BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

BOROUGH OF WANAQUE

MINUTES

August 2, 2006

Regular Meeting

Salute to Flag:

This is a Regular Meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment and adequate notice has been duly advertised by the mailing of a notice to the Suburban Trends and the Herald & News on the 6^th day of January 2006 and a notice has been posted on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk.

ROLL CALL: Chairman Jack Dunning, Members Frank Covelli, Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ed Leonard, Art Koning, Eric Willse, Attorney Ralph Faasse and Engineer William Gregor.

Member Absent: Member Bruce Grygus and Member Ted Roberto.

Application #11-05 Cosimo & Teresa Santoro, 1185 Ringwood Ave., Block 488 Lot 8.01, Bulk Variance & Use Variance:

Atty. Faasse said this application was carried last month through the September Meeting at the request of the applicant’s Attorney Carlo Coppa.

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

The Board Secretary received a letter dated July 20, 2006 from Attorney James R. Gregory. In the letter, Atty. Gregory said that it appears that the issues regarding this application between the next door neighbor and the easement are going to be resolved, therefore, he requested that the Board reactivate this application and put them on the October Agenda.

APPLICATION TABLED FOR THE MOMENT.

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

The Board Secretary received a letter dated July 26, 2006 from the applicant’s Atty. Giuseppe C. Randazzo stating that his client’s have decided to withdraw their application.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.

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

No extension letter was received from the applicants. No one was here to represent this application, therefore, the Board went on to another application.

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

Atty. Faasse said there’s a letter dated February 28, 2006 from Atty. James R. Gregory in which he says “Please accept this letter as my written approval of any extensions that are needed for this Board to review this application in a timely manner”. Atty. Faasse said he doesn’t think there’s a problem with the time on this application. No testimony was ever given on this application.

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE SUBJECT TO BEING REINSTATED PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT RE-FILE AND RE-NOTICE: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Willse, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.

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

The Board Secretary received a letter dated July 27, 2006 from Attorney Darryl W. Siss of Teschon, Riccobene & Siss. Atty. Siss is taking over this application since Atty. H. Shepard Peck has retired. In the letter, Atty. Siss asked for this application to be carried to the September 6, 2006 Meeting since their engineer needed time to respond to the comments and requirements made in the July 3, 2006 letter from Eng. Gregor.

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

Application #16-06 Kevin & Katherine Koslosky, 139 Jackson St., Block 459 Lot 3, Bulk Variance:

Mr. & Mrs. Koslosky came forward. Chairman Dunning said plans were submitted and Eng. Gregor was at the site and went over the things that were deficient with the applicants. Eng. Gregor said the architect has to identify the variances and show the utilities.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE SEPTEMBER 6^TH MEETING:

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

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

Attorney Steven C. Schepis came forward on behalf of the applicants. Atty. Schepis reminded the Board that at the last meeting he made the suggestion to the Board of creating a deed restriction that would run with the land so as to guarantee that what was proposed here this evening would be developed on the property and that it would be maintained. Atty. Schepis said he prepared a proposed “Development Restriction” and submitted it to the Board Secretary with an original and twelve copies under his cover letter of July 12, 2006.

Atty. Faasse mentioned that the file has a letter from the Fire Department stating that they have no objections to the proposed dwelling. A letter from the Wanaque Police Department also was submitted stating that they will provide service to this proposed home as they do to the other homes on that roadway. Atty. Faasse added that the applicant was going to meet with neighbors. Atty. Schepis said, Eng. McClellan has a plan with him tonight and did seek the input of the neighbors and can update the Board on the status.

Eng. Patrick McClellan came forward with an exhibit that was prepared by Mr. Fennelly and one of his landscape contractors. Since the last Board Meeting, Mr. Fennelly had the occasion to meet on site with the neighbors downhill and had a conversation about on how to mitigate/buffer the development on the subject property. The plan represents Mr. Fennelly’s attempt to satisfy those needs and what they basically have is a landscape berm. Eng. McClellan explained the drawings on the easel to the Board. On the neighbor’s property they’re proposing a 2 ½ ft. high by 10 ft. wide landscape berm and contained in that would be 13 white pine trees that would be 7 to 8 ft. at the time of planting. This berm would serve two primary functions; one it would intercept any runoff that maybe directed at the home and that was the primary concern and secondly as the trees mature they will provide a visual screening as well. Mr. Fennelly has attempted to get a hold of the neighbors since this plan was derived, but to Eng. McClellan’s knowledge they have not seen it yet. Eng. McClellan explained there would be some rock removal and stump removal which Mr. Fennelly is prepared to do. The actual location of the berm is going to be more responsive to the existing conditions in the field. They don’t have the survey date on the property, so they either have to get some topographic data or it has to be constructed in the field at the direction of the property owner. The intent is clearly to divert the water. Eng. Gregor said diverting water is often a dangerous thing to do for the simple reason is that your just pushing it in a different location and increasing the volume and typically the velocity of the runoff. Eng. Gregor is concerned that they’re pushing water more further to the north and looking at the site plan, it shows to the north is where the dwelling is. Eng. Gregor said their attempt to mitigate the situation may compound the situation. Eng. McClellan answered by saying that he still believes that the design he has presented on site mitigates the runoff by restoring it back to a sheet flow condition. As the typography exists today, Eng. McClellan said, the water does concentrate at the north/westerly corner of the property and is directed more

toward that house under existing conditions. Therefore, eliminating the berm for a second, the idea of restoring or trying to establish a sheet flow all on its own, Eng. McClellan feels it is a benefit to the dwelling behind the proposed structure. The idea of the berm, that they believe is something that the neighbor is interested in to further mitigate the problem, Eng. McClellan thinks in conjunction with the wall, the berm will be a benefit. The biggest question is how to configure the berm so that they can assure themselves that they get the flow in a southerly direction. Eng. McClellan said it can be done but they don’t have the details on the plan because they simply don’t have the survey data. Member Covelli asked Eng. McClellan if his testimony was that the property owner hasn’t actually seen this proposal? Eng. McClellan said to his knowledge the property owner hasn’t, but she is here tonight. Mr. Fennelly said he received the plan on Monday and did stop at the owner’s home on Tuesday, but they weren’t home. Eng. McClellan said they’re proposing the landscape berm, besides the wall, out of courtesy to the neighbor and his professional opinion is that the berm is not necessary, but if it helps the neighbor feel comfortable, then it’s a good idea. Eng. McClellan also added that in his opinion this berm is more for the camouflage/screening of the wall and hopefully will raise the confidence level of the people who live on the property. Member Koning asked what the distance was between the wall and the berm and Eng. McClellan said approximately 5 to 6 feet.

Atty. Schepis suggested maybe they could take a few moments and discuss this plan with the neighbor now. Chairman Dunning said the other problem is that the plan wasn’t on file 10 days before the meeting. Atty. Schepis answered by saying the 10- day rule ordinarily applies to applications and plans that they were seeking approval for and this is more of an accommodation for the neighbor. Atty. Faasse spoke up and said, why should the Board with the agenda they have tonight and the fact that this matter was heard back in June, should the Board accommodate the applicant.

Chairman Dunning said if the berm (with white pines) is just a shelter to hide the wall and you’re trying to redirect water, there’s a conflicting view of where that water is going. The plan should also show the location of the house, the pool should be on there and maybe a little typography of how they think what direction the water is going to go.

Rita Barriero, 9 Shady Ave. came forward. Ms. Barriero is the neighbor whose property will be affected by this proposed structure. Ms. Barriero said she has not seen the plan yet.

Atty. Faasse suggested they could either carry the application to the September Meeting with an extension, or give them a few minutes now to discuss the plan.

Atty. Schepis said the neighbor is willing to meet with the engineer and the applicant and will carry the application to the September 6^th Meeting.

MOTION TO CARRY THE APPLICATION TO THE SEPTEMBER 6^TH MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Covelli, voting yes

were Chairman Dunning, Members Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.

Atty. Schepis signed a 90 day Extension Letter for the Board.

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

No one was here for this application. Atty. Faasse said he looked through the file and there is no Extension Letter in the file. The Board Secretary will send a letter dismissing the application without prejudice unless they grant the Board an extension of time.

MOTION TO DISMISS APPLICATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE UNLESS THE APPLICANT’S GRANT AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE BOARD: made by Member Leonard, seconded by Member Willse, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Covelli, Hoffman Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.

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

Mr. Marsh came forward. Eng. Gregor said the latest variance plan dated July 19, 2006 and was received on July 25, 2006 and the Board received it on July 27, 2006.

Atty. Faasse mentioned there is a problem with the plans not being in file 10 days before the meeting. Chairman Dunning said the other issue is what zone this property is actually in. Originally, the Board believed it was an R-10 and now it shows up as an RD-3. Mr. Marsh said when he started this application, it was explained to him that the property is in an RD-3 Zone. According to Surveyor, John Miceli, this property doesn’t fall into the criteria of an RD-3 Zone because that zone is more for a multi-family or more than one unit; therefore, he put this application at an R-10 Zone. Chairman Dunning added that RD-3 is multiple housing, and a single-family dwelling is not permitted in the RD-3. Eng. Gregor agreed with Chairman Dunning’s statement. Chairman Dunning said this application has to become a Use Variance because it’s an existing non-permitted use under the revised zoning.

Eng. Gregor was going to go over his report dated July 31, 2006 that is based on the latest plan dated July 19^th and the latest survey dated June 16^th. Eng. Gregor said Mr. Marsh faxed over to him the information requested at the last meeting which were details on the proposed porch and steps. Atty. Faasse addressed Chairman Dunning and said, if there is a problem with the notice, there is no sense in going over Eng. Gregor’s report and carry the application to the September 6^th Meeting.

Chairman Dunning told Mr. Marsh he will have to re-notify the general public that he now needs a Use Variance based the zoning and what it permits and doesn’t permit. Mr. Marsh asked if he had to notify everyone within 200 ft. and the newspaper and was told yes. Atty. Faasse explained to Mr. Marsh that he is now in an RD-3 Zone which means single-family houses are not permitted. However, Mr. Marsh has the right to continue his house because he has a valid pre-existing non-conforming use, however, if he wants to expand that he then has to go for a Use Variance because he’s not a permitted use and that’s why he has to give notice and is changing from a Bulk Variance to a Use Variance. The Board will also need an extension from Mr. Marsh for 90 days.

Mr. Marsh said he finds it very strange that he has to comply to a 10-day rule, but yet Eng. Gregor and the first time that Mr. Marsh came to the Board asked if he received Eng. Gregor’s report and Mr. Marsh did not. Now, Mr. Marsh is here again tonight and Eng. Gregor told him he sent a letter and Mr. Marsh did not receive it again. Mr. Marsh said he receives mail everyday and to this day he still hasn’t received the first report. Mr. Marsh asked if he has to change the survey and Eng. Gregor said the survey is not correct. Eng. Gregor said the reason he didn’t receive the report is because the drawing was received on July 25^th and the report was done on July 31^st and Eng. Gregor didn’t have a fax number for Mr. Marsh and mailing it to Mr. Marsh would be no benefit. Chairman Dunning told Mr. Marsh he needs to sign a 90-day Extension Letter tonight. Eng. Gregor asked Mr. Marsh if he had a fax or e-mail number that he could give him and Mr. Marsh said yes he would.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE SEPTEMBER 6^TH MEETING PROVIDED THE APPLICANT RE-NOTICE THE PUBLIC AND THE NEWSPAPER FOR A USE VARIANCE AND THE PLANS BE ON FILE 10 DAYS BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Willse, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.

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

The plans for this application were received on July 27, 2006 and not 10 days before the meeting. Atty. Faasse asked Mr. Miuccio if he received a copy of Eng. Gregor’s report dated July 31, 2006 and Mr. Miuccio said he did not. Eng. Gregor asked if Mr. Miuccio had a fax or e-mail and Mr. Miuccio said he gave it to Eng. Gregor in the past. Mr. Miuccio said he rather not be faxed and instead send any reports by regular mail because when Eng. Gregor faxes Mr. Miuccio something he charges $2.00. Atty. Faasse recommended a 90 day Extension Letter be signed.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO THE SEPTEMBER 6^TH MEETING DUE TO THE FACT THE PLANS WERE NOT ON FILE MORE THAN 10 BEFORE THE MEETING: made by Member Hoffman, seconded by Member Koning, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.

RECESSED AT 9:21 P.M.

RECONVENED AT 9:33 P.M.

Everyone present as before the break.

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

Mr. Szanto came forward and said he only received Eng. Gregor’s report today and his plans were submitted about 3 weeks ago. The revision date on the plans is July 21, 2006 and Mr. Szanto said Surveyor John Miceli dropped the plans off on that day. Mr. Szanto was sworn in by Atty. Faasse. Chairman Dunning said they asked Mr. Szanto the last time he was here about his original approval back in 2003. Chairman Dunning asked Mr. Szanto, to the best of his knowledge, does this current plan reflect that approval? Mr. Szanto said yes it does. Chairman Dunning asked Eng. Gregor if the new submittal matches what the Board approved in 2003.

Eng. Gregor said the original problem was the stairs that were approved on the previous plan on the side, were built but weren’t shown on the survey. The survey was revised and shows the stairs and the actual location of the stairs and being centered the way they are has no impact on the setbacks, therefore, it’s a minor change. Eng. Gregor said the deck was shown with some inaccurate dimensions on the previous plan and those dimensions have been corrected on the current plan.

Chairman Dunning asked Mr. Szanto if the old garage has been removed? Mr. Szanto said no and will have to wait until he gets approved so he can take everything from one to put in the other. Mr. Szanto said he has had another child since the last application and has accumulated more stuff and therefore needs the new garage. Chairman Dunning asked Mr. Szanto why he needs this third garage. Mr. Szanto explained his wife has two cars and works in Newark and when she doesn’t have the kids she takes the one car and has one car she uses for the kids and in the wintertime they need to be in the garage. Mr. Szanto has a diesel truck and in the winter is a real burden to start in the morning and doesn’t want it in the house garage because of the fumes getting into the house. Chairman Dunning asked if there was any reason why he couldn’t move it to the rear of the property. Mr. Szanto said he has a shaded area where he’s trying to make more grass area. He would like to put the pool in the back far corner but with the property on the side where there’s an easement of 100 ft. up to the school that’s just grass. There’s a nice cedar tree in the back and more area for the kids to play in and is fenced in. Chairman Dunning asked if he could move the swimming pool in off the property line. Mr. Szanto said if he does, then it’ll start infringing on the patio.

Chairman Dunning said, one potential problem is that he’ll be only 5 ft. from the property and the garage is almost on the property line and that is a very unsafe distance for someone jumping off the garage into the pool and breaking their neck. Chairman Dunning said that’s why the standard from basically anything is 10 ft. Mr. Szanto said he really doubts that anyone is going to climb up on the roof and jump off and has never seen anyone on the roof. One of the members said all you need is someone to climb up once and Mr. Szanto could be in a lot of trouble. Mr. Szanto said with all the vegetation around it there’s no way to get up there. Chairman Dunning said it becomes a major liability and it’s a safety concern that the Board stresses. Atty. Faasse said the Board doesn’t make these rules and the Mayor & Council are the ones who deemed this ruling of a pool being 10 ft. away from a structure to be appropriate. Member Covelli asked what is the distance between the block patio and the property line with the garage. Mr. Szanto said approximately 35 ft. Member Covelli then asked Mr. Szanto what is his concern about the pool being closer to the block patio. Mr. Szanto said if he has it there the splash over will hit his grill and would be to close for people sitting on the patio.

Chairman Dunning said to Mr. Szanto, this is his application, if he wants to stay with the 5 feet it’s his choice and the Board is only expressing their concerns with a swimming pool. Chairman Dunning also said, if he sells the house tomorrow and the neighbor next door sells their house and two different families living there and the garage and pool are still there; the variance is for the life of the property and that’s the problem. Mr. Szanto said, maybe he could give a foot or foot ½ and compromise a little bit. Chairman Dunning asked how high is the garage? Mr. Szanto said its 23 ft. high. Eng. Gregor said if you look at plan A-4 and look at the north elevation its 23.0 ft. and look at the west elevation its 23.4 ft. Mr. Szanto said the correct number is 23 ft. Chairman Dunning wanted to know the height of the ceiling in the garage level on A-3 and approximate height in the storage level. Mr. Szanto said the height of the garage ceiling would be 9 ft. and approximate storage height depending on where your standing would be anywhere from 3 ½ ft. on the ends up to the collar ties would be 6.6 ft. or 7 ft. Chairman Dunning wanted to know how do you access the storage area? Mr. Szanto said there will be a set of stairs and hasn’t decided yet whether it will be a full set of stairs, pull down or built in stairs. Chairman Dunning also wanted to know if he was bringing water into the garage and Mr. Szanto said no. Chairman Dunning asked Mr. Szanto if he thought the 30’ X 16’ garage size was overkill. Mr. Szanto said his shed right now is about 15 X 26 and the new garage is not really that much bigger and its really not a two story structure and the way the tree line is, it won’t stand out like a sore thumb. Mr. Szanto also said that’s why he pulled the garage forward to match the front of the house. Chairman Dunning wanted to know if Mr. Szanto considered joining the garage to the dwelling? Mr. Szanto said yes he did but moving the stairwell and doorway is too much of a hassle. Mr. Szanto asked if he was to put a railing system, which is sold for pools that are below four feet high so you can’t climb over and get in, would that help out with the garage and no one jumping in? Chairman Dunning said it’s still a removable structure and if he were to sell the house, the next person could remove it. Chairman Dunning reiterated, that people do stupid things by jumping into pools from roof tops etc. and breaking their necks because they’re too close to the jumping point and that is what the Board is looking at. Mr. Szanto said when people buy snow blowers there is a warning not to put their hands in while the machine is on and people still do; this is the same concept as the pool issue and you have to assume people know better. Chairman Dunning had another concern about the aligning the garage with the house and that it would be very easy over the years to join it to the house. Mr. Szanto said with the exception of the stairwell; the stairwell is a big excavation and there’s no way to join it because of the stairwell height there’s no way to go over and join it and would be major construction.

Eng. Gregor said there is a distance between the garage and the new addition of 5½ ft. The minimum required between structures in town is 10 ft. and this is primarily a safety concern. Mr. Szanto said all he has to do for that one side of the house for fire rating is to put ½” concrete backer-board with 5/8 rock on the inside and that will suffice the fire rating. Eng. Gregor said that may satisfy the BOCA requirements but it doesn’t solve one of the concerns the Borough has which is it denies access to the rear of the structures in case the firemen have to get back there to fight a fire.

Atty. Faasse asked Mr. Szanto if he would like the Board to vote on the application as presented with the pool and garage in their present location and Mr. Szanto said yes.

OPEN TO PUBLIC: None/Closed

Chairman Dunning asked Mr. Szanto if his proposal is to stay with the drawing as drawn and Mr. Szanto said yes. Chairman Dunning also asked the applicant if he was planning on dealing with any storm water management on his property. Mr. Szanto said he was going to use the natural pitch of the property. Mr. Szanto said he’s only asking for 2½% of lot coverage more than is required and the ground is like a sponge. Chairman Dunning said the proposed driveway is not shown and Mr. Szanto said he doesn’t propose to have a driveway where Chairman Dunning is talking about. The reason is because its only going to be used for intermediate use and the door is more for show than anything. Mr. Szanto said he proposes to drive off the side of the driveway that’s there and over the frozen ground. The garage is solely going to be used for storage and not as a garage.

MOTION TO DENY APPLICATION: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Hoffman, voting yes to deny the application were Chairman Dunning, Members Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning and Willse.

Mr. Szanto spoke up and said if you drive around the neighborhood and you see all the pools like an 18 ft. pool in a 20 ft. backyard with a two story deck; it seems ridiculous and that’s the reason people come to the Board for a variance and he’s asking for a variance for something that’s never going to happen like jumping off a roof. You would have to get a ladder to get up there. He could understand if there was a tree that a kid could climb but there’s no physical way to get up on the garage without getting a ladder and for the Board to deny an application over something like that seems ludicrous.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None

Mr. Szanto came back to the microphone and said, back in 2003 someone came to the Board and had a pool that was 5ft. from a structure and the Board approved it.

RESOLUTIONS: None

CORRESPONDENCE: None

VOUCHERS: submitted by Eng. Gregor for Engineering Services for Application #07-06 Miceli for $265.50, Application #09-06 Marsh for $259.50, Application #10-06 Miuccio for $326.00, Application #13-06 DeDiminicantanio for $334.00, for a Grand Total of $1185.00.

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

MINUTES: No minutes were presented due to the fact the Board Secretary was on vacation and didn’t have time to complete them.

ENGINEER’S REPORT: Engineer Gregor said there is a new application on First Avenue.

DISCUSSION: Member Covelli brought up the fact that the Board still hasn’t received their nameplates and directed the secretary to check into this matter.

Chairman Dunning brought up the Mandatory Training Classes for Land Use Board Members that is being sponsored by the New Jersey State League of Municipalities and that all members haven’t attended. Chairman Dunning told the members they have 18 months to get this done. A memo was sent to each member so they can follow-up on this matter.

MOTION TO ADJOURN: at 10:20 P.M. carried by a voice vote.

_______________________________

Gerri Marotta

Board of Adjustment Secretary