BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MEETING
BOROUGH OF WANAQUE
MINUTES
February 7, 2007
Regular Meeting
Salute to Flag:
This is a Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Board of
Adjustment and adequate notice has been duly advertised by the mailing of a
notice to the Suburban Trends and the Herald & News on the 12th
day of January 2007 and a notice has been posted on the bulletin board in the
Municipal Building and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk.
ROLL CALL:
Chairman Jack Dunning, Members Bruce Grygus, Frank Covelli, Peter
Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ed Leonard, Art Koning, Eric Willse, Michael O’Hanlon,
Attorney Ralph Faasse and Engineer William Gregor.
Application #19-06 New York SMSA Limited Partnership, D/B/A Verizon Wireless, 10 Villa Place, Block 999, Lot 4, Site Plan, Bulk & Use Variances:
A letter came from the applicant’s Attorney, Warren O. Stilwell asking to be carried to the March 7, 2007 Meeting. Atty. Faasse said he spoke with Eng. Bill Gregor and Eng. Gregor told Atty. Faasse he received revised site plan just this past Saturday and the Board Secretary never received any plans, therefore, the revised plans are not on file.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE MARCH 7TH 2007 MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Koning, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse and O’Hanlon.
Tom Luciani, 11 Belmont Ave. came forward: Mr. Luciani said he’s been coming to this meeting regarding the wireless tower for several months. Mr. Luciani wanted to know how long can this application be carried without being heard. Mr. Luciani said the Borough Administrator went over to the senior building telling them that they’re going to start digging in February. Chairman Dunning said they couldn’t dig without an approval. Chairman Dunning also said part of the hang-up is that the Golden Agers are dedicating the roadway, Villa Place, back to the Borough.
Attorney John M. Barbarula came forward: Atty. Barbarula is representing the Donus Application #10-05, 1019 Ringwood Ave., Block 408 Lot 13. Pursuant to the January 4, 2007 correspondence from Atty. Faasse, in which Atty. Barbarula was told that the Board would like him to appear tonight to explain about the extension his client was seeking. In the interim, the documentation was submitted to Atty. Faasse and would like an acknowledgement that everything has been reviewed and it’s appropriate and there is no problem with the ordinance and the time frame. Atty. Faasse confirmed with the Board Secretary that the applicant has file Building Permits with the Borough. Atty. Barbarula said they have received approval from Passaic County Planning Board with regard to Road Opening Permits, which has been filed with the Borough.
Application #26-06 Michael & Jennifer Golas, 24
Rock Ridge Road, Block 416 Lot 9, Bulk Variance:
Atty. Faasse asked Mr. Golas if he received a copy of Eng. Gregor’s report dated February 5, 2007 and Mr. Golas said he did not.
Atty. Faasse at the same time also asked Mr. & Mrs. Sukniqi, Application #25-06 if they received a copy of Eng. Gregor’s report dated February 5, 2007 and they did not.
Eng. Gregor proceeded to tell Mr. Golas that there are some problems with his drawings. The property owner’s list, that was supplied by the Borough and is on his drawing along with an area map. The list and the map do not agree; one of them is wrong and needs to be corrected. In addition, there is an architectural plan that shows the size of the porch to be 6’ X 28’ and the drawing shows the size to be 6’ X 30 ½’; they don’t agree. The architectural plans and the variance have conflicting information and drawings have to be submitted that are in agreement with each other.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE MARCH 7, 2007: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Leonard, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse and O’Hanlon.
Application #21-05 William & Mary Fennelly, 6 Oak
Street, Block 425 Lots 13 & 14, Bulk Variance:
Attorney Steven C. Schepis came forward on behalf of the applicant.
Atty. Schepis started off by saying when they were here in August 2006 and there were some suggestions about providing for landscaping and grading improvements on the downhill property. There was a plan presented that lacked some detail since then a more detailed plan was submitted to the neighbor.
Patrick D. McClellan, P.E. came forward: Eng. McClellan said the plan that will be referred to is “Proposed Off-Site Landscape Berm Location Plan” and dated October 4, 2006. Eng. McClellan said since the last hearing three documents have been filed; one is the “Proposed Off-Site Landscape Berm Location Plan” dated October 4, 2006, Cover Letter dated November 22, 2006 at the request of Eng. Gregor’s previous letter a summary of the Existing & Proposed Conditions Run-Off, and a Revision to the Variance Map dated January 25, 2007. On the easel is a brief summary of the proposed Off-Site Landscape Plan that is basically a result of the conversations they’ve had with the Board and the neighbor behind the proposed site. Surveyors went sent out to the site and provided with some typographies of existing conditions of the house and property behind the proposed site and with this additional information they prepared a detailed grading plan showing the earth and berm, positioned such that it would further intercept any storm water runoff that might come off the proposed site and divert it around and away from the home. With this grading plan, there will be thirteen (13) White Pine Trees for visual screening as well.
Atty. Schepis asked Mr. Fennelly if he approached the downhill property owners, Mr. & Mrs. Glenn Barriero regarding this plan and their willingness to install this landscape. Mr. Fennelly said that originally was the plan and a couple of changes were made but at the eleventh hour the Barriero’s said they no longer wanted to do a diversion berm or plantings or do anything on their property whatsoever.
Atty. Schepis also asked Mr. Fennelly if he made any attempts to purchase additional property because he lacks lot depth. Mr. Fennelly said he did try to purchase additional property and also offered anybody around to buy the proposed lot at the same price he purchased it for twenty years ago. When Mr. Fennelly found out about the variances he needed, he tried to sell the property again or purchase square footage from anybody that he could so he wouldn’t need a variance. He also sent letters to the neighbors many times which Atty. Schepis marked A-7 and dated it today, Feb. 7, 2007 and asked Mr. Fennelly to take a look at. These letters were sent out by Mr. Fennelly certified mail and return receipt requested and the date on the letters was Dec. 29, 2005 and no responses were received back from the neighbors. Mr. Fennelly was asked by Atty. Schepis, should the downhill property owners change their mind and the Board would make it a condition of approval that if they gave him permission to install the landscaping, would he still be agreeable to do it and Mr. Fennelly said yes. Atty. Schepis prepared a document called “Development Restriction” which would require that the property be developed in strict accord with the grading plan that was submitted and would be recorded with the County Clerk, run with the land and be binding upon yourself and any subsequent property owners that would require the maintenance of the grades and the infrastructure that was proposed as part of this plan. Atty. Schepis asked Mr. Fennelly if he is still agreeable to have this document executed and recorded as part of any approval that the Board may issue and Mr. Fennelly said yes.
Eng. McClellan explained the Variance Map Individual Lot Development Plan last revised January 25, 2007. One change was provided to the plan since the last time the Board saw it and that is the introduction of a dry well structure in the driveway area near the front of the home. This project is not classified as major development by the State of N.J. definition and therefore does not need to comply with the storm water regulations; however, Eng. McClellan has acknowledged that they still need to provide some means of storm water management to protect those property owners downhill. Eng. McClellan said he continues to maintain a system utilizing the wall in the rear of the property so that they can restore what they call a sheet flow condition to the runoff as it leaves the property which will reduce the velocity and the amount of water that’s going toward the home.
Eng. McClellan went through Eng. Gregor’s report of February 5, 2007. (All members have a copy.) Items 1 through 8 are repeated line items from previous correspondences that have been responded to. Atty. Faasse asked if Item 2 was considered as far as expanding the roadway. Eng. McClellan answered by saying there has not. Eng. McClellan said correspondence was received from the Police & Fire Departments finding the plan acceptable and yet to date have not received correspondence from the Ambulance Squad. Eng. McClellan went to Item 9 in Eng. Gregor’s report and said as explained before, under existing conditions the way the topography is on this property, the water that currently runs off the site concentrates near the right rear corner and is directed toward the existing dwelling. The plan in place offers a means to collect that water and spread it out before it leaves the site. Item 10, Eng. McClellan respectfully disagrees because he doesn’t feel that this project should be required to follow the State Storm Water Regulations as it falls under the threshold of major development. A letter dated January 24, 2007 from Roy Stanley, Health Department Officer with regard to the proposed drywell and septic field and was marked Exhibit A-8.
Item 11, Eng. McClellan said if the Board were to act favorably on this application that a test hole be made a condition of approval and they do expect to find rock where the drywell is located, however, there are means to excavate the rock and determine whether or not the rock is sufficient to serve as a drywell. Item 12, with regard to the distance from the proposed drywell and the adjacent septic system does not comply with the current regulations; Eng. McClellan said that is the testimony he just combined with Item 10 directly related to the letter from Roy Stanley, Health Department Officer. Item 13, Eng. McClellan said they are now putting in a seepage pit and is just a technical note that has to be amended. Item 14 mentions the drywell is located in a traffic area must be designed for HS-20 vehicle loading; Eng. McClellan understands that comment and can also comply with that. Item 15, Eng. McClellan has previously testified and submitted design calculations unsealed for a retaining wall system and they would like to make that a condition of approval that if the application is looked at favorably, that the applicant would provide those calculations signed and sealed. Item 16, that any action by the Board must be condition on approval of the revised septic design plan by the Borough of Wanaque Board of Health and compliance with N.J.A.C. 7:9A., and they do understand that and would comply with that.
Atty. Schepis asked Eng. McClellan, based upon the existing conditions on the site and the post development conditions, can he tell the Board in his professional opinion as to whether there would be any adverse impact on the downhill property owner post development as compared to pre-development based upon the plan he’s
proposing this evening.
Eng. McClellan told Atty. Schepis short of a sanitary sewer being installed, he’s exhausted all his options and it’s the septic system that makes this challenging.
Chairman Dunning said the retaining wall is what’s bothering him and can’t understand where the water will be going. Eng. McClellan said water will collect from the northern point of the wall to approximately to the end of the wall and then flow in a north/westerly direction and the water will go over the wall. Eng. McClellan explained some of the water that comes off of Lot 12,which is higher, some of the water would bypass that wall as it does today and some of the water will be captured by the wall and spread along its length because water wants to be level.
Member Grygus mentioned to Atty. Schepis a letter received from Mr. & Mrs. Barriero, the adjacent neighbor, with regard to an oil spill on one of the adjacent properties and wanted to know if new anything about this. Atty. Schepis said he did not see this letter and was not aware of any oil spills in the area.
Member Leonard wanted to know how high the trees will grow that the applicant is planning on planting and Mr. Fennelly said he plans on putting 7 to 8 foot pines and said pines usually grow 8 inches to 12 inches a year.
OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Rita Barriero, 9 Shady Ave. came forward: Mrs. Barriero mentioned the pictures she submitted of the entire area last year and if the applicant has to blast, there will definitely be damage to her house and other properties. Mrs. Barriero wanted to know whose responsibility would it be for the care of the trees that will be planted. Mrs. Barriero mentioned she had many trees removed in the past because they were coming towards her house, therefore, why would she want more trees. Mrs. Barriero still doesn’t understand how the water is not going to affect her property. Eng. McClellan said his testimony is based on the typography that he received. Eng. McClellan also said the property will be better when they’re done because they will be spreading it out and pulling it away from the Barriero home.
Glen Barriero, 9 Shady Ave. came forward: Mr. Barriero is concerned about the location of the berm because the water already collects in that location. Eng. McClellan said the location of berm would not be a problem with water on the Barriero’s property because they are spreading it out to come across a 65 to 70 ft. link along the common property line. Eng. McClellan said there are plans for a split rail fence on top of the wall. Mr. Barriero asked Mr. Fennelly what would stop the new owners of the proposed structure from blowing their leaves over the wall?
Rita Barriero, 9 Shady Ave. came forward: Ms.
Barriero wanted to know if there will an increased amount of storm water coming
over the wall and she thinks this applies to Borough Ordinance 98-76.
Atty. Schepis asked Eng. McClellan about Ms. Barriero’s question pertaining to Section 98-76 the Slope Requirements and can he tell the Board whether he’s done his best to minimize the amount of disturbance of slope on this property and if so whether there will be any negative effect on the adjoining properties. Eng. McClellan explained this property is tight going and tried their best to utilize wall systems, to try to keep the area of disturbance minimal and it is his opinion that the final grading once its installed and stabilized, will not be an adverse impact to the adjacent properties. The slopes realized will be less than what is out there today, the trees on site will be removed and many of them are concern for falling and any slopes that are here will be stabilized with grass and maintained by the property owner.
CLOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
OPEN TO PUBLIC FOR TESTIMONY: None/Closed
Atty. Schepis summed up by saying that this is an
isolated building lot and Mr. Fennelly has attempted to purchase additional
land from neighbors and submitted written requests with no response. It is a
hardship and the Fennelly’s are stuck with a lot area that he has which is only
80 sq. ft. shy of what the minimum is for the zone. Atty. Schepis brought
Section 114-50 of the Borough Ordinance entitled Use of Non-Conforming Lots to
the Board. Basically this is a pre-existing non-conforming undersized lot and
the ordinance permits a homeowner to build a house which is permitted in this
R-10 Zone as long as you meet the side yard and rear yard setbacks. This
application meets rear and side yard setbacks. With regard to the front yard
you can see from the plan that there is a very unusual jog in the front yard
property line due to the unusual right of way in front of the property. At one
time this property was two separate lots as referenced by the tax designation
MOTION TO APPROVE APPLICATION SUBJECT TO THE COMMENTS
IN ENG. GREGOR’S REPORT OF FEBRUARY 5, 2007: ITEM 3 THE APPLICATION WILL
REQUIRE A VARIANCE FOR LOT AREA OF 9,920 SF INSTEAD OF THE MINIMUM 10,000 SF REQUIRED
BY ORDINANCE. A VARIANCE FOR 80 SF IS REQUIRED, ITEM 4 THE APPLICATION WILL
REQUIRE A VARIANCE FOR LOT DEPTH OF 105.27 FEET INSTEAD OF THE MINIMUM 120 FEET
REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE. A VARIANCE FOR 14.73 FEET IS REQUIRED, ITEM 5 THE
PROPOSED DWELLING WILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 20 FEET
INSTEAD OF THE MINIMUM OF 30 FEET REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE. A VARIANCE FOR 10 FEET
IS REQUIRED, ITEM 6 SECTION 98-76 OF THE BOROUGH CODE APPLIES TO PROJECTS WITH
AN AREA OF DISTURBANCE IN EXCESS OF 1,500 SF. THE TOTAL AREA OF DISTRUBANCE FOR
THIS PROJECT IS 9, 724 SF PER THE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION. THEREFORE, A
VARIANCE FOR TADA IS REQUIRED, ITEM 7 THE APPLICATION WILL REQUIRE A VARIANCE
FOR TOTAL ADJUSTED DISTURBED AREA (TADA) OF 19,755 SF INSTEAD OF THE MAXIMUM 8,
432 SF PERMITTED BY ORDINANCE. A VARIANCE FOR 11, 323 SF IS REQUIRED.
CONDITIONS WILL BE ITEM 11 NO PERMEABILITY DATA HAS BEEN PROVIDED FOR THE
PROPOSED DRYWELL LOCATION. THIS DATA IS NECESSARY TO CONFIRM THAT THE DRYWELL
CAN FUNCTION AS DESIGNED, ITEM 12 THE DISTANCE FROM THE PROPOSED DRYWELL AND
THE ADJACENT SEPTIC SYSTEM DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE CURRENT REGULATIONS, ITEM
13 THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT NOTES ON THE SITE PLAN CONFLICT WITH
THE PROPOSED DESIGN AND SHOULD BE CORRECTED, ITEM 14 THE DRYWELL IS LOCATED IN
A TRAFFIC AREA MUST BE DESIGNED FOR HS-20 VEHICLE LOADING, ITEM 15 THE
STABILITY CALCULATIONS FOR THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL SYSTEM MUST BE SIGNED
AND SEALED, ITEM 16 ANY ACTION BY THE BOARD MUST BE CONDITION ON APPROVAL OF
THE REVISED SEPTIC DESIGN PLAN BY THE BOROUGH OF WANAQUE BOARD OF HEALTH AND
COMPLIANCE WITH N.J.A.C. 7:9A, COMPLY WITH SOIL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL
REQUIREMENT, ANY APPLICABLE DEED
RESTRICTIONS, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER THE
LANDSCAPED DESIGN MUTUALLY AGREED UPON AT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER’S
DISCRETION WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS TO THE
APPLICANT: made by Member Hoffman,
seconded by Member Willse, voting yes were Members Covelli, Hoffman and Willse.
Voting no were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Ludwig and Leonard.
The vote did not carry and the motion is denied.
RECESSED AT 9:55 P.M.
RECONVENED AT 10:07 P.M. All present as before.
Application #25-06 Gerald & Albana Sukniqi, 7
Orchard St., Block 308 Lot 10, Bulk Variance:
Mr. & Mrs. Sukniqi came forward and were sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Mrs. Sukniqi explained they want to make their house a little bigger because the children are getting older. A revised plan was submitted by William Darmstatter, P.E., dated January 4, 2007. Eng. Gregor said he needs a signed and sealed architectural which he mentions in his report dated February 5, 2007. The plans call for a first floor addition that will be 8’ X 26.5’ and a second floor addition will be 30.5’ X 40.5’. There will be 4 bedrooms up stairs and the present bedroom on the first floor will become a spare room. Chairman Dunning said there is one major problem and that is, on the drawing its not documented the distance from the pool to the house.
Chairman Dunning asked if the applicants were going to abandon the doorway in the existing house out the side towards the commercial building and the applicants said yes. This exit will be replaced by a sliding door out to a connecting deck. Chairman Dunning also suggested the lot coverage be corrected on the plans. The lot coverage calculation has to take into account the existing building, the proposed addition, pool, deck and the garage. It was suggested that the applicant have Eng. Darmstatter get in touch with Eng. Gregor.
OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION: Suzanne Raoul,
CLOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION:
Atty. Faasse reminded the applicants about the three things they need to get done which are; the distance from the pool to the house, Lot Coverage Calculations from their engineer and ask their engineer about the possibility of putting some kind of storm water management facility on their property.
MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE MARCH 7TH MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse and O’Hanlon.
PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed
RESOLUTION ON APPLICATION #24-06 Robert Barrett, One
Decker Rd., Block 413 Lot 29, Bulk Variance:
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, and Leonard. Members Grygus and Willse not qualified.
CORRESPONDENCE: No questions asked.
VOUCHERS: submitted by Atty. Faasse for Resolution on Application #24-06 Barrett for $135.00.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse and O’Hanlon.
VOUCHERS: submitted by Eng. Gregor for Engineering Services for Application #19-06 Verizon for $210.00, Application #24-06 Barrett for $215.00, Application #25-06 Sukniqi for $215.00, Application #26-06 Golas for $210.00, Application #01-07 Parsco for $210.00, for a Grand Total of $1,060.00.
MOTION APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Willse, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse and O’Hanlon.
MINUTES: from Regular & Reorganization Meeting of January 3, 2007.
MOTION TO APPROVE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Willse, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse and O’Hanlon.
ENGINEER’S REPORT: Chairman Dunning asked Eng. Gregor about the Rhinesmith Bldg. Application. Eng. Gregor said it hasn’t been deemed complete as yet. Chairman Dunning also reminded Eng. Gregor about the Parsco Application and whether or not it is complete or not. Eng. Gregor said it was not complete and would send a letter out.
MOTION TO ADJOURN: made at 10:58 P.M., carried by a voice vote.
_________________________________
Gerri Marotta
Board of Adjustment Secretary