BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING

Page

Application #11-05 Santoro 3

Application #21-05 Finnelly 8

Application #09-06 Marsh 11

Application #13-06 Johnny De 12

Application #18-06 Ott 20

Application #10-06 Miuccio 23

Application #16-06 Koslosky 99

Resolutions 136

Correspondence 142

Vouchers 146

Minutes 149

Discussion 161

Exhibits Evid.

A1-4 Pictures 90

Salute to Flag:

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a regular meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment. Adequate notice has been given by a duly advertised notice in the Herald News and Suburban Trends News on the 6th day of January 2006. Notice has been posted on the bulletin board, in the Municipal Building, and a copy thereof in on file with the Borough Clerk, and is posted on the bulletin board. Can we have a roll call, please.

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

MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Frank Covelli, and Ted Roberto.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Member Covelli called me, he’ll be here about 8:30.

MR. FAASSE: Oh.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He had some business to take care of. Okay. We’re going to run our agenda out of order as usual to clean up the carry forwards. So, let’s start right at the top of the list.

Application #11-05 Cosmo and Theresa Santoro, 1185 Ringwood Avenue, bulk and use variances.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 11-05 the Santoro application, 1185 is on a bulk and use variance.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we got a communication from the attorney for the applicants, Carlo J. Kapa (phonetic) asking this be carried to the October 4th meeting, and the client waives and all time requirements as it relates to this matter. It was faxed to the secretary, I believe, and myself.

MR. GRYGUS: Ralph, are they giving you any indication of what’s hold them up, cause this is like --

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s a year old.

MR. GRYGUS: -- a year in July.

MR. FAASSE: Well, the only thing I heard from Mr. Kappa was that he thought that the engineer and the applicant were going to retain the planner, and they must have thought he was going to do it, and it wasn’t done. So, they don’t have no planner to testify yet.

MR. LUDWIG: But as aside, driving past the place there’s been no attempt at re-mediating some of the problems with the place.

MR. FAASSE: I don’t know what problems your alluding to.

MR. LUDWIG: Just that the overgrown property. MR. CHAIRMAN: Yea, but that doesn’t have any action by this board, right.

MR. GRYGUS: That has nothing to do with us, that’s an enforcement issue.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, that’s maintenance.

MR. GRYGUS: Well, I kind of think it would be prudent to tell him that we expect to see some kind

of --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we can give him 30 days, and if not we’re going to dismiss the application.

MR. GRYGUS: So, we want to have him come in and start giving some --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, after the last revision, which has got to be five or six months ago on the site plan.

MR. FAASSE: I don’t think we have all the plans yet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no. He revised his plans, Bill wrote a comment letter --

MR. GREGOR: I’d have to go back, I don’t recall, ti’s been so long.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And the question was what Lorry (phonetic) Avenue, Street, what -- road, whatever that little street is, thy were going to find out is it a dedicated borough road, is it a private road, that’s where we left off.

MR. FAASSE: And I thought on the revisions to the plans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, because the -- the --

MR. LUDWIG: That was one of the main stumbling blocks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- Ralph, that effects the plan, because that effects the parking on the north end of the building.

MR. GRYGUS: Right cause the --

MR. WILLSE: They didn’t have use of that road, they couldn’t do anything.

MR. GREGOR: Ralph is correct though, there were other open issues. But I think that’s the paramount issue.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, because that’s going to change the parking schematic on the plan.

MR. FAASSE: Well, you certainly -- you certainly would be within your rights to send a letter to Mr. Kapa indicating that the Board granted the adjournment, however, if the applicant is not prepared to proceed on the 4th, we intend to dismiss for failure to prosecute.

MR. GRYGUS: Failure to prosecute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: I’ll make that motion.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll second it.

MS. MAROTTA: On or before what date?

MR. CHAIRMAN: September 4th.

MR. GRYGUS: October 4th meeting.

MS. MAROTTA; You mean October 4th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: October 4th.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll second it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And any new plans or revisions, or whatever have to be --

MR. GRYGUS: Have to be in ten days before.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- at least ten days before that meeting date.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay, Bruce you made the motion?

MR. GRYGUS: Yes.

MS. MAROTTA: And Don you second it?

MR. LUDWIG: Right.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO OCTOBER 4TH MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, and Willse.

MR. FAASSE: And I would just also suggest that since it is that type of a strong letter that it should be cc’d to the applicants.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Yea, go to the applicant and the attorney, definitely.

MR. FAASSE: All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next item on the agenda which is 19-05 Biago Brothers is actually there by mistake, that was a computer clich.

MR. FAASSE: No it wasn’t.

MS. MAROTTA; No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes it was.

MR. FAASSE: No, she asked

MR. LUDWIG: It was carried to October.

MR. FAASSE: -- he asked me, and I said put it on so that the Board was aware of the fact that it was dismissed in case something did come in.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We dismissed it, all right.

MR. KONINGS: So, it’s dismissed.

MR. FAASSE: So, it was my mistake then not a computer clitch.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: For the Board’s edification, and for those that take vacations, you know, things like that.

Application #21-05 Fennelly, 6 Oak Street.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next application is 21-05. Finnelly or Fennelly?

MR. GRYGUS: Fennelly.

MS. MAROTTA: It’s Fennelly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fennelly. We’ll get it right.

MS. MAROTTA: Fennelly makes it Italian.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MS. MAROTTA: By saying Fennelly it makes it Irish.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Oh. How do you know whether he’s Irish or Italian.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the Fennelly application 21-05, 6 Oak Street. Do we have any communication on this?

MS. MAROTTA: Yea, I believe --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, we do.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, okay. Steven C. Chetlas (phonetic). I write to you on behalf of my firm’s clients the Fennelly applicants. Okay, basically, bottom line is he respectfully requests that the matter be carried from the Board’s meeting of September 6th to October 4th, and he consents to an extension of time to act through October 31, 2006. So, carry it to the 4th.

MR. GRYGUS: Make a motion to carry it to the October 4th meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Second on that?

MR. WILLSE: Second.

MS. MAROTTA: Eric.

MR. GRYGUS: If you had nameplates, you’d know who it was.

MS. MAROTTA: I’m Just learning these guys, I’m just starting to get their names straight.

MR. FAASSE: Well, you understand, you know, we tried to implement the procedure that when you gentlemen make a motion, you say --

MR. GRYGUS: Member, I know.

MR. FAASSE: I move Faasse, you know. I Faasse move.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO OCTOBER 4TH MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, and Willse.

MR. FAASSE: What did they say, you can’t teach old dogs new tricks or something like that?

MR. GREGOR: That’s right.

MR. FAASSE: But the new guys, you think you guys --

MR. WILLSE: I didn’t know I was that old.

MR. FAASSE: No, I know, you think you would pick up, cause your young.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: You sure your not Dutch?

MR. GREGOR: Oh, I am a little bit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Moving on. We’re moving on.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, yes, I’m waiting. Marsh.

Application #9-06 Marsh, 12 Greenwood Avenue, use variance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Application 9-06, Edward and Gail Marsh, 12 Greenwood Avenue. Okay. This application to a use variance, because of the mixup in the zoning of the area. Notice has to be sent out again, and there’s some plans that were sent here that we all received dated, I believe, August 23rd, received by the Borough. Those plans were never checked and signed off by the engineer on this project, Mr. Rotundo (phonetic). Bill got communication on Monday or Tuesday from the surveyor saying that the plans will be completed when Rotundo comes back from vacation. Hopefully, that puts it within -- before the ten day limit for our next meeting. So, we’re going to carry to October 1st --

MR. FAASSE: Fourth.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- 4th, I’m sorry. October 4th, hopefully the plans and notice will be in time. Need a motion on this.

MR. LUDWIG: Motion to carry to October 4th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, second.

MR. KONING: Second, Art Koning

MR. FAASSE: There you go.

MR. GREGOR: And, Jack, that’ll be bulk and use variances, both.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: Yea.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO OCTOBER 4TH MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, and Willse.

MR. FAASSE: And a decision as to the zoning on that particular lot, which was I think a decision made by the Chairman and the engineer was concurred in by the Borough attorney.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Borough attorney, right, he agrees with us.

MR. FAASSE: Yes. It should be noteworthy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Which we have a letter from the Borough attorney --

MR. FAASSE: To that effect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- agreeing that it’s RD3 zone.

MR. GREGOR: Can I get a copy of that letter for my file.

MR. FAASSE: What do you want, everything.

MR. GREGOR: Yea.

Application #13-06 Johnny De, 2832 Greenwood Avenue, major subdivision and use variance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next application is 13-06, which is John -- we’ll call it the Johnny De application, 2832 Greenwood Ave. This also fell into the confusion of the RD3 zone, so this is being changed from a minor subdivision and bulk to a use variance. New notice will have to given.

MR. HOFFMAN: It’s still a minor subdivision.

MR. GREGOR: No, that makes it a major.

MR. HOFFMAN: Oh, okay, major subdivision.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because of there use?

MR. GREGOR: No, because anything which does not meet the definition of minor --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because of the RD3 zone.

MR. GREGOR: -- is a major.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now, we have something here --

MS. MAROTTA: Is his attorney aware of that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We’ve heard from the attorney today I understand.

MR. FAASSE: Mr. Sist (phonetic).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct, Mr. Gregor, Mr. Faasse?

MR. FAASSE: I don’t know. Darrell W. Sist.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Dated today.

MR. FAASSE: Yea. What’s this? We had an affidavit of service.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Gerri, did you get anything on a new notice?

MS. MAROTTA: John De called me today and he said he requested a copy of the article he published, because in it he published a use variance, but he didn’t get it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In his initial submittal, notice?

MS. MAROTTA: No.

MR. FAASSE: No, no, no, this is the one that Mr. Peck, who has since retired and absconded from the State of New Jersey.

MS. MAROTTA: He told he re-noticed every-body, --

MR. FAASSE: Shouldn’t say that with any derogatory.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He didn’t leave the State.

MR. FAASSE: He was planning on leaving the State.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He got his final.

MS. MAROTTA: -- but I don’t have anything. He didn’t give me the receipts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s the original notice.

MR. FAASSE: He had original notice, and then he re-noticed -- Peck re-noticed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, exactly.

MR. FAASSE: Didn’t he provide that affidavit and everything? Well, we can check this out. But, in any event, --

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first time that came we didn’t hear him because there was a --

MR. FAASSE: -- it’s carried to October the 4th, with a motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- a problem with the notice.

MR. LUDWIG: But meanwhile he’s building down there, what’s up with that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that’s a different piece of property.

MR. FAASSE: Oh.

MR. GRYGUS: That’s a different piece of property.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s the Planning Board approved that one, not us.

MR. GRYGUS: I’ll make a motion to carry it to the October 4th meeting, member Grygus.

MR. FAASSE: And then we’ll check out the notice requirement. Because I know Mr. Peck gave it all over again, he argued with me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your right.

MR. FAASSE: And he put it in the paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: It went definitely in the paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MS. MAROTTA: He advertised for a use.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, yea.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think so.

MR. FAASSE: Because that’s the only way we had jurisdiction, and he argued it. Remember we had the argument in the first meeting --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your right.

MR. FAASSE: -- and he said it’s not a use variance, Mr. Faasse. I said then we don’t have jurisdiction.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before we leave tonight let’s check their folder.

MR. GRYGUS: Cause of density.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll second that.

MR. FAASSE: So, he finally capitulated in --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Okay.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO OCTOBER 4TH MEETING: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, and Willse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, how about time on that?

MR. FAASSE: That one might be a problem.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Gerri, we have a time extended from Johnny De?

MR. GRYGUS: Only good to 9/24.

MR. FAASSE: 9/24, yea.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yea, I don’t think we’re good.

MR. FAASSE: So, it would be that we carry it till October the 4th with a 90 day extension.

MR. GRYGUS: With a stipulation that we get a 90 day extension --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: -- before or it will be dismissed without prejudice.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, we should mark these.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I know, we got to -- we got so many --

MR. FAASSE: Start marking these.

MR. CHAIRMAN: -- I know.

MR. FAASSE: Cause I know like Morris got an extension. Miuccio we asked for one, I assume it’s in the file.

MR. GRYGUS: Maybe after we put the incompletion date, maybe we could put the expiration date.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Extension dates.

MS. MAROTTA: His completion date was May 24th.

MR. GRYGUS: And then every time you do the agenda, you could change it based upon the extensions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: Then we would know just by looking at the agenda.

MS. MAROTTA: So, how many days you got?

MR. CHAIRMAN: 120 days.

MS. MAROTTA: June, July, August, September.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s four months, it expires September 24th. Member Gregor is our time clock.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay, so what do you want me to do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did he sign an -- we talked about something with him.

MS. MAROTTA: No, he didn’t.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He didn’t.

MR. GREGOR: He’s got to be notified that it will be dismissed without prejudice if we do not receive the 90 day extension before September 24th.

MR. FAASSE: Right. So, your moving that replacement motion.

MR. GREGOR: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Whose seconding it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Art.

MR. LUDWIG: Ludwig.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Don.

MS. MAROTTA: Yes, I did a roll call already.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But now we just changed --

MR. FAASSE: We just have an amendment.

MR. GREGOR: Amended the --

MS. MAROTTA: What are we doing now?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We amended it.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll second the amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. We amended our carry.

MS. MAROTTA: What?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We amended our carry forward.

MR. GRYGUS: We amended the carry to add the stipulation that it be --

MS. MAROTTA: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: We replaced the existing motion with a new motion.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay, and you made the motion again, and you seconded it again.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll second it.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay.

MOTION TO AMEND MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO OCTOBER 4TH MEETING: made by Member Grygus, seconded by Member Ludwig, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, and Willse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please send that letter out to Johnny De and the attorney as rapidly as possible.

MR. FAASSE: There you go. Okay. Koslosky, is that on for tonight, are we ready on that one?

Application #18-06 Ott, 9 First Avenue, use, bulk, and any other special condition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, now, the last one we’re here going to hear quickly is 18-06, which is the Ott application, which is 9 First Avenue, this is on a use, bulk, and any other special condition. I believe we heard from this applicant today, also, Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, there’s a request that we carry it to the October 4th meeting, cause he couldn’t comply with all the requirements that Mr. Gregor set forth in his letter. Did I summarize that right? I think it was a handwritten note on a yellow piece of paper. Ger? Not yellow. Oh, we did get a letter. That’s right, I summed it up. But we also have a problem here, as that I don’t have any proof of notice, Ger.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Did we ever get the notice?

MR. FAASSE: I have no proof of notice on this one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because actually tonight’s the first, this was not on our agenda.

MS. MAROTTA: He didn’t do anything yet.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. All right, so it’s going to be carried for a twofold purpose, one that the applicant requested the adjournment, and, two, because there’s no notice.

MR. GRYGUS: Ralph, would it be prudent or would it be proper for this board to perhaps advise the applicant that it -- they want to consider seeking counsel advise on that application.

MR. GRYGUS: That’s a very unique application.

MR. FAASSE: He has an attorney.

MR. GRYGUS: What’s that?

MR. FAASSE: He has an attorney on this one. This one was filed --

MR. GRYGUS: Oh, that was filed by the attorney.

MR. FAASSE: Authorized agent, attorney. That’s why I’m very surprised that --

MR. GRYGUS: Okay. I didn’t see, okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He copied his attorney.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, he copied his attorney.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay. I thought that the application only had his name on it, I don’t remember seeing it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, the attorney’s on the face.

MR. GRYGUS: Oh, is he.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yea.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The face copies got the attorneys name and address.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. LUDWIG: Somebody make a motion or no?

MR. LEONARD: Not yet.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll make a motion to carry that to October 4th.

MR. LEONARD: Second.

MS. MAROTTA: Ed, you second it?

MR. LEONARD: Yea.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO OCTOBER 4TH MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Leonard, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, and Willse.

THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. We’re doing good, we trimmed it down.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, that’s it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s looking better by the minute, okay. Now, this is a use variance.

MR. FAASSE: Huh.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Frank will be here at 8:30, I just wanted to make sure we got enough people, otherwise we’ll do something else first.

MR. FAASSE: Which one’s the use?

MR. GRYGUS: August 22nd, so I guess this is the most recent.

MR. FAASSE: One, two, three, four -- we got seven vote.

Application #10-06 Miuccio, 106 Monroe Street, bulk and use variance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Next application we’re going to move to is Miuccio, which is -- what number is this?

MR. FAASSE: It looks like 10-06.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 10-06, 106 Monroe Street, this is on a bulk and a use variance. Good evening. Now, we didn’t take any testimony.

MR. FAASSE: No, we never started it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And would like to swear them.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, absolutely. Your nice and comfortable sir, would you please stand, raise your right hand.

N I C H O L A S B Y R O N M I U C C I O, SWORN

MR. FAASSE: For the record your full name, please.

MR. MIUCCIO: Nicholas Byron Miuccio.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. One of the applicants. Is this a husband a wife situation? I’m not sure, let me look at the application.

MR. MIUCCIO: I am married, but I don’t believe she’s on the deed.

MR. FAASSE: She’s not on the deed.

MR. MIUCCIO: No.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. Smart man -- I mean.

MR. GREGOR: Gerri, send a copy of this tape to Mr. Faasse’s wife.

MR. FAASSE: That’s the advice I gave my son. He bought the house when he was single, and I said why give it to the woman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Always starting trouble, Ralph.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, I know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: The biggest problem is she carries a gun.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your wife does.

MR. FAASSE: No, my daughter-in-law.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, okay, that’s right, she’s a police officer.

MR. FAASSE: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Mr. Miuccio.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Why don’t you explain to the Board what your seeking?

MR. MIUCCIO: I’d like to convert my family into a two family house. Actually, I asked it be a mother/daughter, I was told that you guys do not recognize mother/daughters or that’s not a classification of a house anymore. What I’d like to do is separate the utilities for a one bedroom apartment, and have the house expand, and live in the rest of the house me and my wife and my child. I’d like to have my mother-in-law live in the apartment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Ralph, don’t start.

MR. FAASSE: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, you’ve submitted some plans, we have a --

MR. FAASSE: Let’s just also for the record we got --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. FAASSE: -- Mr. Gregor has like three reports on this I do believe, the latest September 5th.

MR. GREGOR: That’s correct.

MR. FAASSE: And then we have July 31st and a May 30th, they superseded the older ones?

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes they did.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: Everything that was taken care of is omitted in the new report, everything that cannot be taken care of is reissued -- restated in the new report.

MR. FAASSE: Everybody should have the latest then, right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Where is it, in this pile of stuff we’re looking at?

MR. FAASSE: September 5th report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Too much garbage, I’ll tell you.

MR. GREGOR: Gerri says she handed them all out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I didn’t get one. Gerri, get one for me, Miuccio, the report.

MS. MAROTTA: You should have gotten one.

MR. FAASSE: I thought I had one in my packet as well.

MS. MAROTTA: What’s that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s the old one. May 30th.

MR. FAASSE: I have it.

MS. MAROTTA: Here, I’ll give you one.

MR. FAASSE: Just wanted to make sure everybody has it.

MS. MAROTTA: Here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Everybody else has it?

MR. KONING: I have it here. I have it here, this is the old one.

MR. GRYGUS: I’m just burying the old one.

MR. FAASSE: No, that’s right, it’s too new.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Do you have it now, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes I do.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does applicant have that.

MR. FAASSE: Does the applicant have it?

MR. MIUCCIO: Have what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The engineer’s report dated September 5th?

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes, I received it at the beginning of the meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now, you’ve submitted a series of plans.

MR. FAASSE: What’s the latest plans then we’re using?

MR. GREGOR: Well, that’s where we have a little bit of a problem. Fir -- let’s start out with the easy part.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: The survey has not changed, so the survey is still dated March 17th, 2006. The site plan has been revised, and the latest revised date is revision number 3, which is dated August 15th, 2006.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: The problem is the architectural’s. We have architectural’s exactly the same date as the previous architectural’s, but they are completely different. So, what I’m going to ask you to do in order to make sure your looking at the correct architectural’s, these will have to be revised -- well, a condition that any action by the Board, because we cannot have two sets of plans in the file with the same date on them.

MR. FAASSE: Well, we can as long as they’re not different.

MR. GREGOR: Two different sets of plans --

MR. FAASSE: There you go.

MR. GREGOR: -- in the file with the same date on it. Thank you Mr. Faasse.

MR. FAASSE: That’s my job you know.

MR. GREGOR: The latest set of plans have a sheet AT1, A1, A2, and A3. The old set has T1, A1, and A2. He didn’t just add a plan, he changed the numbers on some of the plans so you can’t just add the third sheet. So, he will reorganize. So, if have four sheets, that is the current set. Put a line or mark the old ones obsolete, the previous three sheet set obsolete. And the architect --

MR. LUDWIG: And the date on all of them is the same.

MR. GREGOR: Unfortunately, the date is the same on the old set and the new set.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. What to look for is the Borough stamp of August 22nd when we received them.

MR. FAASSE: That’s it.

MR. GREGOR: That helps too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Upper right-hand corner is the Borough stamp.

MR. FAASSE: Everything else is superseding.

MR. LUDWIG: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That would be the plan we’re using.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Miuccio, would you scold your architect for me. Would you scold your architect for me.

MR. MIUCCIO: No, I won’t do that. You can yell at him.

MR. FAASSE: You want to get him to scold his architect.

MR. GREGOR: No, I just asked him if he would.

MR. FAASSE: Since the plans are not sufficient, you know, dated and everything else, we’ll carry this till next month.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, we don’t want to do that.

MR. FAASSE: Then you’ll scold him, right.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yea.

MR. FAASSE: Yea.

MR. GREGOR: We can move ahead as long as we’re looking at the right set of plans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Mr. Miuccio, why don’t walk us through your plans presentation of what your proposing to do in trying to expand the structure.

MR. GRYGUS: Can I ask a question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.

MR. GRYGUS: We’re looking at the site plan dated 3/17/06. Is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The revision is revision 3, which is 8/15/06.

MR. GRYGUS: Oh, this is the good one then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That has the Borough stamp of August 22nd also, Bruce.

MR. GRYGUS: Right. Cause the earlier one shows a seepage pit, but the new one doesn’t.

MR. FAASSE: Did you notice that?

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. GRYGUS: That’s why I thought that this was the revised one, okay.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. MIUCCIO: So, on the left on page T1 we have the existing, what it is, a two bedroom house, and on the right is an expansion. Ideally, what I’d like to do is keep the two family house intact, close up back door, move the back window - it’ll become clearer later - and then build around it, and build on top of it.

MR. LUDWIG: You said existing two family house.

MR. MIUCCIO: No, I’m sorry. Existing one family house, build around it, and build on top of it, box it out, and put a second floor on top of it. The entrances will both be from the front. The one bedroom apartment or if it could be classified as a two bedroom apartment, would be the door that’s currently there. The new door would be to the left, it’s on page A2, you can see it shaded in where the existing is. The study is the current second bedroom, that would be moved to the back room where you see the washer and dryer closet. I would add a closet to make it a bedroom. I think that’s a requirement to have a closet in the bedroom.

MR. WILLSE: The plan that’s on A2 is that what your final first floor is going to look like?

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes sir.

MR. WILLSE: An existing bedroom, a bedroom in the back, a study, and a recreation room?

MR. MIUCCIO: The recreation room is not to be confused with the one family or the first of --

MR. WILLSE: That’s not part of the first floor?

MR. MIUCCIO: No, the shaded area, the diagonal lines would signify --

MR. WILLSE: Okay.

MR. MIUCCIO: -- what he’s -- I don’t know how I’m supposed to say it, A and B or 1 and 2, the apartment and the main part of the house. The actual main part of the house, the part that I would live in would be the second floor. I would have access to the backyard and to the driveway on the left. We might as well go into the row, what you guys consider the road where all the neighbors park. I have pictures of how we do park in the row. There’s a need for four parking spots on the lot. I currently have that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s showing you in the right of way.

MR. MIUCCIO: I believe it would be seen on the survey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The survey in the middle picture under the 50 foot designation, the front length of the property, macadam parking area.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yea, it says driveway detail on the top upper left corner. Even though it shows them pointing in, we use the row to park, and I have a picture of that. I don’t see it drawn well.

MR. GREGOR: Mr. Miuccio, we had asked in our previous report, and I believe again we mention in this report, we requested that the parking space be dimensioned. That has not been added on this plan.

MR. MIUCCIO: Well, I believe the dimensions are to scale, and we can figure out the dimensions.

MR. GREGOR: We would prefer they be dimensioned as requested.

MR. FAASSE: Well unless he wants to testify to what they are.

MR. GREGOR: Well, the Board members don’t necessarily have a scale. I mean that’s why we ask dimensions on every site plan.

MR. FAASSE: Well, I understand that, but if he wants to testify.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, but he can give testimony about the size.

MR. GREGOR: Oh, yes he can testify.

MR. FAASSE: That’s right.

MR. GREGOR: I’d still like it added to the site plan.

MR. FAASSE: Your right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, let’s hear it. What size do you believe those parking spaces are drawn in?

MR. MIUCCIO: I do have a ruler. You have 1 inch is equal to 20 feet. The width is half an inch, which would be 10 feet. The depth is 1 inch, if that’s true, it could be 20 feet. Does that sound correct for a parking spot?

MR. GREGOR: That is the correct dimension for a parking spot, yes.

MR. MIUCCIO: Okay. Space 2 is similar in both the width and the length. I’ll skip space 3 because it’s an augmented geometric shape. Space 4 on this drawing it shows it could be I would say 7/8ths, so we’re going shy of 20, and space 3 is what it is. But like I said I don’t like this layout. What I have currently suits four parking spots, I’d like to keep that. The neighbors use it, I use it. I was told maybe you shouldn’t have a parking spot behind a parking spot, that’ll actually block somebody in, but we all do it. Everybody plays the game in the morning, the wife, husband.

MR. GRYGUS: The problem is what’s existing and what you propose to expand the use on the site, you have to show that the site can accommodate that parking. Because your ultimately looking to have an increase in use of the site. So that’s the reason.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the other comment would be is that you can’t encroach into the right of way. The parking space has to be totally on your property.

MR. MIUCCIO: I’d like to state again how we all use row as our parking. Unless there’s going to be a major change in the way the road is used by the town, I have four parking spots.

MR. FAASSE: Well, not as defined by ordinance.

MR. MIUCCIO: Uh-hum.

MR. FAASSE: The ordinance requires that it be 10 by 20 completely on your property and completely independently of one another, so that it’s not stacked parking. That’s the ordinance. So, if you want to amend your application for a parking variance as well.

MR. MIUCCIO: That sounds not nice I guess, I want to say.

MR. GRYGUS: Can I ask you a question. I can understand why the building inspector gave you the -- he was absolutely correct in saying that a mother/daughter type of arrangement is a really a real estate term, it’s not a zoning. There’s nothing in any zoning ordinances to address that. Having said that, the burden of proof for a use variance is a lot greater then for a bulk variance. Did you give any consideration at all into just considering expanding the house to accommodate the additional space that you want, but just keep it one dwelling unit?

MR. MIUCCIO: I’d like to separate the utilities, and I didn’t realize how complicated and expensive this process is.

MR. GRYGUS: Well, it isn’t only that, it’s whether you separated the utilities or not. You actually have what is two separate living units whether you have one single utility or not. But if you just --

MR. LUDWIG: The problem being is if you sell this property somebody else will come in here and rent it to somebody else. Even if your intent is to rent it to your mother-in-law or your mother, whatever, if you sell the property somebody else can come in there --

MR. GREGOR: It goes with the life of the property.

MR. LUDWIG: -- and goes with the life of the property. Normally, most building apartments will tell you you’ve got to share a common entrance, a common utility, and you avoid going before us.

MR. FAASSE: No separation between the units.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No lockable separations.

MR. GRYGUS: Yea, right. And what happens to is like you can look at that now and say well, yea, I could live with the parking arrangement stacked, because I control all four vehicles are going to be there. But thinking ahead if that house would ever be sold, somebody could come in and have two separate, you know, units --

MR. LUDWIG: You could have six cars.

MR. GRYGUS: Right, and not be able to control those. So that’s all the things that -- and that’s why I’m trying to say your burden of proof to just come in and seek some bulk variances, because you want to expand your house to get additional living space for your family and perhaps even to accommodate an in-law. Architectural-wise if you laid it out in such a manner that you can show that it’s one continuous dwelling unit, there no separation, there’s no separate utilities, the burden of proof becomes much less for you then in what your really trying to do.

MR. LUDWIG: A lot less expensive.

MR. MIUCCIO: Well, I’m already here, so I would like to --

MR. FAASSE: Proceed.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yea, vote on it.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay, fine. That’s fine.

MR. MIUCCIO: I think that would be the best thing to do now, because if I did take the path that your saying it’s a different set of rules, different application.

MR. LUDWIG: Well, what your asking us to grant you is basically a two family house.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is.

MR. WILLSE: That’s what he’s asking for.

MR. MIUCCIO: I think that’s --

MR. GRYGUS: Right.

MR. MIUCCIO: -- yea, I think that’s what I was told to ask for.

MR. GRYGUS: But I don’t think that’s what he was originally looking to do.

MR. LUDWIG: I don’t think that’s what your looking for.

MR. MIUCCIO: No, that’s not what I wanted.

MR. GRYGUS: That’s why I’m trying to say that to you.

MR. MIUCCIO: I wanted to expand my house larger, and be able to separate the utilities.

MR. GRYGUS: Right.

MR. MIUCCIO: That’s what I wanted to do. I wanted to have two gas meters, two water meters.

MR. LUDWIG: For your mother-in-law --

MR. MIUCCIO: Oh, yea.

MR. LUDWIG: -- or for the future?

MR. MIUCCIO: For anyone who lives in there.

MR. LUDWIG: So, it’s not a mother/daughter.

MR. GRYGUS: So you want a two family house.

MR. WILLSE: So, your looking to rent it.

MR. GRYGUS: Your looking for a two family house.

MR. MIUCCIO: Oh, this is not going to be free rent to my mother-in-law, and I’ve seen many arguments occur from hey, you owe me $50 for the gas bill, you owe me $20. I don’t want that at all. I want it separated, and be like you left the lights on --

MR. LUDWIG: So, your not asking for a mother/ daughter.

MR. WILLSE: Your asking for a two family house --

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. WILLSE: -- regardless of who your tenant is.

MR. MIUCCIO: Well, that’s what I was told to ask for --

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can’t ask for mother/daughter.

MR. MIUCCIO: -- because I can’t ask for a mother/daughter.

MR. WILLSE: There is no such thing as a mother/daughter.

MR. GRYGUS: So, he’s not looking for an expansion of a single family home, he’s looking for a conversion for a two family.

MR. FAASSE: Correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s what the whole application is.

MR. MIUCCIO: Is why I’m here, yes.

MR. LUDWIG: All right, then I’ll retract

my --

MR. GREGOR: Suggestion.

MR. LUDWIG: Okay.

MR. MIUCCIO: Now, if I do --

MR. FAASSE: But what the Board members have pointed out to you is that the burden is a lot higher for a use variance. So, what we’re doing and what they’re saying to you is if you want to take an adjournment of this application and consult with an attorney or someone else as to how you can meet that burden, please feel free to request to be carried to the month.

MR. MIUCCIO: I’d rather not, I’d like to see what happens.

MR. FAASSE: It’s your prerogative, we’re just telling you, you know what I mean.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: It’s like a Miranda Right, you have the right to remain silent, if you give up that right anything you say will --

MR. LUDWIG: We’re trying to be user friendly.

MR. MIUCCIO: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There’s certain negative and positive material, you have to provide the support the use variance requests. Do you understand that you have to present that, and what it really encompasses?

MR. LUDWIG: For a two family your less then one-third the way there a square footage on the property.

MR. GRYGUS: There’s certain special conditions that you have to address also.

MR. MIUCCIO: And that’s on this sheet here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s not.

MR. MIUCCIO: No.

MR. GREGOR: These are the site plans.

MR. GRYGUS: I only raised what I raised is because I really think that you have -- I thought you had something different in mind when you came to see him, but he gave you the impression that you couldn’t do what you wanted to do, and you had to go --

MR. MIUCCIO: That is, yes.

MR. LUDWIG: And so did I, yes.

MR. MIUCCIO: That’s exactly what happened.

MR. GRYGUS: And I’m just trying to just say to you that --

MR. FAASSE: Jeff was probably right.

MR. GRYGUS: Jeff was right, there is no mother/daughter.

MR. FAASSE: You can’t separate the utilities in a mother and daughter.

MR. GRYGUS: Right. But if that was your only stumbling block was the utilities.

MR. FAASSE: Cause that would go against the concept of the mother/daughter.

MR. GRYGUS: You know, it’s -- no, right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Makes it convertible in any two family.

MR. LUDWIG: Never mind.

MR. FAASSE: Yes.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Jeff was right.

MR. GREGOR: In answer to your question these are site plans issues that we’re reported in our letter. We have not discussed on the positive or negative criteria, that is something that you need to present based on the requirements of the MLU element.

MR. LUDWIG: I’m sorry, where were we?

MR. FAASSE: I think the applicant wants to proceed, he proceeds. Tell us what else you want to do?

MR. GRYGUS: Well, why don’t we go over Bill’s plan -- Bill’s report rather. You have a copy of the report, why don’t you address the items on Bill’s report, and tell us what your plans are.

MR. MIUCCIO: Well, what number would you want me to start on, cause one is saying that I did what I was supposed to do.

MR. FAASSE: I think one through four are observations.

MR. MIUCCIO: So, we’ll go right to five.

MR. FAASSE: Five is the requirement, the use variance, which has the higher burden.

MR. MIUCCIO: Says the use variance will be required for the two family structure on a lot with a total lot area of 6,000 square feet.

MR. GRYGUS: You know, I think we can skip really like right into like 13.

MR. MIUCCIO: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: All right. We spoke about the parking, that is showing encroaching into the right of way.

MR. LUDWIG: Wait a minute, your skipping to where?

MR. GRYGUS: Thirteen.

MR. GREGOR: I suggest we up a little bit.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: Just to let we know what we got here. Five is just a declaration of what it is. Six, seven, and eight, and nine are the variances required, all right.

MR. GRYGUS: Right.

MR. GREGOR: Ten is stating that the utilities were provided. Eleven we now have the size of the utility. And I think eleven is important, that’s why I wanted to go back to that.

MR. GRYGUS: Oh, I’m sorry, okay.

MR. MIUCCIO: So, we should start with 11?

MR. GRYGUS: Bill, why don’t you just take the things that you think he needs to address.

MR. GREGOR: All right.

MR. GRYGUS: I’m sorry.

MR. GREGOR: All right, 11, the size of the water main shown is a 2 inch main. The adequacy of this undersized main to provide service to an additional dwelling unit should be confirmed by the applicant.

MR. FAASSE: Did you talk to anyone, talk to the Water Department or anything?

MR. MIUCCIO: No I have not.

MR. GRYGUS: Have you contacted the Sewer Department at all to see if they’ll give you the second hookup?

MR. MIUCCIO: No I have not.

MR. GRYGUS: This is going to require a second sewer hookup also.

MR. MIUCCIO: All right.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay. So, that would be two things you would want to take a look at.

MR. MIUCCIO: It wouldn’t be a second sewer pipe would it be through the line.

MR. GREGOR: Yea, it would have to be another hookup.

MR. LUDWIG: Well, that’s up to them to determine if your pipe is adequate to handle two, but you’ll still be charged for a second hookup.

MR. GRYGUS: Charged two hookups.

MR. LUDWIG: And it’s the flow --

MR. MIUCCIO: Two sewer bills.

MR. GRYGUS: Correct.

MR. MIUCCIO: Two water bills.

MR. GRYGUS: Correct.

MR. LUDWIG: Two sewer bills, and they got to determine whether it’s going to handle two units.

MR. MIUCCIO: Can it handle the volume of water expected from the bedrooms or bathrooms of that.

MR. LUDWIG: Yes, of a second dwelling unit.

MR. MIUCCIO: That’s another thing. If we look at the house that I’m proposing, can we add up the bathrooms and the bedrooms --

MR. LUDWIG: It’s dwelling units as far as --

MR. MIUCCIO: -- to understand what the load would be on the utilities? How does one figure out the load of the utilities?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don’t think they do.

MR. GRYGUS: It’s the utility decides that.

MR. WILLSE: The utility people would tell you that not us.

MR. MIUCCIO: Based on square footage?

MR. WILLSE: I don’t know.

MR. GRYGUS: I don’t know how they do it.

MR. GREGOR: It varies by municipality. Most municipalities do it by either a EDU, which is equivalent dwelling unit or they use your water bill. How much water you use. I’m not sure how Wanaque does it.

MR. GRYGUS: Wanaque is EDU. You have two separate dwelling units, you get charge two hookups.

MR. GREGOR: Yea.

MR. GRYGUS: Right.

MR. GREGOR: Again, it varies --

MR. LUDWIG: As far as the height is determine it’s not just dwelling units, it’s how much square footage or --

MR. FAASSE: That’s another thing. If it’s a two family, your going to get two charges.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, bottom line.

MR. FAASSE: The question is whether your going to have two la -- it’s an amount that’s up to the Sewer Authority not for this board.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: Correct, they decide that.

MR. LUDWIG: That’s not up to us.

MR. MIUCCIO: So, what would you like me to ask the Sewer Authority?

MR. FAASSE: We don’t want you to ask anything.

MR. WILLSE: You can ask them do you need to laterals, that’s what you want.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If they have capacity.

MR. MIUCCIO: Two laterals.

MR. FAASSE: You don’t have to ask him that, we may --

MR. MIUCCIO: Will there be two laterals.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: If there’s a requirement for two laterals, you’d need to show the two laterals on the plans.

MR. MIUCCIO: On the plans.

MR. GREGOR: Likewise with the water if there’s a requirement. It’s the same department I believe, will answer the question for you. Did you call the Water Department?

MR. MIUCCIO: I believe it’s that door right there, right?

MR. GREGOR: I believe he sits there, but I’m not sure. He moves around a little bit.

MR. GRYGUS: All right, number 12, Bill.

MR. GREGOR: So, you’d need to show the two water, as well. And, also, you need to find out whether the 2 inch main is adequate. I don’t know how many dwelling units are now serviced off that main. Because all we see is it going to your house, we don’t know where else it goes. It’s a very small main. Most mains now a days are 8 inches -- 6 to 8 inches. So, a 2 inch main, it’s a very small main.

Item 12, the required easement for water main crossing, for the water main crossing the property should be added to the drawings. The required easement should be provided with meets and bounds, and filed by deed. If you notice the Town’s water main crosses your property.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes it does.

MR. GREGOR: That should be crossing your property with the benefit of an easement. What we’re requesting is that an easement be provided across your property for that water main.

MR. MIUCCIO: What is an easement?

MR. GREGOR: The rights to put --

MR. LUDWIG: To repair it.

MR. MIUCCIO: A 16 inch instead of a 2 inch down the road.

MR. LUDWIG: Whatever they have to do.

MR. MIUCCIO: Whatever they want to do.

MR. GREGOR: Whatever they have to do in the future. The right to dig it up and repair it back to --

MR. MIUCCIO: So what you’re asking me is to give the Town the right to come and do what they need to do.

MR. GREGOR: The Water Department.

MR. FAASSE: How do we know there is no easement?

MR. MIUCCIO: Which I would assume they would do anyways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Our surveyor put the note on the plan.

MR. MIUCCIO: They would do --

MR. LUDWIG: It makes it much easier if you grant it now, then if something happens down the road.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No easement shown on the filed tax map either.

MR. FAASSE: All right, that would be a subject of any approval then.

MR. GRYGUS: Right. Condition.

MR. FAASSE: They might have a prescriptive easement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: All right, 13.

MR. FAASSE: What does this say?

MR. GREGOR: It says no easement shown on deed filed have to be averted.

MR. FAASSE: All right, might have a prescriptive easement.

MR. MIUCCIO: What does that mean?

MR. FAASSE: Prescriptive easement?

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: They used it for over 20 years, openatorious (phonetic) you know and everything else, so they don’t need a written easement.

MR. MIUCCIO: Because it’s been there for 20 years or more, they’re going to do it.

MR. FAASSE: That’s right.

MR. LUDWIG: But it makes it easier if you grant it.

MR. GRYGUS: It doesn’t cost you anything.

MR. LUDWIG: Correct, Ralph?

MR. FAASSE: Correct, absolutely.

MR. MIUCCIO: And who do I talk to about the paperwork for that?

MR. FAASSE: Well, any approval would be subject to you grant them an easement for that water main, and then you would have to get an attorney, prepare the easement, your engineer would prepare the meets and bounds, the Borough would have to determine if they want to accept it.

MR. MIUCCIO: So, I would have to talk to a lawyer, draw up an easement, and bring it here, bring it there, bring to whom?

MR. FAASSE: Yea. But the Board doesn’t have to make that as a condition.

MR. GRYGUS: That has been -- we’ve waived that in the past too.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, yea.

MR. MIUCCIO: So, it’s something you would like to have --

MR. GRYGUS: Right.

MR. MIUCCIO: -- but it’s not necessary to have, but it makes everything nice. All right.

MR. FAASSE: No, it’s necessary to have. The question is whether not the Board sees fit to grant it as a condition of any approval.

MR. MIUCCIO: So, we’ll get back to that one.

MR. GRYGUS: Thirteen we addressed is the driveway dimensions.

MR. GREGOR: Yea, the driveway.

MR. FAASSE: Well, the problem is are you amending your application to request the parking variance?

MR. MIUCCIO: I don’t know what I am applying for.

MR. FAASSE: The fact of the matter is you don’t have adequate parking on your lot for a two family house. Now either you provide it, or you ask for a variance.

MR. MIUCCIO: Asking that I not provide it, that’s the variance.

MR. FAASSE: Correct.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: That’s what your doing.

MR. MIUCCIO: I don’t believe so. I’m stating that I have the parking, and that I’d like the Board

to --

MR. LUDWIG: You do not have the parking.

MR. WILLSE: You think you have the parking, but according to the --

MR. GRYGUS: The drawing you can’t provide it.

MR. WILLSE: -- the var -- I’m trying to think of the word --

MR. FAASSE: Ordinance.

MR. WILLSE: -- ordinance, you don’t.

MR. MIUCCIO: Okay. So, who do I see for the paperwork to start that.

MR. FAASSE: You just ask right now.

MR. MIUCCIO: May I have the variance.

MR. FAASSE: Your requesting a variance for the parking from the parking requirements of the Borough Ordinances.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: So, that is the one, two, three, four, fifth bulk variance requested.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can’t.

MR. GREGOR: What variance is requested?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can’t grant a variance to the right of way.

MR. LUDWIG: Not to the right of way, but to the parking requirement we can.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Requirement.

MR. GREGOR: No, we -- we can’t.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, we’re not going to approve the --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we going to shorten the space?

MR. GREGOR: Well, that’s what I’m asking, what’s the variance we’re requesting?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Here’s the upside of this, okay. In certain sections of Haskell they’re putting curbing in. If they decide that Monroe Street was going to be done next year, that creates a problem. How would you deal with that problem?

MR. MIUCCIO: I think I’d have to make the parking angulated in front of the house, and pave the front.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. But in other words, if the curbed it and you could only have one driveway cut, how would you position for cars on your property, which is really where the Board has to go with this.

MR. MIUCCIO: Okay. Well, I think an idea would be to pave the entire front lawn then, if your going to curb the street and take the row away from the property. Take that paved area that I park on, and then that little bit of grass, and your going to make a curb right at that point and widen the road. Is that what your suggesting that it may happen?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s a potential thing that could happen.

MR. MIUCCIO: Well, at that point I think --

MR. FAASSE: Excuse me Mr. Chairman, would the record reflect that Mr. Covelli has arrived at 8:52.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes. He will be docked for 52 minutes.

MR. GRYGUS: Bill, that would also be an issue in the future too, because don’t we have an ordinance with the maximum width of curb cut?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s what I’m saying, he’s only going to have one curb cut.

MR. GRYGUS: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Out of four cars accessed at a reversing 90 into one curb cut.

MR. GREGOR: That’s the reason for my request here is to be dimensioned so we know how wide the curb cut is, how big the parking spaces are, so we know what variance is being requested.

MR. FAASSE: He’s asking for a variance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, but he’s asking for a variance.

MR. GREGOR: A variance for number of parking spaces, for the size, for what, what’s the variance, what’s he asking for?

MR. FAASSE: The parking requirements.

MR. GREGOR: Which one?

MR. LUDWIG: Bill, also going for impervious surface, for that too.

MR. GREGOR: Pardon.

MR. LUDWIG: Impervious surface with the additional parking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Impervious cover.

MR. GREGOR: Well, your going to have more impervious coverage with larger spaces.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. That’s the follow-up to the question.

MR. GREGOR: Yea.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How do we deal with this?

MR. GREGOR: Well, there’s two issues with the parking as it’s laid out now. Number one, it’s in the right of way, so your going to have to -- actually three issues.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s not acceptable.

MR. GRYGUS: All right. All right. Here’s the thing, the ordinance requires you --

MR. GREGOR: So, your going to have to shorten the parking spaces up.

MR. GRYGUS: -- the ordinance requires you to provide two off street parking spaces per unit.

MR. LUDWIG: Onsite.

MR. GRYGUS: Onsite.

MR. GREGOR: Correct.

MR. FAASSE: 10 by 20, not stacked.

MR. GRYGUS: Right. And all he’s asking for a waiver of that. He’s asking for a variance for that requirement. So, if -- if we grant --

MR. GREGOR: For the number?

MR. GRYGUS: For the number of spaces.

MR. GREGOR: Oh, okay, I wasn’t sure if it was the number or the size, that’s what I was trying to clarify.

MR. GRYGUS: So, if he gets it granted, then he’s got to find a way to make it work.

MR. GREGOR: Well, how many parking spaces are you proposing?

MR. MIUCCIO: I need three.

MR. LUDWIG: Onsite?

MR. MIUCCIO: Onsite, 10 by 20 on the --

MR. GRYGUS: Well, you could make the three work there by having the 1, 3, and 4 being parallel to the street.

MR. WILLSE: And have no curbing at all.

MR. LUDWIG: Would you allow that curb cut, I don’t think so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You can’t have a curb cut that big.

MR. GRYGUS: You wouldn’t have to.

MR. LUDWIG: Hum.

MR. GRYGUS: You wouldn’t have to.

MR. WILLSE: He would have no curb, he would just have a big driveway.

MR. LUDWIG: If they put curbs in yes you will.

MR. GRYGUS: He could pull into the driveway and back into it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, that’s what I was asking. In the future if they curbed it, how does he access the parking at a 90 like that?

MR. LUDWIG: See, he’ll one, two, three.

MR. GRYGUS: Exactly, one, two, and three sideways.

MR. LUDWIG: No, you could double line.

MR. WILLSE: No, one, two.

MR. LUDWIG: One, two, three.

MR. GRYGUS: Whatever.

MR. LUDWIG: We’re not supposed to be designing it.

MR. GRYGUS: No, but it’s too deep.

MR. GREGOR: Excuse me, the gentleman has an engineer. What I suggest we do is let him discuss it with an engineer and tell us what he’s going to do.

MR. MIUCCIO: No, I like the fact that you guys are discussing it now, because you are the people that I have to appease to. If you think that that will happen, that the curb will be cut, and that the parking will be like that, yes, I will find a way of parking. I can park it know or I can park it later. My engineer is guessing what you guys want. If you could just tell me what you want.

MR. FAASSE: No, he shouldn’t have to guess, all he has to do is read the ordinances. The ordinances are very clear. Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: All right. I’ll you what, let’s go a step further, let’s go a step further with the parking, because it’s in number 14, but it kind of relates to the parking.

How do you get out of the vehicles in spots 1 and 2 without crossing into the neighbors property?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, actually you got a fence there.

MR. MIUCCIO: The fence will be removed, the existing sections of fence to be removed, the proposed gate will be at the front of space 1. And I would think that the 10 feet wide would allow you to get out of your car to get around it. It’s not that the tire is on the edge of the 10 foot.

MR. GRYGUS: But by the same token your not going to put the car 2 inches off the house. So, even though you have 10 feet, your almost right on the side of the house there. How does somebody get out of the passenger door?

MR. KONING: And/or if the neighbor puts up a fence.

MR. GRYGUS: Yea.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Miuccio, understand something, we’re dealing with something that if this is approved runs with the life of the property, not with your time in that dwelling.

MR. MIUCCIO: I understand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So, it impacts anybody in the future that would live in this dwelling. As the member said if somebody puts a fence up there, and your house is here, it’s going to be tough to open the car doors.

MR. MIUCCIO: I understand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So, you need to do some homework on how this parking is. The other related question was, which was, what is it 14, is a walkway to the dwelling.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes. That’s something I don’t understand why you could get hung up on a walkway. The walkway will be wherever it feels right to put it. It’ll be first tracked through the grass, and then converted into pavers or whatever it needs to be, stepping stones.

MR. GREGOR: Let me ask a question, maybe this will help clarify what I was looking for in 14, if I may. You have spaces 3 and 4 parked in the front.

MR. MIUCCIO: I know.

MR. GREGOR: All right. If you look at the architectural’s that you can’t walk in front of the vehicles to get to the side of the house, correct, because there’s a projection in the architectural’s on the first floor it comes right out to vehicle 3. Is that correct?

MR. MIUCCIO: Not really. State that again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The drawings are a little confusing.

MR. GREGOR: Okay, hang on, let me guide you to a drawing.

MR. MIUCCIO: I’m in space 3, I pull in, space 1 and 2 are already filled.

MR. GREGOR: All right. Page A2 of the architectural’s, look at the first floor plan.

MR. MIUCCIO Yes.

MR. GREGOR: You see the patio in the front of the dwelling unit.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: Now there’s a -- a projection into that patio from your first floor area, I don’t know what it is it’s not labeled, it’s just projecting. You see you that?

MR. MIUCCIO: The outdoor closet.

MR. GREGOR: That’s a closet.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: So, obviously, if you try to walk from the front of those vehicles is there a door to the rear -- where’s the door to the rear apartment?

MR. MIUCCIO: Of our house?

MR. GREGOR: Pardon.

MR. MIUCCIO: Rear of the house, is that what your asking?

MR. GREGOR: The main floor of the house.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, there’s two front doors, Bill.

MR. MIUCCIO: There’s two front doors. As you walk through the patio through the front door --

MR. CHAIRMAN: A3, Bill.

MR. MIUCCIO: -- through the recreation room, you’d be out the sliding doors to the back patio.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Two front doors, one is recessed, the left side door is recessed back off the patio.

MR. GREGOR: And the left side door would be the first floor access door or the second floor.

MR. MIUCCIO: Ideally, the parking for if you were to go shopping would be right to the side of the patio as you would unload the car into the covered patio area. Cause the second floor the master bedroom would be over that patio area.

MR. GREGOR: So, your saying that the two front parking spaces would be to the front door the front or the lower apartment; correct?

MR. MIUCCIO: Two parking spaces being one and two, three and four, or two and three.

MR. WILLSE: One and two is for the second floor, and three and four are for the first floor.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes.

MR. WILLSE: Is that the question you wanted Bill?

MR. GREGOR: Okay. Three and four --

MR. MIUCCIO: Three and four would be associated with the downstairs first floor, one and two would be for the second floor upstairs.

MR. GREGOR: Okay. That’s what your proposing, there’s no need to walk in front of the vehicles to get to any apartment, you can walk behind the vehicles. Is that correct?

MR. MIUCCIO: If you park in space one, you get behind the vehicle to go through the door. Space two you get out the door and go in through the door, space three you’d walk along the front of the vehicles and get through the door.

MR. GREGOR: And so the applicant has clarified item 14 on how he’s proposing it to work, all right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Fifteen is a comment, sixteen is a comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s the date, right.

MR. GRYGUS: Well, 16 I just would have a question as to the first plan had a seepage pit, and the second plan doesn’t. Are you proposing any seepage pits on the --

MR. MIUCCIO: No I’m not. I did not understand what that was at the time that I asked the surveyor to draw it up. He suggested that the Board has been asking for it lately, they’d like to see something like that. If you feel that you should put it in I told him, I don’t know. I saw it, I understood that it was a major problem that last time I was here. I don’t see there’s a need for it. I asked my neighbors. If we look at the area map I’ve asked lot 9 if they have a seepage pit, and they don’t. And a major portion of their yard is non-permeable, where it’s mostly paved.

MR. GREGOR: Impervious is the word your looking for.

MR. MIUCCIO: Impervious. And I would think they would qualify for a seepage pit, and they don’t. And lot 7 has a large construction done to it, and they don’t have a seepage pit either.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay. So, your not proposing any seepage pit?

MR. MIUCCIO: No I’m not, and I did not --

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MR. MIUCCIO: -- I don’t, I’ve asked around.

MR. GRYGUS: Seventeen.

MR. COVELLI: Let’s back up to 16 just to explain why we are requiring a seepage pit.

MR. GRYGUS: Well, we’re just asking him if he’s going to provide it, because --

MR. COVELLI: But he’s under the impression that that’s a luxury that we either impose or don’t, or, in fact, it’s under State regulations that that’s come about in 2004.

MR. GRYGUS: Well, they want you to --

MR. FAASSE: There is an issue as to whether or not it’s mandatory versus --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: But that -- that --

MR. COVELLI: It’s been recommended.

MR. FAASSE: Correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s recommended by the State, it’s being deal locally by the different towns with ordinances.

MR. COVELLI: No Increase in storm water run off.

MR. GRYGUS: Zero net reduction.

MR. GREGOR: But it isn’t mandated under State requirements.

MR. COVELLI: But it’s recommended by the State.

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. COVELLI: But that’s where that comes from.

MR. FAASSE: And the Board could require it if you find the drainage condition was required. MR. LUDWIG: Whether a neighbor has it or not doesn’t mean you don’t have to.

MR. MIUCCIO: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: It’s just that the State is looking for a net reduction of water flow off your property to the surrounding properties or into the municipal storm sewer system.

MR. COVELLI: And you also have to remember that your neighbors haven’t been before the Board to make a change in the impervious surface for the runoff of their existing property. So, in other words, if somebody has a condition that’s been that way for ten years or fifteen years or whatever the case may be, this is a recent recommendation by the State.

MR. GREGOR: Yes, 2004 it became effective.

MR. COVELLI: Just so you understand where that’s coming from.

MR. MIUCCIO: No, I understand.

MR. GRYGUS: Number 17 on your surrounding properties, do you know what the uses are of those surrounding properties, are they single family, two family?

MR. FAASSE: Are they all residential?

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes.

MR. GRYGUS: Are any of those lots within your 200 foot circle?

MR. MIUCCIO: Uh-hum.

MR. GRYGUS: Are they all single family or any of them two family uses?

MR. MIUCCIO: That I personally know of. I’m unsure about lot 7, lot number 442.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. MIUCCIO: And lot 5.

MR. GRYGUS: You don’t know that they are your saying your unsure?

MR. MIUCCIO: I’m unsure, and they might just be single families like the rest of them. I know lot 2, 3, and 4, and 5 along Hanable (phonetic) Place are smaller houses similar to mine. Lot 7 just got expanded very large, lot 8 is a smaller house like mine, lot 12 is a larger home, lot 10 is a larger home, lot 9 is a larger home, lot 2 of block 441 is a very large home. Lot 1 and 3 are similar to my size currently.

MR. GREGOR: To you knowledge are there any two family homes?

MR. MIUCCIO: Within 200 feet of my house no.

MR. FAASSE: No there are not or no --

MR. MIUCCIO: Can I sniff them out, I can.

MR. GREGOR: Pardon.

MR. MIUCCIO: I can sniff them out for you if you want.

MR. GREGOR: I’m just asking you cause that’s the testimony we’re looking for.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One other question. Are you abandoning the use to your basement?

MR. MIUCCIO: My basement right now is a root cellar.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. MIUCCIO: And no I’m not abandoning it, it’ll still be there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How are you going to get into it, it appears your removing access to it?

MR. MIUCCIO; No, the Bilco doors will still be there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. MIUCCIO: But it’s not on the plans.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s not on the drawing.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yea.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They don’t show up in your drawing is why I’m asking. They show up in the existing, but not the future, proposed.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yea, they show up on the first floor plan existing on page A1. They’re highlighted or drawn over.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They disappear in A2.

MR. MIUCCIO: That’s right.

MR. WILLSE: It becomes a patio.

MR. MIUCCIO: It does, a covered patio.

MR. WILLSE: I the Bilco door still going to be there?

MR. MIUCCIO: Possibly can downsize the Bilco doors to a patch, metal plate?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have no bearing on that.

MR. MIUCCIO: Does anyone know about that, what the size --

MR. CHAIRMAN: You would have to ask the building inspector.

MR. FAASSE: That’s the building inspector’s call.

MR. MIUCCIO: Building inspector.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s a code issue.

MR. MIUCCIO: But you would like to see a drawing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, I’m just asking, because I see your HVAC two closets. I thought you were just giving up the use of the basement when the doors disappeared. There’s no other internal access to go down there.

MR. MIUCCIO: There is really no basement, it is a crawl space.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Crawl space.

MR. MIUCCIO: It’s a muddy pit, that’s all it is.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Uh-hum, okay. Just a question.

MR. GRYGUS: Bill, number 18.

MR. GREGOR: Number 18 is the additional topographic information should be provided to assure positive drainage. With the increased impervious area there’s going to be increased runoff, where is it going?

MR. FAASSE: That could be a condition.

MR. GRYGUS: Mr. Miuccio, have you contacted any of your adjacent property owners to see if they’d be interested in selling any of their property at all, so you could expand the size of your lot?

MR. MIUCCIO: No. Is that possible to do?

MR. GRYGUS: You never know who might be interested in selling and who wouldn’t be.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yea, because lot 8 would be nice lot, block 439. And maybe that’s something I should explore.

MR. LUDWIG: That’s vacant?

MR. MIUCCIO: No, it’s not vacant.

MR. GRYGUS: It shows a dwelling on it.

MR. LUDWIG: Huh.

MR. GRYGUS: It shows a dwelling on it right here.

MR. MIUCCIO: There’s a dwelling on it.

MR. GRYGUS: So, they wouldn’t be able to.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s a substandard lot also.

MR. FAASSE: Is there anything else you want to tell the Board tonight in your testimony?

MR. MIUCCIO: I’d really like to do this.

MR. LUDWIG: So, there’s no vacant property next to your property right now?

MR. MIUCCIO: No.

MR. LUDWIG: And your not intending this to be a strictly mother/daughter, your planning on that for the immediate future, but down the road you may not limit it to a mother daughter?

MR. MIUCCIO: No, I don’t want to limit myself to --

MR. FAASSE: No, Mr. Ludwig, please, you putting words into his mouth. This is an application for a two family conversion.

MR. MIUCCIO: Right.

MR. FAASSE: It’s clear on the plans, it’s clear from the testimony, separate units, separate heat, separate utility, separate water.

MR. MIUCCIO: Separate kitchen.

MR. FAASSE: Absolutely.

MR. MIUCCIO: Separate baths.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. MIUCCIO: No door that connects the two.

MR. FAASSE: Correct.

MR. MIUCCIO: No hello, how you guys doing. No, you got to go around the building.

MR. GRYGUS: Mr. Miuccio, one of the burdens of a use variance is to address what’s called positive and negative criteria. In other words, how is what you want to do inherently beneficial to the community and the neighborhood, and how is there no negative impact to the neighborhood by doing what your doing?

MR. GREGOR: You also have to provide evidence that it’s not harmful to the master plan of Borough of Wanaque.

MR. FAASSE: Or the zoning plan scheme.

MR. GRYGUS: Right. Could you --

MR. MIUCCIO: What is the master plan?

MR. FAASSE: You know, this goes back to what we talked about at least a half hour ago, there is a heavy burden on the use variance. Do you wish to talk consult with your own individual attorney as to how you could possibly better supply the criteria necessary for the Board to vote on this in a favorable way?

MR. GRYGUS: I probably wouldn’t sleep well if I didn’t make this comment to you. You have a significant investment in what you’ve done here, I really think it would be in your best interest to take counsel’s recommendation maybe that you might want to think about that.

MR. FAASSE: Not a recommendation, it’s an offer.

MR. GRYGUS: Yea. Really, it’s just --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Or to do the homework on what the your presentation should include.

MR. GRYGUS: Not that he’s going to take it on, that recommendation was -- yea, I think that it would be beneficial to you and maybe in your best interest, you know, to get some advice from them.

MR. FAASSE: All right. Let’s just, you know, think about that for a minute, okay, cause one of the things we should do tonight whether your going to rest tonight and have this voted on, or whether your going to carry it, is to open it to the public.

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION:

Is there anyone here from the public that wishes to speak on this particular application? Sir, would you come forward, identify yourself. Are you going to testify or ask questions?

MR. DA SILVA: Testify.

MR. FAASSE: Please raise your right hand sir.

D A V I D J O S E P H D A S I L V A , S R ., SWORN

MR. FAASSE: Please state your full name -- you may sit down. Please state your full name, spell your last name, and give us address.

MR. DA SILVA: David Joseph DaSilva, Sr., 108 Monroe Street, in Haskell, New Jersey.

MS. MAROTTA: Could you repeat that, please, David what?

MR. DA SILVA: David Joseph DaSilva, Sr.

MR. FAASSE: Please spell your last name.

MR. DA SILVA: D-a capital S-i-l-v-a.

MS. MAROTTA; Your address?

MR. DA SILVA; 108 Monroe Street.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Are you lot 9 on the --

MR. DA SILVA: I’m lot 12, I believe.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Lot 12, I’m sorry.

MR. DA SILVA: South of the property.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, you abut it.

MR. DA SILVA: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. To what direction, Mr. Gregor?

MR. GREGOR: There’s no north arrow on the area map.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, you didn’t note on the plan.

MR. GREGOR: So, I have to look at this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s south.

MR. GREGOR: Thank you.

MR. DA SILVA: I actually have a letter prepared that I’ll give you a copy of after I’m through, if that’s okay. Dear Mr. Dunning, I write this letter today in response to an application for bulk and use variances submitted by my neighbor, Nicholas Miuccio, 106 Monroe St., Haskell, New Jersey 07420. Mr. Miuccio’s application was referenced as number 10-06, the application is for approval to convert his one family home into a two family home. My wife and I are strongly against the approval of this application, and we submit the following as evidence for your consideration.

A lot of this is going to be obvious, cause we’ve discussed it already, but if you’d just let me get through it I’d appreciate it.

The zoning area and bulk schedule lists 20,000 square feet of minimum lot area for a two family home in the R10 district. Mr. Miuccio’s lot size is 120 by 50 or 6,000 square feet. Mr. Miuccio’s lot clearly is under the required minimum lot square footage with less then a third of the required space.

Wanaque Borough Chapter 114 article 5 describes off-street parking requirements for residential zones. The code clearly states that a two family home must have two parking spaces for each dwelling unit that is on the same property as it is intended to serve. Also described in article 5 the width of each parking space is not to be less then 8 feet for the R10 district. I do not believe that Mr. Miuccio can fit more then two car parking spaces on his property without encroaching on the Borough of Wanaque’s right of way at the street line at 106 Monroe Street, or without significant changes to the layout of his property. New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law NJSA 40:55D-2E states that the purpose of the act among other items is to promote the establishment of the appropriate population densities and concentrations that will continue -- excuse me - contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods, communities, and regions, and preservation of the environment.

Wanaque Borough Code Chapter 114, article 1 describes the purpose of the zoning ordinance. Section A states that the intent of the code is to establish a plan for the land and building in order to promote and protect the public health, safety, morals, and the general welfare of the people. Section B1 states that the code must protect the character and maintain the stability of all areas within the borough.

I believe that Mr. Miuccio’s two family home would pose a substantial detriment to the public good, and compromise the general welfare of our neighborhood and its residents.

Prior to purchasing our home at 108 Monroe Street my wife and I drove around the neighborhood. We love the fact that the entire neighborhood seemed to comprise families living in single family homes. We purchased our home in this neighborhood specifically because we loved the way it was then and still is today. Any significant changes to the type of homes in the neighborhood will irreversibly change the character of our neighborhood, and thereby reduce my family’s enjoyment of our property.

The other members of our neighborhood will also endure these same negative consequences. It is this, the alteration of an entire neighborhood, which should be considered as the general welfare of the people.

Wanaque Borough Code Chapter 114, article 1, section B states that the code must conserve the taxable value of land and buildings. I believe that a two family home in a one family home neighborhood can radically change a property’s value. I am very concerned about the stability of my home’s value, if a two family home is allowed right next door.

Wanaque Borough Code Chapter 114, article 7 lists the guiding principles for conditional uses. These principles further emphasize the points I made above regarding the character of the neighborhood. The principles include the design, arrangement, and nature of the use is such that the public health, safety, and welfare be protected and reasonable consideration afforded to the character of the neighborhood and zone district, conservation of property values, health and safety of residents on adjacent properties, potential congestion of vehicular traffic or creation of undue hazard.

Wanaque Borough Code Chapter 114, article 7 describes the submission of proposed plan and drainage criteria. Section B states before any conditional use permit is granted the applicant must secure approval of the proposed drainage by the engineer. This is of particular concern to our neighborhood. For the past year our neighborhood has experienced many days of flooding conditions. This flooding has destroyed many belongings of ours, and our neighbors. We are unsure of how Mr. Miuccio’s plan will effect the drainage in our neighborhood. The Borough of Wanaque needs to investigate how the issue of drainage will be effected prior to approving this application.

Wanaque Borough Code Chapter 98, article 7 references the determination as to construction of improvements. Will Mr. Miuccio’s plan cause the town to make any offsite or off track improvements, and, if so, how will that effect the neighbors around 106 Monroe Street.

After a quick review of Mr. Miuccio’s application, file, and plans I submit the following comments. Parking is a major issue with this application. The two spaces closest to our home on the left side or south side of 106 Monroe Street will be right up against the property line, and extend from the front street line passed the back of my home. If I look out any window on the north side of my house, I will see a parking lot. The two spaces in the front of the property at 106 Monroe Street extend into the Borough’s right of way, and block access to walkways to enter either dwelling unit. The parking lot will consume almost the entire front of the property, it will look like a commercial area, doctor’s office, or apartment building. How will the new parking spaces on the left side of 106 Monroe Street effect the existing tree on my property? That has never been addressed. How will the new landscaping that Mr. Miuccio put in in the past few months effect the parking lot plan, which is not addressed on the plans?

In reference to the required 950 square feet of furnished livable space in each unit of a two family home, the plan indicates 1700 square feet within the dwelling. It is unclear on the plans whether this total includes spaces that actually qualify under the Wanaque Borough Code 114-7 or 9. The plan also includes 164.1 square feet of an outdoor porch, 44.3 square feet of a shed, and 67.2 square feet of a lattice area. According to the code, these areas cannot be included in figuring the minimum furnished square feet per dwelling. Therefore, Mr. Miuccio’s plan will at least be short by 200 feet.

In his letter dated May 30th, 2006, Mr. William Gregor informed Mr. Miuccio that a storm water management plan was needed. Also, in subsequent letters Mr. Gregor asked for a storm water management plan. As of today no plan has been submitted by Mr. Miuccio or his team of professionals. In reference to the storm water management plan, a seepage pit was part of the plans in the last revision, but removed in the current plan dated August 15th, 2006. If the seepage pit is still part of the plan or it will be at some point in the future, I submit the following concerns. How will the proposed seepage pit effect my home and property? How will the seepage pit be connected to the roof leaders, where will the 4 inch PVC be routed? What kind of maintenance will be required of Mr. Miuccio? What can happen if it is not maintained? What kind of safety concerns need to be addressed in reference to placing a seepage pit only feet from above ground pool? Does this pretty much guarantee a sink hole will form? The size and character of the home is inconsistent with the neighborhood, and this is clearly too much house on too little property.

Mr. Miuccio is asking the Board to grant him permission to break at least a dozen or so local, county, and state ordinances. I think the scope of his application’s requests, and the long term detriment to the neighborhood should strongly weigh on the minds of each member of this board prior to making a decision on this application. Obviously, if Mr. Miuccio’s application is approved, my family’s enjoyment of our property will be significantly reduced. I am saddened to think that we may be forced to sell our home and move to a community where the desires of one resident are not allowed to significantly alter the lives of so many other neighbors.

In conclusion, when we purchased or home in Haskell, my family and I planned to spend many years in this neighborhood. We felt it was the ideal setting to raise our son, David, Jr. If Mr. Miuccio’s application is approved the these bulk and use variances, we are not sure what type of neighborhood our son will be forced to encounter. Today our neighborhood is a very happy, friendly, and safe place to live. I believe that we are justifiably concerned that tenants in a two family house may not care about their home or neighborhood in the same fashion. I think you for your time and consideration.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: I just have a question. I just want to make sure the front of your house faces Monroe Street?

MR. DA SILVA: Correct.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Okay. Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: Do you have a copy of that letter for the Board?

MR. DA SILVA: I do.

MR. FAASSE: I mean we’re taking it as testimony, but just to make the secretary’s job a lot easier writing the minutes.

MR. DA SILVA: That’s fine.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: You did read it verbatim, did you not?

MR. DA SILVA: Yes.

MR. LUDWIG: One other question. There’s been a problem with a clogged drainage pipe behind your property.

MR. DA SILVA: Actually, north of my property by Second Avenue.

MR. LUDWIG: And has that been re-mediated or not?

MR. DA SILVA: It was fixed for about a week, and then we had another rainstorm, I had water in my den again.

MR. LUDWIG: Just recently?

MR. DA SILVA: Yea.

MR. FAASSE: Are there any other questions of this particular witness?

Mr. Miuccio, do you have any questions you want to address this witness?

MR. MIUCCIO: Yea. You stated morals and character as part of the understanding of how to layout the town. To ask my mother-in-law into my house would be a good character morally, isn’t that right, to bring your family closer to yourself. He also said break ordinances. I’m not breaking ordinances, I’m asking for variances.

MR. FAASSE: No, do you have questions you want to ask him?

MR. MIUCCIO: Actually, I don’t know --

MR. FAASSE: I mean we’ll let you say more about his testimony, you can sum up.

MR. MIUCCIO: I actually have a harassment suit against him that will be I think it’s called mediation tomorrow with this man, so there’s a very deep something else going on here.

MR. FAASSE: Well, why don’t you ask him. Do you hold hostility towards Mr. Miuccio?

MR. MIUCCIO; Because I don’t think this is a mediation session where --

MR. DA SILVA; Excuse me.

MR. FAASSE: Do you hold any kind of hostility towards Mr. Miuccio?

MR. DA SILVA: About this issue, no.

MR. FAASSE: Did he file any kind of complaint against you or did you file one against him?

MR. DA SILVA: Both, which is unrelated to this issue. This has been going on since April. The issue he is talking about happened at the end of August. I actually wrote this letter August 1st, it has nothing to do with that. I don’t believe that my desire to live in a safe neighborhood have anything to do with our fence issue.

MR. FAASSE: Well, that would be the Board to determine, you know, you gentlemen assess the credibility of the witnesses as to whether or not it does or it does not, but it is an issue that can effect one’s (inaudible).

MR. MIUCCIO: I have a question for you. You stated that your upset about trying to augment the size of my house. What do you feel about lot 7, block number 439 in the size of that house?

MR. DA SILVA: That means nothing to me.

MR. FAASSE: What number is that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Lot 7.

MR. FAASSE: Where is it located?

MR. MIUCCIO: It’s lot 7, it’s on --

MR. FAASSE: Well, you got to explain it, I mean he doesn’t have this map in front of him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Two houses to west going towards Hanable Place.

MR. MIUCCIO: I could show him a picture of it as --

MR. DA SILVA: Is that on Henry?

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes.

MR. DA SILVA: Which lot is it?

MR. FAASSE: Seven, two houses to the back of yours.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Is that a two family house?

MR. MIUCCIO: No, I don’t believe so.

MR. DA SILVA: It’s renovation, they removed it, put a second floor on and it’s not done yet. So, I actually haven’t gone down there and looked around, but my issue primarily is in reference to the two family issue, and the consequences of that. I would love to see Mr. Miuccio’s property cleaned up and renovated, because it’s kind of an embarrassment right now. But I would love to see some changes done.

MR. MIUCCIO: Has the Board gone to my property?

MR. LUDWIG: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: They don’t go collectively, they usually go individually, and I’m assuming that most of them have.

MR. MIUCCIO: Besides the house part of it, do you feel the property is a embarrassment?

MR. FAASSE: We don’t give testimony.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We don’t get into that.

MR. GREGOR: That’s subjective, I don’t think we’d make that kind of comment.

MR. GRYGUS: No.

MR. GREGOR: It has really nothing to do with this application.

MR. LUDWIG: We look for the character of the neighborhood, the, you know --

MR. GREGOR: And the way it fits within the ordinance of the town.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Size of the lot.

MR. LUDWIG: Size of the lot.

MR. FAASSE: The zoning, the requirements of the --

MR. MIUCCIO: Can I present these pictures of neighbors that just --

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s your application.

MR. FAASSE: One second, one second, okay. Do you have any other questions for this gentlemen? We have to do everything orderly. Right now it’s the public’s.

MR. MIUCCIO: There’s many layers here. Questions about how he feels of the construction that I’d like to do.

MR. FAASSE: He’s testified with respect to the letter that he read --

MR. MIUCCIO: yes.

MR. FAASSE: -- you have the right to cross, and ask him any questions on his testimony, correct.

MR. DA SILVA: In reference to my testimony.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To your letter.

MR. DA SILVA: Not ancillary items.

MR. FAASSE: Well, to a certain extent yes. You know, bias, prejudice is always pertinent, you know.

MR. MIUCCIO: I don’t know what to ask him.

MR. FAASSE: All right, you have questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Is there anyone else from the public that wishes to make a statement on this particular application one way or the other?

MR. COVELLI: Mr. DaSilva, do you have anything further to say in your testimony?

MR. DA SILVA: No.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does anyone else in the public have any statements or questions on this application?

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

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

MR. MIUCCIO: Pictures.

MR. FAASSE: Reopening your case, pictures. How many you got?

MR. MIUCCIO: Four.

MR. FAASSE: Four. A-1 through 4, Mr. Grygus, please, date them.

MR. GRYGUS: Certainly Mr. Faasse.

MR. MIUCCIO: Two are of the house that we were just discussing that’s getting renovated.

MR. FAASSE: After we number them, your going to have to tell us which is which.

MR. GRYGUS: You can tell by looking at them.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, can we, okay.

MR. MIUCCIO: One is showing a house all the way up on the curb.

MR. FAASSE: Why are these photos relevant to your case?

MR. MIUCCIO: Because I think it shows certain characters what my house may feel like.

MR. LUDWIG: Are they two families?

MR. MIUCCIO: No.

MR. GRYGUS: Could you tell us which lot and block these houses are, so I can enter it?

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes, lot 7, block 439, there’s two of those.

MR. COVELLI: That’s the house under renovation.

MR. MIUCCIO; That house is a large square footage house, and possibly I could get exact square footage.

MR. GRYGUS: All right. How about could you tell me what lot and block this photo is?

MR. MIUCCIO: When you make a right onto Whistler, and you go to the end of Whistler and make a left where the woods are --

MR. GRYGUS: So, you have no address on this or anything?

MR. MIUCCIO: Jefferson.

MR. GREGOR: Is that within the 200 foot?

MR. MIUCCIO: No it’s not, it’s within our downtown Haskell area.

MR. GRYGUS: What was the purpose of this photo?

MR. MIUCCIO: To show how close the living space of a house is to the curb.

MR. LUDWIG: But that’s not your immediate block.

MR. GRYGUS: How about that one there?

MR. MIUCCIO: That would be the next door neighbor of that house, 122 I think it is. So, the first one would be 1 --

MR. GREGOR: It’s still not within your 200 foot radius.

MR. GRYGUS: 122 Jefferson,

MR. MIUCCIO: No, it’s not within 200 feet, but it’s part of our downtown. Cape town I think they call it.

MR. GREGOR: This is the picture of the right of way --

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: -- looking down toward Second Avenue.

MR. MIUCCIO: Monroe Street as you turn left on it from Park Avenue looking down.

MR. GREGOR: Toward Second.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes, looking at the factory. Which is another thing, we stare at a warehouse wall. That’s a very commercial feel.

MR. GRYGUS: I’m going to give you this one back, because you really can’t identify it by lot, block or address, so to look at it really doesn’t, right Ralph, really doesn’t. Am I correct in what I’m saying?

MR. FAASSE: Yea, we’ll agree with you, just to make you feel good. Are we passing the photos down?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We’re working this way.

MR. LUDWIG: They’re working their way down.

MR. FAASSE: Is there anything else you want to tell us Mr. Miuccio?

MR. COVELLI: I got a question. I’m still trying to figure out what the relevance of lot 7 is in your testimony. Are you saying that he did an extensive renovation, maybe might have, you know, built more then he should have or --

MR. MIUCCIO: No, I’m not saying that. I’m saying lot 7 is a very similar lot to myself. The house is large, something that possibly would look just like what my house would look like.

MR. GRYGUS: But it’s a single family house.

MR. LUDWIG: But it’s a single family house.

MR. MIUCCIO: A single family house yes, with I believe four adults living in that house.

MR. WILLSE: Single family house, two parking spaces.

MR. LUDWIG: What’s required on a single family house is two, yes.

MR. MIUCCIO: I understand.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ve had teenage kids, and I’ve had all sorts of cars in my yard. But what is required by the town, maybe it’s not realistic, but is two parking spaces for a single family house. And you could have six kids, you could have eight cars in that respect, but what is required is two. If you have a two family house, it’s four, and yes you could have sixteen cars, but what’s required is what your asking to deviate from.

MR. MIUCCIO: Yes.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay. We started speaking before about you could address some of the positive and negative criteria, and the special conditions and reasons.

MR. FAASSE: Well, I think we did that at least three times.

MR. LUDWIG: We did that.

MR. FAASSE: The question is Mr. Miuccio, you heard the testimony of your neighbor, you heard the comments of the Board specifically with respect to some of the questions they had with the parking, with the lot size, and everything.

MR. LUDWIG: Recommendation for counsel.

MR. FAASSE: But more importantly the special reasons that are necessary to satisfy under the Nathesi (phonetic) standard for a use variance. And the Board would again just say to you do you wish to adjourn your application for a month or do you want them to vote on it as you have presented it tonight? Do you want to take a moment to confer with your wife, even though she’s not an owner, she’s here right now, cause it’s just about our recess time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Take a moment, we’re going to take a recess anyway. We’re going to take a five minute break.

MR. LUDWIG: If you want a vote, we can give you a vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You discuss it with your wife.

MR. FAASSE: It’s your option, take the adjournment, you can talk to other professionals, or you can have a vote tonight, whichever way you prefer. We’ll have a recess.

RECESSED AT 8:34 P.M.

RECONVENED AT 9:44 P.M.

MS. MAROTTA: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, meetings back in order. Let the record reflect everyone’s present that was present before our break.

Mr. Miuccio, what was your decision?

MR. MIUCCIO: I think I should take the time to address the questions that the panel has asked me, and to seek the advice of a engineer and lawyer about the six variances I’m asking to be approved for. So, I think I’ll come back with cleaner blueprints dated correctly.

MR. LUDWIG: You don’t even necessarily need cleaner blueprints, just answers to some of the --

MR. MIUCCIO: The water main, the sewers, the drainage seems like a major problem to not only the panel, but to my neighbors.

MR. FAASSE: Could be.

MR. MIUCCIO: And possibly get a consensus from all the neighbors. There might be more of them against me next time.

MR. GRYGUS: Yes, some of the things that were in here.

MR. FAASSE: The applicant has submitted a request to carry his application to the next meeting of the Board, which is October the 4th. Is there a motion to accept that request to carry.

MR. LUDWIG: Motion to carry to October 4th.

MR. GRYGUS: I’ll second.

MR. FAASSE: And are we in sufficient time on this one or do we need -- no, yes we have an extension?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We were supposed to get one.

MR. FAASSE: Supposed to have one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do we have a signed extension on this, we were supposed to.

MS. MAROTTA: I’m checking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the minutes requested we asked for one.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, we asked for one. He might not have been here last month.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We asked for one last month.

MS. MAROTTA: Yes, he has one to November 13th.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, 11/13. Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: Mr. Miuccio, before the roll call, just so you know that any revised plans have to be on file in here more then ten days prior to the Board.

MR. MIUCCIO: Ten days prior. Does the panel feel that I need to revise the plans because of the date, and the --

MR. GRYGUS: That’s up to you, you and your professionals should decide that based upon Mr. Gregor’s letter.

MR. FAASSE: If your going to consult an attorney, your best off, you know, addressing that remark to him as well, okay.

MR. MIUCCIO: Will do, thank you.

MR. FAASSE: All right. That way we have to have the motion here.

MR. GRYGUS: We had it, we had a second.

MR. FAASSE: Well, we have to vote.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO OCTOBER 4TH MEETING: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Hoffman.

MR. COVELLI: Have we established whether we need an extension or not, Mr. Chairman?

MR. FAASSE: We’re okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yea, we’re good to November 14th.

MOTION TO CARRY APPLICATION TO OCTOBER 4TH MEETING: voting continued. Voting yes were Members Covelli, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, and Willse.

MR. FAASSE: Anyone from the public who has interest in this particular application, the application is carried to October the 4th. You will not receive any additional notice, other then the notice you just received now.

MR. FAASSE: Do we have another application, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes we do. I will work my way to that.

Application #16-06 Kevin and Katherine Koslosky, 139 Jackson St., bulk variance.

Okay, the next and the last application for this evening is number 16-06, this is the Koslosky - I hope I pronouncing that right - application, 139 Jackson Street, this is on a bulk variance. Now, let’s get to the right pile of paperwork here.

MR. FAASSE: I’m assuming Kevin and Katherine?

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go right ahead.

MR. FAASSE: Raise your right hands, please.

K E V I N K O S L O S K Y , SWORN

K A T H E R I N E K O S L O S K I, SWORN

MR. FAASSE: Okay. Now, just so that you identify yourself, you are?

MR. KOSLOSKY: Kevin Koslosky.

THE COURT: Okay, one of the applicants.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: And I’m Katherine Koslosky.

MR. FAASSE: The second applicant, okay.

And it pertains to 139 Jackson Street.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: We have a report Mr. Chairman from Mr. Gregor dated September the 5th, 2006, and I do believe that’s a second one. I don’t know when the first one was, but it was superseded. Do you have a copy of that September 5th?

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. KOSLOSKY: We just got it now.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: We just got it when we came here this afternoon.

MR. FAASSE: Hot off the press, August the 4th was the first one.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, you have read Mr. Gregor’s report?

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Are there any preliminary questions, otherwise we will ask the applicants to present their case?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Let’s go right ahead.

MR. FAASSE: Would you please present your case, who is going to speak first?

MR. KOSLOSKY: Basically, we’ve been living in town for like 19 years now, and we kind of like it here I guess, but now with the boys, they’re getting bigger, and the house is kind of small, we want to just make the house a little larger. We prefer to go out the side, this way we don’t, you know, lose too much of our backyard for the boys to still play there, and that’s basically why we have the variance. The bulk one is the front yard is just tied in to where the house was built years ago.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea, it’s existing.

MR. FAASSE: In other words, you would just be continuing the existing front yard setback?

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yea, it would be even less.

MR. FAASSE: Extending it.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Just extending it out, yes.

MR. KOSLOSKY: It’ll be a foot shorter then what the existing house is.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: And one of the reasons why we need the variance is the property line on the one side is on angle, so there’s a corner of where the proposed addition is going that’s actually causing us to need the variance.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, that’s the side yard though.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yea.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea.

MR. KOSLOSKY: The front yard is just --

MR. FAASSE: The front yard doesn’t.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: No.

MR. FAASSE: The angle doesn’t have anything to do with the front.

MR. KOSLOSKY: No, no.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. So, the front yard would be just a continuation of the existing.

MR. GREGOR: Oh, no, they’re actually stepping it back a foot.

MR. KOSLOSKY: It’s actually setback.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: It’s setback.

MR. FAASSE: It’s setback a foot, okay.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Right.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. Now, just so everybody is on the same page it’s the revised drawing dated August 16th.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: For the site map.

MR. WILLSE: Yea, it was received on the 25th.

MR. GRYGUS: Received on the 25th, yes, August dated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, because we had a prior drawing to this.

MR. 9:50:51: Right, we did.

MR. FAASSE: I have a revision 7/14/06.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This revision date on this.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: I have a plan dated 7/14/06.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, no, look on the left.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Go to the left bottom corner, revision date of August 16th.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: August 16th is the revised site plan, yes.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: What the plan is you have survey which the architect marked up and he his title block in the lower lefthand corner with the date. That’s the revision date.

MR. WILLSE: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: All right. And now you started telling us about another side yard variance you needed.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes, that was the rear corner, the 8 foot.

MR. FAASSE: And is that because of that angled property line?

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes, I believe so.

MR. FAASSE: That’s on what side of the property, north, south, east, west?

MR. CHAIRMAN: North.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: North.

MR. FAASSE: They’ve been studying during the last presentation. S13, Bill, north?

MR. GREGOR: Huh.

MR. FAASSE: North, the 8 feet.

MR. GREGOR: 8 feet is the north property.

MR. FAASSE: Or they’re both north it looks like or both 8 feet.

Okay, why do you need one on the other side yard?

MR. GREGOR: Total side yard.

MR. FAASSE: No, you got to propose this one required, side yard. What is that a repeat? Yea, that’s a repeat.

MR. GREGOR:Hang on.

MR. FAASSE: 13 and 14 are duplicates.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes they are.

MR. FAASSE: Oh.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Uh-ho Gregor, your losing it.

MR. GREGOR: Scratch 14.

MR. FAASSE: Here I thought it was just me.

Okay, so then 13 and 14 is actually one variance.

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: And 15 is the total.

MR. GREGOR: There are a total of three variances required.

MR. FAASSE: Three.

MR. GREGOR: Not four.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. And they total to 25.14 instead of the minimum 35, the variance is there. Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You presented a architectural plan by Rehab (phonetic) Construction Company.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Which is I guess undated.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Excuse me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There’s no date. It shows an interior --

MR. KOSLOSKY: Where his signature is it’s dated.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Where the signature is it says July 10th, 2006 on the bottom underneath his signature.

MR. KOSLOSKY: There’s to be a raised seal on three of them anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, I don’t have that, but that’s all right. Do you have the raised seal with a date on the architecture?

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: The architectural plan has been sealed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. Okay. We don’t have that with a date, so we’re just going with this. It shows a first floor plan, second floor plan, and exterior elevations in four directions.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: How many bedrooms is there now?

MR. KOSLOSKY: Three.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Three.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Your proposing it’ll still be a three bedroom.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea, we’re just adding a second bath, desperately needed second bathroom, with four people living in the home. A office area, since we don’t have a finished -- since we have like a --

MR. KOSLOSKY: We don’t have a basement, so.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: We don’t have a basement in our home, we have no storage whatsoever in the house, and, you know, we really need like the study, and like an office to just put things.

MR. FAASSE: You got to be careful now.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Why?

MR. FAASSE: You used the word office.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Oh, I’m sorry.

MR. FAASSE: What’s it going to be used for?

MR. KOSLOSKY Well, it actually will be my computer room, my drums, put it that way. Like, I don’t know, what would you call that?

MR. FAASSE: You mean your drums, like a musical instrument?

MR. CHAIRMAN: What do you call it on the plan?

MR. WILLSE: Sitting room.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Sitting room.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Sitting room, sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sitting room, okay.

MR. FAASSE: Your not going to be operating a business out of there?

MR. KOSLOSKY: No, no.

MR. LUDWIG: It also looks like it’s a laundry room as well.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea, we added a laundry room, because right now we don’t --

MR. LUDWIG: As part of the sitting room.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. FAASSE: Your not going to be operating a business out of there?

MRS. KOSLOSKY: No.

MR. KOSLOSKY: No.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: No, no, oh, please forgive me, wrong words then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Sitting room with laundry hookups.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: Sitting room is the right word.

MR. FAASSE: Computer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On the second floor.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. LUDWIG: Well, laundry room would be proper.

MR. GREGOR: That would work too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: So then your going to have a second bath.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. GRYGUS: Bill, you want to go over your report?

MR. GREGOR: Yea.

MR. FAASSE: I think we did; right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We covered the basic report.

And basically this your going to build right on grade, your not going to dig a foundation or any --

MR. KOSLOSKY: They’re putting in footings I believe.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, but there’s not going to be a crawlspace, basement, anything like that?

MR. KOSLOSKY: No.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: No, we’re not doing a crawlspace, no basement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So, your basically on grade. Your attaching it, it’ll be the same height as the existing structure.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There’s no other entrances being added; right?

MR. KOSLOSKY: There’ll be a back exit.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea, there will be a back exit in the bottom in the play room.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Patio doors.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea.

MR. WILLSE: In the play room.

MR. LUDWIG: Play room.

MR. GRYGUS: Is item 2 a killer for tonight?

MR. FAASSE: Yea, we do a couple things here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now, we have a covering on the back porch. Bill.

MR. FAASSE: Bill.

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The covered back porch, does that create any issues with the rear yard setback, I don’t think it does?

MR. KOSLOSKY: I don’t think there is a covered back porch.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Proposed overhang to the rear of the building 2.6 feet.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay. Your architectural’s, the west elevation. I think that’s the side.

MR. WILLSE: It’s on the existing house?

MR. GREGOR: Oh, your talking about the --

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea, there is one that’s existing now.

MR. GREGOR: Oh, it’s the entrance to the kitchen.

MR. KOSLOSKY: It’s a little thing by the door to walk in.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea, it’s just an entrance to the kitchen, which is a cement slab, and it has like an awning over it.

MR. GREGOR: Yea, it looks like you got an aluminum thing, and now your going to put a door on --

MR. KOSLOSKY: To keep the rain off of you.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea, and we’re replacing that little awning with something that matches the house.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: That’s actually on the driveway.

MR. GRYGUS: It’s the side yard.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes, it’s on the driveway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I’m sorry, side yard.

MR. GREGOR: It’s the side. No, the side is shown on here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: But the side shown isn’t in the proper measurement.

MR. GREGOR: No, the only thing that we don’t have dimensions on is the garage, everything else is dimensioned, we can figure out the coverage.

MR. CHAIRMAN: From the overhang to the property line.

MR. GREGOR: I see. Okay, I see what your saying.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: It’s on the driveway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Change the side yard setback.

MR. GREGOR: That’s correct. That’s correct.

MR. KOSLOSKY: But there is one there now.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: There’s one there now.

MR. GRYGUS: Or is it an architectural feature, because it doesn’t have support columns.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually what’s shown on the drawing is larger on the site then on the blueprint of the house.

MR. GRYGUS: There’s no support columns on it, so it’s not.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yea.

MR. GRYGUS: Is it an architectural feature?

MR. GREGOR: That is a very valid point. Since we’re talking about an are which I think is about 5 feet by 2 1/2 feet if I’m not mistaken.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, it’s one step up.

MR. GREGOR: Hang on, let me -- it’s 2 1/2 feet by 5 feet.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 2 1/2 by 5, it’s one step up.

MR. GREGOR: I think you can consider that, if you’d wish, to an architectural feature not counting the side yard setback.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: And that I think would be an appropriate by the Board.

Are you making any changes to the driveway?

MRS. KOSLOSKY: No.

MR. GRYGUS: Sure you don’t want to add two extra cars?

MR. FAASSE: The kids are getting bigger but they don’t drive.

MR. KOSLOSKY: They’re not that big yet.

MR. FAASSE: Did you do any calculations as to the coverage?

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yea, that’s on the -- we just resubmitted that.

MR. GRYGUS: It’s on the second page.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s attached to a separate page.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, we have that now?

MR. KOSLOSKY: The total coverage?

MR. GRYGUS: 24 percent is proposed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right here.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s on the second page.

MR. FAASSE: Okay, 24 percent, so that takes care of that question 7.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. GREGOR: One of the questions I have there is the size of the garage is not labeled on here, so we couldn’t check it.

MR. KOSLOSKY: The footprint is 24 by 24.

MR. GREGOR: 24 by 24, then actually your coverage is a bit more then that based on my preliminary calculations. I thought your garage was actually smaller then that.

MR. FAASSE: You say 24 by 24.

MR. KOSLOSKY: I believe it is, yea.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There abouts, 23 by 25. It looks like 23 by 25, Bill.

MR. GRYGUS: It looks rectangular to me.

MR. GREGOR: No, I measured it and calculated before, for some reason I got a different number.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, I know what I was going to ask you. Do you have two sets of overhead wires going to your house?

MR. KOSLOSKY: One’s a phone line and cable, and the other one is the power and electric, yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One comes to the north side, and one comes to the south side of the rear of the house.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes. The north side is cable and phone.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: The electric goes over by the garage -- by the driveway?

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yea. And that’s all going to be upgraded too with this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does this addition blend into the character of your neighborhood, surrounding houses?

MR. KOSLOSKY: I believe it does.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: We’re keeping the same look as the colonial. If you notice it’s all --

MR. KOSLOSKY: They have it listed as barnyard colonial or something like that.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: A colonial farmhouse is how they’re describing it. But most of the homes are colonials that are on the street, it’ll blend in. It’s just doing an addition that kind of matches the front of our house now. Same size windows, same, you know, shape. An addition that was just recently done down the street from us, it all falls into the same type of characteristic.

MR. GREGOR: If the garage is labeled 24 by 24, your coverage is exactly 25 percent, which is not a variance. That’s what I was concerned about, you were very close, and I checked based on the dimensions that were shown on the plan, but I estimated the garage, and I estimated it a little smaller then what you just mentioned.

MR. FAASSE: This is saying 25.072592.

MR. GREGOR: 25 percent.

MR. FAASSE: .07. Oh, your rounding down, okay.

MR. GREGOR: No. We’re talking a quarter of an inch.

MR. GRYGUS: Now he’s being an engineer.

MR. LUDWIG: It’s the width of the line.

MR. FAASSE: Well, he had to shove this thing in front of me, you know.

MR. GREGOR: I did a quick calculation, I wanted to make sure that they didn’t need another variance, cause I don’t want to see them have to come back again for another variance.

MR. GRYGUS: Ralph, item number 2 or let me ask you this. Is there anything -- well, let’s go this way. Items 1 through 5, could they be handled as conditions?

MR. FAASSE: Yea.

MR. GRYGUS: Specifically number 2.

MR. GREGOR: Basically what it is drawing changes, which are nec --

MR. FAASSE: You know, 2 I’m not even worried about. It’s just that you should make sure that your not relying on that in making any kind of ultimate decision.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: Let’s ask one question, which on item 4.

MR. FAASSE: Ask it.

MR. GREGOR: On item 4, the water.

MR. GRYGUS: Well, I’d like to ask you one question first before you get to that.

MR. GREGOR: Go ahead.

MR. GRYGUS: In part of your submittals you had a proposal from a contractor for a seepage pit, but I don’t see it.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes, it’s on here.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes, it is there.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: It’s on the newer drawing.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: It’s on the newer drawing, and there was a separate, with the proposal it was a blown up drawing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s on the last page. Bruce, the last page.

MR. FAASSE: Do you plan on installing the seepage pit?

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes we are.

MR. FAASSE: And are you going to put your leaders and gutters into that seepage pit?

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes we are.

MR. GRYGUS: I understand that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to know where it is.

MR. GRYGUS: But you not showing us where your putting it on the site.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yea, it is.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea, it is. It’s right, I don’t know, if you take --

MR. GREGOR: It’s right next to the new addition.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea, it’s right next to the new addition, right above concrete wall you see a little arrow and it says proposed dry well right there.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Oh, it says proposed dry well hand drawn in.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: And because that’s so small that’s why he also made up this sketch.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Your on the wrong one that’s why. Your on the drawing.

MR. FAASSE: The labeling is on the other property.

MR. GRYGUS: This is the right drawing.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: No it’s not.

MR. WILLSE: Yea, the word proposed dry well is above 1 1/2 story framed dwelling.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Your on the wrong one.

MR. GREGOR: Excuse me, if I may. I don’t know if that’s drawn to scale on there, but actually the sketch that you provided for the seepage pit shows it to be a 7 foot long, I think it’s a storm septic type arrangement.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: That’s exactly what the description says, yes.

MR. GREGOR: And if you put it in that location, that orientation, you might get awfully close to your house or to that wall, and you might want to look at something a little different, yes.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Like turn it around you mean.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Well, I think that’s why on this sketch he does show it elongated.

MR. KOSLOSKY: No, but he did it wrong.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: But he didn’t do it elongated on the site plan, but on this is how he is going to do it, it is elongated.

MR. GREGOR: I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that.

MR. GRYGUS: All right. So, the plans would be changed to reflect the accurate.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: If that’s what’s required, then that’s what we’ll do.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yea, we’ll just turn it around.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: But that’s why I think he also attached this.

MR. GRYGUS: And your intention of that is to pipe all the roof drains into that?

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. LUDWIG: On the new part?

MR. KOSLOSKY: No, the total.

MR. GRYGUS: Total, okay.

MR. COVELLI: Where does your water utility come in here?

MR. KOSLOSKY: If you look down the bottom of the driveway.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: We added all the utilities on here.

MR. FAASSE: It already has that.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: I know the site plan is so busy it’s hard to probably pick all of that up.

MR. GREGOR: Well, let me ask this, because this is what’s important. This is what’s important. I see the location and the sizes shown on here, but they’re shown as dots.

MR. FAASSE: What are we talking about?

MR. WILLSE: That’s where the shut offs are.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: I think when Kevin had spoke to you you said make it simple, so we made it simple. You weren’t very specific on how you wanted it exactly.

MR. GREGOR: What we’re concerned about is where do they run. In other words, for instance, some sanitary sewer lines wrap all the way around the house.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Oh, no, no, I --

MRS. KOSLOSKY: They’re straight.

MR. GREGOR: What I would like to see on the drawing is where they enter that, draw a line from where that dot is where they enter the street to where they enter the house.

MR. GRYGUS: Do they enter into the front fo the house?

MR. KOSLOSKY: No, they enter right actually by the side entranceway in the driveway.

MR. GREGOR: By the driveway side.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: So they go up the driveway. MR. FAASSE: So, your not going to be constructing over it or anything else, you not going to disturb them in any way?

MR. KOSLOSKY: No.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: No, no.

MR. KOSLOSKY: It’s totally right to the house.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Totally opposite side of the home.

MR. KOSLOSKY: If I remember right, cause I did the measuring, I think it’s 8 foot from the front of the house like towards the metal door.

MR. GREGOR: Those are minor drafting changes, but that’s what we’re trying to do. We’re trying to make sure it’s very clear where they run to. You’d be surprised the way some of things, I’ve seen it run 3/4's away around the house, we never would have guessed that. So, that’s why I ask you to put it on here. So, if you could add that to the drawing those lines on there to show where they go to. Okay. That’s what my comment was referring to.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Thank you, I’m sorry.

MR. GRYGUS: Bill, given that --

MRS. KOSLOSKY: All right. So just that I get this right you want on the draft where the pipes are basically running or laid.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Basically laid and go into the house.

MR. GRYGUS: Into the house.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Okay.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, the route to the house, and where they enter the house.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Into the house.

MR. GRYGUS: Bill, item number 9, I really don’t see that as an issue since we’re going to be piping everything into the seepage pit.

MR. GREGOR: Yea, the only thing is what is not indicated on here, which you’ll see in the field, is which way the walls go.

MR. FAASSE: What walls?

MR. GREGOR: You got a wall between this property and the adjacent property.

MR. GRYGUS: But they’re not changing that.

MR. GREGOR: It doesn’t clearly indicate which property is higher.

MR. GRYGUS: They’re not changing that.

MR. GREGOR: Right. I know, but that effects the water. If you get a large storm, and you increased your impervious cover.

MR. GRYGUS: Yea, but they’re piping it into the seepage pit.

MR. GREGOR: I have no idea what the capacity of that seepage pit is.

MR. FAASSE: Well, your going to get those calculations, aren’t you?

MR. GREGOR: Well, that was another issue. If it’s adequately sized, it’ll handle your standard storm.

MR. LUDWIG: Whose property is lower?

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Our property is lower.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GREGOR: And that was the concern I had, because I didn’t want to see a low spot of trapped water here next to a brand new addition.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Well, I actually contacted the soil conservation district to ask them specifically about all of this, because we were very like unclear on exactly what you were looking for. And I spoke to them, and I asked them specifically about the calculations. And he actually helped me out a lot. And although it’s not on here, I told him exactly what we were proposing and what our property line is. And he says that with what their putting in we have no problem whatsoever. This 8 or this 7 foot dry well I keep calling it, if it’s wrong please forgive me.

MR. GREGOR: No, that’s correct.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Is more then adequate for what we’re doing. So, you know, I mean I --

MR. FAASSE: Who told you that?

MRS. KOSLOSKY: The gentleman Glenn from the Soil Conservation.

MR. GREGOR: Glenn Van Olden (phonetic).

MR. GRYGUS: Conservation.

MR. GREGOR: Yea.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, you really don’t want us to refer you down there --

MR. LUDWIG: You had a conversation with him.

MR. FAASSE: -- application he wants want $600?

MRS. KOSLOSKY: All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: So, what I would like to do is basically your property --

MR. KOSLOSKY: We told them what we were doing.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: We told them what we were doing, cause I needed help on this, because I had

like --

MR. KOSLOSKY: And then he’d let us know.

MR. GREGOR: Your property slopes in a certain direction; right?

MR. KOSLOSKY: Towards the street basically.

MR. GREGOR: Towards the street. Just put an arrow there and write the word slope.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: An arrow where, I’m sorry?

MR. GREGOR: Can I, may I.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea, if you can, I apologize. I just want to make sure we get this right.

MR. GREGOR: What we’re trying to do is make sure that we get this correct. If the property slopes this way just draw an arrow like that in the right slope.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Okay. And you want this switched longways to match this, right. Okay.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Okay.

MR. LEONARD: How deep is the seepage pit?

MR. KOSLOSKY: I believe 4 feet.

MR. LEONARD: 4 feet deep?

MR. KOSLOSKY: 4 feet in thickness, I don’t know about the depth. The depth is on that little sketch, I believe.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s shown on the plan.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea, here’s the sketch.

MR. KOSLOSKY: It shows you the soil level, and the rocks, and --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions, gentlemen?

MR. LUDWIG: I have a question about number 2.

MR. LEONARD: I have a question about number 2.

MR. FAASSE: Two.

MR. LEONARD: The property limits, the 200 foot limit has bee provided, the limit is incorrect, and the scale is wrong. Are we sure all and necessary property owners surrounding this property were notified, if this scale was used and it’s wrong.

MR. GREGOR: The notice probably came from the town, which they are --

MR. LEONARD: I just want to make sure that everybody got noticed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. LEONARD: Because your noting on here that the scale is wrong for the 200 foot.

MR. FAASSE: They gave notice back in July, right, for the August meeting.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. KOSLOSKY: We didn’t have that, we just got another map, and we used another map to draw up this.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Because we only had a previous area map.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Cause I gave everything back to the --

MR. LEONARD: Everything on here it’s saying the scale is wrong, and if the scale if off that means maybe --

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Well, I was going to kind of ask the question of how the scale was wrong, because

I --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Don’t worry about it.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Don’t worry about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We’re passed that.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: But anyway, but we did get obviously all of the approvals from all of our neighbors.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yea.

MR. FAASSE: The Board is not relying on that inaccuracy in making any kind of determination.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It doesn’t really matter.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: We checked it.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Okay, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Anything else, gentlemen?

MR. FAASSE: Open it to the public, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Public, open to the public.

MR. FAASSE: Where did Mr. DaSilva go?

MRS. KOSLOSKY: You know, when we saw people left, we got worried. I was like, I guess they’re not here for us.

OPEN TO PUBLIC DISCUSSION: None/Closed

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We’re open to the public. Any questions or statements from the public? Hearing and seeing none we close the public portion.

MR. FAASSE: You want to sum up, say anything more? Do you have anything else you want to present to the Board? You want an adjournment?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Pluses or minuses why you wan to do this, you describe that already. It’s a necessity because of the growing family.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes.

MR. KOSLOSKY: And there’s no business in the place.

MR. FAASSE : Well, yes, no, they --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it is, it’s either that or they’re going to have to --

MR. KOSLOSKY: Got to something, yea.

MR. FAASSE: Well, they want to put it on the side instead of the rear, because of the open space in the rear; right?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Well, I like the boys to have a backyard to play in, yea.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. FAASSE: You want to keep the open space in the backyard. And we have to tie it to the land, Mr. Chairman, you know that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, I know that.

MR. FAASSE: Not the fact that the boys are getting bigger and they have more shower, you know.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, they need more internals.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: I didn’t even think about that yet, are you kidding.

MR. FAASSE: Just like the mother-in-law needs on the last one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Don’t start with the mother-in-law.

MR. KOSLOSKY: We wanted to keep our nice view in the back. No, that didn’t sound right either, right.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: No, that didn’t sound right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: I’ll make a motion to approve the application with the following three variances. A variance for a front yard setback of 14.9 feet -- I’m sorry.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, the variance you said.

MR. GREGOR: That’s right.

MR. GRYGUS: A variance of 14.9 feet where the applicant is providing 15.1 feet where 30 feet is required by ordinance. The second variance will be for a side yard setback of 7 feet, where the applicant is --

MR. FAASSE: No, no, no, the setback is 8.

MR. GREGOR: No, no.

MR. GRYGUS: No, no.

MR. GREGOR: The variance, he said variance.

MR. GRYGUS: Variance of 7 feet.

MR. FAASSE: No, he didn’t say the variance this time, he said a front yard -- a side yard.

MR. GRYGUS: Side yard for a variance of 7 feet, where the applicant is providing 8 feet where 15 feet is required by ordinance. And the last will be for a total side yard setback variance of 9.86 feet, where the applicant is providing 25.14 feet where 35 feet is required by ordinance. And the condition would be that the plans are brought into compliance with the items that are listed in Mr. Gregor’s report of September 5th, 2006.

MR. FAASSE: Well, we don’t need a signature block, do we?

MR. GREGOR: You want a signature block on the drawing.

MR. FAASSE: You want to change the area map, forget the area map.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yea, we don’t need that 200 foot.

MR. GREGOR: The area map, here, let me

just --

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, Bill, that’s a dead issue.

MR. GREGOR: Let’s waive some of these things.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, let’s get to it.

MR. GRYGUS: Tell me exactly what you need.

MR. FAASSE: You want the conditions, you want the utilities shown.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Utilities marked properly on the drawing.

MR. GREGOR: Utilities shown, the slope shown.

MR. LEONARD: The route of the utility.

MR. GREGOR: The slope shown.

MR. LEONARD: The route of the utility.

MR. FAASSE: The who?

MR. LEONARD: The route of the utility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The route of the utilities, right.

MR. FAASSE: Yea.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Okay, route of utilities.

MR. FAASSE: We’re just doing this cryptic.

MR. LUDWIG: How about the direction of the slope as opposed to --

MR. GRYGUS: Right.

MR. GREGOR: We’re covered.

MR. FAASSE: What else?

MR. GRYGUS: Movage or spinage of the dry well.

MR. GREGOR: The dimensions to the garage added.

MR. GRYGUS: Depth to the dry well can be added.

MR. GREGOR: Forget the area map. Your zoning table just make a correction on the lot coverage to 25 percent, and your front yard setback per my letter.

MR. FAASSE: There you go.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: So, those five or six things.

MR. GREGOR: I think that’s it.

MR. LUDWIG: And I’ll second that.

MR. COVELLI: Shouldn’t we also note, Mr. Gregor, that based upon the testimony of the applicants the garage is 24 by 24.

MR. GREGOR: Yea, that’s how the coverage was calculated.

MR. COVELLI: The coverage meets the requirements.

MR. GREGOR: Based on that the coverage meets the requirements.

MR. COVELLI: Based on their verbal testimony.

MR. GRYGUS: Correct.

MR. GREGOR: Based on their verbal testimony the coverage is --

MR. COVELLI: And any deviation from that --

MR. FAASSE: Presents a problem.

MR. GREGOR: Yes, that is correct.

MR. GRYGUS: That’s my motion.

MR. FAASSE: Got it.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll second it. Member Ludwig second.

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

MR. FAASSE: The Board’s offered to grant you your variance, you know, application and everything else, however, it’s not finalized until we adopt a resolution. Hopefully, we will do that at the next meeting, which is October 4th. Thereafter, the secretary has ten days to put it in the paper, thereafter anyone from the public, including all the people who didn’t see fit to show up have 45 days to take this to court, and to say what we did was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. All right. And if you do any building, if you go down and you got the proper building permits and everything else, and once we sign off on your plans, which your going to submit ASAP, the building inspector will probably grant you a building permit if you meet all of his requirements. But if you do any building in that period, between now, the resolution, the ten days, the forty-five days, your doing it solely at your won risk and not at the perils. Do you understand that?

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yes we do.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Uh-hum.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: If you have any questions about how that plan really needs to be revised, just have your professional call Bill.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: Cause I know you were trying to write down things.

MR. FAASSE: He’ll e-mail us all the requirements.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Yea.

MR. GRYGUS: Rather then have him do it, and not be right, it’ll be better just to call Bill.

MR. GREGOR: Any questions don’t hesitate to call me, my numbers are on there.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: It would be nice if you could have that in well in advance of the meeting, so that when we do the resolution we got everything right there. All right.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: So I’m clear, we come on the fourth then.

MR. FAASSE: You don’t have to, but your welcome.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: You don’t have to.

MR. GREGOR: Enjoy you new addition.

MR. GRYGUS: Enjoy it.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Thank you very much.

MR. KOSLOSKY: Thank you for very much.

MR. GREGOR: Good evening.

MRS. KOSLOSKY: Have a good evening.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Take care.

RESOLUTIONS:

MR. FAASSE: Resolutions, we have one Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Gerri, did you ask me for a copy of these things, you want original and two.

MS. MAROTTA: I need three.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, all right, original and two.

MS. MAROTTA: And sometimes when three’s an attorney I need an extra one.

MR. FAASSE: Well then you have to get the copy machine. Well, you see, you should not disseminate anything that’s mine anyway, cause they should be all signed.

This is on application 14-06, Santo. Whereas, Dave Santo and Jill Santo have applied to the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Borough of Wanaque for permission to construct a detached garage, above ground pool, and deck on lands and premises commonly known as 4 First Street, in the Borough of Wanaque, more particularly known as lot 4 in block 218 in the Borough Tax Maps, and whereas the Board of Adjustment having conducted a public hearing on said application on August 2nd, 2006, at which time the Board heard testimony supporting the application, reviewed the documentation submitted by the applicants, and the Board having opened the meeting to the public and having considered all the evidence so induced makes the following findings of facts and conclusions of law.

One, the lands and premises the subject of within application are located in R10 zone, the lot and the presently existing two store structure are non-conforming.

Two, back in 2003 these same applicants received approval from this board for an application for development for these lands and premises. All of the work thereby permitted has not currently been completed.

Three, the applicants seek permission to construct a one-half story 30 foot by 16 foot one car garage, an above ground pool, and deck on the lands and premises.

Four, the Board received and considered two reports on this application as submitted by the Board’s engineer, William R. Gregor, PEPP, the initial one dated June 30, 2006, and the last on the of August 2, 2006.

Five, as submitted to the Board for consideration, this application for development would require seven variances.

Six as set forth in the report of the Boards engineer on the date of August 6th, 2006, and the seventh for the height of the proposed garage, which the applicant testified would be 23 feet, where borough ordinances limit the height to 15 feet. Six, during the hearing considerable testimony was adduced from Dave Santo (phonetic), one of the applicants concerning the need for the various structure. The past approval as granted by this board, and the proximity of the proposed garage to the dwelling, and the location of the proposed pool to the garage and the adjoining property.

Seven, the Board expressed considerable concern with the proximity of the proposed structure one to another. The over lot coverage which would result, the fact that there is proposed a large third garage to be utilized for storage. The number of variances needed and the inability of the applicants to carry their respective burden with respect to the variances requested.

Eight, the Board in considering all of the evidence adduced in assigning credibility to the testimony that found it to be credible determines that the applicants have failed to carry their burden with respect to this application, and the statutory and decisional law requirements to support the requested bulk variances, and that the proposed application, if approved, would be detrimental to the public and the welfare, and would impair the intended purposes of the Borough Zoning Planning Scheme.

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Adjustment, Borough of Wanaque on the 6th day of September 2006 that this application for development being has hereby been denied. That is the proposed resolution Mr. Chairman and Members of the Board.

MR. LUDWIG: I will make a motion to approve that.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: I thought we were summarizing these, hum.

MR. FAASSE: Excuse me.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: I thought we agreed to summarize the resolution.

MR. FAASSE: What do you mean summarize it?

MS. MAROTTA: Who made the motion?

MR. COVELLI: Mr. Ludwig. MR. WILLSE: I’ll second the motion.

MS. MAROTTA: I wasn’t paying any attention.

MR. WILLSE: Gerri, I’ll second the motion.

MS. MAROTTA: Thank you.

MR. FAASSE: You were supposed to start saying your name, you know.

MR. GREGOR: Discussion. I got a question on item 7.

MR. FAASSE: Is that about your letter?

MR. GREGOR: No, no. On item 7 you said third garage.

MR. COVELLI: Yea.

MR. FAASSE: There was two other ones.

MR. CHAIRMAN: An expanded house, and there’s the old one still standing.

MR. GREGOR: It’s a two car garage.

MR. FAASSE: Two car garage as part of the structure.

MR. GREGOR: So, you meant a third garage space. It’s like there’s three structures, that’s why I was questioning it.

MR. FAASSE: Well, a proposed large third garage.

MR. GREGOR: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Right.

MR. GREGOR: I understand what your saying.

MR. FAASSE: I mean your providing, you know, three garages, and then he said that first he was put the diesel truck in there, then it was only going to be used for storage.

MR. GREGOR: It was just a question, gentlemen.

MR. GRYGUS: Not qualified.

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

MR. GRYGUS: Mr. Chairman, just a question on the vote on the Koslosky application. It’s kind of unique circumstances, but shouldn’t we only have cast seven votes on that.

MR. FAASSE: Yea.

MR. GREGOR: Right.

MR. FAASSE: So, we’ll disqualify one of

the --

MR. GREGOR: So disqualify whoever the second alternate was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right. I’m sorry, I wasn’t paying attention to that. We only need seven votes not eight.

MR. GRYGUS: We very rarely are in this position really.

MS. MAROTTA: So, Art Konings comes off, he’s alternate two.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. KONINGS: Your kicking me out. Your kicking my vote out. Here’s my papers involved.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next item is correspondence.

MR. COVELLI: I make a motion to make Ralph Faasse a member and all these other people the attorney, since they wall want his job.

MR. FAASSE: Just wait.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

CORRESPONDENCE:

MS. MAROTTA: This is correspondence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Correspondence.

MS. MAROTTA: Attorney Fiorello letter I gave you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, we just received it noted for the file.

MS. MAROTTA: Bill, I gave you a copy, right.

MR. FAASSE: The main gist of it Anthony Fiorello agreed with the court’s determination on the marsh as to the fact that the use was required.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Definite use variance. Thank you.

The other action we have some correspondence from the New Jersey Planning Officials Group.

MR. LUDWIG: Wait a minute, we’re in correspondence?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. LUDWIG: Okay. All right.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This is the fall agenda for classes and somebody else.

MR. LUDWIG: That’s kind of minor to where I’m going, but okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We need to commit to this, because it’s coming up like real soon.

MR. LUDWIG: When’s that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the closest one is October 7th, that’s in Caldwell College.

MR. COVELLI: Jack, was that in our packet?

MS. MAROTTA: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Caldwell College.

MR. LUDWIG: Whose going to that?

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: This is for the people who didn’t take the one this past spring.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Or did and failed this past spring.

MR. COVELLI: Gerri I don’t have it.

MS. MAROTTA: You should have a copy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you failed, you got a problem.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Just covering the bases.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I understand we were like Ivory soap 99.44 100th’s percent pure, everybody passed.

Okay, you two gentleman are on the list that didn’t attend.

MR. LUDWIG: When are you going?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, here’s the list of who went and who didn’t go.

MS. MAROTTA: I gave you a copy of this too.

MR. COVELLI: I would go the 7th, you want to go on the 7th?

MR. LUDWIG: Of what?

MR. COVELLI: October.

MR. LUDWIG: That works for me. Just call me at least on the 4th.

MR. GRYGUS: Well, the 4th’s our meeting.

MR. LUDWIG: Remind me on the 4th, that works.

MS. MAROTTA: All right, you got to fill it out. I got to turn it in -- here, do it on this one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fill it out so Gerri can set it up for you please, thank you.

MS. MAROTTA: And then I have to turn it into the Finance Office.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Guys, you realize October 7th is Columbus Day Weekend.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: So, what does that mean?

MS. MAROTTA: We’re off that Monday.

MR. LUDWIG: With a name like Ludwig I’m really worried about it.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: I thought you might be going to spaghetti dinner to celebrate.

MR. FAASSE: The worst thing is it might be the last weekend of our boating season.

MR. LUDWIG: No. I got to have my boat out by October 2nd, that’s when they’re starting to draw the water down. And it’s got to be on a weekend anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What else do we got in correspondence, Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: You got to sign Abna’s. Bill Gregor said these were okay for signing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we’ll give that to the engineers. We got this other thing too.

MS. MAROTTA: We got something else to sign too.

VOUCHERS:

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, moving right along. Vouchers.

MR. FAASSE: I got one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, okay.

MR. FAASSE: I got to get it before you spend on Mr. Gregor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, he didn’t give us one.

MR. FAASSE: Oh no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we have a voucher from the counselor here. Services rendered July, August, and September for $900, and the resolution on Santos, which is 1406 for $35 for a total of $1,035. We need a motion to approve.

MR. LUDWIG: Make a motion to approve.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could we have a second on that.

MR. GRYGUS: I’ll second it. Even though he ridiculed me today.

MOTION TO APPROVE MR. FAASSE’S VOUCHER: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, COVELLI, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, and Willse.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now we have a series of vouchers from the engineer.

MR. GRYGUS: Is there a tape attached to it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: A whole cover page.

MS. MAROTTA: How much was that total for Ralph?

MR. CHAIRMAN: 1,035.

MR. LUDWIG: That’s not a tape.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A cover page.

MR. LUDWIG: No, all right, that’s close.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Cover page.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: It’s Duck tape.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Even more better.

MR. FAASSE: He gets it from Excel.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. From William R. Gregory monthly invoice summary - I like that. Okay. We have the meeting attendance for three months is $900, we have the Santos application for $247.50,Koslosky for $372.50, and Ott for $372.50, for a total of $1,892.50.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GRYGUS: Second.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, roll call.

MOTION TO APPROVE MR. GREGOR’S VOUCHER: made by Member Ludwig, seconded by Member Grygus, voting yes were Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, and Willse.

MR. FAASSE: Two sets of minutes gentlemen, what is your pleasure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes sir. We have minutes from July and August to approve.

MR. LUDWIG: Could we go back a little ways.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What do you want to go to May?

MR. LUDWIG: Correspondence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh, correspondence, okay.

MR. LUDWIG: What’s this Bell Atlantic or Verizon crap?

MR. GREGOR: Oh, that’ll be under new applications.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We’re going to get to that on the engineer’s report.

MR. LUDWIG: Oh, that’s new business. Well, to me it’s correspondence, it came to me in the mail.

MR. FAASSE: That’s under the engineer’s report.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s a new application.

MINUTES:

MR. FAASSE: Gentlemen, what’s your pleasure on the July minutes?

MR. GRYGUS: They look good to me, I’ll make a motion to accept them.

MR. KONING: And I would second that, member Art Koning.

MR. FAASSE: Art Koning. Grygus firsted. And I guess Bruce and Art. Okay. Roll call.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: Roll call, Dunning --

MS. MAROTTA: Minutes, we didn’t do.

MR. FAASSE: We did July.

MR. GRYGUS: July, I made a motion.

MR. FAASSE: Art second it.

MR. GRYGUS: Just for July I made a motion, Art second it, you need a roll call. Ralph was taking it.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, August minutes.

MR. COVELLI: Motion.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, second.

MR. LEONARD: Second.

MR. LUDWIG: I’ll second it.

MR. FAASSE: No, it was seconded over here already.

MS. MAROTTA: Ed.

MOTION TO APPROVE AUGUST MINUTES: made by Member Covelli, seconded by Member Leonard, voting yes were Chairman Dunning.

MR. GRYGUS: Ralph, can I vote since I listened to the tape?

MR. FAASSE: No.

MR. GRYGUS: No.

MS. MAROTTA: He can’t, he listened to the tape.

MR. GRYGUS: I listened to the tape.

MR. FAASSE: Not qualified.

MR. GRYGUS: Not qualified.

MR. FAASSE: You didn’t say that, you certified that you listened to two applications.

MR. GRYGUS: That’s all you heard.

MR. FAASSE: Well, you didn’t say you listened to the meeting.

MR. GRYGUS: I listen to the -- all right.

MOTION TO APPROVE AUGUST MINUTES: voting continued. Voting yes were Members Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Leonard, Koning, and Willse.

ENGINEER’S REPORT:

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Now, engineer’s report.

MR. FAASSE: We have the Abna things to file.

MR. GREGOR: We have two new applications.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It’s in my hand, stop, stop, hold on. First up is Abna. You’ve reviewed the drawings, are they ready for signing?

MR. GREGOR: I’ve submitted a report, there’s a letter there indicating that that specific version is suitable for signing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Where is the letter?

MR. GREGOR: Gerri has it.

MR. COVELLI: I think he used the term substantially in order.

MR. GRYGUS: Gerri gave it to us all.

MS. MAROTTA: That was this one.

MR. FAASSE: I have two of them, so if you want one, Mr. Chairman, I’d be happy to give it to you.

MS. MAROTTA: I don’t know, you didn’t get any of this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I know somebody took my whole packet.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, I’ll have to give you one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I got one.

MR. FAASSE: Oh.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. GREGOR: If you look at the revision date on drawing and compare it with ones your going to sign, it’s the same, sign it.

MR. FAASSE: Chairman, I’m going to ask you a very simple question. You get the big bucks are these the ones he signs?

MR. GREGOR: Yes, these are the correct drawings.

MR. FAASSE: Good, thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We will sign those.

MR. FAASSE: Save time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The next thing is bring to meeting for signature.

MR. FAASSE: Okay. The deed it was corrected, the engineer has looked over the legal descriptions, find them in accordance with what we approved, so it is suitable for signing by the Chairman and the secretary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We can sign them, okay.

MR. GREGOR: Both of those are suitable.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Now, we have a couple of applications coming forward. One that was handed out in the pack I believe is the --

MS. MAROTTA: Blum, I gave that out tonight.

MR. FAASSE: Blum.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, I said in the packet that we got.

MS. MAROTTA: Oh, that’s the Tella.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Golden Age Wireless Verizon cell tower.

MR. FAASSE: What was the other one, I didn’t get the other one?

MR. CHAIRMAN: That’s on the table tonight.

MS. MAROTTA: She should have gotten that.

MR. COVELLI: Blum, she handed us Blum tonight.

MS. MAROTTA: Yea, but I mailed Bill.

MR. FAASSE: Oh, you mailed that to me, okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Blum is here. Wireless came in the packet.

MR. FAASSE: Yes, I got Wireless, I got two Wireless’.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Blum was laying here this evening.

MR. GREGOR: Yes Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Would you like to -- it’s complete, but it’s not complete routine. Your missing a survey and some other documentation.

MR. GREGOR: Right now I took a quick look at the application, the packet did not come with a signed and sealed survey. So that is something that needs to be requested. Do you wish me to request that or do you want that request --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I have a question. Since the ownership of the property recently changed hands, there should be a current survey around to support the change or ownership.

MR. GREGOR: Well, there is a survey referenced on the site plan, but it’s not submitted with the site plan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Then there’s got to be one somewhere.

MR. GREGOR: According to this site plan the survey I think it was a vintage 2006.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. LUDWIG: We’re talking about the Golden age?

MR. GREGOR: Yea.

MR. LUDWIG: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: But they did not submit it to --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Then you’re going to do your proper work, and your going to get your survey.

MR. GREGOR: Yes, 7/10/06 is the survey.

MR. CHAIRMAN: What else is missing on there, anything?

MR. GREGOR: Yea, dimensions on the site plan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. GREGOR: A lot of dimensions missing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then make a punch list, get a hold of their engineer, and go to work on this thing.

MR. LUDWIG: I got a question.

MR. FAASSE: Watch what you ask.

MR. LUDWIG: What’s that?

MR. FAASSE: Watch what you ask.

MR. CHAIRMAN: we’re not open to really questions about that application.

MR. GREGOR: You can’t discuss the specific application.

MR. LUDWIG: Well, no, just what I’ve got in my package, I noticed a discrepancy there. The State application listed the ownership as Senior Citizen Housing.

MR. COVELLI: Oh, right, housing, I saw that too, yea. But it’s not a housing it’s a civic center.

MR. LUDWIG: Does that present a problem that should be addressed and corrected before we hear it?

MR. FAASSE: The State application for what?

MR. LUDWIG: Huh.

MR. FAASSE: The State application for what?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Verizon’s application.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, but he said it was filed --

MR. LUDWIG: Verizon’s application to the State stated --

MR. COVELLI: Referenced the property.

MR. LUDWIG: -- property ownership was senior citizen or the property use I think it was.

MR. GREGOR: Okay, that’s different.

MR. LUDWIG: Rather then have me dig into my file, should that be corrected before we hear it?

MR. FAASSE: I’m sorry, what application did they file with the State, the Highlands?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

MR. LUDWIG: I was hoping not to have to dig in here.

MR. COVELLI: Jack, while he’s digging for that, you just said that the property changed owners.

MR. FAASSE: Well, Bill can check that, okay. That’s a legitimate question, okay, check whether or not they still have the same ownership.

MR. COVELLI: Who owned it? MR. CHAIRMAN: The Golden Age People now not the Borough of Wanaque.

MR. COVELLI: The Borough owned it, and it changed to Golden Age People.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. GRYGUS: I wanted to ask Gerri. My understanding through Gerri that the Mayor & Council just passed some kind of resolution or something relative to that site or something to do with that, could you get a copy of that for us?

MR. LUDWIG: I’m sorry, Passaic County.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Passaic County Planning Board.

MR. LUDWIG: The Passaic County Planning Board it says here proposed project being existing use senior housing.

MR. GRYGUS: I understand that, it’s a resolution.

MS. MAROTTA: About the wireless tower.

MR. GRYGUS: About that site having something to do with us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Changed the ownership.

MR. GRYGUS: Okay. I know there was some kind of resolution about this.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Yea, your right, it’s not housing.

MR. FAASSE: No.

MR. LUDWIG: No. Does that present a problem?

MR. KONING: Does it say how the usage?

MR. LUDWIG: No, it says existing use senior housing.

MR. GRYGUS: I think you can just get a copy of it just to have it as part of the packet.

MR. GREGOR: That is correct.

MR. LUDWIG: Huh.

MR. GREGOR: You are correct that’s what it says on the --

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just to show the transfer of ownership or whatever they want to describe that transfer as.

MR. LUDWIG: But that’s not what the use is.

MR. GREGOR: I agree. That’s not what the use is.

MR. LUDWIG: Does that present a problem?

MR. GREGOR: It presents a problem to the Passaic County Planning Board, because we know better, and we’re not going to let that testimony here. It would be beneficial for them to be advised to correct that.

MR. LUDWIG: Correct.

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They’re not within 200 feet of the property.

MR. FAASSE: Is that on a county road?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Railroad right of way.

MR. COVELLI: Is it a height thing?

MRM. GREGOR: Well, I didn’t look into that, to tell you the truth.

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: It’s a cell tower.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There’s a lot of paperwork we got to research there.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, you know, the engineer has to, good point.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MR. FAASSE: The Chairman brought to my attention that they put a notice in the paper saying that you have the right to comment on the installation of the wireless facility on the historic property.

MR. LUDWIG: This is one of those that I could see people objecting to, and unless we cross our T’s and dot our I’s, it could be a problem.

MR. COVELLI: Was there a lot of objection to the flag pole here?

UNIDENTIFIED MEMBER: Who even knew what was going on.

MR. FAASSE: The king can do no wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Guys, leave it.

MR. FAASSE: Thank you.

MR. LUDWIG: I know of one in Hohokus that raised a big problem, you know, there was a cell tower in Hohokus.

MR. FAASSE: Yea, I know one in North Haledon.

MR. LUDWIG: It’s historically in so many towns it something that people come out of the woodwork for. Ringwood, Kinnelon.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ringwood just lost the court case.

MR. FAASSE: If you --

MR. LUDWIG: I just think we should cross our T’s and dot our I’s on it.

MR. FAASSE: Do we have anything else in the engineers report?

MR. GREGOR: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. The other thing is we got a new application which is Steven and Michelle Blum. Is this the incomplete, Gerri?

MS. MAROTTA: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So, Bill --

MR. FAASSE: When did our completion letter go out on that one, I remember seeing something.

MR. GREGOR: Who was that?

MR. FAASSE: Blum.

MR. GREGOR: I just got the application.

MR. FAASSE: Anything else from the engineer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The letter of denial is dated August 30th. It must have just happened.

MR. GREGOR: So, we’ve got a new application for Blum, which is basically to put an addition on his house.

MR. FAASSE: Done with the engineer’s report.

DISCUSSION:

MR. FAASSE: Discussion.

MR. LUDWIG: Oh, one other item. I’m sorry. Well, actually I’m sitting next to Bruce and it’s just rubbing off. Signage, which when have you ever heard me talk about that. We approved the signage design for CVS.

MR. FAASSE: And it’s observed more in the breach then in the observance.

MR. LUDWIG: What happened to the no lefthand turn sign when your going southbound on Ringwood Ave. --

MR. GREGOR: To the first cut.

MR. LUDWIG: -- to well, there is no first cut. The one cut is Second Ave.

MR. FAASSE: That’s a question you’ll have to bring up to your --

MR. GRYGUS: The building inspector.

MR. FAASSE: Yes.

MR. LUDWIG: That’s the building inspector.

MR. FAASSE: Absolutely.

MR. LUDWIG: Okay.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So the sign on the south end of the property is missing, and it’s a radically -

MR. LUDWIG: Because there was a gear truck that tied up traffic for quite some time trying to make that turn.

MR. COVELLI: That driveway’s angled.

MR. LUDWIG: Yea, he went up and over the curb and like --

MR. GRYGUS: The window sign has also reappeared.

MR. LUDWIG: It’s more the traffic signs that --

MR. GRYGUS: Jack, do we need to talk at all about the application?

MR. LUDWIG: That’s the last sign I’ll talk about while I’m a member.

MR. FAASSE: Okay.

MR. LUDWIG: Motion to adjourn.

MR. FAASSE: Motion to adjourn. Is there a second?

MR. COVELLI: Second.

MR. FAASSE: All in favor say I.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you gentlemen.

MOTION TO ADJOURN AT 10:381:10 P.M.: Carried by a voice vote.