Pleading Wizard

Pledge of Allegiance:

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a regular rescheduled meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment. Adequate notice has been given by a duly advertised notice posted in the Herald News and the Suburban Trends on June 7th and a notice thereof has been posted on the bulletin board and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk. Can we have a roll call please?

ROLL CALL: Chairman Jack Dunning, Bruce Grygus, Frank Covelli, Ed Leonard, Art Koning, Eric Willse, Michael O’Hanlon, Attorney Ralph Faasse, Engineer William Gregor.

MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig

MR. FAASSE: Well first we have the Santoro one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, but we can call Pete to get Number 7, if we need him.

MR. FAASSE: Pete?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hoffman.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ed Leonard is supposed to be here.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So we’ll give him a couple of minutes and then we’ll get on the phone because that one is a Use Variance.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, because we got six. There are three matters on; yours is going to go tonight, six or seven.

ATTORNEY: Well we’ll see who is here Mr. Faasse and we’ll decide on how much we get through.

MR. FAASSE: Well, I mean if we go to six and then it we carry to next month I am sure the next meeting will listen to that -- the tape.

ATTORNEY: Okay, thank you.

MR. FAASSE: Their good on that. You will get your seven votes. Okay, we got the Santoro application.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: There was a request for an adjournment, the clients are –-

MR. CHAIRMAN: Adjournment?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, there was a request from Mr. LaSala.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Asking to be carried –

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have that or was it just a phone call.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, no, no, no, the secretary has it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: I have a letter here, somewhere I got it. I was organized this morning when I left. Mr. LaSala, dated -- oh yeah -- did we ever get an easement, did you get a copy of that Bill?

MR. GREGOR: No, no, I didn’t.

MR. FAASSE: June 20th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Mr. LaSala, my clients will be unavailable on July 11th, we will request and adjournment of the application scheduled for that evening to the August 1st meeting. The applicant extends the time for the Board to act on this for an additional 30 days. Please announce the adjournment so that they won’t have to give further notice. Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Need a motion on that to carry the application to the August meeting.

MR. FAASSE: August --

MR. CHAIRMAN: 1st.

MR. FAASSE: 1st, I guess, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: August 1st.

MR. WILLSE: I make a motion to carry the Santoro Application to August 1st.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, second on the motion?

MR. KONING: I’ll second it, Member Koning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Roll Call?

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #03-07 TO AUGUST 1ST MEETING:

Made by Member Willse, seconded by Member Koning, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you.

MR. FAASSE: Now on the Elwood matter we had Mr. -- distinguished attorney Mr. Walker here from the Borough of Ringwood that wishes to dialogue a little bit with the Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Just enter your appearance Sir.

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

MR. FAASSE: It is Ringwood right?

MR. WALKER: That is Ringwood, that is correct. 130 Skyline Drive in Ringwood. An issue arose this afternoon as the result of a report that I had received from Mr. Gregor and I had also discussed the matter with Mr. Faasse, there is an issue as to whether or not the jurisdiction is going to be held by the Board of Adjustment to the Planning Board. Specifically, the question is whether or not a Use Variance is required pursuant to the ordinance because there is some issue as to whether or not there is a density issue.

MR. FAASSE: Well there is a density issue the question is whether or not you qualify for an exception under the Statute because of the minor subdivision.

MR. WALKER: That’s correct.

MR. FAASSE: This is a historic argument or debate that we engaged on this Board and I told you today that Wanaque has always been of the opinion when you got two substandard sized lots and you try to do a subdivision that you still need a density variance. But the long and short of this is that without an application for a Use Variance we won’t have jurisdiction over the subdivision. So I think what Mr. Walker would like to do is to take an adjournment tonight.

MR. WALKER: I would like that carried this evening.

MR. FAASSE: And he will see whether or not he can convince the Planning Board that this should be in their bed of wick and then it will be transferred over to the Planning Board, otherwise if it is not so deemed a Planning Board matter then he would have to renotify and amend their application for the Use Variance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: Well this wouldn’t be any different than the one that was --

MR. FAASSE: Johnny De.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: Or the one that we had in the back over here.

MR. FAASSE: Right, we had the big discussion with Mr. Peck remember just before his retirement.

MR. GREGOR: They can approve a non-standard building lot.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Johnny De had a separate issue as well.

MR. GREGOR: Right, but the one in the back that we had.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because of the zone.

MR. GREGOR: You mean the one up on the hill.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, the one that was in the wrong zone or something.

MR. GREGOR: Right he had the one house.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: Is that the one that Mr. Beck was involved in Mr. Faasse?

MR. FAASSE: No, Johnny Dee was Mr. Beck. Don’t ask us to pronounce the name; we’re going to have a hard time with that name.

MR. FAASSE: Go ahead Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: De Diminicantanio

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sounds good.

MR. FAASSE: I told you it was tough.

MR. WALKER: In any event, I just request that it be carried until the following meeting.

MR. FAASSE: Sure.

MR. WALKER: To give me the opportunity to apply to or at least consult with the Planning Board on the matter.

MR. FAASSE: Just so long as you understand that right now it would be our determination, I think, with the Board, that without a Use Variance this Board would not have jurisdiction over the application, in any event.

MR. WALKER: I understand that.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the reason it was sent here is because it needs the Use Variance.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. WALKER: Correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is normally what happens.

MR. FAASSE: You know, I mean Mr. Walker wants to argue over a very scholarly point and I think we ought to give him the opportunity to do so.

MR. WALKER: That’s absolutely right -- accurate Mr. Faasse.

MR. FAASSE: We don’t have the repository wall of all knowledge and wisdom in the world. Right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s right.

MR. FAASSE: So there should be a motion just to carry this to the August 1st meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, pending a decision by --

MR. FAASSE: Well the applicant’s attorney.

MR. GRYGUS: Should it have even been on the agenda?

MR. FAASSE: Well --

MR. GRYGUS: Should it have even been on the agenda?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Are we allowed to say anything during this particular issue?

MR. FAASSE: Well we are not opening up the hearing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. FAASSE: Are you a neighbor?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I am and I got a piece of paper in the mail so that is why I am here.

MR. FAASSE: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So I don’t understand the legality of what he is trying to do here but I do have some --

MR. FAASSE: No, it is nothing that Mr. Walker is trying to do. Please, please don’t --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I know, I am just saying that I don’t understand the discussion. So I am just trying to know if there is an opportunity to discuss certain concerns.

MR. FAASSE: Well we won’t be able to discuss the merits of the case because we cannot open it.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Faasse, explain to her what you were just doing, that is what she is asking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, they are confused by what we just did Ralph.

MR. GRYGUS: By carrying it.

MR. GREGOR: She is asking you why it is being carried.

MR. FAASSE: Right now the way the application is set up, they are asking for a minor subdivision with bulk variances. This Board does not have jurisdiction over a minor subdivision, that is normally a Planning Board matter. However, we do have jurisdiction over subdivisions where there is a Use Variance applied for. All right, that hasn’t been applied for, it hasn’t been noticed. So the question is we can’t hear it at all because we don’t have jurisdiction. But Mr. Walker needs sometime to determine with the Planning Board powers that be as to whether or not he should be in front of the Planning Board or whether he can come or he should come back here. If he comes back here, he is going to have to amend the application for a Use Variance plus renotice everyone, specifically saying that they want the Use Variance.

MR. GRYGUS: In any event, the application will be heard at some point in time and you will have your opportunity to be heard.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: What is the difference between the subdivision and the Use Variance and what exactly does that mean? I guess he is going to use it in the Planning Board at a different reason than he is going to use it --

MR. FAASSE: No, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, No.

MR. FAASSE: No, the use Variance would come into play here because the Borough says that for a one family dwelling you need 10,000 square feet. Each of these proposed lots are less than 10,000 square feet so it would be an increase in density as to what would be permitted on the lands. Okay?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So if it goes before the Planning Board --

MR. FAASSE: Right, then they would say that it is not a density issue. It is only a subdivision with the bulk variances.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, but traditionally when you create a substandard lot it creates a use variance.

MR. GRYGUS: I would think that if it decided to go before the Planning Board it would also have to still be renoticed.

MR. FAASSE: Yes because he is asking for bulk variances.

MR. WALKER: That is absolutely correct so one way or another you are going to get another notice. It will be a different board; it would be a different meeting so we would have to renotice.

MR. GRYGUS: So whether if it is at this Board it is going to be for a Use Variance, you are going to get another notice. If it is deemed to go to the Planning Board you are going to get a notice for that hearing.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: And you have the right to check with the secretary, our secretary, she is the Planning Board secretary as well as exactly what is happening to the application.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Do I have the right to present the Board with just a copy of what I -- of my concerns or is that not at this time?

MR. FAASSE: Not at this time.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Not at this time.

MR. FAASSE: Once we open up the application, the applicant goes first, they present any evidence that they have either documentary or by testimony, then we open it up to the public for cross-examination of their experts but then later the public, itself, will be given the opportunity to enter any evidence and to testify.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Okay?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: I hope I was right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That was good.

MR. FAASSE: At least he agrees with something I do. Do we have that motion?

MR. COVELLI: So moved Mr. Chairman, I motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, seconding that?

MR. GRYGUS: I’ll second it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Roll Call?

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO AUGUST 1ST MEETING:

Made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.

MR. WALKER: Okay, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, now we are going to go to the main case of the evening here, 23-06, Reality Associates Redevelopment, LLC, 547 Ringwood Avenue, Use and Bulk Variances. Counselor, how are you this evening?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you Mr. Chairman I am fine, I hope everyone else is, a little warm. Gittleman, Muhlstock and Chewcaskie, Brian N. Chewcaskie on behalf of the applicant, Reality Associates Redevelopment. We were here at the last meeting and we were informed that a notice was not sent to the Passaic County Planning Board. Based upon the Board’s decision, the matter was carried to this evening. We did provide the appropriate notice to the Passaic County Planning Board indicating that the hearing would be this evening and a copy of that Affidavit of Service was provided to the Board’s secretary. I believe we also provided a copy directly to Mr. Faasse. So I believe that should address the jurisdictional issues with respect to this matter to proceed. We also had the opportunity to discuss, I guess, with Mr. Gregor some of his concerns. So we have submitted some revised plans. And I guess just so that --

MR. FAASSE: You have his letter right?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We received it today, yes we do.

MR. FAASSE: Now the problem we have, we just had the discussion; we only have six members here. We are anticipating a seventh. I don’t how long your case is going to be. If you think you can put your case in and go for a vote, you wouldn’t -- I would assume you wouldn’t want to do it with six.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That would be my advice to the client but I wanted to see how far we would get this evening.

MR. FAASSE: Now if you wish to wait a few minutes to see if the seventh member comes. We got somebody coming right?

MR. GRYGUS: You want to call Pete and we will do --

MR. CHAIRMAN: At this point Ed was supposed to be here according to Frank who talked to him earlier but he is not here. Pete said if we needed him, we could call him.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, we know that Ringwood Avenue is tied up because there is some prominent person who is being laid out at the funeral home.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I would prefer to have seven members although I do not know if the Board is sure whether seven will come this evening. So I really don’t want to dictate how the Board should act, but I am ready to proceed and if we have to we can carry it to the next month for a vote assuming we have completed all of our testimony.

MR. GRYGUS: Call Pete and do the other agenda items early?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah or do you want to -- do you have Ed’s phone number?

MR. GRYGUS: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don’t you -- since Ed said he was coming, why don’t you call him?

MR. COVELLI: I have the phone number here.

MR. FAASSE: Let Gregor do it so he can try out his new phone.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And I sit down for a little while, while you can get to other business.

MR. FAASSE: What we are thinking, -- you know -- I mean what we should maybe do is just hold this and take a five-minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Or we can get everything --

MR. GRYGUS: Do the other agenda items.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- so we can all have the correct set of plans and everything else?

MR. FAASSE: I really don’t want to even do anything if we are going to have the seventh member here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, all right.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: In the event that -- I appreciate that but we are going to see if we can get the seventh member here tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ed is only around the corner.

MR. GREGOR: So are we going to take a five-minute break?

MR. FAASSE: I don’t know. We do have a couple of groupies here, welcome Mr. DiMeglio. Is everyone else here on the Reality Associates, I mean because that is the only matter that we are going to be hearing tonight. So if you are here on something else and you have a question or something?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Tell them they welcome to stay anyway.

MR. GRYGUS: Come on up John.

MR. DIMEGLIO: I guess you want my name. My name is John DiMiglio, 414 Ringwood Avenue.

MR. FAASSE: How do you spell that last name?

MR. DIMEGLIO: D-I-M-E-G-L-I-O, gees I know how to spell my own name.

MR. FAASSE: I think she knows.

MR. DIMEGLIO: The Wanaque Golden Age, they want to know what is happening with their cell tower, they are suppose to put a cell tower up.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. DIMEGLIO: And they want to know what is happening. Now, I believe I had a Republican come here and I asked the Mayor what was happening with the cell tower, how come -- you know -- they haven’t started yet. And the Mayor couldn’t give me an answer; he said he would have to get back to me, which he hasn’t gotten back to me yet. And I know a few of the members, well the president of the Golden Age called the Administrator and evidently he doesn’t return the phone calls either. Tom Balunis, our Councilman, he called me and he says the reason why it hasn’t been moved ahead is, he says the engineer, which is you, Bill, hasn’t signed off yet. So are you holding it up for them?

MR. GREGOR: Now, we have signed off.

MR. DIMEGLIO: Oh you did sign off?

MR. GREGOR: Yes, we have signed off. There was a delay of about two weeks in the sign off because the architect didn’t send us a full set of signed and sealed plans. He sent us a set of reduced plans, which were very difficult to read because they were about, I think, one-eighth the size of the full size plans.

MR. DIMEGLIO: So you are telling me now that all they have to do is go before the building inspector and get a permit.

MR. GREGOR: The sign off has been accomplished to my knowledge. Our letter was faxed to the town advising --

MR. DIMEGLIO: So they would have to go before the -- they would appear to --

MR. GREGOR: They have to get a building permit.

MR. DIMEGLIO: -- to get a building permit, correct.

MR. GREGOR: Yes, as far as I know.

MR. DIMEGLIO: And they can do that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. DIMEGLIO: And they can do that?

MR. GREGOR: As far as I know.

MR. DIMEGLIO: Oh, okay because -- all right.

MR. GREGOR: I mean this Board’s work is done, I believe.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, there were just a few minor changes that had to make.

MR. GREGOR: Jack, were the plans signed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did we ever sign them?

MS. MAROTTA: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Where are they?

MS. MAROTTA: I don’t know, I just got that letter today from Bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Today?

MS. MAROTTA: It was faxed to me, when was it faxed? It was faxed on the 10th. No, not that one, up at the top.

MR. FAASSE: The 3rd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The 3rd.

MS. MAROTTA: On the 3rd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But do you have the plans that they sent in, your set?

MS. MAROTTA: I would have to look in the file.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, this was faxed on the 3rd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Now they sent you a set of plans.

MR. GREGOR: I still have it reduced. At the Mayor’s request, I pulled a magnifying glass out and review the reduced plans. Although I think it was much more difficult.

MS. MAROTTA: I don’t think I received anything.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good question, let’s take two minutes and see if you got the plans.

MR. GREGOR: I asked the architect to send me a full set I never received them yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If they are and they are ready for signing, we can sign them.

MR. GRYGUS: So what you are saying for the record is that you read the reduced set --

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. GRYGUS: You approved it, it was faxed on the 3rd and as of this date, it has nothing to do with this Board other than if there is a signing issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The signing, right, we have to sign it.

MR. GREGOR: And the Board needs a full set of plans to sign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Which that never stopped the building department from issuing a permit anyway.

MR. GRYGUS: Because his letter released it on the 3rd, that was faxed on the 3rd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Even before that letter. Once the resolution goes for sure, even before resolution, they will issue permits.

MR. GRYGUS: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They may not have even applied for the permits though.

MR. DIMEGLIO: Well no, the way I was told is that the engineer hasn’t signed off yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but that doesn’t stop the building department from issuing a permit.

MR. GREGOR: John the way it functions -- the way it functions in Wanaque, when the resolution is approved by the Board, the building inspector issues a building permit. When he checks it for completeness at the end of the construction, he uses the final sign and sealed plans, that is the function as it works here.

MR. DIMEGLIO: All right, so what you are telling me is all they have to do is go to the building inspector to get a permit to start the project.

MR. GREGOR: They could have done that the day after the vote.

MR. DIMEGLIO: Well that is not the answer I got.

MR. GREGOR: Well I am telling you the way it works here.

MR. GRYGUS: I wouldn’t be surprised to see that Verizon wants every T dotted, crossed and everything else before they do anything.

MR. GREGOR: John that is told to every applicant that comes to this Board. In fact, Mr. Faasse has a standard reading that every applicant is told on the night we approve them that they can go and get a permit.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. DIMEGLIO: All right, but -- you know -- when I asked the question, I was told that the engineer was holding it up, that is the answer I got.

MR. FAASSE: Well any attorney would have advised them, especially in a situation with the wireless communication application to wait the appeal period. So that would have been -- you know -- our meeting, the resolution then 10 days to put it in the paper and then 45 days. The applicant probably wouldn’t have filed in that period anyway.

MR. DIMEGLIO: So it is safe to say that I can go back to the Golden Age and tell them that all Verizon has to do is filed for a permit to build?

MR. FAASSE: Well it is done here, however, there was a lease and we never were a party to that lease, that was with the town solicitor. So I don’t know if that was ever finalized.

MR. DIMEGLIO: I know that they were supposed to turn over the road to the town.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, that was a condition but that is out of the purview of the Board.

MR. FAASSE: I think that was done but there was a lease between the Golden Agers and --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Verizon.

MR. FAASSE: Was it Verizon?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right and they were supposed to verify that there was a Hold Harmless Clause in there.

MR. FAASSE: Insurance and things like that.

MR. DIMEGLIO: All right, I’ll go back and tell them that -- you know -- it is up to Verizon now.

MR. GREGOR: All right, I’m sorry, we were not holding anything up.

MR. DIMEGLIO: Okay, well that is what I was told.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We always get blamed.

MR. GREGOR: That’s all right, I get blamed for a lot of things John.

MR. FAASSE: How did we make out with the telephone calls?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Covelli?

MR. COVELLI: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have we found Edward?

MR. COVELLI: He is being located as we speak and I know how to put my phone on vibrate and it hasn’t vibrated.

MR. GRYGUS: The geek squad is out searching for him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have no plans.

MR. FAASSE: You don’t have plans.

MR. GRYGUS: Do you want to call Pete?

MR. FAASSE: Mr. DiMeglio?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have no plans on file to sign.

MR. DIMEGLIO: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They never sent them in.

MR. GREGOR: If Verizon sends in six full sets of plans, then we will sign them.

MR. DIMEGLIO: All right.

MR. FAASSE: Well as long as they are the same as what you enumerated.

MR. GREGOR: Um?

MR. FAASSE: As long as they are the same as what you listed here.

MR. GREGOR: Oh yeah, the correct set of plans.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, the correct set of plans.

MS. MAROTTA: I am making a note of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Gerri is making a note.

MR. FAASSE: All right, so we wait 5 minutes and then --

MR. GREGOR: Jack, you want to call Pete?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is Ed Leonard around?

MR. COVELLI: His wife was attempting to locate him. He is in town somewhere.

MR. FAASSE: Oh gee, oh gee.

MR. GREGOR: Do you want to call Pete?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead, call Pete. I hate to bother him, but call Pete.

MR. FAASSE: All right, we’ll take five minutes.

MS. MAROTTA: Where is Don, is Don coming in?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Don said that if he wasn’t here on his normal schedule, he is always 10 minutes late, he had a business meeting.

MS. MAROTTA: Oh, okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He called me last night.

MS. MAROTTA: Yeah I got, you know what, I got listed Elwood, yesterday and then today I got Reality and I assume that did come on the 3rd.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But you didn’t receive anything from AT&T so it doesn’t matter what we got.

MS. MAROTTA: All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you see the new move we are planning?

MS. MAROTTA: Yeah, I am looking at this, I never saw this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but that is my new move now.

MS. MAROTTA: Where was this in the Trends?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am going to petition out Wanaque.

MR. FAASSE: What are you going to do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Petition this in Wanaque, it is my new petition.

BOARD MEMBER: Are we still on tape?

MR. GREGOR: Yup.

BOARD MEMBER: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: Are we taking a five-minute break?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don’t we take five and turn the tape off.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, all right.

MS. MAROTTA: Are we taking are recess?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, let’s take a five-minute recess.

FIVE-MINUTE RECESS - TAPE TURNED OFF.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: To a flat roof which would bring up to I believe up to about 33 feet based upon what has been presented. We have presented it as an alternative; we will provide testimony that the height variance could be justified. It is aesthetically more pleasing and you will see so from those exhibits. There is also a side yard setback variance that we noticed for, it may or may not be required. In the zone, one of the zones, there is a 15-foot requirement; we are at 11 feet. However, in the zone, the business zone, there is a 10-foot side yard requirement. So although we meet the requirement in one zone, we do not meet it in the other and, therefore, we have noticed for that variance and we will leave it for the Board to determine. Again, we will provide proofs in that regard relative to that variance. Just so that we are all on the same page, after the last meeting in June we came back here and we submitted revised plans. You should have revised engineering drawings that have been prepared by Burton Engineering; the revision date should be June 19th. Those drawings were substantially revised to address Mr. Gregor’s June report relative to the application. We also have provided revised architectural drawings in which the dimensions were provided for the signs and also the alternative roof design. The revision date on those drawings should be June 20, 2007. In addition with the set that the Board should have received, the set of drawings, there was a letter that was submitted by Mr. Stinson of Burton Engineering, which was also dated June 27th, which addressed substantially Mr. Gregor’s report in June. We do have a new report from Mr. Gregor, which we can deal with this evening, that report date is July 10th. So, hopefully, the Board Members have the most recent set of drawings, which we will be relying upon this evening. I only have with me this evening and I proposed to only present three witnesses, Drake Stinson, the site engineer, Mary Scro, the project architect, and Michael Kauker, as a planner relative to the variance criteria. Although in Mr. Gregor’s report, there was an indication that the height variance request would be withdrawn. We believed it would be prudent to demonstrate that the building could be built without the necessity of a height variance but we would like the opportunity to allow the Board to make the determination relative to the application. If the Board is inclined to grant the use, then we believe that the height variance is also justified because it is more aesthetic and more in line with what other developments that you would see in town. So unless there are any questions of me, I would call my first witness, Mr. Stinson.

MR. FAASSE: Excuse me, just so that we are clear, you have Mr. Gregor’s letter dated July the 10th, correct?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Correct, we do have it.

MR. FAASSE: We have the listing of the sheets prepared by Burton Engineering and we also have the architecturals. Now is that an accurate listing? I hope everybody got a chance to look at them.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is correct, that is accurate.

MR. FAASSE: All right, so that is accurate, okay.

MR. GREGOR: I have a question?

MR. FAASSE: Preliminary, well go ahead.

MR. GREGOR: You had questioned the potential variance for a side yard variance.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is correct.

MR. GREGOR: I just direct your attention to Section 114-12 (A) (7) (B) and it reads any business structure where a provision is made for apartments shall comply with the side and rear yard requirements established in the R10 residential district. That is why a side yard is required.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: So the four feet variance would be required.

MR. GREGOR: That is correct.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you for pointing that our Mr. Gregor. Unless there are any other questions, I do have Mr. Stinson.

MR. FAASSE: You ready Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let’s go.

MR. FAASSE: Bring him forward.

MR. STINSON SWORN

MR. FAASSE: Give us your full name, spell your last name and you may use a business address if you wish.

MR. STINSON: Yes, my name is Drake C. Stinson, that is S-T-I-N-S-0-N, I am an engineering manager with Burton Engineering and our business address is 66 Glen Avenue, Glen Rock, New Jersey.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Mr. Stinson could you give the Board the benefit of your professional experience, your education and employment please?

MR. STINSON: Yes, I am a graduate of Civil Engineering from NJIT 1986. I am a professional engineer licensed in the State of New Jersey in 1991 and I have practiced civil engineering for over 20 years. I have testified in front of numerous Planning Boards throughout New Jersey.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And as part of your position with Burton Engineering do you regularly appear and testify before Planning and Zoning Boards in the State of New Jersey?

MR. STINSON: Yes, that is correct.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And could you give certain examples to the Board where you have recently testified?

MR. STINSON: I’ve recently testified in Edgewater, Hackensack, Green Township, Emerson, off the top of my head.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And besides your professional engineering license, Mr. Stinson, do you hold any other professional licenses?

MR. STINSON: I am a member of ASCE but no other professional licenses.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I submit Mr. Stinson as an expert in the field of civil engineering.

MR. FAASSE: You’ve got to forgive me, the seal kind of obliterates everything. His license number, 36684?

MR. STINSON: Yes, that is right.

MR. FAASSE: And that continues in good force and effect as of today.

MR. STINSON: Yes, it certainly is.

MR. FAASSE: You paid your annual fee?

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Don’t laugh, I had one where the man didn’t. Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will accept you as a --

MR. STINSON: I have my shingle.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let’s go.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF MR. STINSON BY DR. CHEWCASKIE

Q Mr. Stinson what were you retained to do by Reality Redevelopment Associates with respect to this site?

A Yes, we were retained to design a site plan to redevelop the site from the former use into a use as we see now, which is the medical office with the residential component up top.

Q And as part of your services did you acquaint yourself with the site and the surrounding area.

A Yes, I certainly have.

Q Could you describe what presently exists on the site?

A Certainly, I can refer to our survey drawing for that.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Let me stop you there. Mr. Chairman I would like to probably start with A-1, unless Mr. Faasse do you pre-mark anything, the application or do you indicate that that is part of the record already?

MR. FAASSE: Well these are all plans that you filed with the Board, correct?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is correct.

MR. STINSON: Absolutely correct.

MR. FAASSE: So, yes, we can label them A-1 and everything else as we start testifying to them.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Should we label the entire set as A-1 and then just referred to them as they are designated on each drawing.

MR. FAASSE: Which way do you want to handle that Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It doesn’t matter. If they are numbered --

MR. GREGOR: Why don’t you just do the whole set as A-1 and then be sheet number?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: It will be C-1, C-2, C-3.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How many drawings are in a set?

MR. FAASSE: Well he has 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

MR. GRYGUS: The same set we got here right?

MR. FAASSE: A total of 7 pages, right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Well there will be 8 sheets, including the survey.

MR. FAASSE: Wait a minute, where is the survey? Did we get the survey?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: You know what, this survey may not have been attached to the resubmission. So let’s mark the survey as A-1.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, because I don’t have it in my packet here.

MR. STINSON: All of these drawings were included with the last submission, when submitted, we submitted all the drawings.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah the only issue is that the site plans are bound together as a package. The survey was separate and the architecturals were bound together in the third package. So we have got three separate packages. One package is only one drawing, which is the survey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is SV1.

MR. FAASSE: And to complicate matters, we don’t have the survey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, it is part of the package, Bill.

MR. GREGOR: That is right, it should be the last sheet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You got 8 pages.

MR. GREGOR: 8 pages.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh okay. The last page is SV1 Bill?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We have submitted the package three times, I think the last time we didn’t include it.

MR. GREGOR: I stand corrected -- I stand corrected.

MR. FAASSE: All right, it is SV1-- SV1?

MR. CHAIRMAN: SV1.

MR. FAASSE: B like in boy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is the survey, the last page.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, so.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Mr. Stinson if you could mark on the cover page A-1 with today’s date.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And Mr. Faasse do you want the application number on it?

MR. FAASSE: No, we’ll know. Now once you mark these you are going to leave them here?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That’s correct.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE

Q Mr. Stinson what you have marked as A-1 is the most recent submission of the site plan and accompanied documents that were prepared by your office to this Board?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q And that consists of eight sheets?

A Yes.

Q And there may various and varying dates on those sheets. The last revision on any of those sheets would be June 19, 2007?

A Yes.

Q Can you turn to the last sheet and then I think the question I asked you was to describe the current condition of the site.

MR. FAASSE: You are going to refer to the survey, so could we just have the date of that page because that has to be amended in Bill’s list or Mr. Gregor’s list?

MR. STINSON: The last revision date for drawing SV-1 is revision #3 and then January 23, 2007.

MR. FAASSE: 23rd, 2000 --

MR. CHAIRMAN: And 7.

MR. FAASSE: 7, okay.

MR. STINSON: That revision had to do with revising some utility information in the road, which was further refined and corrected on our site plan.

MR. FAASSE: I see it.

MR. STINSON: When we contacted the DPW we got the size of the water main and the sewers in the street.

MS. MAROTTA: He is going to have to use the microphone.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are going to have to either stand by the mic or carry the mic.

BOARD MEMBER: You can use the one out here on the table if you want to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s all.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, he can pull it up to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There you go.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE

Q Now Mr. Stinson I note that the building is still contained on that survey because the survey was originally done in 2003, that building is no longer there, correct?

A That is correct, the building has been removed and been raised, but it is the former location for the Gladys M. Rhinesmith Administration Building. It was a two story brick and masonry building fronting Ringwood Avenue. You can see there was a driveway on the one side that went right up to the property line, looped around one way. There was parking in the back. Our proposed plan has the building in generally the same location except shifted just slightly this way so that we have a two-lane entrance and egress from the site. There was bituminous parking in the back. Right now the current site is pretty much -- it is completely cleared and undeveloped right now. So that is the existing site. It is long and narrow and it is just slightly over an acre, so it is about 100 feet wide by 450 feet long and, as I said, just slightly over one acre in size, long and narrow. It was stated before about the split zone, we can show that on the cover sheet. You can see here that, on the key map, that it is split with the residential zone, right here, and the B Zone in front. So the zone line goes right through the back. It has been stated and it is factual that the proposed building is entirely in the B Zone. The parking extends in the back into a portion of the residential zone and that is where the split zone comes into play.

Q Mr. Stinson, perhaps, for clarification, based upon what I see it looks as though the B Zone is on the lower section, is on Lot 17 in Block 233, it looks like. Am I correct?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q Thank you. Could you describe the proposed site plan and walk us through what you are proposing to do with this site?

A Yes, absolutely.

Q And we could mark, since that is a colorized version, I would ask you to mark that as A-2 and identify it, please.

A This is what we call Landscape Rendering of the project. It is a combination of various drawings that have been submitted. There is no new information on here. It is just a combination of the information and it is colored to represent landscaping. This is the landscaping rendering. The date on this drawing is today’s date that is July 11th and I will mark this A-2.

MR. FAASSE: Oh we do have --

MR. CHAIRMAN: We don’t have that.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, we don’t have that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

A As I said, it is the same information, it is just combined into one drawing.

Q All right. And if you could walk us through A-2 and what that depicts Mr. Stinson.

A Right. It depicts the proposed site plan with the trees and the landscaping highlighted on this drawing and also has the zoning information so that it could be referred to. As it was stated before, we need a variance for the side setback, which would be on the northerly side, over here. Whereas 15 feet is required; we are providing 11 feet. So there is 4-foot variance for side setback. That is in the business zone but because there is a residential component the setback is 15 feet. We have a two-lane driveway coming in that is 22 feet wide. We have the parking completely contained in the back. The dash line that is shown here is the building setback line, which we are within, except for that northerly side. We have the parking in the back. We have a total of 47 parking spaces, whereas 46 are required. So we have the adequate parking. We have handicapped parking spaces in the back. Some of the most recent revisions were to add the handicap ramps in the front where the crosswalk is, a stop sign and a stop bar with a painted line was provided in the front. We moved the dumpster just one more time. The first submission, it was in the back near residences, we got the sense that it needed to be moved further up and then at the last meeting, receiving input from the residents and the planner, we moved the garbage to the other side, which is in the B district and we provided blank spots on the other side to provide adequate turning for a garbage truck to come in and it is demonstrated on the truck turning. There was a comment about the truck being able to pull in, I just spoke to the planner and we can agree to provide a little bit greater radius on the entrance that would make it completely easy for the trucks to come in.

Q All right. Before we get to the specifics of Mr. Gregor’s report Mr. Stinson, it is my understanding that the proposed building is substantially similarly located as the previous school building, am I correct?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q And could you describe the utilities that have been designed to service this building.

A All right. I will refer to our Grading Plan and Utility Plan, which is drawing C2.2. All the storm water drainage on the site is on the paved area in the parking lot and it is collected into two Type B drainage inlets. It is collected along a pipe, it runs underneath the driveway, comes to the front to another inlet, and then connects to the sewer that is in Ringwood Avenue. The roof drainage is collected and it is addressed by a drywell so that the water infiltrates into the ground. Our storm water calculations demonstrate that there is actually less runoff under proposed conditions than there are under existing conditions and we have accounted for our run off.

Q Okay.

A That is the storm water management. The utilities --

Q Before you get to the other utilities let’s look at the storm water management in a little more detail. What is the existing grade of the site and if you can describe to the Board whether it slopes in one direction or the other in terms of adjoining properties?

A The site is basically very flat, it is very flat as is the surrounding properties. There are residences along here, Lots 21 through 14, are private residences. There is an existing chain-linked fence in there now which is kind of a natural divide and there is no effect to our site with adjacent drainage and it is flat.

Q Based upon your design and your analysis, Mr. Stinson, is any water that is going to hit this site be maintained and collected on this site?

A There is nowhere -- we are accounting for our own drainage and there is no waterways or drainage swales or any of the such that would effect our property.

Q Okay. So the water that hits this site is collected and then goes into the location, which you indicated both from the parking lot and the roof drains and that water, once collected, goes toward an existing system in Ringwood Avenue?

A Yeah, that is correct.

Q Will any of the water that hits this site run off on any of the adjacent properties?

A It would continue to flow the same way that it does now.

Q Okay. In that regard, does the design of the system that you have proposed satisfy current NJDEP requirements both in terms of collection and water quality?

A I am not sure if that is true or not.

Q Okay. But if that is necessary, that will be addressed?

A Yes, that is true.

Q And you have provided a storm water management plan to Mr. Gregor which is under review, correct?

A That is correct, yes.

Q And if there are any issues with respect to storm water management, since it is of a technical concern, that could be addressed as a condition with this Board, correct?

A Yes, yes.

Q It would not change the overall design of the proposed building. It can be addressed through other means to address the storm water.

A That is right, that is right.

Q With respect to the general utilities that would serve the building, water, electric, gas and sewer, are those depicted on the site plan?

A Yes, there are depicted on the Grading, Utility and Soil Erosion Control Plan, which we are looking at here now. The water services come in off of Ringwood Avenue, they are separate services. The building would be sprinkled so there is a four-inch firewater service line and there is a two-inch domestic water service line that would be connected to the existing eight-inch waterline that is in Ringwood Avenue. The sanitary sewer would be a six-inch PVC service connection, which would connect to the existing manhole that is located in Ringwood Avenue. And the drainage, as I said, also connects to the storm sewer that is in Ringwood Avenue.

Q Are the utilities that you just described adequate to service the proposed development?

A Yes, certainly.

Q Thank you. If you can go back --

MR. FAASSE: Excuse me, while we are on that subject, have you checked with the Wanaque Water Department to make sure that there is adequate water supply and have you check with the Sewer Authority as to whether or not they can handle the sewerage?

MR. STINSON: No, we have not but that would be a final. Should the Board decide to -- you know -- approve the project, we would ensure that we would meet the requirements of the local utilities.

MR. GRYGUS: Because they may not have capacity for you.

MR. STINSON: I can talk about the lighting and the landscaping.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q Yeah, I was going to go to the lighting and the landscaping, Mr. Stinson.

A We have various freestanding lights that are located throughout the parking lot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What page?

A This would be drawing C-2.3, the Landscape and Lighting Plan. The lights that are indicated on this drawing as A-1 are here across the back, opposite each other in the parking area, they will have house side shields, those are decorative style lights, and the detail of the light is shown on the detail sheet. Then we also have wall-mounted lights, which will be attached to the building here. They are 100-watt metal halide and 175-watt metal halide freestanding lights and the lights on the building. Also only 12 feet tall, which keeps the light low and, as I said before the, lights would have house side shields to minimize the spillage of light over. And the contours here show that we have sufficient light to light the parking lot and the sidewalks.

Q Mr. Stinson the purpose of that shield is to prevent the spillage of any lighting over to the adjacent properties, correct?

A That is exactly what it is, it is called a house side shield and it is intended to limit the spillage of light in the rear, behind the light. The landscaping --

Q Before you get to the landscaping --

A Okay.

Q The lighting that you have proposed is of sufficient quantity to provide sufficient light for this parking lot?

A Yes, yes.

Q And that also takes into account the shielding that you have provided to prevent the spillage.

A That is correct.

Q Okay, thank you.

A Okay.

Q You can move on to the landscaping.

A Yes, I just wanted to point out that we did add a board-on-board fence that runs along the -- it would tie into the building on the rear corner. It would run across the back where we have a residential property. Completely enclose the parking area and then it would stop at the line of the business zone, which is passed the residential, the last residential lot there, Lot 14. We have landscaping here, trees and shrubs. We have arborvitaes extensively around the -- in front of the fence. We have poppers, we have boxwoods, we have a variety of plants. We have flowering dogwoods, some nice landscaping. But we are certainly up for recommendations if the Board or the consultants would like a variation of landscaping that wouldn’t be a problem. This is what we have proposed. We also added two picnic benches in the back here we figured this space would be utilized by the residents for outside recreation.

Q Mr. Stinson, I know you touched on this earlier but, based upon your representation about the change in radius, is there sufficient maneuverability from Ringwood Avenue in order to access this site?

A Yes, I will refer to the Truck Turning Plan again.

Q And if you could identify that by sheet number please.

A That would be Sheet TP-1. I would like to state that this drawing was revised although the revision date wasn’t accounted for on this drawing. This is the drawing that was submitted but it was updated, as I said before, because we moved the location of the trash enclosure. The truck plan was also updated, as I said, by mistake we did not add a revision note to this drawing. As you can see, the garbage truck swings in, we have provided the two empty parking spaces on the one side that would be yellow stripped as no parking and the truck would be able to pull in, back up and pick up the garbage and be able to pull out. There was a recommendation by the planner, Mr. Gregor, to increase the radius of the entrance and I see that as not a problem at all. We could make a 10-foot radius on the front and that would keep the truck from veering out into the other lane of traffic without any problem. It would increase the turning ability of the truck and, in my professional opinion, the garbage truck would have no problem getting into the site and maneuvering to be able to remove the garbage.

Q Thank you. Mr. Stinson if you could go back to your cover sheet and rather than go through the entire zoning table, it is my understanding that your site plan satisfies all the zoning criteria established for these zones except for the side yard setback and the height of the building, am I correct?

A Yes, as you stated before, there were certain considerations that we were looking for for the Board. The variance for the building height, which was stated and which we will talk about later. The side yard variance that we talked about, the use variance for having more than two units of residential. We also have for the building mounted sign that you will see on the architectural drawing which will come up later.

Q Which I’ll have Mary go through.

A Because the building was shown higher in one of our proposal terms as the higher building, we have the sign higher so, therefore, that would be a variance for the sign height. That is about all I have for variances I think that I can cover.

MR. GRYGUS: Counselor, why we are on the zoning table. Bill, this isn’t going to fall under reasons?

MR. GREGOR: Pardon?

MR. GRYGUS: This isn’t going to fall under reasons?

MR. FAASSE: I doubt it because it is a mixed use.

MR. GREGOR: I am going to say no because it is a mixed use.

MR. GRYGUS: That is my thought because my question to that --

MR. GREGOR: I have heard opinions to the -- I don’t believe so, but I have heard other opinions.

MR. GRYGUS: My question to that would be then I think we are missing a couple of variances here in that our ordinances requires a 25 foot isles --

MR. GREGOR: That is correct.

MR. GRYGUS: And we have 24 foot and our ordinance is 10 by 20 spaces and you are proposing 9 by 20 space. So that would be two additional.

MR. GREGOR: I believe they are design waivers if I am not mistaken.

MR. GRYGUS: What is that?

MR. GREGOR: I believe they are in the site plan section of the ordinance and that would be design waivers. Technically, it is a deviation from the ordinance, yes.

MR. GRYGUS: We always dealt with them as variances.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, it is a deviation from the ordinance.

MR. GRYGUS: And then my other question with parking would be the function -- 8 foot wide is that to spec on the handicapped spaces?

MR. GREGOR: On the handicapped, yes, that is for ADA.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay. So we would have the two additional variances then for the parking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But Bill, how does that work 8, 8, 8?

MR. GREGOR: That is a van accessible spot.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: The barrier free in New Jersey adopts the ADA standards.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: The ADA standards for a van accessible spot is an 8 foot wide with an 8 foot aisle and an 8 foot wide space.

MR. STINSON: That’s correct and the other one is a 5-foot wide space, which is not the van accessible but we are providing.

MR. GREGOR: Yes, the other one is an 8 foot wide parking space with a 5 foot wide aisle or walking space.

MR. COVELLI: While we are on the parking not to break your -- I have a question. How does that first handicap space function?

MR. STINSON: What do you mean?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: You mean number one?

MR. COVELLI: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How does a car turn in there?

MR. COVELLI: How does a car turn into that space?

MR. STINSON: Well we have blank spots, you can pull in this way, you can turn around and as the cars come out you can just pull right in. Just turn around here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So you got to use the garbage stripped area to turn around.

MR. STINSON: Well the area is stripped off, which if a truck can turn around, cars can certainly turn around.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Come in, turn around and go in here.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. STINSON: Without a problem.

MR. COVELLI: And what happens if somebody comes into this site and all the spaces are filled, they get all the way down to the end and now they have to back all the way down to the stripped areas to turn around?

MR. STINSON: There is a 5 foot space at the end, they could do a numerous turn at the end or they could back up and use the spot that is provided to turn around.

MR. COVELLI: Okay.

MR. STINSON: We did have the garbage in back, which would have allowed -- you know -- turn around at the end. But since we moved the garbage to the middle of the site closer to the building, which to me made sense, that is where the blank spaces are for turning around.

BY MR. CHESCASKIE:

Q MR. Stinson, while we are on the parking and as raised by Mr. Grygus, if the Borough of Wanaque code requires a 25-foot isle and you are providing 24 foot, does that fit into standard engineering practice?

A Well generally the rule of thumb in almost everything that I have designed in New Jersey, we follow the RSIS requirements and standards for parking space size and isle width which would be -- it is a 60 foot bay, meaning that there is a 24 foot isle width and an 18 foot parking space and an 18 foot parking space. We actually have a 20-foot wide, which is better than what RSIS would require for a parking space.

Q Right, so you have 20, 20 and 24. 20 for each of the spaces and 24-isle width.

A That’s right. So we have a total of a 64-foot bay, which would be 4 feet greater than what RSIS requires.

Q Now with respect to the size of the spaces, they were designed at 9 by 20, where the Wanaque code would require 10 by 20, the way it has been explained to me this evening.

A Yes.

Q Is 9 by 20 a sufficient parking space size?

A Yes.

Q What would be the standard utilized in this type or other developments for a parking space size?

A As I said, it is typically 9 by 18 not 9 by 20.

MR. FAASSE: That is if it is all residential though.

MR. STINSON: Just in any parking lot we design, we always do 9 by 18.

MR. FAASSE: That is a different answer. You said required was 9 by 18.

MR. STINSON: Yeah.

MR. FAASSE: 9 by 18 is the RSIS for residential.

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: But not for commercial or business, right? But what you are saying is that a suitable alternative, in your professional opinion, would by a 9 by 18 for either?

MR. STINSON: Almost every parking lot I design in New Jersey whether it be residential, commercial, industrial, we design 9 by 18. I have designed smaller parking spaces for compact cars -- you know -- we could diagonal, we do different things, but typically the majority of all parking spaces that are utilized are 9 by 18.

MR. FAASSE: In your opinion this would be sufficient for this site the 9 by 20.

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: However, now let’s go back. The RSIS for residential would permit 9 by 18, right?

MR. STINSON: Yes, that is correct. The stipulation of RSIS is 9 by 18.

MR. FAASSE: And just so that we are all clear, when you said earlier that there were 46 spaces that were required, could you please give the Board the specification as to how you came up with that calculation?

MR. STINSON: Certainly, we have one space for 200 square foot of medical office building, our medical office space is 3,600 square feet, divided by 200 would be 18 parking spaces and then we have two spaces per unit for the residential so we have 14 times 2, which is 28. 28 plus 18 would be the 46 and we have provided 47.

MR. FAASSE: Thank you.

BY MR. CHESCASKIE:

Q Now Mr. Stinson, as you have indicated, I guess, you have 9 by 20 spaces. If the width of the isle was increased to 25 feet, could you maintain the 9 by 20 spaces or create 9 by 19 spaces, without any significant determent to the ability to park in that facility?

A As a matter of fact we could because on this side we have 21 feet, whereas the setback requirement for the -- well it is not even the building, there is not a building there, we could make it 20 feet instead of 21 feet if no pillars are required by the Board.

Q All right, so there is the ability to address if that is a concern of the Board?

A If that is the Board’s desire, we could make the isle width 24 feet.

Q Now before we go through parts of Mr. Gregor’s report, it is my understanding that you have designated on the site where the Highlands line is?

A Yes, we’ve showed that right here. It is along Ringwood Avenue, right here, we have Highlands Preservation Area to the left and a Highlands Planning Area to the right. And I did add a note on my site plan which I can refer to. I added Note 10, in the last revision, which states the project is deemed exempt from the New Jersey Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act Rules, N.J.A.C. 7:38 as determined in a letter dated March 22, 2006 from the NJDEP. So these plans were submitted to the state for a determination and that determination was that we are exempt from the requirements of the Highlands Act Rule.

MR. FAASSE: Do we have a copy of the letter in our file?

MR. GREGOR: Yes, we do.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: Can I ask a question regarding that? I was trying to hold all my questions but I think we can get by this rather quickly, I am just looking for the letter now. I think I have found it, yes. If I am not mistaken, this is it, yes. Can you tell us which plan they reviewed?

MR. STINSON: Yes, there really has been no significant changes to the plan since our original submission. The only plan that we changed was the location of the garbage truck, so it was the original location. The configuration of the parking and the building, as you see it now, was the same as what was submitted to the DEP.

MR. GREGOR: All right so the plan that they reviewed which would -- because we received, I didn’t bring all my old plans with me and that is why I was curious as to which plan they received and reviewed. Because I know we received one that was before we got to this numbering system and then we went to this numbering system. They were all similar in design. Can you tell us which one they reviewed?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I think --

MR. GREGOR: If you can’t now, can you at possibly the next meeting?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I think I can probably answer that Mr. Gregor.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: The reference is in the letter. There is a plan that was revised through January 27, 2006, which was prepared by Burton and if you do not have a copy of that plan, we will certainly provide it to you, which would indicate that the same building and parking design exists except for some minor changes, based upon responses that we received relative to your reports. This application was not filed until after that exemption was received so you will have the more current version but there was no change in the size, shape, or location of the building. The parking area has also not changed except for the change within to move the trash enclosure and the light. But rather than me testifying, if the Board is inclined to grant an approval, we can certainly make it subject to any DEP requirements and we will certainly provide you with the January submission that was made, I should say the January plan, that was part of the submission to the DEP.

MR. GREGOR: Yes, and that is what I would recommend and if you notice, I am just going to spout on this so I think we can put it to bed once and for all and move on to your site issues. My first recommendation in my letter, Item #1, is that, even though you have provided an exemption letter, that I indicated that an approval, review and approval, of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council should be a condition of any action by this Board. Because we don’t know what is going to change from the time they saw it. So that condition is still something I am still going to recommend, irrespective of you having the letter from them. I just wanted you to all be clear on that.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is fine and we do understand that Mr. Gregor.

MR. GREGOR: Very good.

MR. STINSON: I would just like to point out in the letter that basis for the exemption and stated here, reconstruction of any building or structure for any reason within 125 percent of the prior footprint of the lawful existing impervious surfaces provided the reconstruction does not increase the lawful existing impervious surface by more than a quarter of an acre. So because there was a building there before and there was impervious surface that is the basis for the exemption by the DEP, which is stated in this letter.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, I understand that.

MR. STINSON: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: The only reason I raised that issue at all is that there was an issue raised on parking space size and isle width which could, potentially, change your impervious from what we see here should you decide to do that. And I just want to make sure that this Board doesn’t try to supersede the Highlands Council.

MR. STINSON: Certainly.

MR. FAASSE: Could we do that if we wanted to?

MR. GREGOR: No we could not.

MR. FAASSE: I didn’t think so.

MR. GREGOR: We could try but I don’t think we would succeed.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q This would be an opportune time then, Mr. Stinson, to look at Mr. Gregor’s July 10th letter.

A Certainly.

Q And I’ll skip around because most of the stuff has been addressed. We have addressed #1, 2, 3 and 4 have been addressed. #5 about the topography on adjoining properties, I would ask that you address that comment raised by Mr. Gregor.

A Yes, as I have previously stated, the site is basically flat as are the properties surrounding the property. We did have our surveyor go out one more time to locate the pool that was asked for which is at the end of the property here. But our surveyor reported back that he is having difficulty being allowed on the property. As they are such private properties, he was having difficulty accessing the property, so that is why we will be asking for a waiver for the requirement to show additional topography. As I stated, the site is basically flat, we are accounting for our own drainage and the drainage patterns that existed prior to the project would remain and there would be no adverse impacts due to our project because of that.

Q Now, Mr. Stinson, as I indicated, at least to my knowledge, your storm water management plan is under review by Mr. Gregor’s office, is that correct?

A Yes.

Q If there are any revisions required in order to change grading on the site to accommodate any suggested revisions that Mr. Gregor would make, would that have any effect on the site at all?

A There would be no problem meeting any typical requirements or engineering issues that would pertain to the storm water management, such as providing a water quality treatment device or underground detention, if one was required. Whatever it is, we could certainly apply it to the site and make sure we meet the requirements.

MR. GRYGUS: While you are that subject, I would just have a question about that, since Frank we were talking about it. When you look at the survey from the original, you had about the back quarter or so of the property was lawn. Now that is going to a paved parking lot and it looks like your two inlets in the parking lot, you are proposing to pipe right out to the street.

MR. STINSON: That is correct.

MR. GRYGUS: Bill, typically, haven’t we tried to be in step with the regulations regarding zero net increase or even a zero net reduction and am I correct in stating that by having more paved area versus the lawn area on that site, I would think that you are going to increase the run off amount from that site. Whether it be naturally running off the site now or what is going to be running into those detention -- into those catch pans.

MR. STINSON: I would like to address that comment if I will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. STINSON: Actually what we are doing and typically in most of our residential projects, commercial projects, the idea is to take the roof drainage --

MR. GRYGUS: That I saw.

MR. STINSON: -- the collection of the roof --

MR. GRYGUS: Right.

MR. STINSON: -- and infiltrated into the ground.

MR. GRYGUS: Right.

MR. STINSON: So it is a direct reduction in the amount of run off and the drywells that infiltrate the water into the ground are designed in accordance with the Soil Erosion Soil Control standards, so that water comes right out of the system so it is as if there were even less than grass, it is taken out. So it is because we are taken the roof out of the system that there would be actual --

MR. GRYGUS. So you are saying that --

MR. STINSON: There is no net increase.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. STINSON: It is actually decreased.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay, so you are saying that what you are picking up in the back what you are reducing in the front.

MR. STINSON: Correct and our storm water management calculations demonstrate that that there is a decrease in net run off.

MR. GREGOR: In fact, just to reinforce that the standards, are standards we had utilized for small projects because we like to show a net, a zero net increase.

MR. STINSON: Right.

MR. GREGOR: The applicant is required to show by DEP regulations a decrease in run off to the various parts. I haven’t heard the calculations yet, I am holding off on that until I’m confident that we are not changing too much. I don’t like to review them more than once, both for your benefit and the Board’s.

MR. STINSON: I understand.

MR. FAASSE: Mr. Stinson, you have visited this site, have you not?

MR. STINSON: Sure, yes.

MR. FAASSE: So the surrounding grades and the surrounding properties where you are asking for this waiver, the 10 feet, it is substantially similar to what is existing on the subject property?

MR. STINSON: Yes, that is right, I mean our site is basically flat as are the surrounding properties. I mean it is cleared now.

MR. FAASSE: And the same grades are maintained.

MR. STINSON: Yeah, that’s right, we are not affecting the adjacent properties.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q Mr. Stinson, I guess based upon what we have heard, if there were additional requirements, let’s say to collect water in terms of a seepage pit or some sort of basin, that could certainly be added in the parking lot area so that there would be no impact on the surrounding properties.

A Yeah, if it would please the Board, I would submit that if you want to make it a condition of the approval that, during construction, if there were any adverse impacts observed that we would certainly remediate those issues, which I don’t believe that there would be any, but we would certainly -- you know -- address those issues by putting under drains, additional infiltration as Mr. Chewcaskie has stated.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Stinson, I think you hit directly the point I was trying to get across.

MR. COVELLI: I want to pick up on that point Bill.

MR. GREGOR: Go right ahead.

MR. COVELLI: As I am looking at this drawing, we have an inlet approximately 300; excuse me, 272 feet from the road. Then we have a second inlet at 200 feet from the road. Am I missing or where are we picking up -- your testimony before was that this is a flat lot.

MR. STINSON: Yeah.

MR. COVELLI: So how is the drainage from the rear of the lot coming up -- you are going to grade the back of that lot towards the front?

MR. STINSON: We have a one percent slope, so it, what I call, waffles across the site. So it has the high point in the back, the water from the very back of the property drains to the inlet that is furthest away from the road and then it comes up again and collects in this one. We have a ridgeline, meaning that there is a high point across from the building, so that the water would flow to this inlet here and then we also have another inlet prior to going out into Ringwood Avenue. So then you have the water coming down the driveway, as it is sloped, crossed sloped, it will be collected into this inlet. So we collect all the parking lot area, all the driveway area is collected into our inlets and it is safely conveyed to the storm sewer in the center of the street.

MR. COVELLI: Bill, when you review that plan, does it take into consideration the ability of that single inlet to handle all the runoff from that entire parking lot?

MR. GREGOR: We will be reviewing that drainage system for that capability, yes, that is part of our review.

MR. COVELLI: Would you consider adding any drywells to the back of this property, any seepage pits to the back of this -- rear of this property.

MR. STINSON: Well, typically --

MR. COVELLI: What I see and I explain why I am asking the question. What I see is that in the rear of the lot where we have the least amount of activity, we are taking the water forward to a busier part of the property. Busier in terms of what is on the surface in terms of traffic and the like and also where we have more activity in terms of other drainage in that area. In other words, the road drainage. Anyone that saw Ringwood Avenue today, Ringwood Avenue was flooded for about a half an hour today, if you were in this area, and it flooded our whole neighborhood. And we are bringing water 272 feet, well first we are taking it across the surface of the lot, then we are putting it in a catch basin and we are bringing it 272 feet towards Ringwood Avenue. Is there a way for us to deal with some of that through seepage in the back of the lot?

MR. STINSON: I understand your point. It is the NJDEP’s Best Management Practice and Guidelines to not infiltrate water that runs off from a parking lot because you might have brake dust or oil drippings from cars and the asphalt material, as such, contains a source of pollutions, which they don’t want to have go directly into the ground. So it is conveyed to the drainage system. That is why we take the roof runoff, which is considered clean, as far as the DEP is concerned, and we take the roof runoff, we put that into the ground and in doing that, we do have a net decrease in the runoff and that is in accordance with Best Management Practices in New Jersey.

MR. GRYGUS: Why couldn’t we put sumps or separators in those catch basins going into the seepage pit, to address that concern that is very legitimate?

MR. STINSON: We could if it is required; we don’t believe that it is required and we haven’t.

MR. GRYGUS: just the rain we have today, I don’t believe that that single inlet can handle all the water that is going to come off that property.

BOARD MEMBER: I don’t think anything can handle the water we had today. The whole town couldn’t handle it.

MR. GREGOR: Let me just -- Mr. Stinson, I agree with him in that DEP recommends that you infiltrate roof water and avoid infiltrating the dirtier water you get off of parking lots. I am just going to add one statement to the end of that statement where Mr. Stinson stopped, without cleaning it first. They will permit you to do it but the water quality must be improved drastically by -- and there are a number of devices out there that can do it. They do recommend that you put clean water only into the ground but you can put parking lot water into the ground but you must clean it first.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Give us an example of how you would achieve that.

MR. GREGOR: Pardon?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: How would you achieve that?

MR. GREGOR: Well there are a number of methods that are approved by the NJDEP; some of them are filtration systems and some of them are separation systems. Some of them are a combination of both.

MR. STINSON: The problem with these structural measures is that they require maintenance, if they are filters, they have to be replaced, it is a perpetual maintenance issue that is perpetual, so we don’t usually volunteer those types of things unless they are absolutely required. But I would submit that we are still under the review by the consultant as far as the storm water management is concerned. Whatever the Board decides and the consultant recommends as far as the storm water management, as been stated before, we will certainly comply with the town’s recommendations.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I think maybe we would stipulate as to whatever Mr. Gregor determines is in the best interest whether it requires additional inlets with water quality measure or some other additional inlets that would also, let’s say, require some sort of slowing down the volume of water as it approaches Ringwood Avenue, we would agree to. I think it is very technical. If the Board has that concern with the volume of water, then we will add something to address it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr. Chewcaskie.

MR. GREGOR: Getting to the point where I was going to, prior to my review of that the issue that I was raising with the topography, the applicant has asked for a waiver for the additional topography off site. In my letter I addressed it a little bit differently and I will read just my end section of paragraph #5, additional topographic information will be required or an alternative means of assuring that no negative impact on the adjacent properties should be considered. The reason for that is the topography shown by spot elevations on the adjacent property varies up and down. The topography by spot elevations shown on the subject property also varies up and down. And it appears that some of the drainage which normally occurs, since I don’t have any topography in the front of these lots, some of the drainage which falls on the adjacent residential properties may now flow into the field behind the old Rhinesmith building and by building up this parking lot and putting a curb there, you may block that and create localized ponding. If we can address that adequately so we do not negatively impact the adjacent properties or find some way of dealing with that, I don’t have enough information to know if that will occur, I don’t think Mr. Stinson has enough information. But I think that is something we have to be concerned with and I want to have addressed by the applicant so that we don’t create a problem should this application be approved and this be built, for the adjacent property owners.

MR. STINSON: You kind of took my next step.

MR. GREGOR: Go ahead.

MR. STINSON: Which you led right into it which was the fact that when I looked at the grassy areas on either side, I had a thought of will we have drainage issues. The idea of putting in some kind of seepage pits, we could put some catch basins, in fact, in the lawn area to minimize -- either to accept any waters that were coming in. Naturally the lot right now is taking much more water because it is all dirt at this point.

MR. GREGOR: Correct.

MR. STINSON: There is no impervious surface on the lot at this point.

MR. GREGOR: And I believe in contrast to what Mr. Stinson had once stated during his direct-examination by the attorney, I’m sorry, I just completely forgot your name all of a sudden.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Just say Brian.

MR. GREGOR: Brian. Some of the water from the site will run off on the adjacent properties in small areas. I am looking at the area where we have a 252 topo and the adjacent properties are 250, 251.7. But that is very minor in nature. What I am still concerned with is the possibility of stopping existing flow or interrupting existing flow and causing localized ponding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So you need some more detail from you on that.

MR. GREGOR: We need some more details or I would ask the applicant to address that and possibly come up with a recommendation rather than the Board telling you what to do.

MR. STINSON: As I had alluded to before, I heard your comment and I thought about it and I have in mind -- you know -- some things that we could do. Should there be water running from other properties onto our property, notwithstanding the fact that we caring for our own water and if somebody else’s water is coming on our property they should be responsible for it, but we could put a trench drain, we could put gravel, we could put an under drain, french drain, and we could collect the water in a swale, very easily and provide a place for it to infiltrate into the ground. Because it is not pavement area, we are collecting our pavement area, we don’t need to treat it, it is going out. Anything over a grass area, we could collect into a swale and put an under drain and a french drain and provide a place for that water to go should it be deemed required, during construction. So as I had said before, if we could make it a part of the approval should the Board approve the project then, during construction, should it be observed that there is any adverse impacts, we could provide a french drain or another method acceptable to the Board that would address those issues, should they arise.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I think it is in two parts, Mr. Stinson. The first is that if there is an existing flow that comes from adjoining properties onto this site that is something that can be collected and handled as part of the drainage system, correct?

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And if there is grading that may cause some of the areas to the side of these residential properties to flow towards those residential properties, that can also be collected and addressed and, therefore, be implemented to prevent that from happening.

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you. And that would be an adequate alternate means to prevent, let’s call it, existing drainage that flows to the site and perhaps drainage that would flow off this site as a result of future development.

MR. STINSON: Right.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you.

MR. GREGOR: Okay, so possibly with your engineering design and Brian’s language, maybe you can make a proposal to the Board that would address that issue so that we can put it to bed.

MR. STINSON: We will work together and provide something for your resolution, how does that sound?

MR. GREGOR: Very good.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: I think the Board is going to want to see something before you get into a construction phase.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh yeah.

MR. STINSON: Do you want an alternative --

MR. FAASSE: You have heard the comments made.

MR. STINSON: Sure.

MR. FAASSE: I think you have to take in under advisement and make sure that the storm water management is --

MR. STINSON: Why don’t a put it on the drawing, I can put a detail for a french drain and show it on the plan and say if required during construction. Would that be all right?

MR. FAASSE: I think what you have to do is look at what you are -- you know -- you are taking in from your adjoining properties before you even make that determination. So that might have to be looked at.

MR. GREGOR: Propose something to us before the Board gets to the point where we are closing this.

MR. STINSON: Okay, right.

MR. GREGOR: So they have an idea what you are proposing to do.

MR. STINSON: Maybe I will take another look at the back of the property.

MR. GREGOR: Thank you.

MR. STINSON: Okay.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q And then I guess going through Mr. Gregor’s report, the last two items were 9 and 10. One was sight distance and the other was the truck path, which you already addressed. If you could address Item 9 regarding the sight distance, is that something that would be addressed by virtue of the Passaic County Planning Board Application?

A Yes, that is absolutely correct and we did do the calculations for the sight distance. As such, there is a building that is very close to Ringwood Avenue here, this number 551, two-story masonry building and at the position where the driveway is now we have a slightly -- we don’t meet the requirement for sight distance but it will be a waiver or an exception that we would be looking to gain from Passaic County because Ringwood Avenue is a Passaic road, we would submit to the Passaic County Planning Board, it would be reviewed by the Passaic County engineer and, believe me, we would have to -- you know -- get their approval and do what they ask us to do for the driveway. It is in their jurisdiction and we would be submitting to them.

Q Just so that I understand, Mr. Stinson, the sight distance issue has nothing to do with development being proposed but it is as a result of off site conditions.

A Right.

Q And that is because of the location of existing buildings.

A Right.

Q So anything that is constructed on this site would have the limitations of sight distance irrespective of the type of construction.

A That is correct.

Q And, in fact, that site distance issue existed at the time that the school was on the property, correct?

A Yes.

Q Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: Well wouldn’t that change if you move the driveway?

MR. GREGOR: It may not exist where the school was depending on which was the inlet and outlet of the two driveways.

MR. STINSON: The exit driveway was in a similar location as it is now. I can say that -- you know -- I have talked about this issue when our engineer did the calculation and we have done numerous of these, we were under the belief that we wouldn’t have a problem getting approval from Passaic County. And looking at this, it is the requirement that the sight triangle be stopped 15 feet from the back of the curb line, and in all essence, the car will just pull up at little bit further and we will have -- we’ll have plenty of sight distance so I don’t see this as a big issue before the Planning Board.

Q So basically, so that I understand it, is that the sight distance deals with the ability of an individual at a particular location to look left and right as to oncoming traffic.

A That is correct.

Q So it is the exit driveway at this sight that is impacted by the adjoining building.

A Yes.

Q And that measurement is taken 15 foot back from where Mr. Stinson?

A From the face of the curb line.

Q From the face of the curb line. A vehicle, based upon the present design, could approach that curb line without entering into traffic and increase the available sight distance to maneuver safely out of the driveway.

A That is correct and that is my basis for my opinion that we would be able to get an approval from Passaic County for the sight triangle.

Q Thank you. And then the last issue, I believe we have addressed.

MR. GREGOR: Well could I ask a question on this issue?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Oh sure, Sure.

MR. GREGOR: I basically have two questions on that issue. #1, one of the reasons that I pointed that out in my report was that you are asking for a Use Variance and you are intensifying the use of this property significantly with both residential and commercial traffic and, obviously, you are 100 percent correct, that is under the jurisdiction of the Passaic County Planning Board. But I believe that it is important for the Board to consider in the Use Variance because of the intensification of the use and, obviously, the number of vehicles which would be utilized in that. Now I have a general engineering question for you. Would you have a better sight distance issue if the driveway were located -- where is your north arrow?

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the other side.

MR. FAASSE: On the north side.

MR. STINSON: North would be to the top side.

MR. GREGOR: To the north side of the building rather than the south side?

MR. STINSON: In other words, if the building were shifted to the south --

MR. GREGOR: I am just asking a question. Yeah, if they put the driveway on the other side of the building.

MR. FAASSE: That was my point that I made with the attorney that could we switch the driveway.

MR. GREGOR: And I just want to hear what the engineer has to say.

MR. FAASSE: Anyway, put that under advisement, we understand that the issue is a Passaic County one. Have you filed an application for site plan review with the County?

MR. STINSON: No, we haven’t yet.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. GREGOR: Could you address my question?

MR. STINSON: You are probably correct, I mean if we moved the driveway over further away from the building, the sight distance would increase. The position that the building is in now, we are already close to the property line. I believe that having a two-way driveway into the site, as is proposed now, is better than having a one way in and one way out. Actually the previous building that was there had the driveway right up to the side. We are 5 feet from the property line to the south. Whereas the other one, I believe, was almost right up to the line.

MR. GREGOR: I think you misunderstood my question. My question was not to change it to a one way, but if you took your two-way driveway and put it on the north side of the building rather than the south side, would that eliminate your sight distance problem?

MR. GRYGUS: Flip you whole site plan.

MR. STINSON: Yeah I see that but I am also looking at Melrose Avenue across the other side. Having a driveway coming up where there is actually a street on the other side may not be a good idea. The idea is to have a driveway further away from the intersection.

MR. GREGOR: I think the County, if you having an opposing roadway, the County is going to encourage you to align any high volume driveways with intersections, if at all possible. I believe that is what they are going to tell you.

MR. FAASSE: But we are speculating.

MR. GREGOR: Based on my experience with the County.

MR. FAASSE: And we don’t know what buildings are going to be north of this.

MR. STINSON: I’m not sure, I’m not sure.

MR. GRYGUS: Yes, we do.

MR. FAASSE: Do we?

MR. GRYGUS: It is right on the drawing and it is a two-story house that is further back from the curb line than the building that is south of this property.

MR. FAASSE: But then does it give you the 188? Does it give you 188 feet?

MR. GRYGUS: Oh yeah.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: I’m just -- I am asking questions, I’m telling you how to design.

MR. STINSON: To answer your question, it probably could be, it probably could be moved over and it would have better sight distance correct, but I do not see, from my professional opinion, I do not see that there is any adverse impact from having this here, as I stated before. It is a very little, it is almost a de-minimus issue with a slightly different sight distance, as I said before, the car could pull up a little bit and, from my professional opinion, there is nothing wrong with this. It would increase on the other one but based on the speed of the traveling vehicles on Ringwood Avenue, it would not be a problem the way it is now.

MR. GREGOR: Thank you.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Drake, I don’t know if you can answer this question. But if the driveway was flipped to the other side and was more, let’s say, opposite Melrose, would a waiver for sight distance still be required or is it eliminated entirely?

MR. STINSON: I don’t know, I would have to examine it, to be honest with you.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Okay, so you can’t answer that question. But my understanding of your testimony was that the County may not want this driveway located across from Melrose Avenue.

MR. STINSON: That is what I would think, I’m not sure.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Okay, then let’s leave it at that. We will probably have to address it further.

MR. GRYGUS: Well let ask a question following up on that. Are you planning on submitting to the County prior to the conclusion of this, so we can get their comments?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I think we may ask for a meeting prior to that time just to get their comments prior to a formal application.

MR. GRYGUS: All right, thank you.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I was leaning in that direction from what I heard. I believe we beat the traffic and everything else to death, Mr. Stinson. Are there any other comments that we need to address or anything that you wanted to add to your testimony?

MR. STINSON: I am just reading through the letter one more time, I think we talked about the signs. I can’t think of anything else.

MR. GREGOR: I stopped him on 11, I don’t know if he touched that item.

MR. FAASSE: You are still proposing that existing sign that is in paragraph 18?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Well we will have --

MR. FAASSE: I understand that but I mean do we need anything from the engineer on that point, how high it is?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: No, we can have the architect address where the sign is.

MR. FAASSE: She’ll be able to, all right.

MR. STINSON: As far as the building mounted sign is concerned the higher sign which would require the variance for the building mounted sign goes along with the option of the gabled roof should the Board like the architectural appeal of that. The sign could be moved down lower even on option 2, because the building is taller, it would look better to have the sign up higher. But we could eliminate that variance by lowering the sign without any problem.

MR. FAASSE: I just wanted to know if it was an engineering question that we could handle with the architect.

MR. STINSON: And the freestanding sign is in complete compliance with the township’s ordinance.

MR. FAASSE: The freestanding one is, okay.

MR. STINSON: Right.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. STINSON: Any other questions?

BOARD MEMBER: Yeah, I have a question. Are you proposing any irrigation systems at all? You are putting a lot of trees on this site and I just don’t see how you are going to maintain those and have --

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We will provide -- it will provided. All of these sites that we typically do would have an irrigation system because the stuff will die.

BOARD MEMBER: That was my concern.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. Any other questions for the engineer otherwise maybe we open it up to the public for questions?

MR. COVELLI: I have one question.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. COVELLI: The fencing that is talked about in this application. Will the fencing be changed or are we utilizing the existing fencing?

MR. STINSON: I am going to turn to our detail sheet to show you the proposed fence.

MR. COVELI: And if you answered that, I apologize, I don’t remember that answer.

MR. FAASSE: It was board-on-board, right, Mr. Stinson?

MR. STINSON: There will be a new fence installed on our property.

MR. FAASSE: And you can pick the color Frank.

MR. COVELLI: A 6 foot high, board-on-board? Thank you.

MR. GREGOR: At the end of Lot 14 into the corner over here.

MR. STINSON: If we have it detail for you --

MR. FAASSE: Now you explained that Mr. Stinson.

MR. STINSON: Yeah.

MR. COVELLI: I said I might have missed it.

MR. STINSON: A 6-foot high board-on-board fence. It will go attached to the building and around our property. It is a new fence that is proposed.

MR. FAASSE: Passed the split between the residential and the business line on the southern property line.

MR. STINSON: Exactly, it would stop at the business zoned district.

MR. FAASSE: Any other questions from the Board?

MR. GREGOR: I got one other question if the Board is completed with theirs, for Mr. Stinson.

MR. FAASSE: Go.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Stinson, I just was looking at your testimony regarding the lighting plan. Could you turn to Sheet C, 2.3 please?

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: Wanaque encourages a minimum of half a foot candles for any parking lot area. I see, it appears to be, correct me if I am misreading the drawing, on the southwesterly corner, you seem to have a number of parking spaces, the rear, lower rear of the property. You seem to have a number of parking spaces which do have a dark area. Am I correct here?

MR. STINSON: Yeah, it looks like the last two.

MR. GREGOR: Could we modify that slightly?

MR. STINSON: We could add another light. That is close to the resident back there with a pool but we could shift the lights a little bit and make these closer and add one more light.

MR. GREGOR: Could you put a dimmer on that one for the residents?

MR. FAASSE: Would are you taking on my jokes.

MR. GREGOR: I think I got one from you, Mr. Faasse, from another application.

MR. FAASSE: Add a dimmer, it is usually because I am not so bright. All right. Want me to ask?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. FAASSE: Is there any one from the public that has any questions of Mr. Stinson about his testimony? It is not the time to make any statements, it is only the time to ask any questions. Some of the other questions in this application, of course, will be answered by other experts and that is a fair response, okay.

MR. DASILVA: Dave DaSilva, 108 Monroe Street, D-A-S-I-L-V-A. Can you describe the size of the impervious surfaces prior to this developer’s purchase of the property versus the proposed size?

MR. STINSON: Certainly, I have the Storm Water Management Report, let me get that up.

MR. FAASSE: And I assume what you are talking about Mr. DaSilva is when the building was there, right?

MR. DASILVA: When the building was there and any other impervious surfaces around the building.

MR. FAASSE: Right. Not now but --

MR. STINSON: The existing impervious area was 29,627 square feet and the proposed impervious area was 29,927 square feet, basically the same, almost, just slightly more.

MR. DASILVA: Can you show us on the colored drawing where the impervious surfaces were?

MR. STINSON: No, because that is the proposed.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: You would have to show it on the survey.

MR. STINSON: I would have to show you on the survey drawing. There are driveways on both sides, as I said before, which came right up to the property line in the northerly and southerly sides, you had a large two-story-brick building, which is obviously impervious, with a sidewalk in front. And you had all up to the property line on both sides to almost three-quarters of the way back was completely impervious. Then you had a paved path in the back here, which is also impervious, as you can see this was the only, except for a small part in the front, this was the only part that was existing.

MR. DASILVA: Is that calculation based upon the original plan or the revised plan? Did it change --did the impervious surface change at any point since the original plan?

MR. STINSON: We moved the location of the dumpster but moving it from one to another did not effect the calculation for impervious area. And it was done using Autotab electronically, so it is a very exact number. We get the area in the computer.

MR. DASILVA: Okay. Do you know what the time schedule would be for the lights in the parking lot?

MR. STINSON: No, I do not.

MR. DASILVA: Okay, that is something for somebody else?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I will be able to address that. I will have one of the witnesses address that.

MR. DASILVA: Okay. What do you plan on doing about snow that is plowed from the property, where do you plan on putting it?

MR. STINSON: Well there will be spaces at the back, temporary storage. We’ll push it off to the side by the curb and back by the inlets.

MR. DASILVA: Into the parking spaces or into the trees?

MR. STINSON: There would be room, there is a five foot spot in the back, there will be space back here and there will be some space for temporary storage.

MR. DASILVA: Obviously, not over the drains, correct?

MR. STINSON: Well that is a good place to put the snow because then when it melts it goes into the drains.

MR. DASILVA: Do you plan on having some sort of recycling collection with the dumpster, how do you plan on doing recycling?

MR. STINSON: We would comply with all the township’s requirements pertaining to recycling.

MR. DASILVA: Is there a central AC unit as part of the plan?

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. DASILVA: And did you deal with the noise from the AC unit disturbing the surrounding residences?

MR. STINSON: The air conditioning unit, perhaps, the architect could testify, would be screened, I believe it is on the roof but again, that is a question for the architect.

MR. DASILVA: Okay I will wait for that.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: The architect will address that.

MR. DASILVA: Okay, thanks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any one else from the public have any questions of this witness?

MR. FAASSE: Because we talked about that garbage dumpster, medical waste, I know we are going to hear this form another witness, but the medical waste would be collected independent of that, correct?

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Internal, within the building, right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Give us your name and address.

MS. AXTELL: It is Linda Axtell A-X-T-E-L-L and I live at 30 Pellington. Just a question because you said that all of the water from the building is going to be, I guess, drained naturally through systems or drywells in the ground.

MR. STINSON: As you can see here the roof water is collected to the front of the building and there is a drywell located right here. There is a pipe for overflow, should it not handle all the infiltration, it overflows to the inlet.

MS. AXTELL: So that in conjunction with rains like we had today won’t increase too much water and cause flooding?

MR. STINSON: As demonstrated in our drainage calculations here, the reduction in flow is basically unchanged, is what it is. Let’s see, hold on. We have reduced the flow by a proportion (inaudible), so this is reduced under the proposed conditions. There would be no adverse impacts from the project, the runoff would decrease.

MS. AXTELL: Then with I guess with, again, rains like today or just in general with the driveway --

MR. FAASSE: Excuse me Miss you are going to have to --

MS. AXTELL: Oh, sorry.

MR. FAASSE: We have to preserve you for prosperity.

MS. AXTELL: Will rains like today and such, will the driveways cause significant -- you know -- pushing water onto other properties, adjacent to.

MR. STINSON: Actually the pavement area is sloped at 1 percent, it would collect the water and would direct it into the storm drainage pipe. It has got almost a 1 percent slope, I know from engineering judgment you could probably had a half a percent slope, so it has got more than enough capacity to handle the water safely into the road.

MS. AXTELL: Thank you.

MR. GREGOR: I think her question was if it does flood, is the flooding going to be on your site or on the adjacent properties?

MR. STINSON: If it does flood it would come into Ringwood Avenue, it would not go off the site.

MR. GREGOR: I think that was her question if I am not mistaken.

MR. STINSON: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any one else from the public have any questions?

MR. FAASSE: Were these storm water calculations apart of our file?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: I know Bill has them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I hope so.

MR. FAASSE: Well -- you know -- you are --

MR. CHAIRMAN: I shouldn’t say yes, the Board might have them.

MR. GREGOR: Do you want to review them Ralph?

MR. FAASSE: Well no, but I mean, -- you know --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anyone from the public.

MR. FAASSE: Anyone from the public should be able to come in here, Borough Hall, and say I want to look at the storm calculations, I want a copy of it.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I believe they were submitted but since it was a long time ago, we will check it, if not we will provide additional copies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can check that tomorrow.

MR. FAASSE: No, I don’t want to read them but the public was the right to take the option. Anyone else from the public have any questions of the engineer? Hearing none. I assume you will keep them available, because I don’t think we are going to finish tonight.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, let’s close the public portion; we are going to take a five-minute recess. Counselor, we have been a cut off at 10:30.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: At what time Sir?

MR. CHAIRMAN: 10:30.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: 10:30

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a few other items the Board wishes to finish.

FIVE-MINUTE RECESS

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, let the minutes reflect --

MR. FAASSE: We need Frank.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh we lost Frank.

MR. GRYGUS: They are outside.

MR. GREGOR: The two guys that don’t smoke are outside.

MR. GRYGUS: Yeah.

MR. FAASSE: Oh yeah, we need Art too. Mr. Gregor since you were the last one in would you go out and get our other two board members?

MR. GREGOR: What?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that a resident went out there to warn them.

MR. FAASSE: Did he?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think so.

MR. FAASSE: The young lady is not available in August so we have to go through with this one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: August 1, she is not around.

MR. GREGOR: She is a fast talker.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: She is the architect, she is quick.

MR. FAASSE: We had a planner, boy she was fast; wow did she testify fast. The one from Save our Sisters or Strengthen Our Sisters, remember her?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh yeah.

MR. FAASSE: Wow was she fast. Did you start the tape?

MS. MAROTTA: It is on.

MR. FAASSE: The tape is on, everyone is present who was present before the break.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Mr. Chairman at this point in time I would call Mary Scro, the project architect.

MR. FAASSE: And her name is on the plans, right?

MS. MAROTTA: Yes, it is.

MR. FAASSE: So we don’t have to spell it.

MARY SCRO SWORN:

MR. FAASSE: Okay, you give us your full name and you can use your business address.

MS. SCRO: Sure, Mary Fitzpatrick Scro S-C-R-O and the business address is 634 Franklin Turnpike, Allendale, NJ.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Ms. Scro could you give the Board the benefit of your professional experience and education?

MS. SCRO: Yes, I have a Bachelor’s of Architecture from Virginia Tech and I am certified in the States of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

MR. FAASSE: Licensed in all of those states?

MS. SCRO: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: And your license in New Jersey, do you happen to know the number?

MS. SCRO: It is on the drawings.

MR. FAASSE: It is on the drawings and is it in good force and effect as of today?

MS. SCRO: Absolutely.

MR. FAASSE: You made sure you paid your last fee, right?

MS. SCRO: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Okay because someone will check on line -- you know -- to make sure.

MS. SCRO: Yeah I know you could check on it very easily.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, unfortunately we had a surveyor that testified for one of the Boards in Hawthorne, they found out that he wasn’t -- he did not pay the fee. Okay.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Ms. Scro, do you regularly testify before Planning and Zoning Boards in the State of New Jersey?

MS. SCRO: Yes, I do.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And that is within the field of architecture?

MS. SCRO: Yes, it is.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Could you provide to the Board some information as to the Board’s that you have testified before?

MS. SCRO: Yes I can. North Plainfield, Fair Lawn, Ridgewood, Allendale, Ramsey, Flemington.

MR. FAASSE: All in the area of architecture?

MS. SCRO: All in architecture.

MR. FAASSE: Do you have any other licenses besides architecture?

MS. SCRO: No, just architecture not planning or --

MR. FAASSE: Any subspecialties in landscaping or anything else?

MS. SCRO: No.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And I would submit Ms. Scro as an expert in the field of architecture Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will accept.

MR. FAASSE: Licensed by the State of New Jersey.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you Mr. Chairman.

DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF MS. SCRO BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q Ms. Scro you have provided and mounted your drawings which are A-1 through A-4 correct?

A Yes.

Q And those drawings are part of the submission that we made to the Board, the most recent submission?

A Yes.

Q And, although there may be different dates on those drawings, the most recent revision to those drawings, if they were changed, were June 20th of this year. Am I correct?

A Yes, on June 20th we added Page A-4, which was the alternate front and side elevation.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: If we can mark the package entirely as A-3 Mr. Chairman and then we will make reference to those.

Q Ms. Scro you have -- if you would just mark on A-1 of your drawings A-3 and I will try not to make it confusing with today’s date please. Before we get to the elevations I believe A-1 on what we have just marked is the various floor plans for the building.

A Yes, it is. A-1 --

Q Could you, yes, if you could through that for the Board what it depicts.

A Sure, absolutely. A-1 on the top is the first floor plan, which depicts the professional use on the first floor. A-2, is the second floor, which is residential and then on A-2 is the third floor, which is the remainder of the residential. I’m sorry, A-2 is the third floor which is the remainder of the residential units.

Q If you refer back to A-1, could you describe the total square footage for the professional office please?

A Sure. The professional offices average 1,800 square feet, one is actually 1,782 and the second is 1,814.

Q And with respect to that design Ms. Scro, you are showing one long box on either side of the corridor, am I correct?

A That is correct.

Q And that space could be divided in various ways to accommodate potential users.

A Exactly.

Q Okay. Could you describe what appears or what is provided for on the second floor?

A On the second floor, we have two one-bedroom units and the first floor of the 10 two-bedroom units. And then on the next floor up would be the other two one-bedroom units and the second floor to the two bedroom units.

Q Is the second and third floor plan identical or are there any changes in the plans?

A The second and third floor plans are different. The second floor plan has the living quarters for the two bedroom units and the third floor is where the bedrooms are. The one-bedroom units are one floor, they are not two stories, so they are on the end. The second floor one bedrooms are slightly larger than the third floor one-bedroom units.

Q All right. So just so that I am clear, all the two bedroom units, which span both floors, they are like a duplex style.

A Exactly.

Q And all the one-bedroom units, whether they are on the second or third floor, are maintained on that floor where they are located.

A Yes.

Q Could you basically just walk us through a typical one bedroom and two-bedroom unit?

A A typical one bedroom unit, say we’ll take the second floor. You would enter into a living space, which would have a kitchen area with a bar for dining and then a living room area. Off of that would be a den and beyond that is a bedroom. Opposite the den would be a full bathroom for the one-bedroom units. The two bedroom units you would come into --

MR. FAASSE: Excuse me, on the one bedroom, what is your square footage?

MS. SCRO: The one-bedroom units range 900 - 932.

MR. FAASSE: Minimum 900.

MS. SCRO: Yeah. The second floor units are smaller 708 and 740. I’m sorry they will be 750.

MR. GRYGUS: Pardon?

MS. SCRO: The second floor one bedroom units will be 750 each.

MR. GRYGUS: And what is the smallest one bedroom unit?

MS. SCRO: 750.

MR. GRYGUS: 750.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so the drawing is wrong.

MS. SCRO: Yes, the drawing is wrong, we are going to increase the one-bedroom units to the 750 each.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That does not increase the size of the footprint.

MS. SCRO: It will not increase the size of the building, we will take -- we will borrow some from the two bedroom units.

BOARD MEMBER: I notice you have the elevator access capable for both the second floor one-bedroom units and the third floor one-bedroom units.

MS. SCRO: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER: Are you anticipating making those four one bedroom units handicapped access completely through it or is that not part of the plan?

MS. SCRO: They will be handicapped adaptable as required by the State, all four of them.

BOARD MEMBER: Okay.

MS. SCRO: Actually all of the units will be because we are elevator access. If we didn’t have the elevator and we had units on the first floor then we would only have to provide handicapped adaptability on the first floor. But since we do provide the elevator, we have to have handicapped adaptability in all the units.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How do you get them up to the third floor of the two-bedroom?

MS. SCRO: Handicapped adaptability for the duplex units, means that we have to have a first floor full bathroom and a space that they could then convert into a bedroom. We are not required to have -- you can staircases in them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, I understand that. So then you would convert the living room, kitchen to a bedroom.

MS. SCRO: Probably the living room area, yes, would be converted into a bedroom and then you would have the kitchen and the dining area would be the living spaces.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Ms. Scro if there are no other questions about the type of unit, if we can go to the various elevations and if you can --

MR. FAASSE: Well just, excuse me, what is the square footage of the two bedroom units?

MS. SCRO: The two bedroom units range from 1,000 square feet to 1,172 square feet.

MR. FAASSE: And you mix is 4 one bedrooms.

MS. SCRO: 4 one bedroom and 10 two bedrooms.

MR. FAASSE: Two bedrooms.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q Okay, Ms. Scro if you can go to your drawing A-3 which is the alternate one elevations. Now just so that we are clear on A-3 --

MR. FAASSE: Mr. Chewcaskie, this is the preferred one?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Yes, that is correct.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

Q This is the original submission which shows the peaked roof, correct Ms. Scro?

A Yes, this is.

Q And could you describe the exterior design of the building, the type of materials?

A Yes, this plan is, as we noted, the preferred one, the peak roof make it feel more residential, we feel that it is more in keeping with the architecture of the existing town. We have variegated and created dormers so that it is not a big box. We have used different materials both brick and shake. The shake will be a hearty shake, which is a cementitious material, it is very low maintenance.

MR. GREGOR: Cementitious?

MS. SCRO: Yeah, it is cement. But there are other things that are in there that make it not completely cement. But it is decay resistant and bug resistant a very good material for a building of this type. The front has a peak. We can talk about the signage briefly. The sign is up higher than what you ordinance dictates, it can be lowered. However, we felt aesthetically that if you agreed we would prefer it to be up higher. However, if that is not something that the town wants to allow, we can lower that and make it conform.

MR. O’HANLON: Is the sign going to be bolted on top of the brick veneer or is it going to be recessed into the brick?

MS. SCRO: This sign would be recessed and it would be probably a pre-cast panel with the name inscribed in it. And it would not be the signage for the uses in the professional use areas.

MR. O’HANLON: Just to pay homage to.

MS. SCRO: Exactly, exactly.

MR. FAASSE: It wouldn’t be lit or anything?

MS. SCRO: I’m sorry?

MR. FAASSE: It would not be lit?

MS. SCRO: No, it would not be lit, absolutely not. It would be more in keeping with an older style building that was built out of stone and masonry.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, years ago you used to have hosiery mills and what have you.

MS. SCRO: Right, exactly.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q Ms. Scro, I guess, just so we are aware the preferred type of building is what is depicted on your drawing A-3, correct?

A Correct.

Q Could you tell the Board what the height of that building is and where it is measured to?

A The height is from the average grade to the mean point of the gable and that is 41 foot, 7 inches.

Q And it is my understanding that the height requirement in this zone is 35 feet.

A Correct.

Q And the increase in height is based upon the architectural design, correct?

A Correct.

Q There is no functionality within that roof area.

A Correct.

Q All right so that basically is empty space that is designed to be aesthetically pleasing and not for a use.

A Yes.

Q All right. With respect to, while we are on that, the air conditioning units, I believe one of the gentlemen had a question before regarding those, how is the air conditioning going to be established for this building? Where will it be and how will it be screened?

A If you go with the peat -- the peat plan then they, excuse me, then the air conditioning units will be along the northern side and we do have a row of shrubbery along that border so they would be screened by the shrubbery.

Q Now before you get to the other -- if you are pointing out Mr. Stinson’s drawing, that would be fine.

A Yes.

Q So what you are saying is that they would be located in the northerly side of the property on the ground.

A Yes.

Q And the building itself would shield it from, I guess, the properties on the southerly side.

A Yes.

Q And the screening around the building and around the air conditioning units would screen it from the northerly side.

A Yes.

Q Okay, thank you. There is no utilities or system provided for on the roof of that building, again, the A-3 design?

A No.

Q And is there anything within the roof area of that building, I know you said there wouldn’t be any use up there but are there any utilities or any thing that will service the units within that roof area?

A No.

Q Okay. Thank you. With respect to the signage I believe we --

MR. FAASSE: Excuse me, just before you leave that subject, is there any way to put some of those air conditioning units in that --

MS. SCRO: We may be able to put some of them, we may be able to, perhaps, make this area a flat roof and put some of the air conditioning units in here.

MR. FAASSE: Not under the A frame itself?

MS. SCRO: We would have to deal with ventilation. It would probably be something that was bumped out, I know down the street they clipped the top and they put all the units on the top, which, if that was to be the case, if you wanted them on the top of the building, we could do that, however, I would recommend that they would be screened.

MR. FAASSE: Well how many were you planning to put in the boundary on the northern side? All the residential air conditioning condensers as well the office space?

MS. SCRO: Yes, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is a lot of units.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MS. SCRO: But we can take some of them and put them up in these areas here. There is an area here and on the opposite side, it is mirrored and we can make those roofs flat and put some there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a question. Your side elevation is that mirrored on both sides?

MS. SCRO: Yes, it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And those are windows there?

MS. SCRO: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: That is the lower level.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first floor level.

MS. SCRO: Oh yes, these are windows.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So you are going to have those condensers right outside those windows?

MS. SCRO: Yes, there will be. I mean, there are also piers so we will try to strategically locate them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You got a lot more units than piers.

MS. SCRO: Well, yes, there will be some that you will see out of.

BOARD MEMBER: Are you going to do glass hole in the ground or you going to a maids panel to the --

MS. SCRO: No, this will be a solid panel yes.

BOARD MEMBER: Store frontage.

MS. SCRO: Yes, yes.

MR. GREGOR: At this point in time I would like to make a request that the architect and the engineer discuss where those air conditioning units are going to be and show them on the site plan so the Board has a clear understanding of where they will be and how extensive it will be.

MS. SCRO: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: An approximate of the residential units.

MR. GREGOR: Pardon?

MR. GRYGUS: As well as the approximate dimension of the residential unit.

MS. SCRO: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: Bill?

MR. GREGOR: Yeah.

MR. GRYGUS: The site plan shows the south side of the building has a 6-foot sidewalk; we are going to have --

MR. GREGOR: Wait a minute, let me catch up with you so I can hear the entire question. Okay, go ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What page on we on?

MR. GRYGUS: Site plan C2-1 shows a 6-foot sidewalk. We are going to have a huge roof area here that is going to have sheet flow snow and ice from 30 plus feet high. Does that 6-foot sidewalk allow adequate area for that to safely fall?

MR. FAASSE: The first question should be for the architect.

MS. SCRO: There is on the first floor --

MR. GREGOR: I am going to let the architect answer that.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, I just said that.

MS. SCRO: In inclement weather there is -- you can walk underneath here, undercover, on the first floor. The second floor comes out. So I would assume that if there is snow and ice and rain that people would probably, if they are walking up the site, would go in and walk under that cover.

MR. GRYGUS: Does it extend all the way out over -- does it extend all the way out over the sidewalk?

MS. SCRO: Not the full 6 feet but it is 3 feet wide.

MR. GRYGUS: So if there is a warm sunny day after a snowfall chances are they are probably not going to be walking under there because the water that is running off of the roof is going to go down the drains. We had the same issue with the hotel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hotel, yeah.

MR. COVELLI: Yeah but it is never going to -- I can’t picture it hitting the gutter and dropping vertical.

MR. GREGOR: No it is going to fly.

MR. COVELLI: I am thinking it is going to shoot off so it is still landing in the parking area, the driving area.

MR. GREGOR: Well I am going to say yes, that situation will exist and the situation that Bruce is mentioning could also exist. If it is going to come off rapidly, it is going to overshoot the sidewalk most likely. I am not testifying, I am just giving you my opinion. But I believe also the situation that Bruce is concerned about could also occur.

MR. FAASSE: But we are not going to have that problem with take alternative --

MR. GRYGUS: If you go to a flat roof you wouldn’t have that problem.

MR. COVELLI: If you go to first page of -- so maybe you just want to give some thought to that. The first page of your plan, for a second, I don’t know maybe I am dumb here but I am having a hard time trying to follow. Your first plan here, the first floor plan. What is that line outside of -- you have the box that is say 94 by 19 foot 3.

MS. SCRO: Yes.

MR. COVELLI: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: That is the covered walkway she just talked about.

MR. COVELLI: That is the overhang.

MR. GRYGUS: Yeah.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, but it doesn’t show on the front view of the building.

MS. SCRO: No, no, no, this here or this?

MR. COVELLI: No, no, that other lot, yeah, that area there.

MS. SCRO: This is the overhang.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is the cantilever out to the second floor.

MS. SCRO: Yes. So somebody can come off of the road here and either enter the building here, if there is a resident and they want to take the elevator, they can walk down underneath here, it is 3 feet wide and then come in this way.

MR. COVELLI: Oh so that is a second floor cantilever all the way.

MS. SCRO: Yes.

MR. COVELLI: So there is almost like a --

MS. SCRO: It is technically not a cantilever because we have the piers but yes it is an overhang.

MR. GRYGUS: So it almost like a gallery on the first floor up.

MR. COVELLI: All right so that bottom, that bottom right hand corner there, that is like an open patio?

MS. SCRO: Yes, yes.

MR. COVELLI: Oh okay, okay. Could you give me a breakdown of the total square footage of professional space versus the total square footage of residential space?

MS. SCRO: I believe that the total square footage of the building is, excuse me one second, I just want to get it right, no it is not on here. I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me. But existing -- the proposed professional space is about 3,600.

MR. COVELLI: Um-hum.

MS. SCRO: Then on that first floor we also have support spaces. If you take approximately 1,000 times 10 --

MR. CHAIRMAN: 1,000 times 14.

MS. SCRO: Yeah, so about 14,000, approximately 14,000 for the residential.

MR. COVELLI: 14,000.

MS. SCRO: I would say an average of 1,000 square feet per unit times 14.

MR. COVELLI: So 3,600 for the professional.

MS. SCRO: The professional but then we also have support spaces such as the corridor and the foyer and the bathrooms.

MR. COVELLI: Okay, so --

MS. SCRO: So it probably about -- you know -- another thousand square feet for that.

MR. COVELLI: All right, so say 5,000. 5,000 for the professional and 14,000 for the residential.

MS. SCRO: Yes.

MR. COVELLI: So is this a professional building with apartments above it or is it an apartment building with professional below it?

MS. SCRO: It is a mixed-use building. There is nothing ---- you know.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q Unless there are any further questions about the floor plan, if you go back to A-3, and I know there was some discussion about the sign, the height of the sign on the proposed A-3 with the peaked roof is designated on the front elevation, correct?

A Yes.

Q And that is basically a recessed non-lit sign similar in character to the building materials that are being utilized for the proposed building, correct.

A Correct.

Q And the size of the sign meets the ordinance requirements.

A Yes.

Q It is just its location height.

A Yes.

Q And my understanding of the ordinance within Wanaque is that no sign is to be higher than 16 feet even if it is on the building?

A Yes.

Q So if this design was utilized and the Board did not want to grant the variance for the sign it would have to be dropped down to approximate where, if you could point to your drawing?

A We would drop it down here to this freeze board line.

MR. FAASSE: Is that a sign in the typical definition of a sign or more or less like a label almost?

MS. SCRO: I view it as more of a label as part of the fenestration of that building. It is not signage for the people that are residing there or have their business there.

MR. FAASSE: It is not going to advertise a business that is there or anything else, right.

MS. SCRO: Right, there will be -- it will not change, it is something that is very in keeping with the brick, veneer on the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is building marker.

MS. SCRO: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: It is more an aesthetic feature --

MS. SCRO: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: -- that you want to add to it.

MS. SCRO: Yes. I think it would be very nice.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How did you come up with the design of these 14 units when our ordinance only permits two apartments above first floor use?

MS. SCRO: Because of the square footage of the footprint of the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But what if you only had a two-story building, which I thought the engineer said that it was a two-story building in his testimony? Maybe I am wrong.

MS. SCRO: I don’t know I think --

MR. GREGOR: No, he said three stories.

MS. SCRO: I think he said three.

MR. FAASSE: I think that is a question, Mr. Chairman, I think that is a question that has to deal with the planner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: She filled up the footprint, the available footprint with residential use.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MS. SCRO: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Right?

MS. SCRO: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q And since the hour is getting late, Mary if you can go to A-4 and show us what the alternative is. That alternative was designed in order to address the height limitation that presently exits within Wanaque, correct?

A Yes.

Q Is that height that is proposed on A-4 conforming with the Borough’s ordinance?

A Yes, this height is 34 foot 6 inches to the top of the parapet.

Q Are there any other changes to the design of the building on A-4?

A On this design we did put the building marker down lower. However, if you do prefer it to be higher, it can be that way. But just to show the Board where it would be if we were to move it down and conform to the 16 feet. This is actually at 13 feet.

Q Is A-4 substantially similar to A-3 in the type of design and materials accept for the roof?

A Yes.

Q All right. So the building footprint doesn’t change, the appearance of the building changes as a result of the elimination of the roof, am I correct?

A Yes.

Q Now I believe we had a discussion maybe a month ago where I asked you whether the roofline of the building could be reduced and not eliminated. Why was the roof eliminated entirely in A-4?

A If we were to reduce the pitches of the roof to conform to the 35 feet, they would be very flat and aesthetically it would be better to go to just a flat roof.

Q Now there was some earlier discussion with the Board regarding the location of the AC units, with this type of design would all the AC units be placed on the roof?

A Yes, they would

Q And would they be screened from the surrounding properties?

A Yes they would.

Q If they are placed on the roof, are there certain implementations that could be utilized to make sure that there is not excessive noise coming from these units on the surrounding properties?

A Yes, there would be screening around them.

Q What type of screening would that be?

A Typically it would be a metal panel screening that would diffuse the -- I am not an engineer in terms of sound vibrations but in a basic language I would say it would diffuse those sound waves.

Q In your professional opinion, Ms. Scro, do you have a preference for the building design between A-3 and A-4?

A I prefer A-3 and I think we would be willing to work with the Board in terms of the placement of the AC units.

MR. FAASSE: Why do you prefer A-3?

MS. SCRO: Because I think it is more in keeping with the rest of the architecture of the town. I think that the flat roof is a little more urban, maybe somewhere in Hoboken.

MR. GRYGUS: Is there any opportunity to do maybe a combination of both? Maybe have some peaks but not over the entire building that would give you more flat roof area to put the units up there.

MS. SCRO: It is something that we could take a look at.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: What is the actual height to the ridgeline of A-3? I mean I know what you are saying -- you know -- you just find it in the course of the ordinance.

MS. SCRO: Yes, let me just get my ruler, I don’t have it marked on the drawing, one moment. It is 52 feet.

MR. FAASSE: 52 feet, okay.

MS. SCRO: The flat drawing is not indicative -- you know -- it doesn’t properly indicate how the building would be perceived because the plain is sloped and receding. As you are standing on the ground, it was not going to see -- it was not going to feel as tall as if it was 52 feet and a flat roof.

MR. FAASSE: Absolutely, it is not a wall.

MS. SCRO: It is not a 5-story building. So the elevations don’t do it justice.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of Ms. Scro.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other -- Frank?

MR. COVELLI: One question on the color scheme.

MS. SCRO: That has not been determined as of yet. Off the top of my head I would probably recommend a red brick and then some sort of a beige siding or taupe. Something that is going to weather nicely, not white.

Mr. COVELLI: Because that is one of the things I think the Board will considered so possibly you could give that some thought between now and the next meeting.

MS. SCRO: Um-hum.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah we have our design coordinator over here. He has been very quiet tonight.

MS. SCRO: Are there preferences of the Board before we turn our wheels the wrong way.

MR. FAASSE: Certainly soft, earth tones.

MS. SCRO: Yes, we won’t do orange.

MR. COVELLI: No purple.

MR. FAASSE: No mirrored glass.

MS. SCRO: They will be neutral, they will be neutral colors, not too light so that -- you know -- if there is a --

MR. CHAIRMAN: A soft colored panel.

MS. SCRO: Yes, exactly. Coordinating not contrasting.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, any other questions gentlemen?

BOARD MEMBER: Yeah, I got a question. If one of these medical offices required an emergency generator, where would we put that?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I think what we would represent if that if a medical office requires an emergency generator that we would return to the Board.

MS. SCRO: Yes, if it is something that --

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I don’t anticipate that type of office use here, I usually would find that with -- you know -- one of those same day surgery centers where they need to be operational. The size of this facility, in our opinion, does not require that emergency generator. But we will stipulate that we are not proposing one and if one is needed, we would certainly come back.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, in their corollary representation is that this is an office, it is not going to be a clinic or anything else like that.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Correct.

MS. SCRO: Right.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: It is designed for office use and I don’t think the size lends itself for that type of --

BOARD MEMBER: Right, even a dentist you would think --

MR. CHAIRMAN: A dentist, he has got your mouth half cut open.

MR. FAASSE: He waits until the power goes back on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh really, I hope you are in the chair Ralph.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: You usually see it with surgery centers; I know my dentist doesn’t have it but you gave me a thought on that one.

MR. FAASSE: All right, why don’t we --

MR. CHAIRMAN: One more question, again, for Ms. Scro. On the professional office space, you have given no indication on roughly how many units you anticipate. Has this been discussed at all, can you give us some insight?

MS. SCRO: We don’t have any renters, as of yet, so we don’t know how it would be divided.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so you don’t know if you are going to have 1 or 30?

MS. SCRO: If we could have one, I would assume that they would want one and we would let them -- you know -- one person take the whole floor. That would be ideal I would think rather then dividing it up but there is not a potential renter lined up yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, the reason I was asking is because, obviously, the potential signage for numerous tenants would be quite significant.

MS. SCRO: Yes, if there were numerous tenants and we could not conform with the signage ordinance on any exterior signing, there is a large entry foyer where people come in and there would be a directory just like other large office buildings. You would come in the there would be a sign indicating the address.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: Any one from the public have any questions of the architect? Again, questions only.

MR. DASILVA: Dave DaSilva, 108 Monroe Street. I am not sure that you will know the answer to this tonight, I believe there is some statute ordinance about the maximum amount of decibels at so many feet an item can make noise.

MS. SCRO: Okay.

MR. DASILVA: And I would like to know what these air conditioners are going to producing on a decibel level for the closest resident to that side of the building, regardless of whether on the roof or on the north side of the building.

MS. SCRO: I don’t know the answer to that but we will comply with the ordinance.

MR. DASILVA: Okay I think there is something, I’m not sure what.

MS. SCRO: I believe that is something that, when we apply for a building permit, that that can be addressed at that point.

MR. DASILVA: Okay, thanks.

MS. SCRO: But definitely.

MR. DASILVA: You are not the person to deal with the lighting, how long the lighting is going to be on in the parking lots, right, is that somebody else?

MS. SCRO: No, the planner.

MR. DASILVA: Okay.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I have the answer at the next meeting. In terms of the AC units, I believe that we are required when we submit for a building permit with the construction department to provide the detail which would have the decibel level of those units.

MR. FAASSE: Any one else from the public that has any questions of the architect?

MS. MAIELLO: Grace Maiello, 26 Rhinesmith Avenue, I don’t know if this is --

MR. FAASSE: Could you spell your last name please?

MS. MAIELLO: M-A-I-E-L-L-O.

MR. FAASSE: You got that?

MS. MAIELLO: I don’t know if this is an appropriate question to ask at this particular time but how much market value would these apartments or not apartment but condos have?

MS. SCRO: I am not the -- I am not the real estate broker for this, I don’t know what the market value would be at this point in time?

MS. MAIELLO: Do you know Mr. McNierney?

MR. FAASSE: Well this wouldn’t be -- you know -- we will have to see how this case develops and it is a proper question you can ask because that is one of the questions is whether these are going to rentals versus condos.

MS. MAIELLO: Right, because I see that they are not that big and I was just curious.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MS. MAIELLO: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any one else in the public have a question?

BOARD MEMBER: Mr. Chairman, I have a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, let’s close the public portion.

BOARD MEMBER: I’m sorry. How is security for the residents going to be handled?

MS. SCRO: One moment. On the first floor you will see that there will be an entrance through here as well as through the rear to access the professional uses. The entrance for the residents will primarily be up there here there is an egress there out this way, but we can put security onto the elevator.

BOARD MEMBER: Are we talking about a camera/buzzer system or are we talking about the card key system?

MS. SCRO: Probably a card key, that is probably better and then there would be buzzer system for guests coming. But the people that are visiting the professional offices would not -- in order to get access to going up the staircase or into the elevator, you would have to have some kind of security clearance. You know, somebody wouldn’t wander in; we would make it so that a patient coming in wouldn’t wander in up to the residential units.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else gentlemen? Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Right on time.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Mr. Chairman that is all we will have for this evening. I believe for the next meeting we will have the information that was requested by Mr. Gregor relative to the air conditioning units also with respect to the adjoining properties. Some sort of detail for a system to address the drainage and also, hopefully, we will have a preliminary meeting with Passaic County to address the driveway location. So we expect to be able to respond, we will have additional engineering testimony at that time relative to just those changes and our planner’s testimony in order to address the remaining questions. I believe the next meeting will be August 1st.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The 1st.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: So we will return August 1st and is there no further notice, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are good.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That you for your consideration.

MR. FAASSE: We have to have a motion to close it for the night and to adjourn it to August 1st.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, we’ll carry it to -- now how is our time clock on this?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We will agree to extend the period of time to act to August 1st. I think we are good, we were deemed to complete in March -- you may need the extension.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, we do.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: You have the extension.

MR. FAASSE: I think you gave us a couple.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I gave you -- I think you asked for one for this meeting and we gave you it to you, you certainly have it until August 1.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. COVELLI: So moved Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, second on that?

MR. GRYGUS: Second.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO AUGUST 1ST MEETING:

Made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Leonard, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Mr. Faasse would like the Exhibits left here or can we take them and bring them back?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, here, have them stay here.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Leave them here so the mark ones stay, let’s leave them here.

MR. FAASSE: All right, what is next?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Public discussion.

MR. FAASSE: Any one from the public that wishes to discuss any matters with the Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any one in the public have any discussion with the Board? Please step forward and identify yourself as usual.

MR. DASILVA: Dave DaSilva, 108 Monroe Street. In reference to combining or dissolving the Board of Adjustment into the Planning Board, I have a few questions.

MR. FAASSE: You are asking them to the wrong people.

MR. DASILVA: I think you can answer these questions.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, okay.

MR. DASILVA: How much do the professionals cost the Borough on a monthly basis?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Our professionals?

MR. DASILVA: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: What do we get 300 a meeting a now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MR. DASILVA: 300 a meeting each?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Yes.

MR. DASILVA: Are there any other costs to the Borough that the Board sends the Borough bills for?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. DASILVA: Directly for the Borough.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well the Board itself?

MR. GRYGUS: No, everything else is supposed to be paid out of the escrow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, no, it is a legitimate question. In other words if we go to training classes which are mandatory now, the Borough has to pay for both Board actually, it is a minimal amount of money. We haven’t abused our budget; we haven’t sent anybody to AC to the League of Municipalities in probably 10 years. I think Bob Rocker (phonetic) was the last one to go.

BOARD MEMBER: We got our name plates.

MR. FAASSE: This precipitated the whole consolidation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Once in a while we buy training manuals for the members, that is about it.

MR. DASILVA: So it is basically $7,200 a year for the professionals and maybe a couple of hundred dollars, a couple of thousand dollars --

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, if we spend $100 a year it is a lot.

MR. GRYGUS: It is also the cost of postage to send each of us a packet every month, which you got to factor that in too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, that is another cost.

MR. DASILVA: Is there anyway to figure out what that number is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: What, postage and everything else?

MR. DASILVA: The whole number, what this Board costs the Borough.

MR. GREGOR: You should see the treasurer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would vary because the postage is based on weight. Some months we have a five pound package and some months we have one piece of paper.

MR. FAASSE: Do they keep track of the postage?

MS. MAROTTA: I don’t know. There is a postage machine up in front.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, you just bring it up there.

MR. DASILVA: And those costs aren’t carried by the applicant, the Borough pays for them?

MR. GREGOR: Oh no, if I could make a statement here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. GREGOR: The Board is suppose to be, all Boards, are supposed to be non burdensome on the municipality. The Board application collects application fees.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s true.

MR. GREGOR: Application fees are supposed to cover the expenses you just discussed. So it is not a profit nor a loss for the Borough. The escrow fees for any reviews I do or any work that Mr. Faasse does, such as Resolutions and any other work, are also covered under escrow. So the costs -- the way the MLUL, Municipal Land Use Law is set up, this is not suppose to be a profit nor a loss to the Borough, it is suppose to be a wash and the intent on setting the fees is designed so that that occurs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. And to back up Bill’s answer, in other words, on the subdivision that we didn’t hear tonight, they paid in application fees, okay, 975 to the Borough, which goes into a general treasurer to support the Board’s costs you might say. So technically on that application it paid for Bill around for three months, plus we got 500 escrow to pay for whatever above costs that the applicant has to pay for.

MR. DASILVA: My concern is the way that this merger is being touted in the press and at the meetings is that --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um-hum, right.

MR. DASILVA: -- doing this is going to say an extraordinary amount of money for the Borough and the taxpayers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. GREGOR: No, it is not going to save anything, we told them that.

MR. FAASSE: Have they itemized what it is going to save?

MR. DASILVA: Well that is where I am going, eventually I am going to ask for an accounting of how much the application fees and any other fees are versus how much is being spent and I think, in my opinion, that it may actually be a profit, it is possible that it could be a profit. Now they could say that that will be transferred over to the Planning Board and the same with the application fees. But my concern is, the information is not being disseminated properly because it is being touted as a tax savings to the taxpayers. Where these same applicants are going to be going before the Planning Board and the professionals are still going to have to review the same amount of applications and it is the applicant that pays for those reviews not the Borough.

MR. GREGOR: Plus, there is probably going to be two meetings a month as opposed to one. So where you are talking two engineers and two attorneys now, each getting what they get per month for one meeting --

MR. FAASSE: One meeting.

MR. GREGOR: -- you have one is going to get the same amount of money because they are going to be dong two meetings. So we have told them, we told all of this already that you are not going to see the savings that you think you are going to see. It is not savings.

MR. DASILVA: And I said this at all the meetings so far since this has come up that I really feel as though the little guy, the regular resident that wants to put a deck or a small addition on their house is going to be bundled in with all of these big applicants for these big developments and the little guy is going to be the one that is hurt.

BOARD MEMBER: Well then that was the other argument of that article that argument that like Bloomingdale that there is going to be a reduction because of the Highlands. There is no -- I don’t see how there is going to be a reduction. The number of applicants is not going to change, because people are still going to put decks or additions to their houses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well not only that, we are not 100 percent highlands like Ringwood.

BOARD MEMBER: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. DASILVA: The other thing is there is the Highlands exemption that this application already got so that is still possible. So it is not going to go away, the development is going -- and the way we are heading, we are looking for more development versus less development.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Wanaque is going to have a lot of development in the next five years.

MR. DASILVA: So I think I am preaching to the choir here but I --

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have expressed that concern.

BOARD MEMBER: We are the soon to be unemployed choir.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is falling on deaf ears.

MR. DASILVA: So just I want to be clear, all the costs for the review of the applications is carried by the applicant from the escrow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: All of the costs of the function of this Board should be carried by the fees that the applicants pay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. DASILVA: And the escrow money is used for the review by the professionals.

MR. GREGOR: Correct, correct.

MR. DASILVA: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: So the normal function of this Board, the professional fees, postage whatever stuff like that, should be taken care of by the application fees and then there is a fee that they pay for the Resolution --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Newspaper notice and different things, the Resolution.

MR. GREGOR: That is a fee that they pay that goes to the Resolution that the attorney does and then the escrow goes to the reviews that the engineer does.

MR. GRYGUS: It is like drainage, zero net increase.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Where we have to be very clear too is that the fees that we charge are fees to the Board of Adjustment. Okay, like if Bill reviews something, I prepare a Resolution, I have time at the office or anything else, I charge the Board of Adjustment. It is the Board of Adjustment’s responsibility to pay us. If they go and collect it off of the applicant, that is the Borough’s business. All right. But we do not bill the applicants.

MR. DASILVA: But at the end of the day you are not going to approve the Resolution until the escrow is caught up with all the bills, from what I have heard over the years.

MR. FAASSE: Hopefully.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We try to keep it in balance, yes.

MR. DASILVA: Okay, thank you.

MR. FAASSE: We had the public so we have Resolutions Mr. Chairman, we do have one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Resolutions, you got a Resolution.

RESOLUTIONS:

MR. FAASSE: It is the McLean Resolution. Whereas Thomas McLean and Jean McLean have applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Wanaque for permission to construct an addition onto a dwelling located on land and premises known as 43 Burnside Place in the Borough of Wanaque, more particularly known as Lot 22 in Block 410 on the Borough Tax Maps. And whereas the Board of Adjustment having conducted a public hearing on said application on June 6, 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 the 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 an R10 Zone and presently approved with a conforming single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot. 2) The applicants seek permission to construct a one car garage, utility room and second floor addition onto the existing dwelling. The footprint of the proposed addition would be 16 feet 11 inches by 27 feet 9 inches. 3) As proposed this application for development requires two bulk variances as follows: A side yard setback variance of 10 feet as the applicants proposed a setback of 5 feet instead of the minimum 15 required by ordinance and a total side yard variance of 11.8 feet as the applicants proposed total side yards of 23.2 feet instead of the 35 required by ordinance. 4) During the hearing considerable discussion was held concerning the need for the addition, the drainage conditions of the lot and the development within the immediate neighborhood. 5) The Board is of the opinion that the applicants having displayed sufficient hardship with granting of the request of the two bulk variances and that the same can be granted without detriment to the public good or 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 it resolved by the Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Wanaque on this 11th day of July, 2007, that the within application to construct the addition to the dwelling be and is hereby granted subject to the following: 1) That prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall provide a storm water management plan for review by the Board’s engineer and the Board. These plans should show the necessary calculations and other information as discussed at the hearing. 2) That all construction work be performed in accordance with the plans documentation and testimony utilized in support of this application. 3) That all construction work be performed in accordance with all remaining Borough, County and State building codes and regulations. 4) This approval is a condition upon the applicant paying all professional fees incurred by the Board and the Borough in conjunction with this application and its review, approval and enforcement. That is the proposed Resolution Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gregor, any suggestions?

MR. GREGOR: I think we should approve it.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. COVELLI: I would like to make a motion to approve that hell of a good Resolution.

MR. GRYGUS: I’ll second that hell of a good Resolution.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Roll Call.

MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION #05-07 MCLEAN:

Made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have anything else, what did I do now --I don’t know.

MR. FAASSE: I just gave Gerry the completed --

MR. CHAIRMAN: SOS.

MR. FAASSE: Corrected SOS.

CORRESPONDENCE:

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Correspondence? We have correspondence?

MR. FAASSE: Yes, we do.

MS. MAROTTA: Oh that, I was asked to get signed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have from the Borough of Wanaque on a refund to an applicant.

MS. MAROTTA: Because you got paid Ralph according to --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Moglia.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah I got paid, but what?

MS. MAROTTA: They got money left now and they want a refund.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill, you got paid?

MR. GREGOR: What?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Moglia?

MR. GREGOR: No one asked me and I don’t have the records with me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, then I am not going sign it.

MS. MAROTTA: No I asked you about this already.

MR. GREGOR: Oh you did?

MS. MAROTTA: Yeah.

MR. GREGOR: Okay, then if I said --

MS. MAROTTA: And you said there were no bills.

MR. GREGOR: If I said there were no outstanding bills then I’ll stand by that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: I don’t recall.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don’t know if he is off the property.

MS. MAROTTA: Well I heard he is moving to Bloomingdale.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am not signing it until he is off the property. It is code enforcement thing.

MR. GREGOR: What was that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: He owns the landscaping. He withdrew, now did the building code enforcement get him off of the property.

MS. MAROTTA: I am pretty sure that he is going to Bloomingdale.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want me to sign it?

MS. MAROTTA: Yes, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay or should I come in and sign it?

MS. MAROTTA: You could just come in and sign it.

MR. GREGOR: Drive by and look and then sign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Come in and sign it.

MR. COVELLI: If you want why don’t we just pass a Resolution to do it subject to?

MS. MAROTTA: No, why don’t you just come in and talk to Jeff about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, is there any other correspondence?

MS. MAROTTA: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now I am going to ask you this officially. Being that the 18 months I believe on the Certification for all Board Members is up now, do we have proof that we have all passed the course, the test and are certified, or none of us can sit here.

MR. GRYGUS: We can sit here we just can’t do anything.

MS. MAROTTA: I don’t know, did you get anything in the mail?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I got nothing, I got nothing.

MR. FAASSE: Who ran the courses DCA?

MS. MAROTTA: Remember we talked about this already, they are behind in that. I spoke to the girl in Trenton.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Gerri, behind, we took that course a year in April.

MS. MAROTTA: I know. We had the discussion remembers, just a few months ago.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I know, I thought something was coming forward.

MS. MAROTTA: She said that they are behind, I am not going to fight with Trenton.

MR. GRYGUS: It is, just real slow.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want you to check both Boards because otherwise we could have a problem with the legal action.

MR. FAASSE: Well I think what we should do is send a letter out -- you know -- maybe we ought to address it to the Mayor and Council.

BOARD MEMBER: Mr. Faasse, I could see an applicant after you say is your license in full force and effect the applicant is going to say are you guys?

MR. FAASSE: Are you certified, yeah.

BOARD MEMBER: Because technically if we didn’t past the test, the open book test, we took, we can’t sit it.

MS. MAROTTA: What was the test called again do you remember?

MR. FAASSE: Certification.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Certification.

MR. FAASSE: Certification for Zoning Board Members; Certification for Planning Board Members.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State requires certification for all members of all Planning, Zoning and combination Boards.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And if you didn’t pass, you are off.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Or if you didn’t take the test, you are off.

MS. MAROTTA: I’ll find out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please.

BOARD MEMBER: Hey Jack?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

BOARD MEMBER: When Don and I went to the course we were the two late guys.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

BOARD MEMBER: We went in September.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

BOARD MEMBER: We took the actual first course.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

BOARD MEMBER: That was actually approved by DCA.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

BOARD MEMBER: The rest of them were --

MR. GRYGUS: Unapproved?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The open book test.

MR. FAASSE: Prototypes.

BOARD MEMBER: Were what the State Zoning Board Association of Planning and Zoning Boards --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, Planning and Zoning Federation put together.

BOARD MEMBER: Right, but together thinking the State would accept it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

BOARD MEMBER: I know our course was at least accepted, was your course accepted?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don’t know, that is why I am asking.

MR. GRYGUS: But we don’t know if you passed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bruce, Bruce, do you think the three guys behind us ever passed a test.

MR. GRYGUS: No, I don’t think anybody failed that test.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, those guys behind us were having a problem though.

MR. GRYGUS: Any of the people who failed the test are in Trenton because they figure out how to make the results come out.

BOARD MEMBER: I know we went over the answers and then we turned it our paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You went to the first class.

BOARD MEMBER: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, check that one out.

MR. GRYGUS: Wow that was a biggy.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, it is.

MR. GRYGUS: SOS?

MR. CHAIRMAN: This was a difficult one. Okay, we will go with the heavy weight first, Ralph needs some fuel for his boat.

MR. FAASSE: That’s it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: Summer’s here.

MR. GRYGUS: You have a tape attached to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Nope.

MR. FAASSE: If you guys can’t add this, you are going to all quit.

VOUCHERS:

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We don’t have to quit, we are finished. Professional services on Strengthen Our Sisters, office time, review of materials, review of court proceedings, research law, call attorneys, etc., a total of 6 1/2 hours which brings the total to $975 for that. The Resolution is $630 for a total of $1,605.

MR. GRYGUS: You couldn’t have made it 1,600 even?

MR. FAASSE: Hey if you want to round it down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Lawyers charge by the minute, it is very simple. The other one is professional services, Resolution 05-07, which you just read for us. The claim is $135 for a total of $1,740, how is that.

MR. FAASSE: No 16 -- well if you want go up --

MR. GRYGUS: That is what I thought the number was.

MR. COVELLI: So moved Mr. Chairman

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, second?

MR. WILLSE: I’ll second it.

MOTION TO APPROVE MR. FAASSE'S VOUCHERS:

Made by Member Covelli, Seconded by Member Willse. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Leonard, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now I have a question Gerri, did we ever get the money from the State?

MS. MAROTTA: I don’t believe so.

MR. FAASSE: Ask Mr. Carroll?

MS. MAROTTA: It wouldn’t come through me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Find out, because we did this on a promise by Mr. Carroll that that money was coming forward.

BOARD MEMBER: And it is a good thing that F comes before G so Ralph you’ll get paid first.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, alleluia.

BOARD MEMBER: Bill will get whatever is left over.

MR. FAASSE: As I just said, that bill goes to the Borough, if they happened to get the money back from SOS or the State.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Either which way you get paid or you sue.

MR. FAASSE: Hey, that is it Boy.

BOARD MEMBER: And you wonder why Gregor’s cars keep getting smaller and smaller.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hey Bill how much do they owe you now?

MR. GREGOR: It is over $5,000,

MR. CHAIRMAN: Some of which dates back six years.

MR. GREGOR: Six, probably longer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So you are going to hire Ralph in January to sue the Borough.

MR. FAASSE: You can’t sue anymore, you can’t sue anymore.

MR. GREGOR: Pardon?

MR. FAASSE: Statue of Limitations, you can’t sue anymore.

MR. GREGOR: What do you mean I can’t sue anymore?

MR. CHAIRMAN: How many years?

MR. GREGOR: I have no idea, I am not an attorney.

MR. FAASSE: Well it depends on what kind of -- you know -- professional fees it is usually tops two years. If it is a contract, if you can say it is a contract, it is six.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well it is a contract, we hired the poor guy. You better make your proposal to Ralph to go after the money. Okay, now we have William Gregor’s three submittals.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, I thought we were passed that.

MR. GREGOR: You don’t want to do it tonight?

MR. FAASSE: Nah, 11 o’clock, curfew, done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we have engineering services for Reality Associates, 23-06, which is $565, we have engineering services for SOS which is $355 and we have the continuing Santoro which is $425 for a total of $1,345.

MR. COVELLI: So moved Mr. Chairman.

MR. GRYGUS: Second.

MOTION TO APPROVE MR. GREGOR’S VOUCHERS:

Made by Member Covelli, Seconded by Member Grygus. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Leonard, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.

MR. FAASSE: Did they have a motion to pay me? Did you make a motion to pay me?

MR. GREGOR: Relax, relax you are going to get paid, one of us gets paid.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Approval of minutes?

MR. KONING: I’ll make a motion to approve the minutes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. WILLSE: I’ll second it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MOTION TO APPROVE MINUTES:

Made by Member Koning, Second by Member Willse, voting yes Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Leonard, Koning, Willse, O’Hanlon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, the famous engineer’s report, you have 38 seconds Mr. Gregor.

MR. GREGOR: There are no new applications pending.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good, thank you.

MR. FAASSE: We had correspondence, how come we skipped over that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we didn’t you weren’t listening.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah we did.

MS. MAROTTA: No, we didn’t.

MR. FAASSE: We had Mr. Siss, did you mention Mr. Siss, Mr. Siss’ letter on Johnny De?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You didn’t tell us about that.

MR. FAASSE: Well I didn’t get the letter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn’t get a copy of that, I don’t have it.

MR. FAASSE: Well then our secretary got it, July 5th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, well you skipped over, I was talking about not signing the --

MR. FAASSE: I mean I only got this fax today because I called the guy up and I said what happened to your letter. We approve the Johnny De subdivision variance application. I don’t remember exactly when we did the resolutions but there had been questions with the Deeds that had to be corrected and everything else like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Johnny De sends things to my office at Godwin Avenue instead of Goffle Road. But, anyway, to make a long story short, the Deeds are not yet in suitable form for signing, is that correct Mr. Gregor?

MR. GREGOR: Well there is another question that came up today because Gerri and I can’t --

MR. FAASSE: Don’t go into detail, we don’t have enough time. But he has to check that with the Board’s secretary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: So basically he is asking for a 30-day extension of the subdivision. If you don’t perfect the subdivision, you are going to lose it.

MR. GREGOR: Right, you lose it.

MR. FAASSE: I suggest that --

MR. COVELLI: So moved Mr. Chairman.

MR. FAASSE: I would make it 60 days because --

MR. COVELLI: So moved Mr. Chairman.

MR. GRYGUS: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: 60 day extension on the Resolution and everything else, right?

MS. MAROTTA: Okay, Frank and Bruce. This is for John De, right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: He gave us an easement deposit; he gave the Borough an easement.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, no question about that.

MR. COVELLI: Can we give him 90?

MR. FAASSE: You can make it 90 if you want.

MR. COVELLI: Make it 90.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We don’t want to lose the easement.

MS. MAROTTA: 90?

MR. FAASSE: 90.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 90 it is.

MOTION APPROVING 90 DAY EXTENSION FOR JOHN DE

Made by Member Covelli, Second by Member Grygus, voting yes Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Leonard, Koning, O’Hanlon, voting no Member Willse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is adjourned.