block 413 Lot 29, Bulk Variance: Mr. & Mrs. Barrett came forward.
Atty. Faasse asked Mr. & Mrs. Barrett if they had an
opportunity to review Eng. Gregor’s report and they said no. Atty. Faasse asked
Mr. & Mrs. Barrett if they were planning on bringing in Eng. Robert A. Walz
from Michigan. Mr. Barrett said the Premier Sunrooms has an office in New
Jersey. Atty. Faasse explained the Board couldn’t rely on Eng. Walz’s
certification of the plans because he is not licensed in the State of New
Jersey and his license has expired. Therefore, if Premier Sunrooms has a
company in New Jersey they have to get someone in New Jersey to certify the
plans. Mrs. Barrett said she contacted the builder and he said they had
submitted sealed drawings. Atty. Faasse said they did submit drawings but they
are not sealed. Eng. Gregor said he
checked the validity of the license with the State Board of Professional
Engineers and according to their records Eng. Walz’s license had expired in
1992. Eng. Gregor recommended the Board not proceed with this application
tonight. Also, no site plan was submitted to indicate where on the structure
the sunroom was to be built. The engineer drew details of the size but no location
as to where on the structure the sunroom would be. Eng. Gregor suggested to Mr.
& Mrs. Barrett to have their engineer call him to straighten this matter
out.
Eng. Gregor added that the revised plans have to be on
file 10 days before the next meeting.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE MARCH 1, 2006
MEETING:
made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Willse, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
Application #10-05 David Donus, 1019 Ringwood Ave., Block
408 Lot 13, Site Plan, Use Variance & Bulk Variance: Attorney John M. Barbarula came forward on
behalf of his client. Atty. Faasse told Atty. Barbarula that the three new
Board Members have either read the transcript or listened to the tape from the
previous meeting. Atty. Barbarula said they have eliminated all variances on
this application.
The
sole remaining variance is a Use Variance. Bulk Variances are gone, setbacks
are gone, side yards are gone and parking is gone. Atty. Barbarula went on to
say the plan before the Board tonight is more adaptable to the site and also in
keeping with the setbacks and the type of parking considerations the Borough
has in the newly adopted Redevelopment Zone.
Engineer Gerald Gardner came forward.
Eng.
Gregor said, looking at the width of the proposed parking spaces, they’re being
shown as 8’ wide, and if that’s the case, a variance is required. Chairman
Dunning added, the Borough Ordinance states the size should be 10’ X 20’. Eng.
Gregor agreed and went on to say that “RSIS” (Residential Site Improvement
Standards) permit 9’ X 18. Eng. Gregor said, since this application is
residential, falls under the “RSIS”, therefore, 9’ X 18’ would be a
non-variance by the “RSIS”. Eng. Gardner said the plans would be modified to be
9’ X 18’. Eng. Gregor also said, the requirement under the barrier free code in
N.J. adopts the “ADA” Standards requiring that the first handicap accessible
space must be van accessible. The one shown on the plan is not van accessible.
Van Accessible requires an 8’ width with an 8’ landing area. Eng. Gregor asked
Eng. Gardner to address that as well. Atty. Barbarula said the parking spaces
would be 9’ X 18’ with a 2’ overhang. Eng. Gregor said it’s the van accessible
space that they need to work on.
Eng.
Gardner went over the revised plans and said everything meets the guidelines as
well as the Ordinance. He also mentioned the storm water drainage with
reference to the trash disposal. The original plan called for the buildings to
line up east/west line with sheet run-off across the property. What they will
do is cut that off at the buildings so they have to swale all the water to the
northern side of the property and will be putting a lip behind the curb to
catch the water before it gets to the pavement and run it underneath into the
same drainage system. There will also be individual water service and sanitary
service to each building and will be shown on the revised plan. Atty. Barbarula
said he checked on another project and right now there is capacity for sewer
but he hasn’t checked for water. In reference to the lighting plan, Atty.
Barbarula said there is a slight spill over and asked Eng. Gardner how is that
being addressed. Eng. Gardner said they would be installing shields on the
lighting poles.
Atty.
Barbarula asked Eng. Gardner to go the basic changes to the site. Eng. Gardner
said all the parking was in the north/south direction, now its in east, west
& north/south, building is setback to line up more with the residents
immediately to the north and units are still the same size but a little
different in layout. Eng. Gregor told Eng. Gardner that the architectural plans
should be in agreement with what’s on the site plan and they are not. Atty.
Barbarula mentioned that the applicant hasn’t decided whether these condo units
will be for sale or just rent, and it all depends on what the market is like.
If the interest rates are through the roof, they will be rentals and if the
economy stays good, they might be for sale. Atty. Barbarula said, with regard
to the first unit closest to the street, based upon the amount of space
available, could there be a ramp for that unit considering the elevation?
Member
Grygus asked about what kind of trees were they
proposing along the sidewalk on Ringwood Ave. because Member Grygus is
concerned about the canopy height and there could be a potential sight line
issue looking south on Ringwood Avenue for someone looking to pull out going
north on Ringwood Avenue. Eng. Gardner said there’s quite a bit of space there
and they would have to be pretty low and big to reach out there. Eng. Gregor
said they would need County approval for the plantings. Chairman Dunning wanted
to know how the truck will access the dumpster site for pick-up. Eng. Gardner
said they would have to pull in and back into a space and out and if the
parking lot is full, it will obviously be an issue. You can’t back onto
Ringwood Avenue, therefore, so if the truck pulls in and picks it up and can’t
turn around in a space, he will have to back down to the front parking area and
back in there and pull out. Eng. Gardner mentioned the “Open Space Use” and
they proposed a hiking trail, a picnic area and swing sets. Chairman Dunning
asked if the retaining walls match Borough Code and Eng. Gregor said the
retaining walls are both 4’ that are 4’ off set which meets the Borough Code.
The retaining walls are approximately 6’ to 8’ from the dwelling units and he
suggested that the Fire Department should provide comment on this because the
Fire Department typically likes to have 20’ clear to fight a structure fire
from any three sides. Eng. Gardner commented by saying you can’t access this
site by truck but they might want 10’ or something and he will make it work for
whatever they want. Eng. Gardner said he could make more room in the back by
moving the retaining walls but he cant’ on the south side. Eng. Gregor said his
recommendation to the Board is to get the Fire Department’s comments before any
decision is made.
Attorney Faasse asked if anyone in the public had any questions for Eng. Gardner. No one came forward.
Eng.
Gardner announced to the Board he has a “Certificate of Exemption” from the
County for four units or less which his assistant David Dorin handed to him
from the file.
Kenneth Ochab, Professional Planner came forward. License #2149 State of N.J., Masters Degree in
Planning from Rutgers University, 30 years of experience working for other
county, state and local government in planning positions.
Atty.
Barbarula asked Mr. Ochab if he had an opportunity to review the revised plans
and he said yes. Atty. Barbarula asked, based upon the number of units,
bedrooms and trip generation, what effect adding 3 parking spaces per unit have
to this new plan as opposed to before? Mr. Ochab said its much better in the
sense that the issue discussed at the last meeting concerning the occupants of
the units and the types of visitors they may have or number of occupants for
each unit. If by chance you do have 3 drivers per unit; there will be
sufficient spaces as long as they keep the 12 spaces for the car for each one
of the individuals. Mr. Ochab said they have eliminated all the Bulk Variances
for both the B-Zone and the R-10 Zone. The character of this area is almost
exclusively residential in nature.
Eng.
Gregor said to Mr. Ochab, with three bedroom apartments is it typical to have
small children residing in this location? Mr. Ochab answered by saying; its not
generally typical but is it possible, yes. Eng. Gregor asked if there were
small children where would they play? Mr. Ochab said, as long as there is an
area in the rear there certainly is an area for recreational purposes. It’s Mr.
Ochab’s feelings, based on his dealings with this type of project elsewhere,
the age of the child might be very young, under five or college age children.
The thought behind that is that usually young married people move into an
apartment or buy a condo and when their children get a little older they want
to buy a house.
Mr.
David Donus, the applicant, came forward and was asked by Atty. Barbarula his
preference to renting or selling and he said he preferred selling.
Member
Willse asked about the rock on the site and Eng. Gardner said there will be
blasting on the site.
OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed
Atty.
Barbarula said he would like to bifurcate the application for the Use Variance
and carry for the Site Plan. Based upon the comments about bringing this
application to the attention of the Fire Department and may generate a change
about the location of the dumpster and wall, he would like to carry the Site
Plan and have a determination tonight on the Use Variance. Atty. Faasse said if
the Fire Department comes back with any major changes, then the Board would
have a problem voting tonight or the applicant could wait and do it all at
once. Chairman Dunning said the Board would have to decide about bifurcating
the application or not.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE NEXT MEETING PENDING
REVIEW AND COMMENT FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, REVISED SITE PLAN, AND NEW
ARCHITECTURAL AND ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING: made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Ludwig,
voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Ludwig, Leonard,
Koning and Willse. Member Hoffman voted no.
RECESSED AT 9:52 P.M.
RECONVENED AT 10:03 P.M.
All Members present
as before the recess.
Application #02-06 “Wanaque Landscaping & Garden
Supply”, 1434 Ringwood Ave., Block 478 Lot 3, Interpretation of Zoning
Ordinance of the Borough of Wanaque: Atty. Jerome Vogel came forward on behalf of the
applicant and told the
Board
they have two more applications that precede his and it is 9:50 P.M. and the
close off is 10:30 P.M. Atty. Vogel said
it would not be prudent to sit and wait because it doesn’t look like the Board
would have time to hear the application. Therefore, Atty. Vogel asked to be
carried to the next meeting.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE MARCH 1, 2006 MEETING: made by Member Ludwig,
seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus,
Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
Application #15-05 Theodore Di
Laura, 10 Whistler Place, Block 458 Lot 20, Bulk & Use Variance: Mr. Di Laura came forward.
New plans were submitted by Mr. Di Laura dated January 17, 2006. Atty. Faasse
swore in Mr. Di Laura who lives at 7 Franklin Place,
Haskell, N.J. Mr. Di Laura said what he is trying to
do is square off the building from the first floor to the second floor and he
will be gaining six (6) feet all the way around and will end up with a two
bedroom apartment instead of a one bedroom apartment. Mr. Di
Laura testified that this is a two family dwelling. Eng. Gregor added that the
application doesn’t specify that this is a two family it just states, “to
construct a second story apartment”. Member Grygus brought to the Board’s
attention that in Eng. Gregor’s report the applicant is looking for a 19.8’
front yard setback to First Avenue, which exists now to the dwelling and does
not account for what the porch extension would be to reduce that measurement.
Mr. Di Laura said it would only cover the steps. Eng. Gregor said the variance
plan does not show the porch extension on the First Avenue side. Eng. Gregor
told Mr. Di Laura if he does extend a covered porch in that area, it would
reduce the front yard setback. Eng. Gregor added, that he doesn’t see a
dimension on the architectures as to what the size is and is not shown or
dimensioned on the site plan. Chairman Dunning explained to Mr. Di Laura that his engineer’s plans doesn’t show that
proposed extension over the porch which makes it a covered front porch.
Therefore, that changes the variance to the First Avenue/Whistler Place side
and the Board needs that dimension shown on the plan because this will require
an additional variance. Mr. Di Laura explained the
reason he wants the covered porch is that it’s the north side of the house and
you can’t keep the ice off the steps. Atty. Faasse asked Mr. Di Laura if he
could give the Board the new dimension as to how close the proposed porch would
be to the street. Mr. Di Laura said just subtract 4
feet off of the 19.8 ft. dimension or 5 feet off the 19.8 ft. He really didn’t
know what to say.
Chairman
Dunning asked Eng. Gregor if he looked at the proposed parking and Eng. Gregor
said yes and it does work. Eng. Gregor proceeded to read through his report
dated January 27, 2006.
Atty.
Faasse asked Mr. Di Laura why he wants to expand the
second floor apartment. Mr. Di Laura said by doing
this he could double the income from the apartment and he likes to have things
nice and the apartment the way it is doesn’t
suit
him. Eng. Gregor asked Mr. Di Laura the square
footage of the apartment and Mr. Di Laura said
compared to the first floor apartment it would be six feet all the way around.
Mr. Di Laura lives in the adjacent house and wants to
move into the proposed apartment when it’s finished and rent his house out. Mr.
Di Laura added that he owns a home in Wyckoff and will be moving there in a few
years and then will rent out the proposed apartment on the second floor.
Eng.
Gregor asked Mr. Di Laura if he decided what the dimension of the front porch
is going to be from the existing face of the structure now. Mr. Di Laura said it’s
hard for him to guess. Eng. Gregor then said maybe Mr. Di Laura would like to
find out and come back to the Board at another time.
OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed
Atty.
Faasse asked Mr. Di Laura if he would like to come back next month with the
figure the Board is requesting. Eng. Gregor added that Mr. Beardslee showed on
his drawing all the information the Board asked for. The only information he
did not show are the two porches and if he can show the two porches on the
drawing and dimension them including the front yard setbacks that would solve
the problem.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE MARCH 1, 2006 MEETING: made by Member Grygus,
seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus,
Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
Application #21-05 Mary Frances & William Fennelly, 6
Oak Street, Block 425 Lots 13 & 14, Bulk Variance: Atty. Steven C. Schepis, 504 Valley Rd., Wayne, N.J.
came forward on behalf of his client. Atty. Faasse asked if the applicant’s
taxes were current and the applicant answered yes. The last submitted drawing
was dated December 15, 2005 and received
on December 16, 2005. Atty. Schepis said this is a pre-existing undersized lot,
which has 9,920 sq. ft. therefore, its 80’ shy of the minimum lot area, which
is 10,000 sq.ft. The lot has an existing depth of about 105 ft. where 120 ft.
is required and the only variance that’s participated by this development is a
front yard setback variance. The property has an unusual bend in the front of
it that participates the front yard setback variance and their proposing 20 ft. for a portion of the house where 30 ft. is required.
Peter
G. Steck, 80 Maplewood Ave., Maplewood, N.J. Professional Planner (License
#1776 received in 1976) came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse.
Mr.
Steck passed out a 3-page handout marked Exhibit A-1 that he prepared. On the
first page is a highlighted portion of the plan showing the proposed front yard
setback of 20 ft. and the functional setback for the street pavement which is
35 ft. and to the right is a portion of the tax maps; second page is a 2002
aerial photograph where the lot lines are superimposed and the third page is
photographs numbered 1 through 4 and depicts the existing conditions. This is a
pre-existing lot that is recorded on a subdivision map from 1946 and at that
time it was produced as two separate lots, Lots 14 & 15 in Block H. This map was marked Exhibit A-2. There is a
pre-existing situation, which is a lot size that is 80 sq. ft. less than the
10,000 sq. ft. minimum, a depth of 105.27 ft., which is less than the 120 ft.
minimum. What is being changed is the proposal to have a 20 ft. front yard in
lieu of the minimum 30 ft. It is a vacant lot and owned by Mr. Fennelly for
about 20 years and he wants to build a house on it that will be a one family,
48 ft. wide and a depth no more than 26 ft. with three-bedrooms. The front part
of the property, where the house is going to be built, is fairly flat then
drops off and the septic bed is in the back. The area is developed with single
family homes and its kind of on a loop street and can be approached from Shady
Avenue and go around the block or from Skylands Avenue and go up Oak Street.
The streets have narrower than normal right-of-ways, which are 33 ft. and the
pavement width in front of the property ranges from 10 to fewer than 15 ft. and
are paved in front of the subject property. The property is in the R-10 Zone
and the applicant conforms to all of the other dimensional standards; side
yard, rear yard and the only issue is a front yard setback of 20 ft. instead of
30 ft. The applicant has made an effort to sell the lot or to purchase
additional property without success. The applicant has a septic system approval
and there will be testimony by an engineer that shows that proper engineering
will be instituted to accommodate storm-water runoff and the requirements for
water and sewer service.
Member
Grygus mentioned that the architectures on Page 2 show a 14 X 18 deck and
doesn’t appear to be on the site plan. Depending on the height of the deck, it
may impact for another variance and affect the rear yard. Eng. Gregor agreed
and said the ground drops off rapidly in that area and will have to be detailed
on the site plan prior to the next meeting if it’s going to be added or
removed.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE MARCH 1, 2006 MEETING:
made
by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning,
Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
Atty.
Schepis told Chairman Dunning that they have an issue with scheduling Mr. Steck
(Planner) not being available for the March 1st Meeting, therefore,
they might have to carry to the April Meeting.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed
RESOLUTIONS: None
CORRESPONDENCE: Member Grygus
mentioned the
VOUCHERS: submitted by Eng. Gregor for Engineering Services for Application #16-04
Donus for $318.00, Application #15-05 DiLaura for $191.00, Application #19-05
Biggio Brothers for $380.50, Application #02-06 Wanaque Landscaping for
$187.50, Application #03-06 Barrett for $185.00 for a Grand Total of $1,262.00.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting
yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard,
Koning and Willse.
MINUTES: from the December 7, 2006 Meeting. Member Grygus mentioned that the
transcriber from G & L Transcription is mixing up some of the testimony
with the members who are giving it and is wondering if it would present a legal
challenge. Atty. Faasse said the Board can accept the minutes but they might
not be exactly accurate as to who said what. Member Ludwig said on Page 143 it
stated the dwelling units were 15,000 sq. ft. on the Donus Application instead
1500 sq. ft.
MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE CORRECTIONS MENTIONED: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member
Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman,
Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.
ENGINEER’S REPORT: Eng. Gregor said he received one new application that he
will start looking at.
DISCUSSION: None
ADJOURNED: At 11:26 P.M. with a voice vote.
____________________________
Gerri
Marotta
Board
of Adjustment Secretary