BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

BOROUGH OF WANAQUE

MINUTES

July 5, 2006

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 6^th 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, Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ed Leonard, Eric Willse, Attorney Ralph Faasse and Engineer William Gregor.

Members Absent: Ted Roberto and Art Koning.

Application #11-05 Cosimo & Teresa Santoro, 1185 Ringwood Ave., Block 448 Lot 8.01, Bulk Variance & Use Variance:

Atty. Faasse said he received a telephone call today from the applicant’s Attorney, Carlo Coppa asking to carry the application for two months to the September 6^th Meeting. The engineer involved in this application is on vacation and unavailable for tonight’s meeting. The applicant is waiving all time requirements for this application.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE SEPTEMBER 6^TH MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Willse, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard and Willse.

Application #19-05 Biggio Brothers, Inc., 835 Ringwood Ave., Block 306 Lot 7, Site Plan, Commercial & Use Variance. (In-Active Application).

Chairman Dunning said a motion was made at the last meeting to carry this application to the August 2^nd Meeting; if we do not hear from the applicant by the August 2^nd Meeting, the Board will dismiss the application. Atty. Faasse said the Board Secretary did send two letters to the attorneys telling them to move forward or the application will be dismissed without prejudice and also informing them that if they do move forward they will have to re-notice.

Application #21-05 Mary Frances Fennelly & William Fennelly, 6 Oak Street, Block 425 Lots 13 & 14, Bulk Variance:

A letter was received from Attorney Steven C. Schepis, the applicant’s attorney, stating that the Project Engineer is unavailable and cannot be present tonight. He therefore, respectfully request that this matter be carried to the Board’s Meeting of

August 2^nd with notice preserved. Previously, the attorney granted an extension of time to act through August 31, 2006.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE AUGUST 2^ND MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Leonard, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard and Willse.

Application #10-06 Nicholas Miuccio, 106 Monroe St., Block 439 Lot 1, Bulk & Use Variance:

A letter was received from the applicant stating that he is still awaiting the changes to be made by the land surveyor, as per the request of the town engineer and is asking the application be carried to the August 2^nd Meeting.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE AUGUST 2^ND MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman Ludwig, Leonard and Willse.

Application #12-06 Antonino & Maria Staropoli, 1283 Ringwood Ave., Block 464 Lot 27, Use Variance:

A letter was received from the applicant’s Attorney, Giuseppe C. Randazzao and is asking for this application be carried to the August 2^nd Meeting in order to allow for time to address the issues raised by Eng. William Gregor. The applicant waives all time constraints in this matter.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE AUGUST 2^ND MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard and Willse.

Application #14-06 Dave & Jill Szanto, 4 First Street, Block 218 Lot 4, Bulk Variance:

A letter was received from the applicants requesting to be carried to the August 2^nd Meeting. In the letter, they said that at the last meeting, Eng. Gregor said he would send a letter with the exact changes needed on their survey in one week. They have not received the necessary information as of July 5^th, therefore, there was not ample time for their surveyor to prepare any documents.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE AUGUST 2^ND MEETING: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard and Willse.

Application #13-06 John & Dorothy DeDiminicantanio, 28 & 32 Greenwood Ave., Block 428 Lots 6-8, 9,10,11 & 13.01. Minor Subdivision, Bulk Variances and Use Variance.

Atty. Faasse mentioned that Atty. Peck did re-notice on June 21, 2006. Atty. H. Shepard Peck, Jr. came forward with his client John DeDiminicantanio. Atty. Peck said he received Eng. Gregor’s letter this morning. A two-page “Supplemental” Plan done by Boyce McGeoch dated June 14, 2006 was received. Atty. Peck said at the last meeting, some of the board members had requested a more simplified drawing to show what was being proposed and that is why the “Supplemental” Plan was submitted. Sheet 2 shows the existing dwellings on the lots involved in the subdivision and on the right hand side of Sheet 2 is the proposed configuration that they are seeking approval for. The left side of the drawing shows a small lot, Lot 13.01 and then a larger rectangular lot, Lot 10 and below that to the west there’s Lot 11 & Lot 9 and these are the lots that are involved in the subdivision application. There’s a side issue involving Lots 6 & 8 that is Mr. & Mrs. Orsita’s lots and if you look at the drawing on the left, you will see that the lot-line goes through their driveway. In order to adjust that as-built discrepancy, they’re proposing to adjust the lot line between Lot 6, 8 & 10 to put the driveway improvements entirely on Mr. & Mrs. Orsita’s property and are giving them the land with no money involved. They’re proposing to combine Lot 13.01 and Lot 10 and to take a small portion of the rear lots, Lots 11 & 9, to make Lot 10 a building lot. It will be substantially oversized and almost 15,000 sq. ft. where 10,000 sq. ft. is required. They need an area variance for Lot 9, when they take away a little bit of it’s rear property, they end up with 9100 sq. ft. lot and they need 10,000 sq. ft., therefore they’re short about 900 sq. ft. The reason they didn’t take away that property is not to give area to Lot 10, but to make a building envelope that conforms in terms of the front yard setback and rear yard setback. Greenwood Ave. & Gorge Drive are actually too close to allow all conforming lots and building setbacks. Gorge Drive is not an officially dedicated accepted street which is one of the reasons they’re here before the board. In Eng. Gregor’s report of July 3, 2006, has accurately identified the variances they need approval for that are new and the variances that they need that pre-exist. The new variances are lot area for Lot 9 and Lot 10 for depth that is 98 ½ ft. vs. 102 ft., and a front yard of 5 ft. front yard setback variance to allow the house to be 25 ft. from the right-a-way. The other variances are pre-existing conditions resulting from the lots as they stand or the houses as they are built. On the third page of the plan, that’s where they were asked to provide some information about utility service to Lot 10. There is an easement along the left or south side of Lot 11 that will provide utility easement access to Lot 10; there are no utilities in Gorge Drive and everything will be brought up from Greenwood water and sewer. In Eng. Gregor’s report he is asking for more detail or verification that they can put their utilities in the 10 ft. easement and Eng. Gregor suggested that many utility easements are 15ft. or 20 ft. wide and wants to be sure that they can fit what was they proposed. The other issue raised by Eng. Gregor is the ejector pump utilized to operate the sewer system from the house out to Gorge Drive and Eng. Gregor wants information about the details of that system.

Atty Peck said those details will be supplied. Eng. Gregor has also asked for a Storm Water Management Plan to make sure that they have a way of dealing with the storm water from Lot 10 and that will be addressed by the applicant’s engineer.

Lot 10 is an eyesore because it is used by some members of the community to dispose of items that they don’t want on their property. A house would finish off that section of the street and there wouldn’t be anymore vacant land available for activities that are best not performed on vacant land and it would be a nice ratable.

At this point in the meeting, the applicant, John DeDiminicantanio, 174Conklintown Road, Ringwood, N.J. was sworn in by Atty. Faasse.

It was determined that Lot 10 will require a variance for lot depth of 88.5 ft. and not 98 ½ ft. as Atty. Peck said earlier in his testimony. The required is 120 ft. by ordinance; therefore a variance of 31.5 ft. is required. Chairman Dunning asked why they can’t run the sanitary sewer down the right-of-way to Greenwood Ave. as oppose to an ejector system. Mr. DeDiminicantanio said he discussed this issue with Bill Kelly of the Sewer Authority and he recommended that he go the ejector system way. Atty. Faasse asked why is the easement going all the way from Greenwood to Gorge? Member Covelli said because of a future utility line. Eng. Gregor asked if he was running the easement all the way from Greenwood to Gorge Drive? Mr. DeDiminicantanio said he has spoke about this for a few years with the sewer authority and they want to do it but they never finalized it. Eng. Gregor said what the applicant is proposing to do is grant a utility easement across Lot 11 for the Borough for a utility easement and in addition to that he will continue that utility easement across Lot 10 to Gorge Drive. Eng. Gregor went on to say, that the reason that you typically want a 15 to 20 foot wide easement rather 10 feet, is that the easement gives you the right to go on that property and maintain, replace etc. within that easement area. A typical backhoe varies from 8 to 10 feet wide and if you dig out and pile the dirt within the 10 ft. easement and drive, it’s not physically possible; that’s why most utilities request 20 ft. Mr. DeDiminicantanio said he discussed this with Bill Kelly and he said 15 ft. would be sufficient because there’s a 10 ft. spread between the pipes. Eng. Gregor wants the metes and bounds put on the map for the proposed easement dedication. Eng. Gregor asked if the applicant was proposing any improvements to Gorge Drive. Atty. Peck said his applicant would like not to. Eng. Gregor said he would have to repair the street which he asked for street repair details when the force main goes in and is the applicant proposing any widening to provide ease of access to the additional dwelling unit? Atty. Peck said Gorge Drive is pretty much the same condition from one end to the other, but Atty. Peck can’t really see if they pave a 15 ft. strip in front of the property, it will be going from condition A to condition B and back to condition A and you really won’t be accomplishing anything. Chairman Dunning said the applicant is going to dig up part of the roadway to put the force main in, how does he propose to replace that dig out? Atty. Peck said the recommendation is to dig in the area where there aren’t any remnants of asphalt and just put the dirt back in and put gravel on top.

Atty. Peck told the Board that his client will repave that 15 ft. strip in front of his property in the center of the right-a-way. They will also restore the land that they disturb to its near original condition where they dig in the unpaved portion for the ejector pump. Eng. Gregor reiterated and said, the applicant is proposing to pave the land area in front of Lot 10 to a width of 15 ft. and that is from boundary line to boundary line. Chairman Dunning asked Eng. Gregor, on the easement they’re proposing between Greenwood and Gorge, if the upper portions in the wetlands transition area, can the Borough Sewer or Water Authority dig in there? Eng. Gregor said with “DEP” permission they can; the applicant is providing them the rights to utilize that area and if they choose to utilize that area and they violate “DEP” approvals, it will be the utility authority’s responsibility to meet all the “DEP” rules to disturb in their easement. Eng. Gregor added, that any action by this Board will be subject to any permits required by the “DEP” and Eng. Gregor believes that the applicant already has that permit.

OPEN TO PUBLIC: None/Closed.

The applicant needs an updated drawing showing everything that’s been proposed this evening. Eng. Gregor said there is a need to show the proposed easement and a metes and bounds description who its to and what’s its for, details on the ejector pump and the repair that they’re proposing to Gorge Drive where they’re digging, a detail showing the cross section of the improvement and on the plan the extent of the improvements to Gorge Drive that they’re proposing (15 ft.), and a Storm Water Management Plan for the new dwelling on Lot 10.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE AUGUST 2^nd MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard and Willse.

Application #07-06 Eric J. & Kathleen Miceli, 20 Stephens Lake Road, Block 200 Lot 20, Bulk Variance:

Mr. & Mrs. Miceli came forward and were sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Atty. Faasse asked the applicants if they received Eng. Gregor’s report dated July 3, 2006 and they said they received it today, July 5, 2006. New plans were submitted with a revised date of June 15, 2006. Mr. Miceli said he is seeking a Bulk Variance for the add-a-level and the addition to the side yard. Mr. Miceli is also seeking a front yard and rear yard setback. The front yard requirement is 60’ and the applicant is proposing 26.8’ for a variance of 33.2’and the rear yard requirement is 55’ and the applicant is proposing 7.9’ for a variance of 47.1’. Chairman Dunning asked the applicants where are they proposing to install the new well and Mr. Miceli said right next to the existing well. At this point, Eric Miceli’s father, Joseph Miceli of 7 Humbert Place came forward and was sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Mr. Joseph Miceli said the well is going in on the same side of the house but not in the same casing because it’s a shallow well and a whole new well is going in. Chairman Dunning said, you have to be 100 ft. from a septic field and Eng. Gregor agreed. Mrs. Miceli said that the Board of Health was going to their home tomorrow to do a test. Chairman Dunning added, that you also have to be 100 ft. from your neighbor’s well; therefore, the Board would need to know where the well is because they could fall within less than 100 ft. requirement. Mr. Joe Miceli asked, what happens if there’s no possible way of being 100 ft. away from a septic system, existing wells and neighbor’s properties? Eng. Gregor said he had a client that was surrounded by existing homes and had to put a new septic system in and he couldn’t get the septic system 100 ft. away from his neighbor’s well. He had to re-drill his neighbor’s well with 50 ft. casing in order to do it. Mr. Joe Miceli said that the Mt. Lakes Project has water and sewer all set up, but the neighbor’s can’t touch it because the developer still owns the pipes and nothing has been turned over to the town. Member Grygus said there are certain things missing; one is a sealed survey, waiting for the drainage calculations and the location of the two adjacent septic tanks. Chairman Dunning asked if they were going to propose any improvement to the existing gravel driveway and Mr. Miceli said they weren’t proposing to pave it.

OPEN TO PUBLIC: None/Closed

Eng. Gregor said everything that is needed is listed in his report dated July 3, 2006. The Board needs a signed and sealed survey, both the survey and site plan have an error in the metes and bounds description; the one right at their driveway, the width of the right-of-way on Stephens Lake Rd. should be shown on the survey and site plan; spot elevations at the corners of the proposed structure and existing and proposed topography so they know where the water is running; the existing variances should be noted as variances on the zoning table; the property owners within 200 ft. should be listed as requested however, the map doesn’t show all the properties within 200 ft.; the location of adjacent wells and septics must be shown, and a storm water management plan should be provided to address increased storm water runoff.

RECESSED AT 9:33 P.M.

RECONVENED AT 9:40 P.M.

Application #09-06 Edward & Gail Marsh Sr., 12 Greenwood Ave., Block 428 Lot 1, Bulk Variance:

Mr. & Mrs. Marsh came forward and were sworn in by Atty. Faasse. A plan was submitted by Surveyor, John Miceli with a revision date of June 16, 2006 and a report from Eng. Gregor dated May 30, 2006. Architectures were received by the Board today consisting of four (4) new pages. Mr. Marsh said he is seeking a variance for a one-story addition in the front of the house. The original house was very small and was about 24 ft. across and 20 ft. deep. Since then, additions have been put on but they cannot get to their basement from inside the house. Mr. Marsh wants to put on a 10 ft. out by 34 ft. across addition so they can move the washer and dryer upstairs and get to the cellar from inside the house without going outside. Mr. Marsh would also like to have a workshop in the basement.

Eng. Gregor said he was waiting for revised plans and only received a revised survey with corrected information and in his last report requested a lot more information; therefore he didn’t prepare a revised report without revised plans. Mr. Marsh said he doesn’t understand what he is missing. Eng. Gregor said he has a survey with the correct metes and bounds description. Eng. Gregor said in his May 30^th report he indicated what additional information and corrections were needed. The architectural drawing, which is Item 2 in Eng. Gregor’s May 30^th report, was sent by Mr. Marsh. Also received was Item 1which was the revised survey with metes and bounds. Items 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have not been provided. Eng. Gregor said the size of the sanitary sewer that Mr. Marsh connects to on Greenwood is not shown on the drawing and the size of the water main Mr. Marsh connects to on Greenwood is not shown on the drawing; this information must be added to the drawing. Photos of the surrounding property and Mr. Marsh’s house were submitted by Mr. Marsh and marked Exhibits A-1 through A-7. Chairman Dunning told Mr. Marsh that the parking spaces must be shown on the survey and he also has to show how the one space on top is accessed. Atty. Faasse asked if Mr. Marsh was proposing to take the shed down that was shown on the plan; Mr. Marsh was told that the shed is on his neighbor’s property and Mr. Marsh said his neighbor was fine with that. Mr. Marsh said originally the shed was 3 ft. inside of his property and Chairman Dunning asked Mr. Marsh to provide Eng. Gregor and the Board with the original survey. Also mentioned was that there are three (3) different square footage numbers on the plan and that should be corrected. Mr. Marsh mentioned he does not plan on having storm water management. Mr. Marsh said there is no state law or building code that states you need a seepage pit for an addition on any residential property. In Wanaque, there is no town code that says you need a seepage pit. When Mr. Marsh asked Eng. Gregor about this, Eng. Gregor said it is his suggestion, therefore, Mr. Marsh wishes not to put one in. Mr. Marsh showed the Board pictures of his property and how it is affected by storm water and he added when you live on a mountain, a seepage pit would do no good. Eng. Gregor told Mr. Marsh to inform Surveyor, John Miceli, to include the shed on the survey and include it in on his coverage calculations. Eng. Gregor also mentioned a clean-out (lateral sewer line) shown right in the center of the front yard and is not shown on the survey and to have Mr. Miceli to add it as well.

Member Leonard suggested that the block wall along Greenwood Avenue and the fence should also be put on the survey.

OPEN TO PUBLIC: None/Closed

PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None

RESOLUTIONS: None

CORRESPONDENCE: None

VOUCHERS: Submitted by Eng. Gregor for Engineering Services for Application #14-06 Szanto for $203.00, Application #06-06 Puccio for $197.00, Application #11-05 Santoro for $396.50, for a Grand Total of $796.50.

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

MINUTES: from the June 7, 2006 Meeting: Atty. Faasse had a question for Eng. Gregor about the Fennelly Application with regard to the disturbed area on Page 6 of the minutes it states; 19,754 sq. ft. of total disturbance and the lot is only 9700 sq. ft. Eng. Gregor said he doesn’t have his file with him, but he believes it has to do with the TADA and he will check that number.

MOTION TO APPROVE BASED ON ENG. GREGOR VERIFYING THE NUMBERS ON PAGE 6: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard and Willse.

ENGINEER’S REPORT: None to report.

DISCUSSION: None

MOTION TO ADJOURN: at 10:30 P.M. carried with a voice vote.

____________________________

Gerri Marotta

Board of Adjustment