Pleading Wizard

Pledge of Allegiance:

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a regular meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment. Adequate notice has been given by a duly advertised notice posted in the Suburban Trends and the Herald News. It was mailed in January of 2007 and a notice thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk and a noted is posted on the bulletin board in the Municipal Building. Can we have a roll call please?

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

MEMBERS ABSENT: Member Michael O’Hanlon

MR. FAASSE: Four items on the agenda.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, Okay.

MR. FAASSE: We’ll continue with Reality Associates and then we are going to go to Staropoli.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, okay.

MR. FAASSE: Mr. Acquaviva is here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, all right. We are going to take our agenda out of order this evening to dispose of a couple of no-shows basically. The first one is gong to be 03-07, which is the Santoro application which is 11-05 Ringwood Avenue. This is on a Site Plan, Use Variances, Bulk Variances. We have communication from their attorney.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, Mr. LaSala, dated today, we are unable to proceed this evening, we request an adjournment of the application to the September 5th meeting. The applicant extends the time for the Board to act on this application for an additional 30 days. Please announce this adjournment at the August 1st meeting so that pursuant to the Land Use Act no further notice will be required.

MR. COVELLI: Ralph did he give you any indication on what he is waiting on?

MR. FAASSE: No, he just sent me this, okay, but I can just tell you it is plans.

MR. COVELLI: Well I think it is time to --

MR. FAASSE: Because when our secretary came back last week from vacation she inquired as to whether or not there were any plans and his secretary didn't know anything about it.

MR. COVELLI: So what they were waiting with the road and everything that has been determined.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, we had the easement. Mr. Fiorillo sent me a copy of the easement.

MR. COVELLI: We have that?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, I told you that last month.

MR. COVELLI: I didn't see it.

MR. FAASSE: Well, I mean, I can't help that.

MR. COVELLI: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: I told it was here.

MR. GRYGUS: It is in that box marked miscellaneous, when you moved?

MR. FAASSE: Right. It was referred to the Planning Board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So we have a description of the easement.

MR. FAASSE: We have a copy of the easement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We are waiting for updated drawings from their engineer, Mr. Gardner.

MR. GRYGUS: How does the Board feel about if it is carried with the proviso that they --

MR. FAASSE: Well this is going to keep us busy through 2008.

MR. GRYGUS: That they do --

MR. COVELLI: The way that this guy is going 2012.

MR. GRYGUS: -- prosecute next month or it is going to be dismissed without prejudice?

MR. GREGOR: I have some information which may help you in your decision making process.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: I received a call from Mr. LaSala, the attorney for the application, discussing the plans with me and he asked me if I would join him in a conference call with the engineer to explain exactly what we wanted. I agreed to help in any way I could. Later in the day, probably late afternoon, I got a call from the engineer and he asked me specifically what I would recommend as far as the drawings. And I told him, I said the Board cannot read your drawings, they are too complicated. I suggest you have a site plan which is clean, just having dimensions on it, a second drawing which is your Grading and Utility Plan, having just those items on it, a third plan having Landscaping and Lighting, with just those items on it, a fourth plan, which would be your Soil Erosion Sediment Control Plan and all the facilities you require for that and a fifth sheet which would be your detail sheet. He said that is what he is going to prepare.

MR. LUDWIG: Not for nothing but we asked for that months ago.

MR. GRYGUS: I was going to say we ask for that --

MR. CHAIRMAN: The last time around.

MR. FAASSE: When is the deadline?

MR. GREGOR: All I did was clarify what the Board wanted in my estimation and that is why I am telling you specifically what I told him.

MR. FAASSE: That was a conversation today?

MR. GREGOR: He called me this afternoon and that conversation was today.

MR. GRYGUS: I don't see a problem with having that for the next meeting.

MR. FAASSE: I'm sorry.

MR. GRYGUS: I don't see where that should be a problem having that for the next meeting -- ready by the next meeting, do you?

MR. FAASSE: That is quite a bit of a drawing.

MR. GREGOR: I just wanted to let you know what occurred today.

MR. GRYGUS: The plans are done already is just a matter of printing the separate sheets, turning off the various overlays.

MR. LUDWIG: I mean this was asked for --

MR. FAASSE: As soon as it was applied.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first time it was asked for.

MR. GRYGUS: On his first plan it was asked for.

MR. FAASSE: Who were the engineering people, how long would it take to prepare those plans usually?

MR. GREGOR: If everything is already done and there are no changes made you are probably talking -- I could probably do it, if I -- if you put your mind to it, you could have it done in two days.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. GREGOR: If you are busy, it might take a week, week and a half.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What is your motion?

MR. GRYGUS: I'll make a motion to carry the application to the September 5th meeting with a provision that the applicant be sent a letter that we expect him to be here, prepared to testify or that the application will be dismissed without prejudice do to failure to prosecute.

MR. KONING: I'll second that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, roll call on that.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #03-07 TO SEPTEMBER 5TH:

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. All right, let's move on to the next one, which is 06-07, the Elwood application, 13 Maple Avenue. This application went off by the attorney you think, their attorney.

MR. FAASSE: Well you know Mr. Walker was here last month and he said that he wanted to confer with the Planning Board attorney, I know he wrote a letter to the Planning Board attorney, as far as I know he never resolved the issue and as we told him that if he was going to prosecute this matter in front of this Board it was our opinion that there was a Use Variance involved and he would have to notify.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Renotice, right.

MR. FAASSE: In order that we don’t have any new notices issues. So I would suggest that we just carry it to September 5th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, at this point it is an incomplete application.

MR. FAASSE: Well it is an improperly noticed application.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: It is an application that does not have jurisdiction before this Board.

MR. GRYGUS: How are we on the time on that one?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Deemed complete 6/11/07.

MR. FAASSE: We should be good, yeah. We should be good through at least September.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We need a motion.

MR. GRYGUS: I'll make a motion to carry to it the September 5th meeting.

MR. KONING: I'll second it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, roll call.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #06-07 TO SEPTEMBER 5TH:

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Gerri could you send that attorney, you have his name and address right?

MS. MAROTTA: Yeah, Higgins and Walker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, send him a letter saying that we carried it to September, please advise us what your pleasure is with this thing; are you going to bring it back as a use variance or are you going to drop it.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's all. Okay. Now let's move on to the --

MR. FAASSE: You are down to two, maybe you just ought to announce it so that if there is anyone from the public here on anything else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. The other two items that we are going to deal with tonight is 23-06, which is Reality Associates and then 07-07 which is the Staropoli application which is on Ringwood Avenue. Is there anyone here for any other applications? We are only hearing those two this evening. Okay. Let's move on to Reality Associates, 23-06, this is a Use Variance and Bulk Variances. Good evening counselor.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board. Brian N. Chewcaskie, Gittleman, Muhlstock and Chewcaskie on behalf of the applicant, Reality Redevelopment Associates. We were last before the Board on July 11, 2007 when we presented testimony from our engineer Drake Stinson and our architect, Mary Scro. At the conclusion of that meeting and subsequent days thereafter we had some meetings with our engineer and we determined to make certain revisions to the site plan. Those revisions were made and they were submitted, I believe, on July 23rd to this Board with a letter from Mr. Stinson. And Mr. Stinson will testify with respect to those revisions. The highlight and the more pertinent revisions, the number of units have been reduced from 14 to 12 within the same building footprint. What that enabled the applicant to do was to reduce the number of parking spaces and to add more green space and recreational area. The building was moved to the opposite side and the driveway to be opposite of Melrose Avenue. We also provided an application to the Passaic County Planning Board. It was deemed complete on July 25, 2007. We do not have a report. We also addressed certain issues with respect to the air conditioning units, which Mr. Stinson will testify to. So unless there are any questions of me I would recall Mr. Stinson at this time to address the revisions. My notes, Mr. Faasse, indicated that we are up to A-3 in evidence and since we have a revised site plan I would request that that be marked as A-4.

MR. FAASSE: Is it a multi-page?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: It is a single page colorized version.

MR. FAASSE: Before we begin Sir, we have an Affidavit here from Mr. Hoffman, a member of our Board who has sworn under oath that he listened to the tape of the proceedings of July 11th with respect to this application so he would be a qualified voter on this particular application.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is fine Mr. Faasse.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, the only one who isn’t on the dais today and does not qualify I believe is just Mr. Ludwig, everybody else was here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: And participated last month, right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: This Affidavit if you want to see it is, of course, in our file.

MR. HOFFMAN: Ed, did you listen to the tape?

MR. LEONARD: I was here.

MR. HOFFMAN: July the 11th.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, he wasn’t here the week before. We chastised him last month because he didn’t bring his candy bowl.

MR. HOFFMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Remember? That was two months ago, I remember, one because he was absent and two because he of his absent mindness.

MR. COVELLI: Because we were getting Pete and Ed, we were trying to get Ed and Pete at the last meeting.

MR. FAASSE: I know.

MR. HOFFMAN: Did he come?

MR. LEONARD: Yeah, I was late.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Ed showed up for the meeting, he is in my notes.

MR. HOFFMAN: I just remember them saying that they were trying to call me and trying to call him at the same time. I remember that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: As long as you are satisfied.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I remember him walking in.

MR. FAASSE: That is what happens when you start getting old -- you know -- you can’t remember where you were.

DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF MR. STINSON BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q Mr. Stinson, you still recall that you under oath as of the last meeting on July 11th. Could you describe to the Board what revisions you made to the site plan since you last testified before this Board?

A Yes, certainly, thank you. As you had mentioned, we reduced the number of residential units from 14 to 12, which thereby reduced the number of parking spaces by a number of 4. We now have 43 spaces, whereas 42 are required, so we still have one extra parking space and we meet the requirements for parking. With that extra space that we gained, we increase the distance of the turnaround, it would be the backup at the end of the isle, which added some extra space at the end. So we made -- so the 5 feet, we made this 10 feet. We added an interlocking brick patio with a bench and two areas for gardening for residents in the back to be a recreational purpose. The main change in the site was to actually mirror the position of the driveway with the building. So as may you recall, we had the driveway on this side of the site, we mirrored it so that the driveway now almost exactly lines up with Melrose Avenue, so it is a great location for the driveway now and it works fine. We also increased the curb radius, which is recommended by the Planning Board’s consultant here. So this is a 5-foot radius which helps the truck turning coming in. And we have provided these recreational facilities here, we have a patio area with picnic tables, which would be the barbeque area and we have provided an area for horseshoes. The landscape and the lighting were revised accordingly. There was a deficiency in the light; we added another light at the end. We showed the air conditioning compressors, which was requested to be on the plan. The air conditioning compressors would be for the lower level and the first level of residences. Whereas there are 6 residential apartments and 4 medical that would make 10, so we have shown them to scale here. We talked with the developer who intends to use an Amana type of air conditioning unit, it is very efficient and it has an insulated enclosure on it, which reduces the decibels from the air conditioning units. I will go through my letter here, I think I have just hit on everything. Oh yes, there was a comment about runoff from off site and on site to be able to control that. I did personally walk the site; I think it was last Monday when we had a rainstorm. I walked to the back of the site; there wasn’t any ponding water or runoff coming from adjacent properties. Nonetheless, we did add what I call an under drain trench, it would run along parallel to the property line, just in front of the tree line here, which would consist of gravel and under drain pipe that is connected to the system. So both along the lower half and the upper half we have an under drain, which is like a french drain system, it would collect an incidental runoff, primarily probably from our site because it is grass but it is intended to be very minimal and I don’t believe that would be used much.

BOARD MEMBER: Could you, where is that located?

A Yeah, I have the drainage plan here. These drawings are the exact same sheets that were submitted.

Q Before you attach that drawing Mr. Stinson, could you identify it by title and the last revised date?

A Yes, this is called the Grading, Utility and Soil Erosion Control Plan, it is identified as our drawing C2.2, it was revised 7/19/07 and this is the drawing that you have, there has been no change to the plan.

Q And when you say the drawing that the Board has, that was part of the package that was submitted to the Board, correct?

A Yes, that is correct.

MR. FAASSE: Didn’t you just mark the entire package A-3?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We marked as A-4 the colorized version of the site plan.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We can certainly mark the package of the site plan documents as A-5 Mr. Faasse, maybe to save time.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, A-5 would be then the whole package that we got.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q And A-5 Mr. Stinson, you can correct me if I am wrong, is your drawings dated January 19, 2007 revised through July 19, 2007 consisting of eight sheets, am I correct?

A Yes, that is correct. So, as I had said before we mirrored the building so in accordance with the new layout for the driveway we had to realign the drainage. So we collect the drainage along this side and connect similarly to the sewer that is in Ringwood Avenue. We have an under drain that runs parallel to the property line here and connects to this inlet and we have an under drain, french drain type system, that runs along this side and connects into this inlet here. And that is designed to collect any incidental ponding water which, as I said before, is very rare and unlikely. After I visited the site, it was actually after these drawings were prepared, I realized that there really wouldn’t be much chance of any extra runoff. I think we have got that more than copy as far as storm water is concerned.

Q A couple of points Mr. Stinson, you referenced the relocation of the driveway. The relocation of the driveway opposite Melrose, does that improve sight distance at all?

A Yes, it does. As it was noted before, there was a building right on the corner here that was limiting the sight distance looking to the right exiting from the driveway. Now that we have it here, we have a clear open space; we meet the requirements for sight distance without a problem.

Q When you say you meet the requirements, those are the requirements imposed by Passaic County?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q All right. And that --

A There is a formula for calculating the sight distance based on the grade of the road and we have done that calculation and we have submitted it to the County along with our application.

Q Now it is my understanding that the air conditioning units were located to the side of the building and were brought closer to Ringwood Avenue, am I correct?

A Yes.

Q And you have also testified that the type of units to be provided would be insulated units.

A Right.

Q And based upon your understanding, would that result in a lower noise level because they are insulted units?

A Yes, it reduces the sound level by about 10 decibels.

Q Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Are all those units as shown right there in that area --

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: -- they are all the air conditioning units?

MR. STINSON: No, as I said the upper level of the residential would have 6 units, they would be located on the roof. But we have 10 that would be located on the floor.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, that is what I thought I heard.

MR. STINSON: They would cover the medical office space as well as the 6 residential dwelling units. That is why we have 10.

MR. FAASSE: Is that going to affect the design of the roof?

MR. STINSON: In any event, there would be space for either alternative for the roof. There would be space to put the equipment up there. If it were a flatter roof, obviously, there would be more space. The design calls for a lower area in the back, it would also be screened. It would work with the pitched roof alternative that would have the other six units on the roof.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q And also with respect to the under drain system that you testified to, Mr. Stinson, that was designed to address both runoff that may occur within the green area on this site and also what may travel onto this site from adjoining properties. Am I correct?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q So if there was water coming into the site it will be collected or if there is the potential for water to leave the site, it will now be collected.

A Yes, that is correct.

Q And based upon you site visit on, I guess, a week ago Monday, you believe that there is not an issue with water ponding on that site as it presently exist.

A That is correct.

Q All right. Do you believe that there will be any change as a result of the development as proposed?

A With all the changes the flows will be reduced because we are taking the runoff from the roof and putting it into the ground for drywell underground infiltration. So there is a net decrease in runoff from this site.

Q Now we also received a revised report from Mr. Gregor, Mr. Stinson. Did you get the opportunity to review that?

A Yes, I have. It seems in the report, after I’ve looked through it, that we did comply with most of the comments, I believe. There was one comment about the truck movement, and I have the truck movement plan here, which is the same drawing. As we revised the design, we revised the truck turning template which shows how the truck would enter the site, make its maneuvers, we have extra space in here now for the truck to turn around. He backs in, picks up the garbage and he backs out. He doesn’t really go over the line here now that we have a 5 foot curve radius turn on the inlet -- on the driveway, he can make that swing without imposing on the other direction of traffic on Ringwood Avenue. And the garbage is on at an off hour, early in the morning, or it would be scheduled so that there wouldn’t be much traffic leaving the site. So we feel that the truck circulation for garbage truck pickup is more than adequate.

Q And that is your truck path drawing that was part of the package and the last revised date on that was July 19th.

A Right, it was revised -- revised of the site it was 7/19/07, it is our drawing TP-1.

Q Does the relocation of the driveway help the entrance to help -- I’m sorry, does the relocation of the driveway help access to the site by trucks?

A Actually, the improvements to the curb return in front, making them 5 feet instead of straight, helps the truck turn to get in and in addition, I didn’t point it out, but before we had a little bit of an island here which that we took out and we stripped so there is more room for the truck to pull in. So it has been improved from the last design, the truck maneuverability.

Q And based upon your understanding of Passaic County Planning Board requirements, do you believe that the access driveway, in its present form, will be approved by the County Planning Board?

A Yes, I think it is a good location and there is proper sight distance. The road is flat and you can see left and right pulling out.

Q And I believe there was another comment, which was number 9 in Mr. Gregor’s letter, about the sight distance, but you have already addressed that. Is it your testimony that the site distance standards will be acceptable too?

A Right, those are out calculations and we meet the minimum required site distance.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I have no further questions for Mr. Stinson, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. LEONARD: Bill what about your comment I think you were questioning what he was using as the minimums?

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, and in fact that would be a good thing to bring up at this point in time. I noticed that your drawings indicate, if I am not mistaken, that the required is 188 and the actual is 188 in the southerly direction and the required and the actual in the northerly direction are 190. By AASHTO’S standards, those distances seem quite small and I wanted to find out the basis of those sight distance numbers that were applied in this application. I believe AASHTO would be more like 350 feet.

MR. STINSON: It is a function of the speed of the road and the speed limit as well.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah.

MR. STINSON: I am looking for a copy of the calculations.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah but that is not our requirement anyway, right?

MR. GREGOR: Well we have to consider sight distance on the site.

MR. FAASSE: But the County is going to specify that.

MR. GREGOR: Not necessarily, I think that is a joint responsibility because we are approving the site plan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Isn’t the County 400 feet or something like that?

MR. GREGOR: Well I believe and, again, I should -- let me speak up a little bit so everybody can hear me. My recollection for AASHTO and the County requirements is typically it is for a 35 mile an hour roadway you want a minimum of 350 feet. But that is why I wanted to find out what the basis of these were before I -- and I haven’t seen any comments from the County so I don’t know what their position is yet.

MR. STINSON: I can submit these pages if you would like. This is our site distance calculation and this is also the Passaic County formula that we use.

MR. GREGOR: Okay, are those extra copies? If not, you could just fax those to me or send them to me when you have a chance, I would be glad to look at them. I am not going to really review them right now.

MR. STINSON: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: But if you can answer the basis that’s fine.

MR. STINSON: Yeah, as I said, because the speed limit is only 30 miles an hour --

MR. LEONARD: All right, he is saying 30.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, the County always goes 5 miles over the posted because that is what people drive.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You said you had the County’s formula there?

MR. GREGOR: That is my experience.

MR. LEONARD: Yeah but is he using 30 in his calculation?

MR. GREGOR: If he is using 30 and it is posted 30 and the County permits that than that is acceptable to the County. I have concerns on the available sight distance because we, obviously, we want a safe site here not only for the people that will be located here but the people that are traveling on Ringwood Avenue. We just want to make sure we covered all the safety requirements, that’s all.

MR. STINSON: There is also a table in the AASHTO book, I think you are referring to based on the DOT which also is about 190 feet, 188 - 190 feet is required, that is the same as the calculation. We said that the available is greater than what is required and it is much greater than, I mean these calculations say it is greater than 250 feet. To do it, it is off the chart so we really don’t know what the actual is but is certainly greater than what is available.

MR. GREGOR: If I am not mistaken I believe that you stated that the actual was the same as required or am I missing --

MR. STINSON: We meant to say that was greater than what -- the actual is greater than what is required.

MR. GREGOR: Hang on, let me just go back to that section of the drawing so I am accurate here.

MR. STINSON: You are right -- you are right, we said required and actual.

MR. GREGOR: If you have an actual, which is greater, could you tell us what that is?

MR. STINSON: Yeah, that is correct.

MR. GREGOR: That might be helpful to the Board in their decision making process.

MR. STINSON: We have indicated that it is 250 feet is the actual, which is greater.

MR. GREGOR: Is that anywhere on the drawings?

MR. STINSON: No, it is in the calculations.

MR. GREGOR: In the calculations, all right.

MR. STINSON: We can fax that over to you.

MR. GREGOR: All right, so when I get those, I’ll see them.

MR. STINSON: Right.

MR. GREGOR: Okay, very good.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I think if I may Mr. Chairman is that since this is within the Passaic County jurisdiction we will certainly share with Mr. Gregor our calculations to make sure that there is an agreement amongst Mr. Gregor and Mr. Stinson as to the methodology utilized relative to sight distance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um-hum.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And if I may, just one follow up question, Mr. Stinson, the driveway for this site, based upon the location of the building, would have to be on one or the other side, am I correct?

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And by placing it on the side opposite Melrose Avenue, the site distance was, in fact, improved.

MR. STINSON: That is correct.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Okay, thank you.

MR. LEONARD: Can you just go over all the signage at that point?

MR. STINSON: We have a stop bar and a stop sign at the end, which was requested. And I also added a yellow line that would run down the middle to help delineate two-way traffic in the driveway. That yellow line would extend all the way here, it is traffic marking. That is the only sign is the stop sign right there pulling out.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One question Mr. Gregor, on the parking requirements --

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- in R-residential, in this type of use, don’t we require more than two per unit to build up some visitor spaces? I know we dealt with this but I don’t know where to find it.

MR. GREGOR: I believe your requirements are two parking spaces per dwelling unit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In an R-10 Residential?

MR. GREGOR: In an R-10 Residential.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In a condensed use like this, we will say in a condo/townhouse zone, it goes to two and a half.

MR. GREGOR: It may but it is not a requirement it is more of a -- when you are putting a non-permitted use in the zone, it is not -- you are not varying from the standards of that zone but it is always a very good idea to have additional spaces for visitors when you have multi-family dwelling units. What I have recommended in the past is a minimum of two and a half spaces in some cases depending on the use, three spaces per each dwelling unit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: But the requirement that you have in your ordinance --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, so we are going by the R-10 requirements.

MR. GREGOR: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because we don’t have anything else to fall back on.

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. STINSON: I would like to point out something if I may. There is 12 units, times 2, is 24.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. STINSON: Okay, we have 43 parking spaces. There are 18 attributable to the medical office space that is below. You would think that because of the use of the building being a mixed use as it is, you have people visiting the office during the day, there would be people -- you know -- who have gone to work who are residents, so I believe there are complimenting uses at the site and it would offset the parking requirements and they would be shared between the two uses.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That works good from 9 to 5. Are the doctors all going to go home at 5 o’clock and close their office?

MR. STINSON: I don’t know. We are meeting the requirements for parking but I believe that it would help the situation.

MR. GREGOR: I have to concur on that point that when you have a shared parking of two uses that have their peak uses at different times, a shared parking space does benefit the visitor spaces as we call them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Because most of your residential visitors are not normally during normal business hours such as weekends and late in the evening. But it is something that -- you know -- it is something that you still have to look at because there may be time periods where you may exceed with visitors and heavy volume at the medical offices but that is more than a judgment thing than a standard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, now we had this question the last time with a different lay out of the parking. At the rear-end of the parking lot, in the last two spaces where you come into the residents gardening area, is that an adequate area for a person to back out into that indent and then pull forward?

MR. STINSON: It meets the design requirements that there is five feet there for people to pull out. We also have blank spaces right here; this is 20 feet wide, so someone could, just as the garbage truck turns around --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, I’m talking about the other end.

MR. STINSON: These cars would be able to turn around here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, I’m talking about the other end so people don’t have to back out.

MR. STINSON: This would assist the cars at the end if they parked here, they would be able to turn around. The cars in the front would probably back --

MR. CHAIRMAN: So you indent gives adequate space for that?

MR. STINSON: Pardon me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your indentation there gives adequate space.

MR. STINSON: We have 10 feet, that is in accordance with the standards for parking lot design.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. That works Bill?

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: That is adequate for the vehicle movement for those last two parking spaces.

MR. COVELLI: Bill can that first handicapped space adjacent to the building function without backing into that driveway?

MR. FAASSE: He is asking you?

MR. GREGOR: Oh this question is directed to me?

MR. COVELLI: Right.

MR. GREGOR: I’m sorry; I was waiting for Mr. Stinson to answer.

MR. FAASSE: No, I think he said Bill.

MR. STINSON: Well I can answer that question too. We meet the requirements for ADA requirements, it has an 8 foot space on the one side, an 8 foot and we are meeting the requirements.

MR. COVELLI: I wasn’t worried about that. I am worrying about how a vehicle gets out of that space without backing essentially right across the driveway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And the other problem is --

MR. GREGOR: In answer to your question, yes he probably will cross over into the opposite lane. The concern I would have there is that I would have to look at the architecturals again to see if that -- the area that is labeled the sidewalk, is that an open area, can you answer that?

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: That is an open area.

MR. STINSON: It is the sidewalk open area.

MR. GREGOR: So you do not have a blind spot there so vehicles can see someone -- someone pulling in can see someone pulling out.

MR. COVELLI: Someone backing out. But the person backing out can’t see the person coming in; the building is in the way.

MR. GREGOR: No that is right, they won’t be able to until they are basically in the out lane.

Mr. COVELLI: Right.

MR. LEONARD: Isn’t that sidewalk area open, right, didn’t he say that was like a -- it’s open.

MR. GREGOR: Yes, he says that is open. So the sight distance isn’t totally blocked but the vehicle in that first handicapped spot will most likely have to back out into the opposite travel lane in order to make that movement out.

MR. GRYGUS: And then the other issue that you have is, everybody who is using this building is going to be walking down the middle of that parking lot to get to the vehicles because there is no sidewalks.

MR. GREGOR: That is a concern, there is no pedestrian parking -- there are no pedestrian sidewalks yeah, that is a concern because that is a long area.

MR. STINSON: I would like to point out that the requirement of the ADA spot is to have it as close to the building as possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, we understand that.

MR. GREGOR: But the ADA’s meet their requirements. I think what he is talking about is that there is no pedestrian area to go from their vehicles to the building without traveling in the parking lot.

MR. STINSON: Only walking in the parking lot.

MR. GREGOR: Pardon?

MR. STINSON: They would, they would down the parking lot.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, any other questions of the engineer?

MR. GREGOR: I have one question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. GREGOR: I want to switch back --

BOARD MEMBER: Can I ask a question about the air conditioner?

MR. STINSON: Sure.

BOARD MEMBER: Is there going to be any other screening around the air conditioning units?

MR. STINSON: Right, we have arborvitaes, which are the trees on this side, and we have a fence. As a matter of fact, I am glad that you brought that up. Our drawings showed the fence ending at the residential line here because this is commercial property. After I visited the site, I think it may be more appropriate to extend our fence from this property line to the edge of this building and that would add additional screening. I am glad that you brought that up but there is landscaping there. We kept it low because it is an open space; there are windows on that side of the building so people can look at and there is a green strip there. But I would recommend that we, should the Board think that it would be appropriate, we could extend the fence down to the corner of that building.

MR. GREGOR: I might point that the, if you notice, the air conditioning units were moved away from the rear yards of the residential to the rear yard of the commercial, which is a benefit.

MR. STINSON: Right.

MR. GREGOR: I have one question for you regarding your truck path movement.

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: That is TP.1. I guess the first comment, it is more of a comment and then I have a question. The vehicle entering, this is the garbage truck, this vehicle, correct?

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: Must travel into the opposing lane of the facility in order to enter the building, right, they cannot stay in their own lane.

MR. STINSON: You see it in the opposing lane of our driveway.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah.

MR. STINSON: Yeah, our driveway.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MR. STINSON: Of course, we have shown the worst case scenario here with the truck entering on this end on Ringwood Avenue, because he is closer here. If the truck were to come this way, he wouldn’t be encroaching on this side at all and I am not sure which direction the truck would be coming from. That is the worst case.

MR. GREGOR: How would a truck leaving the facility going south on Ringwood Avenue, have you looked at that movement?

MR. STINSON: Um, I mean he would swing out obviously.

MR. GREGOR: Would he go into the opposing lane of Ringwood Avenue, that was the concern?

MR. STINSON: It would be a mirror from the position that is there. So if the truck really needed to go south on Ringwood Avenue, he could swing over and go south.

MR. GREGOR: He would have to swing over into the entrance lane in order to get out?

MR. STINSON: It would only be an encroachment on our driveway and he would be able to time it so that -- you know -- there wouldn’t be cars there and there wouldn’t be any problem with Ringwood Avenue.

MR. GREGOR: What we are trying to avoid is, obviously, the conflict of vehicles. Someone finally said that that is called an accident but the conflict of vehicles at a driveway entrance. I noticed you put 5 foot radius on these.

MR. STINSON: Yeah, that is correct.

MR. GREGOR: If you increase the radius would that solve the problem?

MR. STINSON: Actually because there is a sidewalk right there it kind of cuts the whole sidewalk back and looking at the entrance to this facility and others along Ringwood Avenue, they are all straight out. I thought a minimal radius of 5 feet was most appropriate and actually we put the 5 foot there so that the truck would be able to do it without swinging into the opposing lane on Ringwood Avenue, which was our objective. So I felt that -- you know -- 5 feet is the minimum size that would be acceptable. And the curbing turns then comes back -- it lines up with the back of the sidewalk nicely. To go bigger than that I don’t think is appropriate.

MR. FAASSE: Does this, does your design conform with the design standards of the County of Passaic?

MR. STINSON: Oh sure there is no problem.

MR. FAASSE: As the driveway width and as to the radius and everything else.

MR. STINSON: Yes, absolutely.

MR. FAASSE: That is where we are going to get, you know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, the County is going to override it.

MR. FAASSE: That is why we ask to have a county review.

MR. GREGOR: I have a safety concern regarding that movement, that is why I am concerned about it because, obviously, if you encroach into the opposing lane, even in your driveway, the potential for an accident is there and that is one of the concerns we have.

MR. FAASSE: We can minimize your concern by having the driveway width wider, correct?

MR. GREGOR: Basically --

MR. FAASSE: And change the radius, right?

MR. GREGOR: The radius would probably resolve it.

MR. FAASSE: But we don’t know whether or not the County will buy that.

MR. GREGOR: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you submitted this plan for the County?

MR. GREGOR: Well I think Mr. Stinson heard my concerns. The only other question I have is that you have shown a garbage truck as your design vehicle for this vehicle movement.

MR. STINSON: Yeah, that is correct.

MR. GREGOR: What type of vehicles will be servicing this site?

MR. STINSON: I know you had reference -- you know -- like a Federal Express truck perhaps. If there are small delivery trucks, like a step van, it could -- probably a 22 foot box truck or a 24 foot box truck any kind of a -- certainly not a tracker-trailer but a smaller size truck wouldn’t have any problem. The size of the garbage truck we use is 36 feet long and that is probably larger than most -- you know -- a normal moving truck would be the same size.

MR. GREGOR: So basically your testimony is that the vehicle that you used for these turning movements is the largest vehicle that you would expect to utilize this site.

MR. STINSON: Yes, that is correct, it is, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And what is the size of that garbage truck?

MR. STINSON: It is 36 feet long.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay because your detail here shows it as 25.3.

MR. STINSON: A different garbage truck.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is your drawing though, right?

MR. STINSON: Thank you, it is 25 feet, you are right. I stand corrected.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, so basically any truck larger than that would really have a difficult time turning into the site from the southbound lane.

MR. STINSON: If a truck were coming in, as I was pointing out before, this is the worst case maneuver. If somebody knew they had a larger truck and they were coming in this way, there is no blocking of the lane or the driveway and the same thing coming out. If a truck were on this side and he were to go north on Ringwood Avenue, there is no problems at all. It can easily be coordinated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But we can’t predict the flow of truck.

MR. GREGOR: Could you take a look at the, I think the Federal Express trucks are typically SU30’s?

MR. STINSON: Yeah.

MR. GREGOR: Could you compare the SU30 turning movement with this and see if it is any different.

MR. STINSON: Sure.

MR. GREGOR: I don’t know which turning movement, what template you have used here.

MR. FAASSE: Just for point of clarification, didn’t we say that these plans were all sent down to the County. Was that the 25th?

MR. STINSON: Yes, they got the exact same set of drawings, this was the set.

MR. FAASSE: That was sent on the 25th. Do you have any schedule as to when this matter is going to be listed?

MR. STINSON: I would say in short order. I would say, I think they meet in the middle of August, I believe.

MR. FAASSE: I thought it was the first week of the month.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I don’t remember.

MR. STINSON: I want to say the 15th.

MR. FAASSE: I mean because -- you know -- we are talking about something that we could require one thing and the county is going to require another and they are going to supersede us, I think.

MR. KONING: Mr. Stinson?

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. KONING: In looking at the entrance to the south part of the entranceway, in other words towards the building --

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. KONING: Would you be able to widen the driveway just at the mouth or at the entranceway? Almost like you would when you come to an intersection and there is a turning lane.

MR. STINSON: Sure, yeah.

MR. KONING: In other words you could open that area a little bit which would allow --

MR. STINSON: Yeah, that is a thought. You know what we could do, we could widen it at the mouth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Tailor it out.

MR. STINSON: We could widen the end and then we could provide a taper, it would provide extra space. We could come in maybe an extra two feet on each side and then we could taper back in the front of the building 30 feet, that would make a wider turn.

MR. KONING: Well actually, I was thinking more of just literally moving it out keeping your radius but bumping it out.

MR. STINSON: Like another 3 feet on the southern edge of the curb toward the building?

MR. KONING: Yes, where you would -- and then the lane as when you come up to the intersection here --

MR. GREGOR: I understand what you are saying and --

MR. KONING: I am not verbalizing it well, I am visualizing it well, I am not verbalizing well.

MR. GREGOR: What I would caution is we don’t’ want to design it for him; I think he heard the concerns.

MR. KONING: I’m asking the question.

MR. GREGOR: And is there something you can do to alleviate those concerns, that is what we’re asking?

MR. STINSON: Well what I am saying is, what I have shown here and the design that we use is a standard driveway width. It meets the requirements for a commercial use, the turning radius in front, the curbing turns I believe are adequate. We would be able to make it wider, should the Board desire. We can work that out with the Planning Consultant to make sure that the driveway meets his satisfaction, how does that sound?

MR. CHAIRMAN: And we will wait to hear what Passaic County’s comments are.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Just to follow up so that we are clear, Mr. Stinson, are you saying that the driveway can physically be increased in its size and widened at its intersection with Ringwood Avenue?

MR. STINSON: Yes, we would be able to widen it a little bit more.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: To what extent, how many feet?

MR. STINSON: Maybe two feet on each side that would be four feet wider.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: So that would go from 25 to 29 feet.

MR. STINSON: Sure.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And then you would be able to taper that back down to 25 feet as you would approach the building.

MR. STINSON: Right. But what I propose is that we could stripe the sides so that it looks like a lane but then there would be extra pavement so that -- you know -- cars could swing out more if they needed to.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I don’t know if this is a fair question then but based upon your testimony regarding the widening of the driveway, will that improve the turning movements that were just discussed by Mr. Gregor?

MR. STINSON: Yes, it would somewhat, yes.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One thing that is not shown here and it is very spotty. One portions of Ringwood Avenue you are allowed to park. That really should be identified here because it is going to affect your line of sight. I mean directly on the northbound side of Melrose, you can park, which when they park on the roadway it forces the traffic basically in the wrong lane.

MR. GRYGUS: Well there is parking on these two lots here too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right by Jordan’s Luncheonette on the corner you can park.

MR. GRYGUS: Well from Lot 12 and Lot 13, I think there is parking there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, now there was limited parking when it was a dry cleaners.

MR. GRYGUS: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Which is not out the building to the south of your property. I don’t know if that parking still exits.

MR. GRYGUS: I think it is still two hour parking, I don’t think they took the signs away.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I don’t know but that is something maybe you can check. Since the use has been abandoned as a dry cleaner maybe they are going to do away with the parking which would help your line of sight distance in there.

MR. STINSON: Okay, I will look at that parking.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: To follow up on that Mr. Chairman if there is parking permitted on the street that it would effect sight distance for whatever type of use would be here, correct?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh yeah.

MR. STINSON: We would recommend that if there was parking like right in the front that it be stripped in such a way that it doesn’t block the sight.

MR. KONING: Did you do any calculations as to amount of disturbance that you are going to have on the site?

MR. STINSON: Yeah, those calculations were done with the storm water management.

MR. KONING: And what was the percentage of the disturbance area?

MR. STINSON: About two-thirds impervious and one-third pervious. Is that your question?

MR. KONING: No, the amount of area of the site, the percentage of the site that you are going to be disturbing.

MR. STINSON: Well we are improving the whole site. As you can see, we are putting fence along the property line and we are landscaping the whole property.

MR. GREGOR: TAD, you talking about the TAD.

MR. KONING: Exactly.

MR. STINSON: The whole property will be completely disturbed for the project.

MR. KONING: Because the reason why I am asking is, and I trying to think back to last month, did you get notification from the Highlands Commission that this site is exempt from their regulations?

MR. STINSON: Yes, that is correct.

MR. KONING: And that was based upon the original plan that you gave them.

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. KONING: And that had the storm water management plan and everything as part of it.

MR. STINSON: The basis for their determination was because there was a building there before the new use of the site.

MR. KONING: Because I know they usually look at impervious coverage and also percent of total area disturbance.

MR. STINSON: It would decrease impervious coverage with this plan, it would be less.

MR. KONING: Do you have TAD listed on your plan anywhere here?

MR. STINSON: Do I have what?

MR. KONING: TAD.

MR. STINSON: I’m sorry.

MR. GREGOR: The Total Area of Disturbance.

MR. STINSON: The Total Area of Disturbance is --

MR. KONING: I believe you testified previously that it was the entire lot.

MR. STINSON: Yeah, that is correct.

MR. KONING: If I am not mistaken.

MR. STINSON: Yeah, it is.

MR. KONING: It is the entire lot.

MR. STINSON: The entire lot is 44,997 square feet, 1.033 acres.

MR. KONING: If you look at the fence it appears to be that way.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Stinson is it your testimony that all of the fencing -- obviously the fencing on the north side of the property, the board-on-board, would be new fencing because there was chain-linked there prior.

MR. STINSON: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: On the south side where the residential homes are, will that all be replaced with new fencing?

MR. STINSON: All the existing fencing would be removed and would be reconstructed on our drawings, as proposed. The fence, as I said on the south side would extend to the opposing side at the back of the two-story building.

MR. GREGOR: Is there a reason the chain-link was chosen for the south end of the property and the board-on-board was chosen for the north side of the property?

MR. STINSON: No, we are doing board-on-board fence for the entire length.

MR. GREGOR: Oh for the entire project.

MR. STINSON: Yeah, yeah, that’s right.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the word chain link fence on your drawing.

MR. GREGOR: Thank you.

MR. GRYGUS: Where is that, I missed that?

MR. KONING: Look at Lot 19, that is where I see it.

MR. GRYGUS: That is existing.

MR. GREGOR: That is the existing chain-linked fence on the residential property.

MR. STINSON: If it is in white text, existing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The back of Lot 19, he has got the word chain-linked fence.

MR. STINSON: Yeah, that is an existing fence that is there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. STINSON: On the Site Plan Drawing, C2.1, we call it a 6 foot high board-on-board fence and we point to the symbol for the line which shows it going around the front to the back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill, you had a comment about the signage?

MR. GREGOR: Yeah, it is a variance for the height of the signage, if I am not mistaken, let me find it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Stinson, why don’t you tell us about the signage?

MR. STINSON: Pardon me?

MR. FAASSE: The architect did.

MR. GREGOR: The think the architect testified to that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the building.

MR. GREGOR: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are talking about the freestanding sign, there are two different signs.

MR. FAASSE: Well okay but the freestanding sign they didn’t ask for a variance for, did they?

MR. GREGOR: I don’t believe so, that meets zoning requirements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It doesn’t need a variance.

MR. FAASSE: The one that we have is one that was more or less, for lack of a better thing, an architectural feature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I know, on the top of the building.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, on the top. That was the one that he asked --

MR. CHAIRMAN: But I am talking about the freestanding sign.

MR. GREGOR: The freestanding meets all of the ordinance requirements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh so the two -- both signs meet the requirements or does he need a variance for the extra sign?

MR. GREGOR: He needs the variance for the wall-mounted sign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The building sign because of height?

MR. GREGOR: Yes, the freestanding sign is a permitted sign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Um-hum, and it complies to the requirements?

MR. GREGOR: And it complies with the ordinance requirements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. STINSON: If I may point out, the freestanding sign is depicted on our drawing C3.1 and it is in the upper left corner will remain and it meets the size requirements. In fact, when I went back to the ordinance I saw that it is was off by about six inches, so we made it smaller. This completely complies with the township’s ordinance for freestanding signs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Bill, the reason I am asking that, didn’t we have a new sign ordinance for the canopy type signs?

MR. STINSON: The variance for building mounted sign that we have talked about is something that we are willing to give up. We don’t have to have the variance for the sign; we could lower it, which there was a height issue. The size of the sign, is in compliance, it is the height because of the larger building we felt that it might look better on the top but we are certainly willing to move it down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand that but I think our existing sign ordinance only permits a canopy type sign there, right?

MR. GREGOR: I don’t believe so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I believe so.

MR. GREGOR: I will double check.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that what it ended up.

MR. LEONARD: Are you talking about the Rhinesmith sign?

MR. GREGOR: No, he is talking about --

MR. CHAIRMAN: The sign that is going to be attached to the building.

MR. LEONARD: The sign that is attached to the building, okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. I am pretty that the new sign ordinance was put in a year or two only allows a canopy type sign.

MR. FAASSE: Right now they are asking for a variance for a height, you saying that there might be a variance for the sign itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A variance for the type of sign itself, right.

MR. LEONARD: For the building mounted sign?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I think Mr. Chairman in reviewing my notes when Ms. Scro testified it was more an architectural amenity where it was, I am not going to call it engraved, but it was imbedded into the building.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is imbedded into the building but technically it is still a sign.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: It is still a sign but based upon our research in the ordinance, it was not a variance; it was the location of the sign because the municipality wanted it lower rather than higher.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We had high as an amenity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, it violates the height of the ordinance.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Yeah and if worst came of worst you would probably delete the whole thing too but that would distract from the beauty or the aesthetics of the proposed building.

MR. STINSON: We had the building called Rhinesmith and that it what the sign is intended to say Rhinesmith in honor of --

MR. FAASSE: That brings back the architectural feature from years ago when they use to put such and such hosiery mill on there.

MR. STINSON: Exactly, exactly.

MR. FAASSE: Remember the old mills gone past.

MR. LEONARD: That is actually still, you are actually still calling it a sign.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well that is the question, if we are calling it a sign.

MR. LEONARD: It is worth wording, is it a sign, is it -- you know.

MR. FAASSE: We are technically calling it a sign but the architect pointed out last meeting that it was more of an architectural tribute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Tribute to the property.

MR. LEONARD: Yeah, yeah a design.

MR. FAASSE: It is not going to be illuminated in anyway or anything else.

MR. LEONARD: Right, it is just a part of their --

MR. FAASSE: If you want to say it is going to be more of a label than a sign. And the applicant has promised that he is going to use it as the historic significance of the building. He is not going to change it to such and such a reality, Reality Associates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I know they made a change to this.

MR. GREGOR: You are talking a different type of sign, a different area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MR. GREGOR: Okay. But this I believe is the latest sign ordinance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, that’s good, all right, you answered that question.

MR. GRYGUS: Open it up?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah. Do we have any other questions gentlemen?

MR. FAASSE: I don’t know the engineer sat down so he figures we don’t.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh he can’t sit down, we are not done with him. Okay. We are going to open it up to the public.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, any questions for the engineer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we are opening to the public, does anyone have any questions? Please step forward. Questions only of the engineer. Step forward to the mic please.

MR. FAASSE: Identify yourself, spell your last name and give us an address.

MR. MUKLEVICZ: Hello gentlemen. I am Bruce Muklevicz, I am on Lot 18, okay.

MS. MAROTTA: Could you please spell your last name?

MR. MUKLEVICZ: You ready? M-U-K-L-E-V-I-C-Z. Anyone who can pronounce it, you get a free prize.

MR. LEONARD: What is your actual address? What is your address?

MR. MUKLEVICZ: 24 Pellington.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. MUKLEVICZ: Okay. I noticed in my back yard, over the fence that you gentlemen are going to create there with the trees, that you are going to have a horseshoe pit, is that it, a horseshoe pit?

MR. FAASSE: You have to ask Mr. Stinson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Stinson?

MR. STINSON: That is correct, yes, that is correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Stand up so we can catch you on the mic since you got to answer his questions please.

MR. MUKLEVICZ: And also with the horseshoe pit you are going to have some sort of recreation area right next to it?

MR. STINSON: We have provided a patio for picnic benches.

MR. MUKLEVICZ: Okay. My question being is there a possibility of putting these two areas on the other side of the lot? Because there seems to be open space over here. Yes? No?

MR. STINSON: We thought it was more appropriate to position it here because people could come without crossing the lane of traffic and we have it wider on this side. It would be possible if the Board would desire to make this wider on this side and narrower on this side and put it over there but then the residents would have further to walk. It would be possible should the Board require.

MR. MUKLEVICZ: How much further would they have to walk to get over here? I mean I don’t think would be a --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You still have to walk down the middle of the parking lot anyway.

MR. MUKLEVICZ: Yeah.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yeah, there are no sidewalks leading any place else.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, one at a time.

MR. STINSON: Yes, it would be possible to move.

MR. MUKLEVICZ: Any feedback from you gentlemen?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are asking questions of the engineer right now.

MR. MUKLEVICZ: Any feedback from anyone?

MR. FAASSE: You can ask the Board questions later -- you know -- you can make a statement later.

MR. MUKLEVICZ: Okay, okay.

MR. FAASSE: But right now it is the time to question the experts that are presented on behalf of the applicant.

MR. MUKLEVICZ: It is doable?

MR. STINSON: Yes, it is doable. Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Any other questions for the engineer?

MR. MUKLEVICZ: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Does anyone else have any questions?

MS. AXTELL: Linda Axtell.

MR. FAASSE: You are going to have to speak up.

MS. AXTELL: Linda Axtell A-X-T-E-L-L

MS. MAROTTA: And your address?

MS. AXTELL: 30 Pellington. Is this gray spot here part of the sidewalk?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Can we pick her up?

MR. STINSON: That is under the overhang of the building, it would be concrete sidewalk area.

MS. AXTELL: Okay. Is there other drains -- I know you are putting a lot of drainage in, is there any drains built in there to prevent runoff onto my property?

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

MR. GRYGUS: We are not putting her up on the mic.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pick up the microphone.

MR. FAASSE: When you say this side, we should identify that as being the southerly side, I think it is, of the building.

MS. AXTELL: I wanted to know if there were any drains built into the sidewalk to prevent runoff on to my property which is adjacent to where those sidewalks are? I know you have a lot of other french drains and everything else --

MR. STINSON: The sidewalk is pitched away from the building on all sides so that the building is slightly higher; the sidewalk is pitched to run the water towards the driveway. And as I said before, we do have the french drain on that side.

MS. AXTELL: All right. I don’t know if that is adequate then there, it looks like about a foot space between --

MR. STINSON: It is more than that.

MS. AXTELL: Oh okay. And then with the adjustment to the parking spaces, I believe last month somebody brought up the comment about snow removal. If we have a major snowstorm are there still going to be adequate parking spaces for all the tenants and the people renting the building?

MR. STINSON: Yes, there will be places to push the snow.

MS. AXTELL: Um-hum. And will the drains remain cleared?

MR. STINSON: They would function fine. In the wintertime when it is frozen it doesn’t move anyway, we usually put the snow on top of the drains and then when it melts it goes into the drains.

MS. AXTELL: What would be the issue if there was a heavy rain after a heavy snow?

MR. STINSON: Then it would just melt faster. It goes into the drains.

MS. AXTELL: But then the drains are covered, are they not?

MR. STINSON: The whole site is properly designed so that drains perfectly.

MS. AXTELL: And then with the signs that are going to advertise the medical offices with I guess in regards to the sight distance, are they -- I don’t know where they are going to be on the property, would they in any sense impede the view?

MR. STINSON: The sign is located in the middle of the property here.

MS. AXTELL: Okay.

MR. STINSON: It wouldn’t impede the view at all and the sight triangle is taken from the front here as the cars are pulling out of there.

MS. AXTELL: Okay, thank you.

MR. LEONARD: Will that sign have lightning?

MR. GREGOR: It is forward lighted your sign.

MR. LEONARD: What was that again?

MR. GREGOR: Forward lighting.

MR. STINSON: Yeah, it is on 3.1. Yeah, I think what we proposed is instead of like an electron backlit sign, this would be more decorative. It is a wood sign with masonry pillars next to it and we were proposing in ground lights that would shine on the sign.

MR. LUDWIG: You mean like spot light on the ground pointed up at the sign?

MR. STINSON: Towards the sign, that is what they call a forward lit sign, that is correct.

MR. LUDWIG: And that would be on all night?

MR. STINSON: No, as a matter of fact, we could limit the hours of the illuminated sign. We did add a note to the drawing, now that you brought that up, that the parking lot lights would be cut to half power after midnight. It would be kept on minimal level; for security purposes they would be lower after midnight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions -- any other questions? Please step forward.

MR. BURNS: Barry Burns 26 Pellington Street, Wanaque.

MR. FAASSE: Spell Burns.

MR. BURNS: B-U-R-N-S.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. BURNS: In regards to the trees, first off, what size trees do you plan on putting in as far as to be a buffer back there?

MR. STINSON: The arborvitaes that are shown which is the symbol that goes around here, we are calling for 148 arborvitaes and they are six to eight feet in height.

MR. BURNS: In height. And they are on the south side?

MR. STINSON: Yes, they are on the whole perimeter of the property, both sides north and south.

MR. BURNS: So basically it is more of a bush than a tree?

MR. STINSON: Well arborvitaes grow tall and narrow and then they grow together, almost forming like a hedge.

MR. BURNS: It is more of a hedge than a tree.

MR. STINSON: It is an evergreen tree.

MR. BURNS: Shrub.

MR. STINSON: They can grow tall.

MR. BURNS: And how tall are they projected to be?

MR. STINSON: They could grow to be maybe 12 feet over time or taller.

MR. BURNS: That is my problem is how much time? The other question is in regards to you were mentioning as far as garbage truck having access in and out and there was a discussion about the safety of vehicles coming in and out. People mentioned Fed Ex, I retired from UPS after 30 years and --

MR. CHAIRMAN: I’m sorry we didn’t mention UPS.

MR. BURNS: That’s okay, forgiven. The check is there the first of every month. But my question is most of their vehicles are anywhere from 30 to 40 foot and when you were talking about taking a turn, they do not take military turns. They need steering access to make a turn. If they are going northbound or if they are going southbound they would be impeding traffic going the other way.

MR. STINSON: We were talking about impeding traffic on the driveway side.

MR. BURNS: If they are heading north.

MR. STINSON: As we said before we are going to look at and evaluate a UPS truck.

MR. BURNS: All right. And what about a fire truck, God forbid if there was ever an emergency for them to have access in and out of there?

MR. STINSON: The fire truck would be able to pull in right next to the building in front and would have access to the building.

MR. BURNS: All right.

MR. COVELLI: Mr. Burns?

MR. BURNS: Yes?

MR. COVELLI: Is a Fed Ex truck longer than a UPS truck?

MR. BURNS: Box trucks are basically the same.

MR. COVELLI: Because if you want we can make them ban Fed Ex and only allow UPS.

MR. BURNS: I am retired and my check is there the first of every month so as long as that check is there I don’t have a problem with that. But my point is most of the vehicles are 30 foot or longer even the box vans. So that was my concern is like if you going to be putting people in hazard and risk every time somebody turns in and out make a delivery and I am sure there will be deliveries there every day. Thank you very much.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MS. RYAN: Lynn Ryan R-Y-A-N. One of the questions I have is --

MR. FAASSE: Address?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Address?

MS. RYAN: 18 Pellington. I have a question, they keep saying that it is all going to be medical buildings, I want to know what they are going to do with medical waste and hazard and whether it is going to be a two week -- two times a week or one time. In the winter or whether they are going to have their own personal pick ups so that there is not hazardous waste in the dumpsters or whatever areas. Because when they had Dunkin Donuts and a lot of other things we had problems with rats, pigeons, and all kinds of vermin collecting with the garbage lying around.

MR. FAASSE: I don’t know if that is a proper question for the engineer. Is that within your area?

MS. RYAN: Well I don’t know.

MR. FAASSE: I mean the architect --

MS. RYAN: I mean I don’t see any guarantees that it is going to be medical buildings.

MR. FAASSE: Well the architect said that there was going to be a dumpster on the site and all the medical garbage and waste would have to be handled in accordance with the guidelines that govern -- you know -- such disposal. But most of those like --

MS. RYAN: Is that all going to be in writing before this comes in?

MR. FAASSE: I do believe they are inside even. They have to retain them inside they don’t -- you know -- because they can throw hypodermic needles out in the garbage.

MS. RYAN: Okay, that would be wonderful.

MR. FAASSE: But counselor here is going to give us wisdom on this subject.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: What little remains. Mr. Stinson could not answer that question. Ms. Scro, I believe, discussed that at the last hearing indicating that there is a dumpster on the site. If these are medical uses, the medical waste will have to be dealt with in accordance with New Jersey State regulations and will have to be maintained within the building, within the offices so that they are under the control of the medical provider.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: So this applicant has no objection to that being included that we are going to comply with those requirements that medical waste be contained within the structure itself.

MR. LUDWIG: Are you saying then that the dumpsters are so the use of the residents on the second and third floor rather than --

MR. CHEWCASKIE: The dumpsters could be used by all, the residents and the commercial uses. There are specific requirements for medical waste as that is defined by statute and regulation, including hypodermic needles, etcetera. Those are maintained on site within each office and then disposed of by separate contract. But typical waste that would come either from a kitchen within an office or from -- you know -- the typical office trash, papers, etcetera would still go in those dumpsters.

MR. FAASSE: They have to segregate their garbage according to the classifications.

MS. RYAN: Okay, because they are just saying medical, you don’t know whether it is going to be an animal hospital or whatever. There could be dead carcass that needs to be removed or whatever, you don’t know. They are not being very specific on what kind of medical buildings are going to be there.

MR. LUDWIG: Do you guys have a tenant yet for the medicals?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: No Sir.

MR. LUDWIG: They weren’t being specific.

MS. RYAN: Well it could be -- it doesn’t even necessarily have to be medical. So it is all hearsay.

MR. FAASSE: I think the testimony at the last meeting was that they hope --

MS. RYAN: I was on vacation, I missed that.

MR. FAASSE: Well they hope to have medical but they are keeping themselves to an office use if they have to.

MS. RYAN: Okay. It is just that we have had previous problems with the waste.

MR. FAASSE: Isn’t that true Counselor? Counselor was -- was I right about that?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is correct Mr. Faasse.

MS. RYAN: Okay.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Is that the intention is that it will hopefully be medical.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. LEONARD: Well actually that brings up another question. It is not medical waste but like you always see Quest Laboratories -- you know -- medical samples, I think, or something; boxes. Is there an area designated for that?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: There would probably be an area inside Mr. Leonard, is that typically the office buildings if it was an entire medical office building would have an area inside where they can pick up the material. You know, sometimes you see like there is a little milk box outside the medical offices. For security purposes, you try to keep that within the building.

MR. LEONARD: Okay, so the answer is, there is not really any place outside let’s say a door.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Correct.

MR. LEONARD: That is designated for that.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Correct.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: It would be a lobby area if it was after hours.

MR. LEONARD: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions of the engineer?

MR. LUDWIG: But that is not by State law.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is correct.

MR. LUDWIG: That is just what you are stating --

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is the proposal.

MR. LUDWIG: -- their practice you would hope they would do.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That and we have no problem with that being a stipulation that that would be within --

MR. LUDWIG: Because I go to medical offices all over the place and you see them sitting outside.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Yeah, we don’t like them outside.

MR. FAASSE: Any other questions for the engineer? Okay we are complete with the engineer here?

MR. LEONARD: One more question. If you move that barbeque area to the other side, that would interfere with your traffic flow right? By moving that, if you moved it four feet, you are coming out four feet now that is going to change your incoming lane isn’t it?

MR. STINSON: I believe the traffic circulation would work fine if we made it wider. As you can see the north side is 15 feet, this is 21 feet. So we are talking about flipping it so this is wider on this side to provide the recreational area. It is a difference of six feet.

MR. LEONARD: I am talking where your curb is on your incoming, you are right there.

MR. STINSON: I am thinking about this.

MR. LEONARD: Yes.

MR. STINSON: As I said before we had an island that was removed. So this space is opened for maneuvering and I believe that there wouldn’t be any problems with the truck turning.

MR. LEONARD: Okay, thank you.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Chairman, did we get any comments from the emergency service personnel that I requested in previous letters?

MR. FAASSE: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don’t think so. You haven’t gotten anything back from the fire department, first aid or the police on this?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We have no reports from any of the borough departments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You requested information right? Have you requested reports back?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I don’t believe so. I think that we submitted in accordance with the requirements but we do not have any reports back from any agencies.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Just to be pointed though, did you actually write the fire department?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I did not.

MR. FAASSE: No you filed them here.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Correct.

MR. FAASSE: The problem is they might have not picked it up. So we might have to nudge them.

MR. GREGOR: Are we going to solicit them or how are we going do this?

MR. FAASSE: Well let’s -- you know -- we are right here. Are we done with the engineer now, no further questions for the engineer? Counsel do you have another witness?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I have one more witness, the planner Michael Kauker.

MR. FAASSE: Oh Mr. Kauker is here, I didn’t see him come in.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Junior.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, Junior, no wonder why I didn’t see him come in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are going to take a five-minute break.

MR. FAASSE: Five minute break.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Five minute break.

MR. FAASSE: How long do you expect your planner to be?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Direct should be 20 minutes.

MR. FAASSE: And that will conclude your presentation for tonight?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That will be for the direct case.

MR. FAASSE: All right. Because I got Mr. Acquaviva here, we don’t want to keep him forever. We are going to take a five-minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Five-minute quick.

FIVE-MINUTE RECESS

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let the record reflect that everyone is present that was present before our break. Counselor, you ready with your next witness?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Yes, I will call Michael Kauker please.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. GRYGUS: Junior.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Junior.

MR. KAUKER: Actually I’m not a Junior. It is a different --

MR. FAASSE: No it is a different, it is not a Junior.

MR. KAUKER: No.

MR. FAASSE: Well then don’t call Junior.

MR. KAUKER: But everybody calls me Junior.

MR. FAASSE: So what is the difference with the middle initial?

MR. KAUKER: D.

MR. FAASSE: You are a D?

MR. KAUKER: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: And Dad is a?

MR. KAUKER: An F.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, gee.

MR. GREGOR: Well you moved up one.

MR. GRYGUS: You are not much higher than he is then are you?

MR. KAUKER: No, not much.

MR. FAASSE: Can you believe it. All right.

MICHAEL KAUKER SWORN:

MR. FAASSE: Give us your full name, you spell you last name, even though some of us know it.

MR. KAUKER: Sure. Michael D. Kauker K-A-U-K-E-R.

MR. FAASSE: And you can give us a business address.

MR. KAUKER: It is 356 Franklin Avenue, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Mr. Kauker could you describe to the Board your professional education and experience please?

MR. KAUKER: Certainly. I am a licensed professional planner in the State of New Jersey. I am also a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. I have a B.A. in Political Science from Arizona State University and I also have a Master of Urban Planning from Hunter College in New York City. I have been employed in the field of planning since 1997. During that time, I have prepared master plan zoning ordinances. I’ve served as a consultant to various planning and zoning boards throughout the State of New Jersey as well as New York State. And I have testified on numerous occasions and have been accepted as an expert witness in front of many Boards in Bergen County, Passaic County, Hudson County throughout the State of New Jersey.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And as part of your employment Mr. Kauker you regularly testify in the field of planning before planning and zoning boards throughout the State of New Jersey.

MR. KAUKER: Yes, that is correct.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And that would be both for applicants and representing municipalities or other government agencies?

MR. KAUKER: Yes, that is correct.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: And could you tell the Board some of the municipalities in which you have testified recently?

MR. KAUKER: Upper Saddle River, Ridgewood, Mahwah, Parsippany, West New York, Hoboken, do you want me to continue?

MR. FAASSE: Dad always takes Wayne huh?

MR. KAUKER: Pardon?

MR. FAASSE: Dad always takes Wayne.

MR. KAUKER: Yes, he does.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Mr. Chairman, I would submit Mr. Kauker as an expert in the field of planning.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we will accept him.

MR. FAASSE: Just one question. Do you happen to know your license number?

MR. KAUKER: It is 5737.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. And it is in good force and effect as of tonight?

MR. KAUKER: It is.

MR. FAASSE: Very good.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you.

DIRECT EXAMINATION OF MR. KAUKER BY MR. CHEWCASKIE:

Q Mr. Kauker can you describe to the Board what you were retained to do on behalf of Reality Associates Redevelopment?

A Certainly. With respect to the application our main charge was to review the application from a planning and zoning standpoint and provide the Board with a requisite criteria from the Municipal Land Use Law for the Use Variance.

Q Okay. And are you familiar with the existing and surrounding conditions of the property?

A Yes, in further of my testimony, I did have an opportunity to take a look at the subject property and the surrounding area.

Q Okay. And can you describe to the Board what you found?

A Certainly. With respect to the existing conditions, the property is located at 547 Ringwood Avenue. It is located on the westerly side of Ringwood Avenue. It is identified as Block 231; Lot 11 and it is actually located within two separate zoning districts. This map doesn’t depict it but generally the front portion of the property along Ringwood Avenue is the B District and the rear -- about the front three quarters of the property and about the rear quarter of the property is located in the R10 District.

Q And Mr. Kauker you are referring to the Burton Engineering colorized site plan that we marked as A-4 today, correct?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q Thank you.

A With respect to the existing property conditions, the property is currently vacant, it is fenced in. It formerly had or was occupied by a school building and an associated parking area.

Q Could you describe the surrounding development to this site?

A Certainly. First what I am going to do is I have prepared an Exhibit; I have smaller copies I’ll pass out for the Board.

Q If you could just identify what that is and then mark it as A-6.

A Sure.

Q What you have done is handed out, I guess, smaller sheets, which are identical to what is on the larger sheet which you will mark as A-6?

A Yes, that is correct. The title of the Exhibit is Existing Conditions and Surrounding Neighborhood Characteristics for 547 Ringwood Avenue. A-6?

Q Yes, please Mr. Kauker.

MR. FAASSE: And just date it -- you know -- 8/1/07.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mark it A-6 Gerri and that you keep in your folder.

MR. FAASSE: She going to make a folder.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MR. KAUKER: Essentially the Exhibit depicts the buildings in the surrounding area, Pictures A-I. Additionally there is an aerial photograph showing the general location of the photographs and also a copy of your tax map indicating the same thing. If you look at Picture A, it shows the subject A. Pictures B and C are properties that are located immediately to the south of the subject property. They are both two-story buildings.

MR. GRYGUS: Mr. Kauker?

MR. KAUKER: Yes.

MR. GRYGUS: If I could stop you for a minute.

MR. KAUKER: Sure.

MR. GRYGUS: Since we all have a hand out, perhaps, you could reposition that easel where the public can see it more because I think we are all looking at the copies right in front of us. And then the public has an opportunity to see what you are describing. I didn’t mean to interrupt you Mr. Kauker.

MR. KAUKER: No, no, that’s okay, I may have to move it back just -- how about if I position it like this, can the Board see it that way as well?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We’ll follow you on this.

MR. KAUKER: I do have another exhibit; it is just a blow up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. KAUKER: I was talking about Pictures B and C, which depict the two buildings located immediately to the south of the subject property. They are two-story buildings. And I know that both of these properties were recently applications that were before the Board and it appears there are some vacant uses along the ground floor. The only existing use that I saw was a computer business on the ground floor and it appeared that the upper stories were apartment type uses. But I am sure the Board is familiar with that as I just heard an application with respect the this property and I believe it or was going to be used for some sort of shelter type home with respect to the apartment units on the upper floors. Picture D represents the property just to the north of the subject property; this is an existing two-family home. Further to the north there is, as located in Picture E, it appears there is a mixed-use building with two retail uses on the first floor. There is a florist and then there is a hair, nail and tanning salon as well. It appears that there are residential apartment uses on the upper floor. Further north there is a Chinese restaurant and, again, there appears to be some sort of residential use on the second floor as well but it was hard to ascertain exactly how many units or the exact nature of the use from the field. If you look at Pictures G, H and I, those are taken of properties that are on the opposite side or the east side of Ringwood Avenue. Picture G depicts the yellow two and a half to two story building, it contains an ice cream parlor or a sweet shop, a barber and it contains a printing business as well. Immediately across the street there is an auto repair facility and immediately adjacent to that there is a two and a half story building, but it wasn’t clear in inspection of the field exactly what that building was used for. The surrounding area can be generally characterized as containing a mixture of different types of land uses including office, restaurant, retail, commercial and residential type uses. With respect to the surrounding characteristics, one thing I did want to point out and the Board has it on the bottom right hand corner, it is a copy of your tax map or a section of your tax map and I have a blow-up here, I’m sure the Board can see it, but I will put it up for the public.

BY MR. CHESCASKIE:

Q Why don’t we mark that as A-7 Mr. Kauker?

A This doesn’t have a title; it is just a blow-up of what you see on that Exhibit there.

MR. FAASSE: With the A, B, C, and D and everything?

A Yes, that is correct. The tax map that is shown on the lower right hand portion of that Exhibit, this is just a blow-up of that. And what I had done is highlighted the subject property in blue and one of the things that I wanted to point out is the uniqueness of the subject property with respect to properties fronting along Ringwood Avenue and the surrounding area. It is much larger than the other properties that are located on either side of Ringwood Avenue in the immediately area. So I wanted to point that out to the Board and, obviously, point out that it is somewhat unique. One of the other things that I wanted to point out is the width of the property is 100 feet, which is wider than most of the properties on Ringwood Avenue but the depth is over 400 feet which much deeper than most, actually, all of the other properties located in this area of Wanaque along Ringwood Avenue.

Q Just, not to interrupt your train of thought, Mr. Kauker, but going back to A-6, I noticed that there were 9 photographs. You had also an aerial photograph and a portion of the tax map in the lower right hand corner.

A Correct.

Q And those have been keyed to the photographs that appear on that exhibit.

A Yes, that is correct.

Q Thank you.

A Two other things to point out with respect to the surrounding land uses which do not, I do not have pictures of, but also to the south of the property along Pellington Street, there are a number of single family homes, as you know, with detached garages located to the rear of those properties. Predominately, to the rear of the property is vacant, although I was told that it is used for some sort of agricultural type use. So those, essentially, give you a flavor and I am sure you are all familiar of the subject property and the surrounding area.

Q Could you describe the proposed development?

A Yes, with respect to, I won’t go into too much detail because I know the Board has heard this from the engineer and both the architect, but we are proposing a three-story mixed-use building. There are offices that will be located on the ground floor, 3,600 square feet of office space. There are going to be 12 residential apartment units located on the second and third floors, a number of which are duplex units. With respect to the offices, I don’t think that it is known, at this point in time, how that is going to be divided but I think that the office space generally could be divided in any manor. I think with respect to this type of office use, given 3,600 square feet and it being a medical office, I think they would range anywhere from about 400 square feet to a little over 1,000 square feet per unit. So I think, when you look at this type of use in the 3,600 square feet -- you know -- I think that probably you would have it divided into either two offices or probably up to about six offices, with respect to this particular property or the proposed development. With respect to access, obviously, the engineer went over that in detail. We did move the ingress and egress from the last meeting. With respect to parking, the parking area is provided in the rear of the property. We are proposing 43 parking spaces, where 42 are required by your zoning ordinance. In addition, the engineer testified in great length and detail with respect to screening to the adjacent properties. Both the property and the parking area will be suitably screened with landscaping and a fence as well.

Q Could you describe to the Board the relationship of this project to the guide that is in the Borough’s Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance?

A Certainly. As part of my preparation for my testimony I did have an opportunity to review the last Master Plan Reexamination Report. It was prepared by Jill Hartman, and it was prepared in 2002. It does contain a number of goals and objectives, which carry over from previous documents. Two of those goals and objectives, I thought, were pertinent to this development and I will quote the Master Plan directly. Goal number 2 reads to encourage the development of appropriate commercial, industrial employment and recreational facilities to serve the needs of all Borough residents and help to maintain a stable tax base. What we are proposing is a productive use of a currently underutilized and vacant property. Something that, obviously, is going to help to bolster the tax base within the community. Goal number 4 is to provide for specific mixed use redevelopment sites in the Haskell section of the Borough to revitalize the neighborhood and strengthen its economic base. Although this property isn’t located specifically within the Haskell Redevelopment area, I think the characteristics are somewhat similar where you have a number of older buildings and I think that this project could serve as a catalyst for further redevelopment within the area. With respect to the zoning ordinance, I also indicated to the Board that the property is located in two separate zones. The front portion being the B Business Zone. The building will be located entirely within that district and, obviously, the R10 Zone to the rear. The use, as proposed, is essentially permitted within the zone because the zoning ordinance does permit a mixed use with ground floor retail, commercial or office component and second floor residential unit. Your ordinance does place a limitation with respect to there only being two units allowed. Therefore, we are requesting a use variance from the Zoning Board and, hence, that is why we are here before you this evening.

Q Okay. With respect to the variances Mr. Kauker, could you address the Use Variances that are required as part of this application?

A Certainly. As I mentioned, just previously, we do or we are requesting a D1 Use Variance and we are also requesting, depending upon -- we have actually two alternatives with respect to the height of the building. One of the alternatives with the peak roof, we would require what is called a D6 Variance, it would be a D Variance under the Municipal Land Use Law. Obviously, if we went with a flat roof, no variance from height would be required from the ordinance.

Q If we can focus on the Use Variance for now Mr. Kauker.

A Certainly.

Q Have you done an analysis to determine if the site was suitable and whether this Board could grant the variance under the criteria established under the Land Use Law?

A Yes, I have. With respect to the D1 Use Variance, the Municipal Land Use Law outlines the statutory criteria for a variance approval. In order for the Board to grant a Use Variance the applicant must make an affirmative showing of what is called the positive and the negative criteria. I’m sure the Board has heard this before so I won’t go into too much detail. Essentially, the positive criteria states that a variance can only be granted in particular cases and for special reasons. Essentially, the applicant must show that either the site is inherently or the use is inherently beneficial or that the general welfare is promoted because the site is particularly suited for the proposed use. In addition, we also have to make a showing of the negative criteria; it consists of two parts. The first part we must show that there will be no substantial detriment to the public good; namely the surrounding area. And the second part we must show that there will be no substantial impairment to the intent and purpose of the Master Plan or Zoning Ordinance. Further required under Medici with respect to a D1 Use Variance is an enhanced quality of proof wherein we must reconcile the omission of the proposed use from the Master Plan and Zoning Ordinance. With respect to this application, it is my opinion that, obviously, we are not an inherently beneficial use but it is my opinion that the site is particularly suited for the proposed use for the following reasons: 1) The location. I went over before the location of the property along Ringwood Avenue and its relationship to the surrounding land uses. There are a number of other mixed-use type developments in the area and I think that this proposed use is consistent and compatible with the existing uses. I also believe that this a redevelopment opportunity for the property and, as I said, it is something that could serve as a catalyst for further redevelopment in the future in the area; similar to the Haskell area. In addition, the property size, as I noted before, it is over an acre and it is much larger than other properties located in the area. It is also much larger than the minimum lot area requirement for the zoning ordinance. Your ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet; the subject property is more than four times the size of the minimum lot area for other properties that are located in the B District. So I think given the fact that the property is much larger, I think it can adequately accommodate the proposed development and the number of units, the 12 residential units that are proposed, a combination of those units as well. With respect to the height variance --

Q Before you get to the height variance Mr. Kauker, just so that I am clear, it is my understanding that the use that is being proposed on this site is, in fact, permitted, both the commercial aspect and the residential aspect. The limitations that were imposed by the ordinance were two units per, I guess, one commercial use. Am I saying that correctly or maybe you can say it better?

A Yeah I think -- you are correct. It is somewhat unique because it, in my opinion, it is somewhat of a hybrid use variance because, obviously, the uses are permitted, there is just a limitation on the number of units as defined in the ordinance, therefore, the use variance kicks in. As I said, it is limited to two units and I think when you take a look at the two-unit limitation and you take a look at the zoning requirements, that is essentially based upon a 10,000 square foot minimum lot for that area. When you take a look at the combination of those factors and the fact that the property is much larger than that minimum zoning requirement, you can obviously have a larger building on the property, which is what we are proposing. And I think the larger the office component is, I think lends itself to additional units, as Mr. Chewcaskie put it, the limitation of two units per office. As I had mentioned before, you could break this or divide this building up into about six separate offices. That would be 600 square feet a piece, which I think is something that is adequate. I did take a look at listings for office type uses within northern New Jersey between zero and 1,000 square feet and there were a number of properties listed as low as or office spaces as low as 200 square feet. So I think when you are looking at this property if you assume that there was going to be a 600 square foot office, the result in number of offices would be six. And if you multiple that by the two-unit limitation, you could essentially obviously have 12. So I think that that is --

MR. CHAIRMAN: How would you fit our minimum size apartment over a 200 square foot office?

MR. KAUKER: Well the minimum -- you do have a minimum in the ordinance of 700, it is 750 square feet. So -- you know -- that’s very close to that 600 square feet. Because your ordinance does have a limitation also, I think, on the size, which is 750 square feet with respect to apartments. So if -- you know -- one of the things I think another way to look at it is since the property is larger it obviously can accommodate a taller building, therefore, it can accommodate a greater number of units. One thing that we are not looking for here is a density variance. But when you do review a density variance, the burden of proof is somewhat different. You have to show that the site can accommodate an increase in the number of units notwithstanding the deviation from what your ordinance requires. I think with respect to the site that we have here, if you were to go along that line of reasoning and that analysis I think obviously given the fact that we do have a large site, we do provide sufficient parking, we have substantial building setbacks with respect to the building, we met all of the setback requirements in your ordinance, with exception of a side yard setback which I will get into later. I think that obviously this property given its size and its location and other characteristics can accommodate the proposed development.

Q Mr. Kauker could use address the height variances also and I believe you indicated that as an alternative but could you address the first alternative that was provided regarding for a peaked roof?

A Certainly, with respect to the first alternative, we proposed a building that was three stories with a peaked roof that would be 41.58 inches in height. 35 feet is permitted under the ordinance. Because we exceed that by 10 percent, we are required to make showing for a D Variance or a D6 Variance with respect to this application. With respect to the height, I would submit to the Board that essentially it is really a product of providing the peaks on the roof. As was mentioned by the architect, if we were to have a flat roof on the property we would meet the height requirement. So I think given the aesthetic and architectural benefit of having a building with a peak roof that is going to be more visually interesting, I think it is something that would be a benefit to the area. I think if you look again, I will refer to the Haskell Redevelopment Area to look at the structure that is being built there does have peaks and I think it does lend some visual interest. With respect to the mitigating factors of the height, I think, as I said before, we do meet all of the building setbacks in the zone with respect to, or with the exception of a side yard setback. The property is very large so I think that the height of the building is mitigated as well and I think the visual appeal from the building also is something that will mitigate the impact of the height on the surrounding area.

Q Now Mr. Kauker are there any other variances that are required as a result of this application?

A We do require two other variances, they are both C Variances or they are identified as C Variances under the Municipal Land Use Law. The first is for a side yard setback. The zoning ordinance requires that this property, although it is located in the B Zoning District, comply with the side yard requirement of your R10 Zoning District, which is 10 feet. We are proposing a setback of 11 feet. I do want to point out that we do meet the requirement of the B Zone, which is a 10-foot requirement, which is the zone that we are actually located in or the building is actually located in. With respect to the deviation, I think it is mitigated as we do meet the requirement that is located in the B Zone. Furthermore, you have a combined setback requirement for side yards, which is 25 feet, where we are proposing 43.9 feet. So I think given the fact that we do substantially meet the combined side yard requirement, I think that the side yard setback is mitigated. Again, this is a product of us having to meet the requirements of the R10 District and not the B District. And I think that when you take a look at setbacks with respect to buildings located along Ringwood Avenue, at least in my opinion, I think it would probably be more appropriate to comply with the underlying requirements of the zone because typically you would have buildings in the area that have a 10 foot setback rather than a 15 foot setback in the area and I think that it is something that would help to complete the streetscape and make the building be more consistent with the other buildings and side yard setbacks in the area. In addition there is, and I know there was some discussion on this before with respect to the signage, we do require a variance for sign height and it is actually the location of the sign. We are proposing a sign that is located 36.25 feet above ground level on the building, where your ordinance only permits 16 feet. And I know that this was gone over before but from a planning standpoint I think that what the intent of this was, was to have it be incorporated as an integral design element of the building. And, obviously, from that standpoint I think it is something that would be a benefit to the community and I think that it is something that, obviously, wouldn’t have an impact related to signage.

Q Mr. Kauker, I believe you testified that the site would be suitable for the proposed development. Am I correct?

A Yes, that is correct.

Q And do you find that the site has any unique characteristics including its size, shape and location which would lend to that determination?

A Yes, as I mentioned before I think the subject property is somewhat unique because of obviously its size. As I mentioned before it is much larger than other properties in the area and it is also much larger than the minimum lot area requirements for both the B Business District and the R10 Zone. I think that it is a property that is located in an area that can accommodate this type of use. It is a use that is compatible with other uses in the area. As I mentioned, there are a number of mixed-use type buildings adjacent to this building and also in the surrounding area. Also I think it is something that could serve as a catalyst for redevelopment within the area as well.

Q Do you believe that there would be any substantial detriment to the surrounding neighborhood if the variances requested were granted by this Board, the use, height, signage and side yard?

A It is my opinion that there will not be a substantial detriment as a result of this development. As I said before there is going to be substantial buffering in the form of landscaping and fencing that is going to separate this building from other properties in the area. It is, I think something -- the building itself has a very aesthetically pleasing architectural design; something that I think is going to have a positive visual impact on the surrounding area as well. And as I said before, it does meet pretty much all of your setback requirements in the ordinance with the exception of the minor deviation from your side yard setback. I think the height is something that is appropriate for the area given the fact that you have peaked roofs and I think that that lends itself from a visual standpoint and also mitigates any visual impacts on the surrounding area, rather than having a tall massive building at that height. And I think that obviously when you are weighing a peaked roof with a variance and a flat roof that doesn’t have a variance, as I said before, it has some appeal and it has some visual interests that the building creates as well. So, in my opinion, I don’t think that there will be an impact on the surrounding area as result of this development. One other thing, obviously, as I noted before we do meet the minimum parking requirements and I think given the fact that this is a mixed use, obviously, the peak parking demand or peak traffic demand, they don’t occur at the same time so I don’t think there is going to be a substantial increase in traffic, cumulative impact from the subject property.

Q Do you believe that there would be an impairment to the Master Plan or Zoning Ordinance if this Board were to grant the variances requested?

A It is my opinion that there would not be a substantial impairment on the intent and purpose of the Master Plan or Zoning Ordinance. As I mentioned before I cited a number of goals and objectives from the Master Plan, which in my opinion this application furthered. And also I think that even though this development requires a use variance, as I mentioned, it is somewhat of a hybrid use variance because both uses are contemplated and permitted and this mixed use is permitted in the zone. So I think that this is something that is consistent with both your Zoning Ordinance and your Master Plan. And from the Medici Enhanced Quality of Proof standpoint, I think given the fact that these uses are contemplated in your zoning ordinance, I think we do meet the enhanced quality of proof with respect to the application as well.

Q Thank you Mr. Kauker. I have no further questions of Mr. Kauker.

MR. GRYGUS: I have a couple of questions for Mr. Kauker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.

MR. GRYGUS: I don’t know if you can answer this question or counsel, the residential units are they to be rental units?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: These are proposed to be condominiums.

MR. GRYGUS: Condominiums, individual ownership.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Correct.

MR. GRYGUS: Are you proposing any of those to be affordable housing units?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: No.

MR. GRYGUS: With respect to your opinion that it meets the Borough’s planning and intent in the mixed use you quoted Ms. Hartman’s analysis that it was proposing redevelopment as mixed use to stabilize tax base. I would challenge that a little bit in comparing this site to the site in Haskell in that there is a tremendous dichotomy between the mixed use on that site as opposed to the mixed use that is going to be on this site, that you are proposing on this site, with respect to stabilization of taxes. Down there you have retail with business over, over here you are proposing professional with residential, which is going to have very little impact down there from a tax standpoint as opposed to over here, you are going to be impacting schools and things of that nature. So I would ask you just to elaborate how you would draw the comparison between the two and that the mixed use in that building is very very different to the mixed uses you are proposing over here.

MR. KAUKER: Are you referring to the residential component and the fact that they generate additional population and possible school children?

MR. GRYGUS: Yes.

MR. KAUKER: I did not do a specific analysis but I can tell you from experience that a two bedroom unit doesn’t generate a significant number of school children. With respect to residential uses and -- you know -- generating school children and impacts on communities, a single family home by far is the most expensive in terms of that. Multiple family homes generally don’t, specifically, apartments don’t generate as many school children typically, so the impact would be somewhat lessened. In addition, remember we have only 12 units that are located. I would agree that the dichotomy is somewhat different because you are dealing with a much larger project down in the Haskell areas as well.

MR. GRYGUS: But it would be fair to say that there is going to be more of an impact from a residential use than there is from a retail/professional use?

MR. KAUKER: There would be a slight impact but I don’t think that it would be a drastic or substantial impact.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay. Explain to us maybe why you didn’t propose either two floors of business or, perhaps, a retail/professional environment as they had down there. I mean you look through the town here, there is one professional building that I can think of in the entire town that isn’t in the town center at all. I believe that it is something that is drastically needed and I am just curious as why you didn’t consider just two floors or three floors of professional.

MR. KAUKER: Of professional offices. I couldn’t answer that directly -- you know -- that would probably be a question directed to the applicant. But -- you know -- one of the things that we are proposing here is medical office and from my experience typically medical offices are generally located on first floors they don’t -- you know -- they are not really located on upper floors of buildings.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay, thank you.

MR. GREGOR: I have a couple of questions if no one else does.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, you want to go first, okay.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Kauker, you had made a very unique comparison in my judgment to the size of the property versus the permitted two residential units over a business unit on the first floor. I gathered that what you were doing is justifying the number of residential units due to the size of the property. Am I correct on that?

MR. KAUKER: Well I was just basically using that as a comparison for the Board indicating that your zoning ordinance contemplates much smaller lot areas in the business zone. Now with respect to this application, it is a Use Variance with respect to the use, as a result of the way your ordinance defines the use. In some other ordinances they may have indicated that mix use is permitted but put a density requirement on it, specifically, call it a density requirement, which would, obviously, we would require a different form of a D Use Variance with respect to that. The burden of proof is not as great with respect to the fact that we wouldn’t have to provide the Medici Enhanced Quality of Proof. But I think that the reason why I brought it up is to show -- one thing was to show that I think that what we are proposing on this site is appropriate and really not an over utilization of the property.

MR. GREGOR: The reason I asking is that because, obviously, the ordinance is very specific it permits two residential dwelling units over ground --

MR. KAUKER: Ground floor commercial.

MR. GREGOR: Ground floor commercial.

MR. KAUKER: Correct.

MR. GREGOR: And it does not distinguish between lot size.

MR. KAUKER: Well the ordinance has a minimum requirement of 10,000 square feet.

MR. GREGOR: 10,000 correct.

MR. KAUKER: Right.

MR. GREGOR: Let’s use that 10,000 square feet. Your property is roughly what over four times that size?

MR. KAUKER: Yeah, it is specifically 44,997 square feet.

MR. GREGOR: All right, using that criteria, I could see your argument, arguing for approximately 8 dwelling units where we have 12 here.

MR. KAUKER: Um-hum.

MR. GREGOR: My concern is this, obviously, with the business use and the density of residential use you have here, you are requiring a lot more parking and paved area which leaves very little space for the -- for open space for the use by the residents. I think you had indicated that these were condos rather than rental units?

MR. KAUKER: I think, I don’t know if this was address.

MR. FAASSE: The attorney did.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I represented that Mr. Gregor.

MR. GREGOR: I’m sorry, the attorney represented that these were condo style, I guess.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Correct, they would be condominiums.

MR. GREGOR: And the common area that was the usable by the residents would be the areas surrounding the parking lots. There is no dedicated open space for use by residents. I would like you to address that from a planning perspective as far as good planning for residential use.

MR. KAUKER: Well from a planning standpoint, I think you have to take a look at the property in context of the area in where it is located and typically when you are located along a main street type area, which Ringwood Avenue is, you typically have smaller properties and they are a little more confined and you typically don’t see properties with large expanse of recreation opportunities and open space in those types of areas. Usually when you have a multiple family development that is on a much larger parcel outside -- you know -- the area of influence of a downtown or main street type area, which Ringwood Avenue essentially is running through Wanaque -- you know -- I think that you see a little less open space with respect to those types of developments. I think that the open space that is provided I think, at least, in my opinion, is sufficient for this type of development in this type of area. We are providing a garden area, a couple of garden areas, we are proposing a seating bench and also we are proposing a horseshoe pit as well for the residents. So I think for a direct answer in my opinion I think that what we are proposing here is sufficient given the location of the property in this -- along Ringwood Avenue.

MR. GREGOR: Do you feel that the amount of open areas available, supports the density of residential that is being proposed or do you feel it would be a better plan if there were fewer residential and more open space, from a planning perspective?

MR. KAUKER: Well from a planning standpoint when you are talking about the difference of 12 units or a few more or a few less and, again, I didn’t do a specific analysis with respect to the number of persons that would be generated as a result of this development neither did I do an analysis of the number of persons generated and what impact or what they are required for open space. I know there are certain requirements and certain criteria that do address those issues. But -- you know -- when you are dealing with 12 units, I don’t think that if you go -- you know -- up or down two or three units, I don’t think it is going to have a significant impact on the amount of open space that is provided for on the property and the number of persons that it serves. Essentially when you are dealing with -- you know -- with a smaller apartment type unit, there generally is some sort of open space amenity or other types of amenities. In this case we have the horseshoe pit. I mean I have seen other types of amenities proposed and I think for this development, given the size, I think that is something -- you know -- that is appropriate for this development under these circumstances.

MR. GREGOR: One other area that I would like to explore. I didn’t hear any discussion on the justification for the C Variance, the setback variance.

MR. KAUKER: Um-hum.

MR. GREGOR: Other then the building is larger, therefore, we need a variance from the side yard setback. If you had a smaller building, let’s say four foot smaller, you wouldn’t need a variance. Is there any particular uniqueness in the shape of size of this property that justifies that variance?

MR. KAUKER: Well with the building, obviously, it is very very long and it is 100 feet -- you know -- with respect to the side yard setback of 11 feet, it really only goes to the two bump outs that are provided along this side of the building, along the southerly side of the building where it encroaches on that 15 feet. If you look at -- I don’t know if the Board can see it from here, but there is a bump out to the rear portion of the building and about the middle portion of the building. The remainder of the building meets the 15-foot setback requirement. So for the most part the building does meet the setback requirement and I think that the bump out was primarily to provide some sort of -- you know -- visual appeal so you don’t have a building going straight back. So I think that the benefit in the architectural design of the building I think is something that outweighs any detriment. Especially, given the fact that you have a long -- I believe the landscaping that is provided along here basically serves as a hedge or buffer to the surrounding areas. If you look at the surrounding land uses you have these two story masonry buildings located directed to the south, which are most closer to the property line than the proposed building is. And if you look at the two residential lots that are closest to this portion of the building, they obviously have framed garages that are located to the rear of the property. So -- you know -- I think when you weigh the benefits and the detriments of that deviation, I think from a planning standpoint and a logical standpoint I think that it is something that is not going to have a significant impact and I think is justifiable given the visual uniqueness of the building.

MR. GREGOR: Well I am just going to take issue with just two things that you stated. First of all, when looking at the site plan, it appears that even the portions that are not bumped out encroach into that 15-foot area, slightly.

MR. KAUKER: Yeah, you are correct. In looking at it closer, I couldn’t tell you what the dimensions are but the 15-foot setback line is just beyond the actual building line.

MR. GREGOR: And the second thing is one of the reasons that the Board is concerned about a setback variance is when the structure on the adjacent lot also has a variance because the distance between buildings and the ability for the emergency personnel, firefighting etcetera to have adequate access between buildings becomes a concern.

MR. KAUKER: Right.

MR. GREGOR: So those are the two areas that I just wanted to take slight issue with your testimony.

MR. KAUKER: Okay, if I could just address that.

MR. GREGOR: Certainly.

MR. KAUKER: If I could just address the last issue. From a practical standpoint -- you know -- I would agree with you that obviously we need to provide the ability for your fire apparatus emergency personnel to access the building. But your B District does permit buildings to have a 10-foot side yard setback within the zone. So if it weren’t for the fact that we are a mixed use we could have a building that is 10 feet from the property line. So you would have that situation exist in any event in the B Zone.

MR. GREGOR: I agree. However, the loss of property value and the risk of residents are night and day and that is why we increase the setback requirements. I believe, that is my opinion. I think firefighting and health and safety of the residents is a primary concern, that is why I mentioned that. And I think, I am not sure, but I think that is why they have increased setbacks or one of the reasons anyhow.

MR. KAUKER: As I said before -- you know -- it is my opinion that when you are dealing with situations of properties that are located in downtown areas such as this that when they have interchangeable of various setbacks, different requirements or even different uses in the same zoning area, to me it creates somewhat of a chaotic development pattern. I think from -- you know -- at least from my standpoint, if you have uniform setbacks in an area such as this, I think it creates a much more harmonious area and relationship as the buildings relate to the streetscape. But -- you know -- there are different reasons why they do that because I have seen ordinances and I represent communities myself that will have different requirements for different uses in the same zone. I don’t necessarily agree with the logic but there are requirements like that out there.

MR. GREGOR: Thank you. That is all the questions I have right now Mr. Chairman.

MR. FAASSE: I have a couple. Mr. Kauker it might not be a fair question to you but we went from 14 units down to 12, do you know where the two units are that are going to be deleted and are we picking it up by increasing the size of the other 12 units?

MR. KAUKER: I think that would -- I don’t know exactly where they are but I believe they were four one-bedrooms that were previously proposed, we are converting them into two bedroom units.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, well we can get that I guess at some point from the applicant. Now from a planning point of view, you heard the question asked of the engineer and I am sure that the question is going to come out from the pubic; considering the existing uses of the properties that surround this particular subject lot, would there be a good planning reason to flip the recreational area from the south side of the lot to the north side? What I am just saying is that from a planning point of view considering the existing uses?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Mr. Faasse, maybe to save time, during the break and we figured we wouldn’t finish tonight; we will probably in all likelihood do that with the areas.

MR. FAASSE: Well I just wanted his opinion as to whether or not that would be, from a planning point of view, some benefit for that.

MR. KAUKER: From a planning, you mean the horseshoe pit you are talking about?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah.

MR. KAUKER: Flipping it from this side to that side.

MR. FAASSE: Considering the surrounding uses, that’s all. It seems like residential to the south to the north there is more open space and everything else.

MR. KAUKER: Yeah, I mean, obviously, there are -- yeah, there are no uses that are located to the north of the southerly property in that area.

MR. FAASSE: So any recreation area --

MR. KAUKER: Yeah, I mean I don’t think that horseshoe pit creates much of a -- you know -- it is kind of a benign use.

MR. FAASSE: Go over this with me.

MR. KAUKER: Um-hum.

MR. FAASSE: Since you are the expert. Why are we not dealing with a density issue in this particular application? In an R10 Zone, which is part of the lot --

MR. KAUKER: Right.

MR. FAASSE: -- the town allows one unit per 10,000.

MR. KAUKER: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. In the B Zone, if you will, two rentals on a 10,000 square foot lot, I would say 5,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Two dwelling units.

MR. FAASSE: Two dwelling units or two rentals.

MR. KAUKER: Well two dwelling units are permitted above, I mean if you want to specifically quote --

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, in the B Zone. So that would be --

MR. KAUKER: In the B Zone, right.

MR. FAASSE: So that would be one unit per 5,000.

MR. KAUKER: The intent essentially is to, since it is a business zone, to maintain that commercial presence or retail presence on the ground floor while having residential uses above it.

MR. FAASSE: So following up on what our engineer just asked you before then, so even if we took the entire track as being the B Zone and roughly 45,000 square feet, you are maxing out at 9 units. Why isn’t this a density variance for the extra three units?

MR. KAUKER: Well we are requested a Use Variance, which I think that is encompassed within the request for the Use Variance.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. KAUKER: Density Variances are very specific and -- you know -- I know there, I am not an attorney but I know there is case law out there that does talk about -- you know -- certain other factors and limitations that would require the applicant to seek a density variance. But that is why I said, initially, that this is somewhat a hybrid use variance.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. KAUKER: The uses are permitted it is just that there is a limitation. But the way I believe it is spelled out in the ordinance, I think it requires a D-1 Use Variance.

MR. FAASSE: And the density you would say would have a lower burden of proof than the normal use variance.

MR. KAUKER: Well you are not required to provide the Enhanced Quality of Proof.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. KAUKER: As required in a D1 Use Variance.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. KAUKER: And, obviously, you don’t need to show particular suitability. It is somewhat different as well. There are somewhat different standards that apply to the density variance.

MR. FAASSE: All right. So you are going with the one with the higher proof.

MR. KAUKER: Yeah, well, obviously, what we are providing testimony for is we are taken the conservative approach and providing the Enhanced Quality of Proof that is required.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. That is all the questions I have Mr. Chairman. Anybody else from the Board?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anybody else have any questions of the planner?

MR. FAASSE: The public?

MR. COVELLI: Mr. Kauker, I am not a planner. But when I look at this application, my first thought process is it is a B Zone --

MR. KAUKER: Correct.

MR. COVELLI: The property directly north of this property is a residential unit.

MR. KAUKER: That is correct.

MR. COVELLI: On a very long -- on a piece of property that shares the same characteristics as this piece of property.

MR. KAUKER: You mean that two-family --

MR. COVELLI: In that it is very long and narrow.

MR. KAUKER: The two-family home?

MR. COVELLI: Yes.

MR. KAUKER: It is about half the size of the subject property if you look at the zoning map.

MR. COVELLI: But the characteristic of it being rectangular in shape, if you want to use that terminology, or long and narrow, whatever terminology suits your fancy. Would you say there should have been or should there be an attempt for the property to be merged with this property and would that enhance this project?

MR. KAUKER: I don’t think so because it is a rather small piece of property in relationship to this property. I mean if you look at the tax map it is about 50 feet, I want to say by about 260 and if you were to merge the two properties you obviously would have an odd shape parcel. They don’t match up with the respect to the length, the depth of the properties is different. As I said, our property is over 400 about 450 feet in depth and the adjacent property is much narrower and about 260 feet in depth.

MR. COVELLI: I didn’t say that they would match up. What I am saying is that you would add additional space to this lot, which would give you more space for recreation. It would give you more space. We spent time before talking about driveway entrances and widths of passage etcetera and we were talking about adding two feet here and four feet here. And you are saying 50 feet is not a big deal. Well when we were scrapping for 4 feet an hour ago, I think 50 feet becomes a big issue.

MR. KAUKER: Well I think the engineer said that they could rework those dimensions -- you know -- to make them work.

MR. COVELLI: I understand that and I appreciate what he said. But that is not what I asked you either. I am asking you about the lot north. In a professional planning capacity, given the fact that we have a residential unit in the B Zone and the fact that this property would enhance the -- or do you agree with my statement that it would enhance the existing property in terms of providing additional space?

MR. KAUKER: I don’t think it would enhance this particular development. I think, obviously, you have a pre-existing non-conforming use on that lot. I think having that developed in accordance -- you know -- or brought into conformity with another business type use or another use permitted in the zone I think would be something that would be appropriate. But, again, I think that -- you know -- obviously, this lot stands on its own and I was charged with reviewing this particular proposal on this lot and I don’t think that by adding another lot, specifically the lot to the north that it would lend a lot of value to the development. That is my opinion.

MR. LUDWIG: Wouldn’t help with the scale of the height of this building to have a wider street presence?

MR. KAUKER: A wider -- you mean a wider -- I don’t --

MR. LUDWIG: A wider front street frontage for the scale of the building.

MR. KAUKER: No, I don’t think so. I think we have significant street frontage and I think we also provide appropriate front setbacks. The building has a pretty good front setback from the street.

MR. GRYGUS: Let me pose the question this way. Counselor, did your client attempt to purchase any surrounding properties that would alleviate the need for the side yard setback?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Yes, specifically Lot 10, although, it has been listed for sale for I guess quite some time. It is a matter of a State litigation; there are no agreements that can be reached regarding the acquisition of that property.

MR. GRYGUS: At this time.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: At this time. Also, this has been I guess for at least two years ago also. So that litigation is still ongoing. Apparently, there are a number of beneficiaries who cannot agree.

MR. GRYGUS: So you are stating that the applicant, your client, made overtures to purchase that property?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: That is correct.

MR. GRYGUS: Thank you.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: You’re welcome.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions gentlemen before we go to the public? Okay, let’s open it up to the public. Do you have any questions of the planner?

MR. FAASSE: Hearing none, close to the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, he is coming. I saw him.

MR. FAASSE: He is a little late.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He was getting ready.

MR. GREGOR: Fed Ex was blocking the aisle.

MR. BURNS: We were going by committee.

MR. FAASSE: That is what happens when you retire.

MR. BURNS: Yeah, you get slower in age.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Identify yourself again Sir.

MR. BURNS: Barry Burns B-U-R-N-S, 26 Pellington Street. In regards, as you were giving your little show here for us, you kept on mentioning that everything around is two-story, two-story, two-story. Now your proposal is for a three-story building with an A-frame type of roof.

MR. KAUKER: Peak roof, correct.

MR. BURNS: Peak roof. Just aesthetically with the surrounding area it doesn’t fit. You got all residential, you got to look at it from our perspective on Pellington Street.

MR. KAUKER: Right.

MR. BURNS: We are going to have a three-story building dinosaur, a white elephant, with people looking down at our backyards. Whether you have a six foot fence, three stories enables people to look down into our property. If you went two stories, that would elevate that problem, since most houses are two stories and all the existing buildings around it are two stories with residential over the top the commercial.

MR. KAUKER: Maybe I can answer this; the ordinance does permit 35 feet with respect to the height of buildings in that area. We are proposing, with the peak roof, a height of 41 feet. Now, obviously, it was also testified to by the architect that if we propose a flat roof we could meet the height requirements. So, essentially, what you are looking at when you are looking at the height, as I said before, you are not looking at -- you are looking at a taller building but the impact is somewhat lessened because there are peaks in the roof, it is not a massive structure going all the way up, so that does mitigate it and you are not obviously going to have people 41 feet up from -- the windows are going to be much lower than 41 feet. So -- you know -- essentially the perspective is and given that there is a 35-foot limitation in the zone I think that it has the similar impact that it would have if put back to a permitted building.

MR. BURNS: But being a lifelong resident I am still staying that you are looking at grand plans you are changing all of Wanaque.

MR. KAUKER: Right.

MR. BURNS: And I am sure if you surveyed most of the residents in Wanaque they don’t want the main street lined with three, four and five story buildings. Where do you stop? It is a one road town. And that is my other concern looking at that but we already discussed that with Melrose Ave and that entrance and exit.

MR. KAUKER: Um-hum.

MR. BURNS: It is an accident waiting to happen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is not a question.

MR. BURNS: And if you have 14 units there or 12 units as opposed to 8, there is more traffic exiting and entering that property all the time. And they are concerns that we legitimately have living on that street. That is all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, is there any one else in the public that has a question of the planner?

MS. MAIELLO: Grace Maiello, 26 Rhinesmith Avenue. I don’t, again, I don’t know if this is the proper person to ask, can I actually -- can I find out exactly what the size of this building is?

MR. KAUKER: The height?

MS. MAIELLO: No the actual size of it. Is it 56 feet wide?

MR. GREGOR: 154.6 by 59 feet.

MS. MAIELLO: How much is it?

MR. GREGOR: 154 foot, six inches by 59 feet.

MS. MAIELLO: Okay. How far is it set back off of Ringwood Avenue?

MR. CHAIRMAN: These are not questions for the planner.

MR. FAASSE: No, these are not really questions -- they should have been addressed to the engineer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The engineer, the planner is not really --

MR. FAASSE: The plans are on file madam, you may come down and look at these plans at anytime you want.

MS. MAIELLO: I know I just saw the plans but I can’t quite decipher exactly what it --

MR. KAUKER: I could answer it if you want I could refer to the table.

MR. FAASSE: If you feel comfortable answering Mr. Kauker.

MS. MAIELLO: Well if he knows it, I’ll take his answer, that’s good.

MR. FAASSE: Tell her, what is the setback?

MR. KAUKER: Okay, were you talking about the building setback?

MS. MAIELLO: Yes.

MR. KAUKER: The building setback according to the bulk table, front yard setback is 20 feet.

MS. MAIELLO: That is different than the original building.

MR. KAUKER: The school building?

MS. MAIELLO: Yes.

MR. KAUKER: I couldn’t answer that.

MS. MAIELLO: Okay. Can I please also find out exactly -- you know -- there was a confusion when the architect said that you had a 41 foot height with the peak but then Mr. Gregor questioned Ms. Scro and she said the peak was 51 feet exactly what does that mean?

MR. GREGOR: I have to look at my notes, I don’t recall.

MR. FAASSE: Well we are going beyond the planner.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah that is not the planner’s expertise.

MR. FAASSE: Do you have any other questions for the planner? These are questions you can always bring up when we get to the public portion of this case.

MS. MAIELLO: All right I just questioned the setback because since this is the original building was back further and I know that there is an irregular setback with all of these buildings. The District is not regular; we have certain businesses that are setbacks and are forward and they are closer than others. With a brand new building going up that shouldn’t -- what is the requirement for setbacks?

MR. KAUKER: The requirement is 20 feet. The ordinance --

MS. MAIELLO: Is it 20?

MR. KAUKER: Yes.

MS. MAIELLO: The ordinance says 20 feet for business?

MR. KAUKER: In the B Zone it is a 20-foot setback, yes.

MS. MAIELLO: Oh for business then what about residential since it is a combined thing so you have to go with the business part because it is in the business zone.

MR. FAASSE: It fronts on a business.

MS. MAIELLO: Okay.

MS. AXTELL: Do I need to repeat my name?

MR. FAASSE: Absolutely.

MS. AXTELL: All right. It is Linda Axtell A-X-T-E-L-L, I am at 30 Pellington. I guess you had said that on the side setback there are little bumps out or whatever, architectural, but if there is no footpath, no sidewalk, who is going to be seeing that other than just increasing the square footage of the building?

MR. KAUKER: Well the intent is, obviously, not to have a massive building -- you know -- side of the building going all the way, it is to provide some sort of setback in deviation on the side.

MS. AXTELL: So it just brings it four feet more closer to my property.

MR. KAUKER: I don’t know where your property is located but if you are Lot 14 --.

MS. AXTELL: Well that basically pushes that part of the building right over where my property is.

MR. KAUKER: The alternate plan or the previous plan that we had we had the buildings on the other side but -- you know -- the setback, the side yard setback would be to this building. And, obviously, as a product of realigning the driveway the building was obviously flipped. It is a mirror image of what was proposed before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of the planner?

MS. RYAN: Lynn Ryan R-Y-A-N, 18 Pellington Street. They were saying that the units for the air conditioning were going to be on the bottom floor. Where are the air conditioning units going to be? It is going to be the first floor, second floor, third floor, peak building and then the air conditioning units? Because you keep talking about Haskell and those are butt ugly.

MR. KAUKER: They are going to be screened; I already checked into that.

MS. RYAN: Screened with what?

MR. KAUKER: I don’t know, but they are going to be screened.

MS. RYAN: Trees, I don’t know. It is just like adding another 10 feet on top of a monstrosity.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is not a question for the planner.

MR. FAASSE: That is a question for the architect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That has to go back to the engineer or the architect in the designed structures of the building. Any other questions of the planner?

MR. FAASSE: All right, hearing no more.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We close the public portion on the planner.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Mr. Chairman we may be making some revisions to the site plan and we may have some slight additional testimony. I believe that this would be a good time to break.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: So wise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hopefully you hear back from the County too.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: I’m sorry?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hopefully you hear back from the Passaic County also.

MR. FAASSE: Are we within our time?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MR. FAASSE: I think we are.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: You are probably -- we were deemed complete, I believe, in March so you need an extension from me which you do have until the September 5th meeting.

MR. FAASSE: Just give us to the October meeting in case -- you know -- it snows in September a bit.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Until the October whatever date.

MR. FAASSE: I said in that in Hawthorne and it snowed but they didn’t cancel the meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Counselor, just verify one thing. Did you ask for a letter, a review from the fire department, police department, first aid?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We did not, per the applicant, we did not make a specific request. I would certainly --

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am going to ask our secretary --

MR. GREGOR: I was just going to say, Mr. Chewcaskie, since you are taking another month, would you approach those emergency services?

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Typically what we will do and we usually have the engineer send a letter and make a phone call in case there is issue that they are more -- they are able to address. Either I or the engineer will get in touch with the emergency service departments.

MR. GRYGUS: You may also want to, at the same time, verify storm water?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, that came up last month.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: The sewer was verified by letter by virtue of the Highland’s exemption, it was something that was required.

MR. FAASSE: Motion to carry this application to the September 5th meeting.

MR. GRYGUS: I’ll make a motion to carry this application to the September 5th meeting. Did the counselor say that he would grant an extension?

MR. FAASSE: Yeah, to October.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: We grant an extension to October.

MR. GRYGUS: To October.

MR. KONING: I’ll second that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, roll call?

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #26-06 TO SEPTEMBER 5TH:

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

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you Mr. Chairman, no further notice will be required?

MR. FAASSE: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you and we’ll see in September.

MR. CHEWCASKIE: Thank you for your consideration.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, moving right along. The next application will be 07-07, Staropoli, 1283 Ringwood Avenue.

MR. LEONARD: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman could we just let the public know what just happen. Clarify that this is going to be continued until September. I don’t know if they heard that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will continue on Reality Associates next month.

MR. LEONARD: September 5th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: September 5th.

MR. LEONARD: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: Counselor, enter your appearance.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Thank you Mr. Faasse, I was about to say good morning, we are almost there. Good evening Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board of Adjustment. My name is Alfred Acquaviva from the firm of Spinato, November, Conte and Acquaviva, I am representing the applicant tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Do you want me just proceed with the testimony? In light of the time, I don’t know, at this point, what you want me to do.

MR. GRYGUS: I think, what might be a good idea is to just go over Bill’s letter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, that is what we really want to address.

MR. FAASSE: Just for the record we took care of the taxes are paid, Gerri, the notice was given, there was a question with the --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, everything is up to date on this?

MR. LEONARD: The County was noticed?

MR. FAASSE: Cablevision.

MS. MAROTTA: Yeah.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, okay.

MR. FAASSE: Did you file -- did Mr. Dazo (phonetic) file the originals of this cablevision material with the Board Secretary?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Yes, yes, he did.

MR. FAASSE: He did, okay.

MR. LEONARD: The County was noticed?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, there was comment back from the County I think in the package.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Faasse, you have the waiver right?

MR. FAASSE: They are wavering, Cablevision. I mean he faxed me a copy but I assume that the originals went to the --

MR. ACQUAVIVA: We did, I mean this was just done about three days ago.

MR. FAASSE: We have the County on here?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: We actually did contact the County.

MR. FAASSE: Did we get a letter from the County yet?

MR. Acquaviva: We didn’t get a letter from the County.

MR. FAASSE: All right. Here is what we are going to do. We are opening the meeting, we are opening the hearing, we might as well put this in the old business for next month. We have Mr. Gregor’s letter of July the 31st, Mr. Acquaviva, you got a copy of that?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: That is correct, I received that tonight.

MR. FAASSE: All right and I hope you shared that with your professionals so that they can address the issues.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: We will.

MR. FAASSE: There are a couple of other concerns the Board might have with respect to items that they would like to hear from you. I don’t think we are going to hear testimony tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Major subdivision to minor subdivision, does that affect the notice?

MR. FAASSE: I didn’t look at the notice to be honest with you Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well what are we calling it because it is worded both ways?

MR. FAASSE: Why did we call it a major subdivision versus a minor?

MR. GREGOR: Because there appeared to be a need for public improvements and that public improvements, water, sewer and/or roadway. This is being built on a substandard roadway and according RSIS the roadway needs to be brought up to RSIS standards. Unless the Borough joins with the applicant in requesting a waiver from RSIS, which they can, RSIS can either approve or deny. So we have actually -- is that -- I think that is not even a roadway, it is a driveway now isn’t it?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: That’s Reichter you are talking about?

MR. GREGOR: Yeah.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: It is a stone --

MR. GREGOR: Stone driveway.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: It is being used as a driveway, it is just stone at this point.

MR. GREGOR: It is a public right-of-way which is not improved.

MR. FAASSE: And the house is going to front on that?

MR. GREGOR: That is what the house is fronting on if I am not mistaken.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Well the proposed house is.

MR. GREGOR: The proposed house.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: The proposed house, right. The existing faces Wanaque, I mean Ringwood Avenue, I’m sorry.

MR. GREGOR: That is a public improvement, that would be considered a public improvement which turns a minor subdivision into a major subdivision.

MR. FAASSE: Unless we go for a Section 35-36.

MR. GREGOR: You got RSIS now. I don’t know that you can do that but I am not an attorney. That may be a legal issue, I’m not sure.

MR. FAASSE: That is something we are to have to look at as to whether we are going to classify this as a major or a minor and whether or not then we would have to amend our notice for -- you know -- if we are going to a minor you might be able to handle that as a 35-36 under the Municipal Land Use, not fronting on an improved road.

MR. GREGOR: Before you address that let me just add one other issue which may or may not assist you. They are also proposing the utilities to service this new lot and new dwelling unit through an easement through the existing lot. The Borough Administrator wrote a letter based on his discussion with the water sewer department recommending that a water main with a fire hydrant be installed in Reichter Place, I am going by memory now so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, yeah, it is in the letter we got.

MR. GREGOR: We concur that any utilities should be put in a right-of-way rather than -- any public utilities should be in a right-of-way rather than a private easement. So that may also have an effect on your answer. I just wanted to bring that out so we would able to deal with them both at once rather than separately.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Yeah, I mean we were looking at this as a minor subdivision the entire time. Actually, when I saw your letter tonight and went over it with my engineer I was trying to decipher in my mind how we are classifying it as a major subdivision. I understand --

MR. GREGOR: I hope I clarified that.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Yeah I understand the rationale. I mean at this point, I guess notice may be an issue because if it is a major subdivision then, in fact, we might have to notice. But, again, I mean for requesting a waiver, I guess that is a decision by this Board also and that would come into conjunction with --

MR. GREGOR: At one time it was. With RSIS in place --

MR. ACQUAVIVA: I’m sorry?

MR. GREGOR: At one time the 35-36 was a waiver permitted to be granted by this Board. With RSIS in place now, requiring certain improvements for a residential street and the Board and the applicant must join in a joint request to RSIS for relief of those, I am not quite sure where that stands. I haven’t --

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Procedurally, I agree with you. I have to look at that.

MR. GREGOR: I haven’t -- that is ground I haven’t covered yet. So I don’t want to mislead anyone but I got a question there, an open question.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Yeah I certainly think that is something I need to look at also.

MR. COVELLI: Mr. Gregor --

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. COVELLI: You keep referring to RSIS --

MR. GREGOR: Oh I’m sorry, Residential --

MR. COVELLI: Which we understand but they may not. We also need to explain them that RSIS is a State.

MR. GREGOR: RSIS, which I am referring to, is a State mandated requirement imposed on municipalities and developers which supersedes municipal ordinances in requiring certain design criteria for improvements such as roadways and the like and other improvements and requirements for residential development.

MR. COVELLI: And RSIS stands for --

MR. GREGOR: It is called Residential Site Improvement Standards; it supersedes municipal ordinances. Was that clearer?

MR. FAASSE: Good.

MR. COVELLI: Excellent Mr. Gregor.

MR. GREGOR: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: The notice is okay because you noticed for a subdivision. So whether it is classified a major or minor, we can handle that. All right?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: When Mr. Gregor brought it up, I said let me look back at the notice because I wasn’t sure how we actually did it but I think you are right.

MR. FAASSE: All right. So we got the letter, what else do we need?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well in Bill’s report is there anything else that we should alert them that they have to deal with?

MR. FAASSE: Well they have to deal with everything that is in the report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Everything in the letter. Is there anything else you want?

MR. GREGOR: Well I think that they should look at the full requirements 114-33. I didn’t go through this in minute detail because I wasn’t quite sure where we were going or how we were getting there. So there may be requirements in there that you might -- that would be required further on. I am just trying to hit the high points to get us started here.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Absolutely. As soon as I review your letter, obviously, we are going to address everything in there.

MR. KONING: Can I ask what the ownership of Richter Place is currently?

MR. FAASSE: The town, according to the town.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is a paper street according to the Borough Administrator.

MR. FAASSE: Paper, unimproved street.

MR. GREGOR: It is shown on the tax maps as a right-of-way, street. I don’t even know the width of it; it is not shown on the drawing.

MR. GRYGUS: It basically accesses, I believe, two garages.

MR. FAASSE: Well maybe we inquire Mr. Carroll because he was the one who opined that it was an unimproved street.

MR. GREGOR: Well hopefully Mr. -- who did these drawings?

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Oh Mr. Darmstatter. Yeah, Mr. Darmstatter can probably enlighten us when we get that far.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, is there anything else that we can do since we are well past our curfew time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are getting awfully close to the curfew. Any other things you want to add gentlemen? Okay. You done Bill?

MR. GREGOR: I’m done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let’s make a motion to carry to our September meeting.

MR. FAASSE: September 5th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: September 5th.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll make a motion to carry it.

MS. MAROTTA: Who did that, Don?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Don.

MR. KONING: I will second it, Member Koning.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION #07-07 TO SEPTEMBER 5TH:

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

MR. FAASSE: All right we’ll move this one up to number two on the agenda for next month.

MR. ACQUAVIVA: Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, let’s move this right along here.

MR. FAASSE: Public discussion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Public discussion. Seeing and hearing none we close the public discussion. Resolutions?

MR. FAASSE: Resolutions we have none, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Okay, correspondence, do we have any correspondence.

MS. MAROTTA: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Vouchers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vouchers?

MR. FAASSE: I have mine for the Fennelly case, litigation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: I just found the Answer and the Defenses. We got to get in a little discovery because he has got issues that aren’t going to be on the transcript. We have that inverse condemnation. Don over there has people -- they offered to sell him some property. So Don is going to give me a list of those people so I am sure that is of interest to Tony in the inverse condemnation case.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What was that Ralph?

MR. LUDWIG: Well the only one I know of for sure --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Westervelt.

MR. LUDWIG: Yeah Roy Westervelt he is in the noticed area there. Roy Westervelt. And I am not so sure the other person he is suing, I think, may have approached him to buy the property. Because at one time he stated he offered to sell it to the neighbor for what he paid for it. And I have been told by a few people that, no, he was looking for like 50 grand or something like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.

MR. LUDWIG: And from what I understand he paid $5,000 for it.

MR. KONING: So Ralph how does that work with that lawsuit if that doesn’t go to court until after your services are terminated?

MR. FAASSE: Well we’ll continue but --

MR. CHAIRMAN: His service continues.

MR. FAASSE: We got a court date in October.

MR: KONING: Oh, we do okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just like our service continues with any open applications.

MR. LUDWIG: Is that an open application, as a lawsuit?

MR. FAASSE: For the full employment of 2008 is going to be Santoro.

MR. GRYGUS: We will stay in force until those applications are concluded?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can take applications; we have another one coming in. We can take applications until --

MS. MAROTTA: When is the cutoff on the --

MR. GRYGUS: September 30th according to the ordinance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well we got one coming in, Gerri got a letter.

MR. GRYGUS: But then what did it say about after September 30th, the applicant has the option at that point.

MR. FAASSE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An applicant could still request the Zoning Board to hear his application.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, but it has to be done then before December.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: That is the way I read it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. LUDWIG: But if we have an active case that has been working, we could go on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That continues.

MR. LUDWIG: I want to rescind my second on that motion we made.

MR. GRYGUS: Yeah, let Santoro ride.

MR. LUDWIG: Let Santoro ride.

MR. FAASSE: He didn’t catch on quick enough.

MR. KONING: That is what I was thinking before.

MR. GRYGUS: 2012 baby; the way this guy is going it could be.

VOUCHERS:

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are doing our vouchers. We have a voucher from Mr. Faasse for professional services rendered regarding the Fennelly versus Wanaque lawsuit. Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Time and disbursements; they got a disbursement down of 135; the filing fee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Filing fees, disbursements, hours he worked on this for a total of $1,275. We need a motion?

MR. COVELLI: So moved Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, second?

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll second it.

MS. MAROTTA: Who second it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Don.

MS. MAROTTA: Who, Don?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MOTION TO APPROVE MR. FAASSE'S VOUCHERS:

Made by Member Covelli, Seconded by Member Ludwig. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, the next one is from our engineer, Gregor. It is for 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 invoices, which is Johnny De for $495, Verizon Wireless $425, Reality Associates $990, Elwood for $495 and Staropoli for $495. A total of $2,900.

MR. COVELLI: So moved Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, a second?

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll second that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, Member Ludwig. Roll call?

MS. MAROTTA: Frank and Don?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.

MOTION TO APPROVE MR. FAASSE'S VOUCHERS:

Made by Member Covelli, Seconded by Member Ludwig. Voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, Willse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Approval of Minutes of our July meeting. I have a little problem.

MS. MAROTTA: I sent them out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a little problem, we don’t have them.

MR. LUDWIG: They were very short.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, July minutes.

MR. FAASSE: I move that we carry that to the September meeting.

MR. GRYGUS: That sounds like a good idea.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Until September. Okay, so we will deal with that in September. Engineer’s Report. Mr. Gregor.

MR. GREGOR: I gave you the report regarding --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: That’s it, done.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Discussion. The discussion is we are going to adjourn. All in favor?

ALL MEMBERS: Aye.