BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING
BOROUGH OF WANAQUE
SPECIAL MEETING
November 8, 2006
In
the matter of:
Block 428,
Date
of Meeting: November 8, 2006
BEFORE: Members of the Wanaque Board of
Adjustment/Public
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT FOR
THIS MEETING:
Chairman
Jack Dunning, Members: Bruce Grygus,
Frank Covelli,
Peter
Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ed Leonard, Art Koning, Eric Willse
OTHERS PRESENT FOR THIS
MEETING:
RALPH
FAASE, ESQ., Board Attorney
WILLIAM
GREGOR, Board Engineer
MICHAEL
RUBIN, Attorney for Applicant
ARTHUR
HANSON, Engineer for Applicant
PHILIP
JOVON RAYL, Architect for Applicant
REQUESTED BY: Gerri
Marotta
G & L
TRANSCRIPTION OF NEW
(973) 616-1051
Pledge of Allegiance:
MR. CHAIRMAN: This is a special meeting of the Wanaque Board of Adjustment. Adequate notice has been given. When did we give notice Gerri?
MR. FAASSE: Oh, here it is, look at this, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: October 20th, there we go. To the Suburban Trends and Herald News and a copy thereof is on file with the Borough Clerk and posted on the bulletin board in the Borough Hall.
MR. FAASSE: And for the record it was published in the Herald News on October 26, 2006.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, very good, thank you, Ralph.
MS. MAROTTA: I mailed it on the 20th.
MR. FAASSE: I know you did, the mailing would have been sufficient but it was included.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It was in the paper. Could we have a roll call please?
ROLL CALL: Chairman Jack Dunning, Bruce Grygus, Frank Covelli, Peter Hoffman, Don Ludwig, Ed Leonard, Art Koning, Eric Willse, Attorney Ralph Faasse, Engineer William Gregor.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. FAASSE: All right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right, the meeting tonight is dedicated
to the Holiday Inn Express, Block 428,
MR. RUBIN: Yes, Sir. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I am Michael Rubin, Attorney, 1330 Hamburg Turnpike, Wayne Township, we represent Holiday Inn Express as to this application for a Use Variance before the Board of Adjustment. First, before we start, I wanted to thank the Board for allowing us to have this special meeting. It was on short notice and we do thank the Board for getting together this evening. Every so often in life a mistake happens; sometimes it is a costly mistake sometimes it isn’t. In this case, it is a costly mistake for an applicant, but life being what it is, things happen. In this case, we experienced an error, a mistake. One of the professionals involved in the drawing of the plans made an error, as you know, perhaps from the correspondence that went back and forth between counsel and Mr. Fiorello, the Borough Attorney, and counsels to both of the Boards, the Planning Board and the Board of Adjustment, it was decided that this matter required a Use Variance because a new plan was needed which exceeded the height requirements of the zoning district in which we are in. Interestingly, we, and as the Board probably knows, it was part of our application papers, we were here, I can’t believe it was January 15, 2004 when the Resolution was approved by the Planning Board for the 81 room hotel and, obviously, we went through a year of applications and modifications and public hearings and such and this was approved by the Planning Board then the applicant went through all the procedures of getting its permits and, in fact, started to clear and, during the clearing process, the Construction Code Official brought it to the attention of the builder, who advised the applicant, the owner, that there was a problem with the ADA, Americans for Disabilities Act, requirements for the swimming pool. You might have read that in some of the correspondence that has been going back and forth between the Boards. We are coming here this evening seeking a Use Variance to allow the additional height to the building. We have reconfigured the building; we have slightly changed the site plan. It has been agreed, once again, by an exchange of correspondence between the Borough Attorney and counsels for both of the Boards, and myself, that we should bifurcate this application and that the Use Variance only would be heard by this Board of Adjustment and the remainder of the application, which is the amended site plan would then be heard by the Planning Board. The Planning Board graciously allowed us to come forward with an Amended Site Plan Application for a special meeting, once again, and that is going to occur in about two weeks, at the end of the month. Therefore, what we have this evening are witnesses who will only address the Use Variance issue. In Mr. Gregor’s report to the Board, which we received as copy, he does make mention of some site plan issues. That was before the decision was made to bifurcate the application and just have the Use Variance here. So I assume those issues would be deleted from tonight’s hearing and the Board would only focus on the Use Variance. But, of course, everyone is here anyway. I have the engineer, architect, planner and they all could answer your questions on any of the issues that you feel necessary. And I do know there are some residents here who probably have questions also. I would like to bring up --
MR. FAASSE: Excuse me, Mr. Rubin, before you proceed --
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: You are right, we had decided to bifurcate it but as I have indicated very early on in this and the Board in considering the bifurcation also has gone on record as saying that there are occasions where the criteria for a Use Variance are impacted by site plan considerations so there may be some questioning back and forth on those very issues.
MR. RUBIN: Absolutely. We have the site engineer here.
MR. FAASSE: Good.
MR. RUBIN: We have -- we got the builder, we got the owner, I have everyone here.
MR. FAASSE: All right.
MR. RUBIN: So any question that you might feel important to ask or if one of the residents has a question, I think I have everyone here to answer in the event anything would come up.
MR. FAASSE: And just so that we are clear for the record,
we have this as Block 468,
MR. CHAIRMAN: 133.
MR. RUBIN: 133.
MR. FAASSE: 133.
MR. RUBIN: 133.
MR. FAASSE: All right, well your application said 303. That is where we have a little confusion. We want to straighten this out here, once right from the get go. We are right on the block?
MR. GREGOR: Burger King is 3.02, the Holiday Inn is 3.01.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the street address.
MR. GRYGUS: That is the lot number we are looking at the street number.
MR. FAASSE: The address now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The street address.
MR. FAASSE: In ours we had 303.
MR. GREGOR: Because we took it off of this copy that they submitted.
MR. RUBIN: The owners are telling me 303 should be the correct number, what was on the application.
MR. GREGOR: The street number?
MR. RUBIN: The street number.
MR. GREGOR: If that is the case, I would just caution the
Board in two places on my report of October 31st, the heading 133 should be
changed to 303 and the first sentence, the end of that, it should be
MR. FAASSE: Absolutely. All the notices were 303.
MR. GREGOR: If I could make one further clarification --
MR. RUBIN: I don’t use the address; I use the lot and block --
MR. FAASSE: Yeah I know.
MR. RUBIN: -- when I give it to the tax assessor. I never use an address.
MR. GREGOR: If I could make one further clarification based on my report, which I believe is a little bit different than I think you had indicated you understood, Mr. Rubin, that the site plan issues that I had referenced in my report, I believe are issues the Board could, if they choose to consider.
MR. RUBIN: That’s fine.
MR. GREGOR: We had excluded site plan issues and I list them specifically from this -- from consideration. This is my recommendation only to the Board because this is bifurcated and they include excluding the site details, such as traffic circulation, drainage and etcetera.
MR. FAASSE: Right.
MR. GREGOR: Those we specifically excluded.
MR. FAASSE: Correct.
MR. GREGOR: The other matters we feel the Board, if they chose to, should consider as part of the use variance.
MR. RUBIN: There is no problem -- no problem. Arthur Hanson, our site engineer is here. Arthur is in a unique position, he was here the first time around, two years ago, he testified before the Planning Board at length and he is still on the job.
MR. FAASSE: First witness.
MR. RUBIN: Arthur if you could come up and be sworn.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, for the record Mr. Rubin’s letter also refers to the address as 133. His November 3rd letter, date stamped November 6th.
MR. RUBIN: We will change that to 303 as well.
MR. CHAIRMAN: He also refers to the site as one.
MR. RUBIN: I don’t know where that came from
MR. CHAIRMAN: Maybe that is where you got it from Bill.
MR. GREGOR: It might be in here somewhere; I don’t know it is academic.
MR. FAASSE: Mr. Rubin wrote us a letter on when?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The letter is dated November 3rd it is date stamped November 6th.
MR. FAASSE: What letter is that?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is one that Gerry gave us the copy tonight.
MR. FAASSE: Oh, oh, oh about Mr. Kauker coming.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. GREGOR: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: Oh, okay.
MR. RUBIN: Mr. Kauker has asked one of the members of his firm, Kathryn Gregory, to be here and Catherine is here to testify.
MR. FAASSE: How about Mr. Kauker. You get us all worked up for Mr. Kauker and then you send a substitute in. All right. Mr. Hanson?
MR. RUBIN: She is better, that’s okay.
MR. FAASSE: If she is a lady, she got to be more attractive than Mr. Kauker.
MR. RUBIN: Arthur if you could be sworn.
ARTHUR HANSON SWORN
MR. FAASSE: Okay, Arthur Hanson, spell your last name please.
MR. HANSON: H-A-N-S-O-N
MR. FAASSE: And give us a business address.
MR. HANSON:
MR. FAASSE: Doig.
MR. HANSON: Doig D-O-I-G
MR. FAASSE: That’s it, you got to spell it because -- you know -- that is an interesting spelling on that.
MR. RUBIN: Mr. Hanson has appeared before just about every board around here in recent years. I would ask that his qualifications be allowed:
MR. FAASSE: In what area?
MR. RUBIN: Civil Engineering.
MR. FAASSE: P.E.?
MR. HANSON: Yes, I am P.E.L.S.
MR. FAASSE: P.E.
MR. HANSON: And L.S.
MR. RUBIN: And L.S.
MR. FAASSE: L.S.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is luxury sport L.S.?
MR. HANSON: That’s it.
MR. FAASSE: Yeah.
And both of those licenses have been issued by the State of
MR. HANSON: Yes, they are.
MR. FAASSE: And both of those continue in full force and effect as of today?
MR. HANSON: Yes, they are.
MR. FAASSE: Okay, good. Now P.E.L.S. any questions on his qualifications?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No.
MR. FAASSE: Licensed by the State of
MR. RUBIN: Thank you.
MR. HANSON: Thank you.
Direct-Examination of Mr. Hanson by Mr. Rubin
Q Mr. Hanson tell us, if you can, what was designed originally and then tell us what, just generally, even though this is not a site plan hearing, the Board wants to know what is different. So tell us what is different.
A Okay, what I have mounted on the board here is Sheet 3 of 7 in your package entitled Plot Plan, Lot 3.01 and Block 468. All it is is a colorized version of what you have here. Basically, the approval that we obtained from the Planning Board a couple of years ago, this building was approximately 70 feet longer. So it stretched up almost to the edge of the parking stalls that we show here. The rear of the building is in the same place as it was originally approved. The right edge of the building is in the same place as it was originally approved. All the parking on the right hand side is exactly the same. The two driveways, the one from Burger King that access our lot in front and back and the other driveway at the southerly end I believe. The westerly end of our site is in the exactly the same place that was approved. We always had a row of parking along the front. We had an entrance with a drive-up canopy in here. As Mr. Rubin indicated, when the building had to get changed in size because of basically the swimming pool inside, we were so close -- this line is right on the edge, it is the wetlands buffer as approved by the State of New Jersey. The Planning Board required --
Q Arthur, that wetlands has been an actual delineated line by DEP and that is approved by a letter of delineation.
A We have a letter of interpretation here is actually the zigzag line over here. Once we obtained that we went back to the State and we had to obtain a general permit to buff our average so that we have a straight line buffer in here. It was compensated for on the other half of our lot it is actually off the page. So this is an approved general permit line with a buffer on this side. As I indicated, the Planning Board required that we provide an entranceway for the fire trucks to get in and turn around at the back of our building. If we try to push the building another five feet that way --
Q Which direction is that way?
A Going towards the west, we would be into the fire lane. If we then picked up the fire lane and pushed
that five-foot further west we are in the buffer. So expanding our building to accommodate the
Q That is 81.
A 81, that is correct.
Q No change. So in your professional opinion, because of the requirement to let’s call it stretch out the building to allow for the additional space for the swimming pool, it just could not be done.
A That is correct.
Q That was an impossibility based upon the plan for the building that was heretofore approved by the Planning Board.
A That is correct.
Q So the only way to do it was to go up.
A Go up and make the footprint smaller.
Q And just so there is no question, what is the dimension that is small, what is the change in the building?
A Like I said, basically it shortened up approximately 70 feet.
MR. FAASSE: So what are the overall dimensions?
A I think the architect can give you he said he would help me put it in, rather then having me guess at it.
MR. FAASSE: Oh okay.
Q In reviewing Mr. Gregor’s report on Items of Site Plan interests so there is no question, Mr. Gregor makes note that the front yard setback is 48.9 feet instead of the 50 foot minimum required. Was there an issue of front yard when we were first before the Board or is it something that has occurred with this new amended plan?
A It occurred for this new amended plan. It is actually the corner of the canopy where the drop cloth is, right on our front side. The last time the entrance was a little bit further to the east, just enough to get us behind the setback line. With the new version of the plan, the corner of the canopy is encroaching on the setback line.
Q So that 1.1 foot in, which would require a technical variance, is something that you understand has to be requested and be it of this Board or the Planning Board but right now it would be the Planning Board but we do wish to bring it up for the Board’s review.
A That is correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Was that -- just one question though, but you also moved the location of the canopy with the new building also.
MR. HANSON: It follows the front door.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well is it -- the canopy was to the very end of building in the original plan. Now you are in the center of the building.
MR. HANSON: That is what I am saying. It follows where the front door is. The building configuration, a little bit of jots, have changed since the first plan.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well we will get into that with the architect.
MR. HANSON: Correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I mean there has been major changes in the architecturals on this.
MR. HANSON: Well what I am saying is that the rear wall and the easterly wall is in the same position. So I couldn’t encroach any closer to the pond towards the south and I couldn’t encroach any further east into the parking lot. So these are the two lines.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But downsizing the building didn’t drive the need for the front yard encroachment, moving the canopy did.
MR. HANSON: No. The new configuration of the building with the door.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Correct.
MS. GREGORY: That too, of course, yes.
BY MR. RUBEN:
Q Mr. Gregor also asked for the NJDEP Letter of Interpretation. Those were filed with the Municipal Clerk and with the engineer for the Planning Board but before all is said and done we will make sure a copy comes to Mr. Gregor. I didn’t realize that he didn’t have it. When things go to the Municipal Clerk we never know --
MR. GREGOR: If I may also I think, Sir, excuse.
MR. RUBIN: Surely.
MR. GREGOR: Mr. Hanson also indicated, I believe, in your testimony that you have a DEP Permit for buffer averaging.
MR. HANSON: Correct.
MR. GREGOR: Could that also be included because, obviously, what we want to see -- we don’t want to see you again. We want to take care of everything at once. And I mean that in a very nice way.
Q We understand thoroughly and we make sure that Bill you get those documents as they have already been filed with the Borough. There is no question as to the NJDEP floodway and flood hazard lines being shown?
A No, they are shown.
Q And they are in existence but not in the area of the building.
A Correct.
MR. GREGOR: Did you say they are shown?
MR. HANSON: Yes. I have to label them a little better for you, they on three of the sheets, not all of the sheets.
MR. GREGOR: Okay, I didn’t see them. I saw where they should be but I didn’t see them on the plan. Are they on the plans? Did I miss them? If so, I do apologize, if not, I am asking that they be shown.
MR. HANSON: Before they are shown, this is the line that is in here.
MR. FAASSE: What sheet are you on?
MR. HANSON: Well I think they are on all it just that they are not labeled.
MR. GREGOR: Oh it is not labeled, okay.
MR. HANSON: Yeah.
MR. GREGOR: So you will label them.
MR. HANSON: I will label them, yes.
MR. GREGOR: Okay, very good.
Q Another point that Mr. Gregor pointed out in his report is that we have spaces of 9 by 18 and spaces of 9 by 20.
A That is correct.
Q Could you advise the Board of where those spaces are and how they have been configured?
A Well, again, this is part of the variance that we obtained from
the Planning Board on our original submission.
This is basically in the parking field to our east. These are the 9 foot stalls as they are
labeled. And the 9 by 18’s are along,
again, the same as they were approved for by a variance before the Planning
Board along
Q Even though you have testified earlier and the Planning Board has approved, in your professional opinion, is having the 9 by 18 spaces a safe and prudent way to design this site?
A Yes, it will function correctly.
MR. WILLSE: I have a question. I know it got approved but what about buses, trucks and RV’s.
MR. RUBIN: That was my next one, trucks.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well actually while you are on parking, before you get to different types, I guess we’ll just do questions as he hits the bullet items. What did you allow for parking spaces for the meeting rooms?
MR. HANSON: The meeting rooms are only used by the residents of the hotel. You are talking for parking count?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.
MR. HANSON: We just used the number of rooms.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So if they were at 70 percent occupancy and then they got 50 people come to a meeting, where would everybody park?
MR. HANSON: I do not believe they could fit 50 people into their meeting room.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. HANSON: The meeting room is very small.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The new one?
MR. HANSON: The new one. The architect can give you the size when he comes up but I doubt if they could fit 50 people in there.
MR. RUBIN: Most respectfully, we never really designed this facility for catering, meetings and things like that. This site just isn’t big enough for that kind of use. This was -- this is called a Holiday Inn Express. That means something in Holiday Inn language. This is a transient kind of operation. This is not for long stay people even though on occasion you do get them but it isn’t going to be a landmark for meetings. The --
MR. GREGOR: I didn’t hear an answer to Item 13. What I was asking for there --
MR. RUBIN: Sorry Bill.
MR. GREGOR: -- is for the applicant to provide, and I didn’t see it in the Planning Board Resolution, that is one of the reasons I asked it, because I think the number of parking spaces totally changed.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I did.
MR. GREGOR: How many spaces on 9 by 18 and how many spaces are 9 by 20? That was the question I was asking here.
MR. HANSON: Oh, okay. I will have to count them up.
MR. GREGOR: You don’t have to do it right now but that is what I was requesting.
MR. HANSON: Okay, I don’t have it tonight.
MR. GREGOR: For the Board’s information. It is information for the Board so they have enough information to make an informed decision.
MR. HANSON: Okay.
MR. RUBIN: I think it is somewhere in the application papers to split between 9 by 18’s and 9 by 20’s. It is in there somewhere because I remember writing it. Arthur there is no parking for large trucks on this site is there?
MR. HANSON: No, there is not.
MR. RUBIN: So if a large trucker wants to come on, is there any way or does he has to go elsewhere?
MR. HANSON: He has to go elsewhere.
MR. RUBIN: So this is not a site for 18 wheelers and such to bed down for the night.
MR. HANSON: No, it is not.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you proposing a sign to tell them that before they pull in your lot, saying like No Truck Parking.
MR. HANSON: We could.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Because I mean an 18 wheeler could pull in there thinking there was a place to stay and be stuck in your lot.
MR. RUBIN: We could. I mean it has never been asked before but we could.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I mean do you understand the logistics of that?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, absolutely.
MR. CHAIRMAN: A truck comes off the interstate looking --
MR. GREGOR: All right, you have a sign that is 90 feet in the air, right?
MR. RUBIN: You see those signs quite often.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No Truck Parking.
MR. GRYGUS: No Overnight Truck Parking.
MR. RUBIN: Right, you see those. You are absolutely correct. It has never been asked before.
MR. GREGOR: While we are talking about parking, you have relocated the handicapped parking spaces away from the building. Is there a valid reason why you did that, since they should be the closest to the building?
MR. HANSON: Well my opinion this is the closest. The handicapped are right here in the most westerly corner. You get onto the sidewalk which leads you right up to the front door.
MR. GREGOR: Well wouldn’t it be closer if they were
facing
MR. HANSON: You would have to go across the driveway. We are trying not to have the handicapped have to go across the width of the driveway. This way they are always on the sidewalk. You get out of your car; you get on the sidewalk and travel to the building on the sidewalk without crossing any street.
MR. RUBIN: I believe that is also a requirement in
MR. GREGOR: That they are on the same side.
MR. RUBIN: That they do not have to cross over thoroughfares.
MR. GREGOR: Because originally you had them on the east side of the building, right against the building.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Because I think -- I think there was a second exit door on the end of the building there, an entrance door was there or no on the original plan?
MR. HANSON: Well there is still a door.
MR. GREGOR: There still is it is not shown.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. HANSON: It is shown.
MR. GREGOR: No even on the other side -- on the west side of the building there is an exit, you are not showing it with a sidewalk.
MR. HANSON: Right here.
MR. GREGOR: Right.
MR. HANSON: There is a door there.
MR. GREGOR: Right, I don’t see a sidewalk.
MR. HANSON: Because you want everybody to come in the front door passed the desk.
MR. GREGOR: Right.
MR. HANSON: You don’t want people who don’t have rooms here to walk in the side door.
MR. GREGOR: Um-hum.
MR. HANSON: So you make it handicapped accessible so everybody can come in the front door.
MR. GREGOR:
MR. RUBIN: There was a question about a loading area. Is there a loading area for this facility?
MR. HANSON: No, there is no loading area.
MR. RUBIN: Is one required for a Holiday Inn Express?
MR. HANSON: Not for the Holiday Inn Express. We have no need for a truck except when we first bring in all the beds and the tables and all of that for the building. Other than that, there are no tractor-trailers or anything, which we have indicated before, coming on the site to build or anything.
MR. GRYGUS: What about offsite catering that is going to be delivering things?
MR. HANSON: My understanding is they don’t do that.
MR. RUBIN: They have coffee and I think rolls or some such cold breakfast.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What about in the use of the meeting room?
MR. GRYGUS: The meeting room, yeah.
MR. RUBIN: Well as I said before this isn’t going to be a catering facility.
MR. GRYGUS: No, I know that.
MR. RUBIN: It was never designed for --
MR. GRYGUS: No, if you were having a meeting in the meeting room obviously you want to provide food for the people you are having a meeting for.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Because I believe there is even a small food prep off of that.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, right.
MR. FAASSE: You are going to get it from Burger King.
MR. RUBIN: Well I have the owners here we will ask them.
BOARD MEMBER: Yeah, we’ll go over to Burger King, I heard that one.
MR. GREGOR: The loading area isn’t just for food.
MR. RUBIN: No.
MR. GREGOR: If you had janitorial supplies delivered and in comes in 20 foot box truck, where does he park without blocking up your site?
MR. FAASSE: Our ordinance requires a loading zone.
MR. GREGOR: A loading zone.
MR. FAASSE: However, I do believe that was one of the variances that the Planning Board gave you.
MR. HANSON: Right, I believe so.
MR. GRYGUS: Mr. Rubin, if I could interrupt for one thing.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, Sir.
MR. GRYGUS: Only because it is not in Bill’s and I heard you mention it when you talked about the moving of the building. You made mention of something with the fire department having access and I am looking at the original plan which showed the grass pavers with a driveway all the way around the back and then coming out. But now on the new plan you’ve downsized the building, you said you could not extend the building to the west to accommodate the additional space --
MR. HANSON: Correct.
MR. GRYGUS: -- for the -- to make the pool ADA compliant because you would lose that whole area for the fire department but you have removed it totally from the new plan.
MR. HANSON: We still have on the west side -- you know -- basically fire department indicated to us they want this area delineated and they were going drive on the grass around the other end. And if you notice on the far easterly side we provided a drop curb there. Again, for the same reason for the fire truck or whatever to access going west or coming out going east.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But I think that area to the west was intended for when you had the building 70 foot longer. If you --
MR. HANSON: You mean this here?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah.
MR. GREGOR: The farthest to the west.
MR. HANSON: Well what we did is we lined up right up with the driveway so that say the fire truck coming making a left into our site would go straight right into the fire lane and then turn behind the building.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, how would they get --
MR. HANSON: I wouldn’t want to take the fire lane and move it over and have them make like an S turn to get in.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How would they get there now?
MR. HANSON: Go right in this driveway, come right down.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But you have removed all of the --
MR. GREGOR: The pavers.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -- the pavers in the new plan.
MR. HANSON: Well I can put pavers back going over across here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I only brought it up because you made mention of it.
MR. GREGOR: Let me ask a question, it is a very good point, but let me ask a question. The original plan you are stating did have grass pavers?
MR. HANSON: I would have to look. I know we provided a means to get back there. We told them we wouldn’t put anything there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is right here Bill.
MR. FAASSE: It does.
MR. HANSON: He says -- he is indicating he has the plans so for the grass pavers; we will put the grass pavers back.
MR. GREGOR: All right, did you specifically and purposely remove them from this plan or not?
MR. HANSON: No.
MR. GREGOR: No.
MR. HANSON: No.
MR. GREGOR: So the intent is to have grass pavers.
MR. HANSON: Correct.
MR. GREGOR: From that driveway --
MR. HANSON: To this driveway.
MR. GREGOR: To that --
MR. HANSON: Correct.
MR. GREGOR: From that access area to the access area to the rear.
MR. HANSON: That is correct.
MR. GREGOR: Okay, and that will be shown on the revised plans.
MR. HANSON: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: Did you want to see these?
MR. GREGOR: No that is quite all right. I take his word for it.
MR. RUBIN: Did you provide or can we provide fencing around the detention basin?
MR. HANSON: Yes we can.
MR. FAASSE: What number is that Mr. Rubin?
MR. RUBIN: 17. It is one of the issues that we went through for quite some time with the Planning Board. Whether this Board wants us to deal with the Planning Board on that, just tell us what to do and we will do it. As you know, we will be there in two weeks, hopefully.
MR. GREGOR: Oh so what you are stating is that you are going to provide parameter fencing.
MR. HANSON: Around the detention basin.
MR. RUBIN: I don’t know if, Bill, I don’t know if the Borough has an ordinance on that. I know some Boroughs -- some municipalities do have Ordinances.
MR. GREGOR: Most do not and I don’t believe that Borough of Wanaque does. It is typically a safety issue, which we always recommend, and the applicant either says I agree with you or I disagree with you.
MR. RUBIN: When they are dry, most of the time, I know sometimes say it is not sightly, it is unsightly, but if it wet most of the time we say -- you know -- why not, sure. I don’t recall what the conversation was at the Planning Board two years ago.
MR. FAASSE: What is the depth of the detention basin? Does it slope down? How much?
MR. GREGOR: About a foot or two.
MR. FAASSE: How much?
MR. GREGOR: I’m guessing, I am going to -- I’ll let him answer it.
MR. HANSON: About 7 or 8 feet from the highest point to the lowest.
MR. GREGOR: It is that steep?
MR. HANSON: Yes, very steep.
MR. GREGOR: I do recommend it, I always do. It is up to you?
MR. RUBIN: It is not a problem, not a problem.
MR. FAASSE: That does sound like a safety issue.
MR. RUBIN: Yeah, for some reason it wasn’t discussed at the Planning Board that is not an -- yeah, we could do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: While we are there, could you tell us what the height of those keystone walls are?
MR. HANSON: I assume you are talking about the one that is running along the driveway.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, there is a short section.
MR. FAASSE: He is not using one though is he?
MR. HANSON: Between the garage and the detention basin?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, well there is also one -- is that one as I read it right to the rear of the structure also, when you come off of the rear of the structure? Is that a keystone wall also?
MR. HANSON: Right. I will do them both okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. HANSON: This one here, the highest elevation is up in the top, in the most westerly corner where the wall is 223 and the pavement is 224. 1 foot.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 1 foot, okay.
MR. HANSON: As you go easterly, we have an elevation of 222 and the bottom of the wall is about 220 1/2 up. Oh, it is right on here, 222 and 218.5.
MR. GREGOR: Okay so that is about --
MR. CHAIRMAN: 3 - 3 1/2 feet. Okay and how about the other ones that are along the edge of the parking?
MR. HANSON: Okay, we are talking about the bottom of the wall right at the middle of the four-story building?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. HANSON: Is 221.3 and the top of the wall is about 222.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. RUBIN: Again, Mr. Gregor makes note of sidewalk servicing the handicapped parking area and the area on the east side of the hotel to be widened six feet. Could you fit that in Arthur?
MR. HANSON: Mr. Gregor, I believe you are talking about this one right here?
MR. GREGOR: That is -- the sidewalk along the easterly property line, yes, right along there around the along the edge of the building and also the sidewalks fronting on the handicapped parking spaces. It is shown as 4 feet wide --
MR. RUBIN: Right.
MR. GREGOR: -- and with the two foot vehicle overhang, that will impair the ability of people to, especially handicapped, to access those sidewalks. I recommend both of those be widened to a minimum of six feet. That is what my letter is indicating.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. HANSON: Well we could widen -- this one is not labeled but I can label it and make 6 feet.
MR. GREGOR: I scaled them because they weren’t labeled.
MR. HANSON: Okay. And we could make it 6 right up to the front door. We can’t change it over here.
MR. GREGOR: I don’t need it there.
MR. FAASSE: No, it is just the parking area.
MR. HANSON: So we are only going to go from the handicapped to the canopy.
MR. GREGOR: Along the east side of the building.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just where parking area is by there.
MR. HANSON: There is no handicapped over there.
MR. GREGOR: No but you have vehicles parked there right?
MR. HANSON: Yes.
MR. GREGOR: And vehicles typically have a two foot overhang, correct?
MR. HANSON: Normally, yes.
MR. GREGOR: And if you put a two foot overhang on a four foot sidewalk, how much area do you have left --
MR. FAASSE: Wait a minute, I can get this.
MR. RUBIN: Does your car have a two-foot overhand, mine doesn’t.
MR. GREGOR: This is for the record.
MR. HANSON: Well we can also make those 18 foot stalls then you would have your six foot sidewalk. These 8 stalls here are 20 feet deep so we could make them 18 like the rest and have a 6 foot sidewalk.
MR. GREGOR: That would also solve the problem that I mentioned.
MR. HANSON: We could do either one, yes.
MR. GREGOR: Which would you prefer to do, it is your site plan? If you want to confer with your client that is quite all right, I just want to get it resolved so that we don’t have any -- we don’t see you again.
MR. HANSON: I will move the building.
MR. GREGOR: Pardon?
MR. HANSON: We will make it six feet here and the building will slide down and touch.
MR. GREGOR: You are going to make a 6 foot sidewalk in both locations?
MR. HANSON: And then just realizing the 49.2 then is going to get a little bit shorter.
MR. GREGOR: All right so you are going to make it six feet in both locations, the sidewalk.
MR. HANSON: Correct.
MR. GREGOR: Okay.
MR. HANSON: So instead of 49.2 I will probably use about 48 1/2 foot front yard setback.
MR. RUBIN: Arthur there are -- Mr. Gregor points out
there is a discrepancy between a note saying there are sidewalks along
MR. HANSON: We have. When we first made the plans we did not have sidewalks. After the County got done with us --
MR. FAASSE: Sidewalks.
MR. HANSON: -- we had sidewalks.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, with County.
MR. HANSON: And curbs.
MR. GREGOR: All right, then I have a simple request, remove that note.
MR. HANSON: Yes. I was hoping --
MR. RUBIN: The County impressed upon us the importance of sidewalks. Steve Edmond said, he’d put sidewalks in, of course. Existing and impervious surfaces and structures located to be removed and returned to natural state. I think that goes without saying.
MR. HANSON: Right.
MR. RUBIN: That’s happening. We are making it green wherever the old paving was.
MR. GREGOR: Oh so that will be removed.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, in fact, it might be removed already.
MR. HANSON: We are talking about -- there used to be a house right in the middle here --
MR. GREGOR: No, I am talking to your left, right there.
MR. HANSON: That is not our property.
MR. GREGOR: Yes, it is.
MR. HANSON: It is leased back.
MR. GREGOR: According to your survey it is.
MR. HANSON: No, no, it is leased back to someone else. It doesn’t belong.
MR. FAASSE: You are not giving us all the information.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You got more than one use on the site then.
MR. HANSON: No, it is vacant land.
MR. GREGOR: Can you -- your survey --
MR. FAASSE: So what is it being leased for?
MR. GREGOR: Excuse me, your survey shows me that the
entire property to the point where it meets
MR. HANSON: Okay.
MR. GREGOR: That is what Sheet 2, I believe of your plan shows.
MR. HANSON: That’s is --
MR. GREGOR: Now you are telling me something different.
MR. HANSON: That’s is the deed parcel, that is correct.
MR. GREGOR: You are telling me that that is not your property now?
MR. HANSON: It is the deed parcel. If you go and search out the deed for this piece of property, you will get a piece of land that tapers all the way down to a point, like you said.
MR. GREGOR: And that is the survey that you submitted with the site plan?
MR. HANSON: That is correct.
Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now what are you telling us, that property is not yours?
MR. RUBIN: It is not part of our site plan.
MR. HANSON: It is not part of our site plan.
MR. RUBIN: Our site plan is what you see.
MR. HANSON: Right here.
MR. RUBIN: That is our site that we were before the Planning Board with, that is our site that we have before you this evening.
MR. GREGOR: Well unfortunately that is not clear anywhere on this drawing.
MR. HANSON: We have no improvements beyond this line.
MR. FAASSE: The westerly line.
MR. GREGOR: I know you don’t because it is wetlands.
MR. RUBIN: You can’t touch it.
MR. HANSON: And we don’t want to be there.
MR. FAASSE: Well now he said it was leased to somebody. Who is it leased to?
MR. RUBIN: We are not buying it. This wasn’t purchased from the owner. We have no rights to it.
MR. GREGOR: Excuse me, Mr. Rubin?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, Sir.
MR. GREGOR: The site plan is, again, I just want to make sure I am clear on this.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. GREGOR: The site plan is
MR. HANSON: That is correct.
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
MR. GREGOR: And the site plan
MR. RUBIN: Total, correct.
MR. GREGOR: Now what you are telling me is that the site plan is for less than 3.89 acres?
MR. RUBIN: Sure. We are not building on the whole thing, we can’t. It is not -- we opted just to use this portion. There are wetlands there, there are flood plain issues, we are not going there. It is not our application.
MR. GREGOR: It is still part of the site.
MR. RUBIN: The whole lot is the site, sure.
MR. GREGOR: Therefore it is still part of your application.
MR. RUBIN: It has to be.
MR. GREGOR: Good.
MR. RUBIN: But we are not improving it, we are not touching it.
MR. GREGOR: And I am not asking you to. What I am asking you --
MR. RUBIN: We don’t want to because there is the wetlands and all kinds of problems.
MR. GREGOR: What my note asked --
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. GREGOR: -- was and, again, I am just going to go through this so that it is very clear to the Board members and to me, is that on the portion of the site that you are not developing there are existing impervious surfaces and I am recommending that they be removed since they are unnecessary and not to be utilized. Mr. Hanson, I believe, said he cannot because he does not have control of that. That is where I have a question.
MR. RUBIN: Right and I can advise the Board and represent to the Board that the site as depicted on the plan before you and on the plans that you all have is the only area that is owned or the property of this applicant. There is no right of this applicant to go beyond that line. They can’t do that; they don’t have a legal right to do that.
MR. GREGOR: Where does it say that in your presentation?
MR. RUBIN: It doesn’t, I advising -- that is the plan that you have before you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is there a subdivision?
MR. RUBIN: I show no improvements beyond the line. It may not be a big issue -- you know -- it might be a very small thing.
MR. GREGOR: No, it is not an issue. It is just that the application that you presented is not the application that we are hearing about now and that is why I concerned.
MR. RUBIN: Sure it is, it absolutely is. We are not improving the whole lot.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What calculations did you use for your site numbers?
MR. RUBIN: I have to use --
MR. HANSON: The entire building, the entire lot.
MR. GREGOR: But you just said you don’t control the entire lot.
MR. RUBIN: Not anymore. We are only using what we are improving, what we are doing the work on.
MR. GREGOR: All right. So but you --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Who controls the other part of the lot?
MR. RUBIN: The original owner.
MR. GREGOR: Sassafras properties?
MR. RUBIN: Correct, yeah.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Has this been subdivided?
MR. RUBIN: No, it is not subdivided. It is all one lot.
MR. GREGOR: It is one lot with two ownerships?
MR. RUBIN: No, it is not ownership. These are lease lines.
MR. GREGOR: Oh it is a lease?
MR. RUBIN: They are not subdivided.
MR. GREGOR: All right.
MR. RUBIN: Someday we may but it is not before any Board right now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But in your table you are showing provided 9 percent building coverage based upon 3.893 acres.
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are saying you don’t control that site. So your total impervious coverage and your building coverage should be recalculated based upon what you are saying --
MR. GREGOR: What you lease.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -- what you -- whatever, however. What you are representing on that drawing right there.
MR. RUBIN: Sure, this is the plan that we got the original approval for, we didn’t go beyond that line. We didn’t want to go beyond that line. If we have to come back, if we do come back, I said have to, if we do someday for either another building or a subdivision or whatever then we have to address exactly your question and all other questions. But, at this moment, I have no need to address them because it is not an issue. I am not -- this developer is not improving anything except what you see on that plan, on the whole lot. Someday if it ever changes, we will be back and asking whatever the appropriate board is for relief. But right now there is no relief to be asked for. I have nothing before you to ask. There is -- I am --
MR. CHAIRMAN: They don’t control but they are using it in their calculations.
MR. FAASSE: Yeah, I know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I don’t understand that.
MR. GREGOR: It doesn’t make sense.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. GREGOR: That is if you are using the total acreage for your calculations but the application is only leased a portion of that acreage, how can you use those numbers?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Shouldn’t you be using only the numbers that you can control?
MR. RUBIN: Because I don’t have a subdivision. I have a legal one lot.
MR. GREGOR: Right, you have a legal one lot.
MR. RUBIN: Correct.
MR. GREGOR: But your applicant has leased a portion of that lot for his exclusive use.
MR. RUBIN: It is not a matter before the -- for either this Board or the Planning Board until we come in, if we ever do and I don’t know if we ever will because there is wetlands and other environmental issues on the remainder of it.
MR. GREGOR: Ralph, let me go back a moment here. The applicant is using the whole lot for his spaces.
MR. FAASSE: Yeah, absolutely.
MR. GREGOR: Calculation.
MR. FAASSE: And now he doesn’t control the whole lot.
MR. GREGOR: Now you are testifying that the applicant doesn’t control the whole lot only a portion of it that he leased.
MR. FAASSE: Right.
MR. RUBIN: Only that portion that you see on the plan.
MR. GREGOR: Well why would the calculations be based on that leased amount of property?
MR. RUBIN: Because it is one lot. Because it is one full lot, there is no subdivision; there is nothing before you that would indicate that this is nothing else but one full lot.
MR. GREGOR: Other than your testimony that they only lease that portion of it.
MR. RUBIN: And because that is the only place we were building. If we were building --
MR. FAASSE: Oh so they are not the property owner, your client’s are not the property owners, they are lessees.
MR. RUBIN: I am not handling that portion. I would have to ask. If you want that answer I could get that for you now.
MR. GREGOR: We need that answer.
MR. RUBIN: If you would give me a moment.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, I think it would be a good answer.
MR. GRYGUS: Wouldn’t you have to base your calculations on the amount that you lease?
MR. FAASSE: Yeah, that’s all. That’s only what you control.
MR. GREGOR: Is there any questions on the lease?
MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the term of the lease?
MR. FAASSE: Well you got to have that. You got to have a long-term lease. You got to have the consent of the owner, you got to tell us where it is, they are not.
MR. GREGOR: Where is the copy of the lease showing us the square footage they lease?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It has to be shown on the survey.
MR. FAASSE: Yeah.
MR. GREGOR: Mr. Hanson, in the interim --
MR. FAASSE: Well well well wait, let’s do it one at a time.
MR. GREGOR: I just wanted to find out if the lease is shown on the survey the lease line.
MR. HANSON: It is just as a line.
MR. GREGOR: It is not labeled though, right, okay.
MR. RUBIN: The answer to the question. They own the whole lot. There was -- the applicant, whatever company they are using, had a closing of title and they own the entire lot. So as far as this Board is concerned in any land use application, it is the entire lot.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. RUBIN: How they work out something different in the future, I have no idea because we have nothing, we have no plan, there is nothing to be brought before any of the boards at this time and I don’t know if it ever will because there are environmental impacts.
MR. FAASSE: All right, so now I’ll go back to Mr. Gregor’s original question then, will you return the portion that is off the drawing to its natural state? Right, wasn’t that the question that got us on this?
MR. GREGOR: Yeah, that was the question.
MR. HANSON: You are asking the wrong person, hold on.
MR. FAASSE: I hate to put you on the spot Mr. Hanson, but you are up there, you know.
MR. HANSON: I know.
MR. GREGOR: We got you on it.
MR. HANSON: I was hoping to sit back there tonight and be nice and quiet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is what happens when you are up in the alphabet.
MR. RUBIN: Problem solved. It will be removed.
MR. FAASSE: All right.
MR. RUBIN: It has to someday, it would be anyway in the future, it will be removed. Except, if it is in the wetlands, we are not going anywhere near it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. The question that I have, which now I was going to ask anyway, but we will kind of piggyback off of that. Given that I think we recognize that the number of parking spaces could potentially be an issue. And you have downsized the building by 70 feet I think you said.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Did you give any thought to taking that additional space from where the building was and crate a jog in there and add some parking on the each side of the job?
MR. HANSON: We added some parking in here. Trying to get more than the stalls we had, it wouldn’t be enough. We put a lot of pavement, it became one or two cars and that didn’t seem --
MR. CHAIRMAN: What I was thinking of is if you came in and created a square essentially almost to the edge of the driveway that you are proposing there, you could eliminate that fire access and just have that go through that parking area and around the back. And you could probably pick yourself up another maybe 16 to 20 spaces.
MR. HANSON: Well I would like to have your scale.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Here come here. Well here take this. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. You are proposing doing the same thing -- want me to come down and show you?
MR. HANSON: Yes, please.
MR. FAASSE: I don’t know, that would be very dangerous when they can’t get the mail to go across.
MR. GRYGUS: He is a
MR. FAASSE: Oh yeah.
MR. GRYGUS:
MR. HANSON: First of all, having this S turn for a fire truck is going to be almost impossible for a hook and ladder to get around there. You have a four-story building so we are talking about getting a big ridge in there now. And to do what you are talking about, right here we have now --
MR. CHAIRMAN: What would you do here if you had to get the hook and ladder in front of here?
MR. HANSON: You would turn here but you are making him do an S. Making a 90 degree turn is doable; making a 90 and 90 is tough because he can’t straighten out enough after he makes the first left coming from this side, he has to get out. He can’t back up -- well I guess he can. What you are saying is if we put a double load in here --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. HANSON: Okay, I need 64 feet to have a double road, that’s parking, driveway, parking.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You took 70 feet off of the building.
MR. HANSON: Correct but I only have enough room in here on one side to replace the handicapped spaces I have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are going to get the handicapped spaces to be right along building.
MR. HANSON: That is correct, that is that side. So we are taking these stalls we have here and replacing them over here and you are picking up another four or five. That is not 15.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You could pick up what you have almost here, you have eight spaces here.
MR. HANSON: No, this is bigger than this. I can’t go down here, the truck has got to make the turn.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I still think that the truck could come through here plus and then you could go all the way to the buffer line.
MR. FAASSE: Did we -- that brings up a good question. Did we refer this site plan to the fire department for their review and comments?
MR. HANSON: I would assume somebody in the Borough passed it along, we gave enough prints after they were done.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Don’t assume.
MR. GRYGUS: Don’t assume.
MR. FAASSE: Not in this Borough.
MR. GREGOR: We have a hard time getting answers from them sometimes.
MR. FAASSE: Yeah.
MR. GREGOR: So that is why we are asking.
MR. FAASSE: So the answer is you are cutting 70 feet off of the building but what are you doing with the ground space, you are not getting more any parking --
MR. HANSON: We are putting it in grass.
MR. FAASSE: Grass.
MR. HANSON: Right.
MR. FAASSE: How many square feet of grass are we putting in, we always like grass?
MR. HANSON: Well, 70 by 60.
MR. FAASSE: Okay. All right, so it will be a lawn.
MR. WILLSE: Can I ask a non-parking space question?
MR. FAASSE: I don’t know are we done with the area of the parking spaces.
MR. RUBIN: Just on that issue, business sometimes requires renovations and amendments to be made and I have been in -- Ralph has been in this business a long time, if there is an incredible demand we will probably be back before the appropriate board seeking a change someday in the future. But from the knowledge of the applicants who either own or manage or are involved with a number of other hotels and motels, they say we are overbuilt on parking. That is their view.
MR. GRYGUS: Well except that, you met the agreement that you have with this cross use parking that could be cancelled. So --
MR. FAASSE: Yeah, we don’t like that agreement.
MR. GRYGUS: So it would behoove you to get as many parking spaces that you control solely in the event that that adjacent property owner ever decided I am not interested in this anymore. That is it.
MR. RUBIN: That is part of the resolutions, the various resolutions of approval and if that ever happened, we would be back before the Boards because and the first thing that happens --
MR. FAASSE: Well that is a legal --
MR. RUBIN: -- is business suffers and that means things have to happen on site.
MR. FAASSE: Just -- you know -- maybe we would have Mr. Hanson up first. Just explain briefly for the Board this cross-easement arrangement between this and the Burger King property.
MR. HANSON: Well part of it is we have -- right now the Burger King has a row of parking along its westerly edge with no breaks in it. With the new plan, we are providing a break in the back to connect the rear of Burger King’s driveway to our driveway and the same thing up front, a break in curbing to provide access up front to get from the Burger King driveway into our site.
MR. GRYGUS: Why does this say exit only?
MR. HANSON: Just the one up front is a one way in, and the one in the back is a two-way.
MR. GRYGUS: Oh, this says do not enter, okay.
MR. FAASSE: So it is just a driveway easement.
MR. HANSON: And then the edge of these 17 parking stalls that you see along our easterly end.
MR. FAASSE: Um-hum.
MR. HANSON: The front says five feet --
MR. GREGOR: Now I am going to ask you for an explanation. During when this was originally developed, Burger King was built and then this was subdivided off or was this subdivided off and then Burger King built, do you know?
MR. HANSON: Well Burger King was originally part of this big parcel.
MR. GREGOR: It was?
MR. FAASSE: Correct.
MR. HANSON: That’s why you notice your lot numbers at 3.02 to 3.01.
MR. GREGOR: Okay, and then there was a subdivision between the Burger King lot and this lot, correct?
MR. HANSON: And the vacant piece of land.
MR. GREGOR: And then Burger King was actually built, correct?
MR. HANSON: That is correct.
MR. GREGOR: And the applicant provided the necessary 10-foot side yard setback from parking to property line, correct?
MR. HANSON: Correct.
MR. GREGOR: Now you have come in with this revised site plan and the new parking for the hotel lot actually shows the front portion of the vehicles parked on the Burger King lot, that row, and I don’t know how many, I didn’t count them but I can count them. You know which ones I am talking about, there are 17, I think, yeah, 17 spaces, which now park the back end of the cars on your lot and the front the cars on the Burger King lot, that is correct?
MR. HANSON: That is correct.
MR. GREGOR: Can you explain to me in very simple, I am a simple person, why you didn’t have a lot line adjustment and correct this situation?
MR. HANSON: I can’t give you an answer to that, I don’t know.
MR. RUBIN: I can give you a part answer.
MR. GREGOR: I am just curious.
MR. RUBIN: Not of why there wasn’t a lot line adjustment, I don’t know the answer but I can tell you that the Planning Board heard an amendment to both applications and allowed that. That was the Planning Board’s decision. So they asked us to work out the easement for a portion of that string of parking slots, which we did. And that was approved by the Planning Board.
MR. FAASSE: Isn’t there drainage in there too, reciprocal drainage provisions or something?
MR. HANSON: Both sites, the Burger King and the Holiday Inn are using this detention basin.
MR. FAASSE: And that detention basin then would be to the south, west, east.
MR. HANSON: The southerly portion of the site.
MR. RUBIN: So to answer a part of Mr. Gregor’s question what if the Burger King’s owners someday in the future --
MR. GREGOR: That wasn’t part of my question, my question
MR. RUBIN: I’m sorry, the words I got disgruntled -- disgruntled --
MR. GREGOR: My question was why was this left like that and not corrected.
MR. RUBIN: I don’t know, the Planning Board approved it and that is what they did.
MR. FAASSE: Yeah but the problem is and you probably weren’t privy to this Mr. Rubin is that the cross-easement agreement that apparently has been filed between the two property owners saying that either of the property owners or both of the property owners can mutually absolve the easement agreement.
MR. RUBIN: They can’t do it without going back to the Planning Board.
MR. FAASSE: You know, it doesn’t say that.
MR. RUBIN: Can’t do it.
MR. FAASSE: It doesn’t say that.
MR. RUBIN: It doesn’t have to. Ralph, it doesn’t have to. You can’t change a site plan by agreement, you have to go back to the issue and agency.
MR. FAASSE: That is a lot of easements though, cross -- yeah, it is saying the cross-easements.
MR. RUBIN: You have to go back to the agency that gave you approval.
MR. FAASSE: I think that ought to be clarified.
MR. RUBIN: The Planning Board gave the approval. It is basic land use law.
MR. FAASSE: Well it is with site plan, you are absolutely right. But the easement agreement that was filed says that they can mutually agree to cancel the easement.
MR. RUBIN: But then they have to -- if they did, assume they did, they would have to prance right back to either the Planning Board or Board of Adjustment for new approvals. Can’t live without it, they are locked into the site plan approval process.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Hanson, while we are killing this parking thing, now that you have altered the shape of this building, okay, if you moved the building to the west, okay, couldn’t you then move the parking with it and get off of that cross agreement?
MR. GREGOR: The only thing you would need it for is the driveways, which you could live without with the entrance that you have over there.
MR. LUDWIG: And more of a front yard setback.
MR. HANSON: As it is now we are asking for a variance, now a greater one, by moving a couple of feet with the canopy.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. HANSON: Well what is going to happen if we slide this down from what I am hearing, you want to get all of the parking out of the Burger King.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. HANSON: Okay. You want to have 10 foot between the property line and the curb as per your ordinance.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is another issue.
MR. HANSON: Okay, Let’s just do -- I just want be clear.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let’s deal with the parking first.
MR. HANSON: We are sliding this down, we are moving the building down further to get six feet on the sidewalk. We end up just passing with being the driveway, so that the driveway in front will be less than 24 feet. As you noticed, we have a little bow in the driveway here. That is to maintain a 24-foot distance for cars coming down and make it easier to turn in here to go by. We have a very -- a skew here, the more we push this building down this way, the narrower this gets.
MR. FAASSE: Right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. HANSON: So we could end up losing more stalls trying
to gain parking and we will end up losing parking along
MR. CHAIRMAN: But if you altered your 10-foot buffer to
MR. HANSON: Well then you are asking us to ask for another waiver or variance --
MR. CHAIRMAN: You are giving somewhere to pick up somewhere else.
MR. HANSON: Well as I said, you are asking me to create another variance to get rid of one.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. GRYGUS: Mr. Hanson, we are in the variance business.
MR. HANSON: Just as long as everybody understands.
MR. FAASSE: We are in the what business?
MR. GRYGUS: The variance business.
MR. FAASSE: That is what I thought you said.
MR. GRYGUS: There is no other board that has more authority in variances than us. We are in the variance business.
MR. FAASSE: Yeah we are going a little -- we are going into the site plan guys.
MR. GREGOR: Mr. Hanson, just so you understand, the Board isn’t asking anything, they are inquiring as to what possibly can be done, what can’t be done.
MR. HANSON: Sure.
MR. GREGOR: The why’s and wherefores.
MR. HANSON: Well that is what I am saying --
MR. GREGOR: They are asking for your professional opinion.
MR. HANSON: The more we move it down, we are going to end
up encroaching on the driveway and if we don’t move the curb closer to
MR. GRYGUS: Let me chime in again as well. The original plan because you were a much larger building, longer building, had the entrance located at the end of the building. The reason that you need your variance is that you have moved the entrance more towards the center of building.
MR. HANSON: That is correct.
MR. GRYGUS: If you had -- if you had considered doing what the Chairman had indicated of moving the building further to the west and do as you did in the original plan move the entrance further to the east, you would not have that problem, is that correct?
MR. GREGOR: Plus you could also have your handicapped parking closer to the entrance. I was going to hold that question for the architect because there was major --
MR. GRYGUS: Well there is a lot of what ifs, I am just trying to --
MR. GREGOR: There were major revisions between the original architecturals and the new architectuals and I just want to try and understand why that is. Why the need for the pool drive moving meeting rooms from one floor to another floor and --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Entrances from the center --
MR. GREGOR: Entrances from the center to end.
MR. RUBIN: The architect will have to answer that one.
MR. GRYGUS: You understand where I was going with that question?
MR. HANSON: Sort of.
MR. FAASSE: I hope so.
MR. GRYGUS: Okay, thank you.
MR. WILLSE: Can I ask my non-parking question now?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Go ahead.
MR. WILLSE: Have you thought of garbage removal and disposal on this site? I don’t see any place indicated for a dumpster pen.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Good question.
MR. FAASSE: They are going to use the Burger King.
MR. HANSON: There is very minimal garbage from this site.
MR. WILLSE: But there is some.
MR. HANSON: We have an operator he will talk to you about that.
MR. WILLSE: That means we are going to put cans out on
MR. HANSON: Excuse me?
MR. WILLSE: Are you going to put cans out on
BOARD MEMBER: Maybe that is why he is building the sidewalk.
MR. WILLSE: Where were you planning on putting your garbage at all, even your cans?
MR. GREGOR: You got vending, that is going to generate recycles.
MR. LUDWIG: Off site catering comes in to eat dinner in the room or the conference rooms. It has to go somewhere.
MR. HANSON: The operator will be up later, he will explain.
MR. WILLSE: All right, can I go back. I’m still -- I’m still. I know we solved trucks, but what about buses and RV’s. How do you stop them, let’s say, although I am an RV fan, but if I am coming down the interstate and I see a hotel, I am going to pull in, maybe. Where will they go?
MR. LUDWIG: Wal*Mart.
MR. WILLSE: It is not open yet.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is.
MR. FAASSE: Yes, it is.
MR. WILLSE: Today?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Oh yeah.
MR. HANSON: You would have to utilize these parking spaces.
MR. RUBIN: We are really not equipped for that business though.
MR. WILLSE: But there is no way of avoiding it, I don’t see.
MR. RUBIN: Well if --
MR. WILLSE: But if you are a hotel off of the interstate highway -- I am just -- I’m thinking feasibility is that if you are a hotel off of the interstate exit --
MR. RUBIN: We are not inviting tandem trucks or 18 wheelers. We are just not -- we don’t have room for that.
MR. WILLSE: But I am not talking about that.
MR. RUBIN: Yeah.
MR. WILLSE: I am talking about buses, RV’s, other things that could be longer.
MR. RUBIN: RV’s.
MR. WILLSE: Or even getting in and out this place, actually.
MR. GREGOR: A guy towing a boat, going up to
MR. FAASSE: Oh yeah, don’t forget the boaters.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think, Mr. Rubin, just to clarify, I think that the reason that this is being raised is that the proximity to 287 --
MR. RUBIN: Correct, I understand that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -- lends itself to that. An RV is driving along 287 sees the Holiday Express sign and says oh, we are bushed, let’s grab a room for the night. What are they going to do? Are they going to end -- you know -- and you are going say you don’t cater to them, are you going to kick them off of your property? I think that the Board Member --
MR. RUBIN: Well there is no parking, there is no parking for them.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. WILLSE: But they don’t know that when they pull off of the highway.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right and this is a concern because we don’t want to create a safety issue. Because you and I have both seen --
MR. RUBIN: Correct, we understand that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: -- when truckers don’t have a parking space, where do they park?
MR. RUBIN: They park anywhere.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Where they want.
MR. GREGOR: On the side of the road.
MR. RUBIN: That is exactly correct, which you run the risk of getting a summons within 10 minutes of being there.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And I am not concerned about the summons. What I am concerned about is the safety of the residents of Wanaque.
MR. RUBIN: Of course.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Whether it be a permanent or temporary residence. And that is what we are dealing with. That’s the reason we are asking these questions, just so you know.
MR. RUBIN: I understand that. When we went before the Planning Board with this same configuration it was not an issue because they knew that was not what this site was being used for. It wasn’t being used for the larger trucks and such, we couldn’t handle it. We just can’t handle it. It is not the site, it is a smaller site. This is not a large site with large parking, it just isn’t. And if we have to post the appropriate signage, we will just have to post it.
MR. WILLSE: Bill, does our ordinance require 25-foot isles?
MR. GREGOR: 25 foot, yes, our ordinance does.
MR. WILLSE: So did you get a variance originally for that also from the Planning Board?
MR. GREGOR: Which one are you talking about there?
MR. WILLSE: Isle between parking spaces.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Isle width.
MR. WILLSE: Isle widths.
MR. GREGOR: Oh, oh, oh, oh.
MR. FAASSE: The driveway.
MR. WILLSE: And we got 24.
MR. GREGOR: We got 24. Which again I didn’t touch on the details of that in my review. I touched on only the areas that I thought were pertinent to this site plan.
MR. FAASSE: Yeah, that is going to be up to the Planning Board.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, well we are drifting off of the course here.
MR. FAASSE: Do we have any other questions for Mr. Hanson?
MR. GREGOR: It is a valid point though.
MR. FAASSE: Absolutely, so is the garbage, I can’t believe the Planning Board doesn’t even have a provision for garbage.
MR. WILLSE: That is what I am here for.
MR. FAASSE: I know. What are you listening to, anyway?
MR. WILLSE: The Yankee Game.
MR. FAASSE: They are still losing.
MR. GREGOR: You better not be.
MR. WILLSE: You just jealous the voices talk to me.
MR. GREGOR: You’re right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. RUBIN: By the way I am just taking a quick look on the old resolution, that the approval for this site was subject to and contingent upon the applicant submitting an amended site plan to the Planning Board for the adjacent Burger King site to take care of that joint parking. It was a condition and we went back to the Planning Board for a whole new application for an amended application for Burger King and they approved that. So that little bit that is on one side and on the other was an approval by both, by the Boards. Two applications because both sites were involved.
MR. GREGOR: Okay, in summary the line is staying where it is, it isn’t getting moved off the parking spaces, is that correct, it is staying as it is shown on this site plan?
MR. HANSON: Correct.
MR. RUBIN: Oh by the way, Item 21, it is stipulated and agreed that no overnight parking of trucks (tractor-trailer) shall be permitted in the parking lot. So it was looked at.
MR. GREGOR: Again, I was getting passed the trucks, I was doing other things.
MR. RUBIN: Well I just wanted to --
MR. CHAIRMAN: I do appreciate that, however, I think a Board Member had brought up a very valid issue is how are you going to control that and I think the enforcement is also another issue. I think you had stated that you are going to now put signs there?
MR. RUBIN: Sure, we could put up a sign. I think we have all seen signs on other facilities like this.
MR. FAASSE: Truckers not welcome.
MR. RUBIN: It is not an issue that the Planning Board asked us about, they were fixed on the trailer trucks but, obviously, it could be any large vehicle. The site just isn’t made for it -- you know -- and that is the simple facts of the case.
MR. RUBIN: Okay, other questions for Mr. Hanson?
BOARD MEMBER: Are we still caught on the bullets?
MR. RUBIN: Well I am finished with the report.
MR. GREGOR: We are done with those reports.
MR. FAASSE: Well Mr. Hanson is not leaving so we also him available.
MR. RUBIN: He is not going anywhere. He is stuck for the night.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now you want to open to the public?
MR. FAASSE: Yeah maybe well we should, just in case. Is there anyone from the public that wants to --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Have any questions or statements you want to make?
MR. FAASSE: No, no, not statements, questions.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions.
MR. FAASSE: Are there any questions of Mr. Hanson from the public?
MRS. BECK: I would like to see how the new plan is different from the old.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Please step up and identify yourself.
MRS. BECK: My name is Nancy Beck, I live at
MR. HANSON: Basically this end of the building used to be west about 70 feet.
MRS. BECK: Okay, so you haven’t changed the eastern north side of the building?
MR. HANSON: No.
MRS. BECK: I have another question but I don’t know if it is appropriate at this time.
MR. FAASSE: Only if it is in Mr. Hanson’s -- you know -- area of expertise.
MRS. BECK: Okay, it has to do with
MR. FAASSE: Oh, we are going to hear from the architect on that one, I think.
MRS. BECK: Oh, okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Next witness?
MR. FAASSE: Right?
MR. RUBIN: Is that is all of Mr. Hanson, he will be seated but he is not going anywhere.
MR. FAASSE: No, no, no.
MR. RUBIN: So if the Board has --
MR. RUBIN: If we have to we have a button here to keep him here.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. RUBIN: If the Board has a further question, he is here. I’ll call up the architect please. He has come a long distance this evening to be with us.
MR. FAASSE: No kidding, where did he come from?
MR. GRYGUS: Can I ask the first question of the architect?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah,
MR. FAASSE: You know he has to be sworn first, I mean, you know.
MR. GRYGUS: He is going to steal my question.
MR. FAASSE: You know he does that, he steals the question.
MR. GREGOR: As long as he doesn’t steal my question.
MR. FAASSE: Oh, how could Bill miss the garbage.
MR. RUBIN: I will try not to do that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ralph, do you want Arthur to identify the plans that are marked into evidence.
MR. FAASSE: It is really part of the exhibit. The only thing is it is different colored.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right, the only thing is it is colorized.
MR. FAASSE: Do you want to keep the color one around?
MR. GREGOR: It doesn’t matter.
MR. RUBIN: It is the same, we represent it is the same.
MR. FAASSE: 3 of 7, they said, right.
MR. RUBIN: Right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, we’ll keep it.
MR. FAASSE: I’m just going to warm this guy up and then we are going and have a break.
MR. RUBIN: Bruce, I will try not to ask your question.
MR. GRYGUS: I’m only kidding, I don’t care.
MR. GREGOR: Our five-minute break should be coming up.
MR. FAASSE: I got a union.
MR. RUBIN: If he could be sworn.
MR. FAASSE: Hopefully.
PHILIP JOVON RAYL SWORN
MR. FAASSE: Give us your full name, spell your last name.
MR. RAYL: Philip Jovon Rayl. Last name Rayl R-A-Y-L.
MR. FAASSE: R-A-Y-L?
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: Jovan?
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: And you want to give us a business.
MR. RAYL:
MR. FAASSE: Who?
MR. RAYL: Dimensions Incorporated is the company.
MR. FAASSE: What is the business?
MR. GREGOR:
MR. FAASSE:
MR. RUBIN: I told you he came a distance.
MS. MAROTTA: Do you have a business card?
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: Oh, that would be easier.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is right here,
MR. GREGOR: Wasn’t that in a song?
MR. RAYL: Yeah, not the same place.
MR. FAASSE: All right, okay, so now we have it.
BOARD MEMBER: And be careful what you say, I went to school
in
MR. FAASSE: Oh it is
MR. RUBIN: Could you tell us a little bit about yourself for the Board?
MR. RAYL: Sure, I am a registered architect. I am registered in approximately 16 states
including
MR. FAASSE: Are you licensed by the State of
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. RUBIN: He just said that.
MR. FAASSE: Could you give your license number is it on your plans?
MR. RAYL: Yeah, I can give it to you.
MR. FAASSE: Is it on the plans?
MR. RAYL: I don’t know, I can give you --
MR. FAASSE: It always helps when I have the
MR. RAYL: License number 16819.
MR. FAASSE: And is that in good force and effect as of today.
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: Okay. And 16 other states?
MR. RAYL: Yes.
Including
MR. FAASSE: And have you testified as an expert before in the field of architecture?
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: Any other licenses?
MR. RAYL: No.
MR. FAASSE: Okay, I just didn’t want to omit any, that’s all.
MR. RUBIN: I would ask that the Board allow the witness to be qualified.
MR. FAASSE: I have no problem.
MR. RUBIN: Thank you.
MR. FAASSE: Licensed by the State of
DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF PHILIP JOVON RAYL BY MR. RUBIN:
Q Could you tell us, are you familiar with the site?
A Yes.
Q And are you the designer of the amended architectural plan?
A Yes.
Q You are not the designer of the original plan?
A No.
Q We don’t know that person. That person is gone. He no longer is on the team. Tell us what, as far as you know, what was your charge, what were you supposed to do for the applicant?
A Provide a more efficient and better looking, better use of plans, site plan for the site restrictions that are here. The smaller site, they are trying to go up another story and try to get a better use of the building.
Q And did you -- were
you aware of the, call it, the
A Yes I was aware that there was a restraint on the pool, that the
pool was too close to the wall because of coding. In
Q And thus you were called in to redesign this building.
A Yes.
Q Are there still 81 rooms that were in the original plan?
A Yes.
Q It hasn’t changed?
A No.
Q Can you tell us what you designed for each of the floors so the Board has a handle of what is happening on this site?
A Sure. One of the first things we did is we designed a more efficient building as standards --
MS. MAROTTA: Excuse me; you are going to have to move the microphone over.
MR. RAYL: Sure.
MS. MAROTTA: Thank you.
A To design a more efficient building and to better utilize the space, you need a center entry on a hotel plus Holiday Inn Express, their standards, require a center entry. Anytime you do an entry on the end they make you go through a variance process. So --
MR. GRYGUS: Can I just ask one quick question there?
MR. RAYL: Sure.
MR. GRYGUS: The original plan, okay, when that was designed, were they under agreement with Holiday Inn Express at that time?
MR. RUBIN: It was always the Holiday Inn Express.
MR. GRYGUS: Okay, I’m sorry.
MR. RAYL: Like I said, if you move the entrance around then you have to seek a variance with Holiday Inn or Intercontinental, which is the parent company.
MR. GRYGUS: So they must have had it with the original plan.
MR. RAYL: They would have had to have done that, yeah, if they would of went forward and got Holiday Inn’s approval.
MR. GRYGUS: I’m sorry.
Q By the way, have you designed other Holiday Inn Expresses?
A Oh yeah, multiple Holiday
Q So you understand the process of designing a hotel.
A Oh yeah and the review process by the companies and local boards and owners’ wishes as well.
MR. WILLSE: Is this a standard Holiday Inn design?
MR. RAYL: It is real close. I mean every hotel design on Holiday Inn is tweaked a little bit but it is I would say probably 90 percent prototype drawings, you have standard rooms.
Q Could you go on and tell us what we have, what is shown.
A Sure. Of course we got the canopy in the center and with the main entry vestibule and the reception directly to the left. And one of efficiencies that we design is we put the laundry behind the reception desk so the manpower to run your laundry and run and manage the reception desk at night hours is reduced.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that different than the original plan?
MR. RAYL: I believe it was, I would have to look at the original plan again to make sure.
Q Well just tell us what we have -- what we are showing tonight.
A And then breakfast on the right, across from the reception so you can have security and control of the breakfast area. And then the pool, which is directly also adjacent to the reception so, again, you can have security for hotel guests and control of that as well. And then we also have a meeting room down the hall, which is only about 625 square feet, which is about 42 people per code. So the most you could put in that room is 42 people per code and requirements.
Q In the meeting room?
A Yes, in the meeting room. The breakfast area is a little larger it is closer to 750 square feet, that is roughly 50 people but with the table and chairs layout usually you will get less than that because the tables and chairs take up more space than that. Then we got rooms flanked on both sides of that, restrooms available to the front breakfast area into the pool, which is a more efficient design. To get a more efficient hotel, you have to put all your core pieces, your larger spaces, in the center. The more you can do that the better off you are. If you start pushing pieces out farther away from the middle, then it becomes a less -- more expensive and less economical design.
MR. FAASSE: From what point of view, expensive? To construct or for -- you know -- personnel, the assignments and everything?
MR. RAYL: Both, construction wise because your HVSC, your plumbing, your waterlines, are more centrally located then for those elements and then construction wise it is an easier building to construct as well. But then going on up from there, another design element that the other hotel had was a multi-story open space, which is just really uneconomical. It had a three-story open space. Holiday Inn will allow it but they do not like it. They prefer you either have one or maybe a two-story open space and we don’t have any multi-story open space, everything is one story on the first floor. The old design had a three-story tower inside. On the second floor, we have collectible hotel rooms and the second, third and fourth floor are all the same design all the way, which is a more efficient design, low bearing wise, structure wise, all the walls come down, low bearing walls in the same spot. So then you are only worried about any major structure elements in the pool and in the lobby area as far as beams and the columns and so forth. Mechanicals, we got electric on one end and water heaters on the other end to feed the multiple floors and it can feed in from the ends, which is again another design element that we try to work in in most hotels.
Q Next, well just take us right through.
A Sure, sure. The upper floors, like I said, all copy the first floor and then temper up and one element that I know we are going to get into tonight at some point is the height of the building.
Q Why are we at the difference in height elevation?
A Well first of all --
Q Why are we here?
A When you added the story you went up another roughly 10 feet, 9 foot 4, right now the top are thrust bearing or the soffet is roughly 39 feet 3 inches, our peak is at 56 feet 3 inches which gives you a mean, average rough height of, I believe, 47 feet, 9 inches.
MR. GREGOR: What was the peak again, I’m sorry, I missed that?
MR. RAYL: 56 feet, 3 inches. From the original plan it was an 8/12 pitch and we understood there was a height restriction so we brought the pitch down to a 6/12. What you may have on your drawings shows an 8/12 pitch, I believe.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just out of curiosity, you are referring to a drawing --
MR. FAASSE: That we don’t have.
MR. CHAIRMAN: With labels the height of that roof?
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. GREGOR: We do not have that drawing, is that correct?
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. GREGOR: Okay.
MR. RAYL: When coming to this hearing we understood that there is a height restriction so we went ahead and looked at reducing the pitch.
MR. GREGOR: All right, but those drawings have not been submitted to the Board.
MR. RAYL: No, I have a copy here if you need it.
MR. GREGOR: Okay.
MR. RUBIN: So what is the height that you are able to achieve in best condition?
MR. RAYL: The average height of the roof, which is the mean height of the roof, will be 47 feet, 9 inches.
MR. FAASSE: 9 inches or .9 feet?
MR. RAYL: 9 inches. So 75 -- .75.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is the average.
MR. RAYL: Yes. The maximum height, the peak will be at 56 feet 3 inches.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Which is what the variance would have to be right Ralph?
MR. FAASSE: No, it depends on how we define height.
MR. GREGOR: The height is defined as the mean height.
MR. RUBIN: Mean height is the ordinance.
MR. GREGOR: That is why I needed the information in order to determine what it was and I couldn’t do that because the drawings didn’t show it. I am hearing it now.
MR. FAASSE: What other plans you got there that we don’t have?
MR. RAYL: We just went ahead and started finishing out the rest of the building. I mean, all I got here is the elevations and floor plans.
MR. RUBIN: Construction work.
MR. RAYL: Yes. I got some other documents, construction documents with me but not here.
MR. GREGOR: Okay Mr. Rayl you have mentioned the peak is 56.3.
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. GREGOR: And the thrust height is that different than what we have on the plans here?
MR. RAYL: It might be, I believe it is 3 foot higher it is 29 feet from --
MR. GREGOR: All right what is the thrust?
MR. RAYL: 39 feet, 3 inches.
MR. GREGOR: 39 feet, 3 inches, thank you.
MR. RUBIN: And that average again because that is the important number.
MR. RAYL: Right, 47 feet, 9 inches. 47.75 feet.
MR. RUBIN: And the ordinance is 40.
MR. RAYL: Yeah.
MR. RUBIN: So we are 7 feet and some inches --
MR. RAYL: 7 feet 9 inches over.
MR. RUBIN: So that we all understand that is the variance being sought.
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. RUBIN: 7 feet and some inches.
MR. RAYL: Yeah.
MR. RUBIN: Whatever that some inches is.
MR. GREGOR: 9 inches.
MR. RAYL: 9 inches.
MR. RUBIN: To be exact, 9 inches.
MR. RAYL: Yeah.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 4 stories will be?
MR. GREGOR: Well that is what we need to know.
MR. RUBIN: Correct, you are absolutely right.
MR. GREGOR: Not something, the actual number.
MR. RUBIN: Tell us the roof treatment. You were just starting that a moment ago.
MR. RAYL: The roof will be shingles but there will be a sprinkler system in the attic. When you go to a four-story building NFPA13 is a -- R is a residential sprinkler system it is allowed in three or four stories but when you go to four stories you always like to use NFPA 13 which requires you to use a dry sprinkler system in the attic. The rest of the system will be wet sprinkler in all areas including closets and bathrooms and such.
BOARD MEMBER: Is there any storage or anything in this attic area?
MR. RAYL: No, no.
BOARD MEMBER: Any use at all?
MR. RAYL: The only thing is some ventilation that is about it. Your exhaust fans from the bathroom will come up and collect in the attic and then go out through the roof.
MR. RUBIN: Did you have the opportunity to prepare a rendering of what this building will look like?
MR. RAYL: Yeah, this is the rendering we did and I have got some 11 by 17’s I think.
MR. RUBIN: Perhaps you could give out the smaller version, make it easier for the Board.
MR. WILLSE: So is it purely for aesthetic reasons that you don’t opt for a flat roof?
MR. RAYL: Yeah, that and costs, construction costs and flat roofs leak, in our experience most flat roofs do unless you put a heavy duty roof system which is a lot of money and so typically we go to a pitched roof. Plus it allows you to collect your ventilation and it helps on plumbing and some other issues as well.
MR. FAASSE: How come we don’t have enough?
MR. GREGOR: That is all we got.
MS. MAROTTA: Do you have any more of these?
MR. GREGOR: This is going to be a regular asphalt roof?
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MS. MAROTTA: Is this going to be mark as an Exhibit?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, A-1.
MS. MAROTTA: A-1.
MR. RUBIN: Just go through the rendering, if you can.
MR. RAYL: Sure.
MR. RUBIN: So just to give the main elements to the Board.
MR. RAYL: Sure, we got the entry canopy with the drop off area for the passengers and guests and then you got the guest room windows on the upper floors and then some multiple windows on the front with some movers for some of that laundry room that is in front to help on the economics and then you got parking. This rendering is based on the site plan that we were given from Arthur and it should match it up fairly close maybe not but within a few feet.
MR. FAASSE: No, no, no, no, no, don’t talk fairly close. Does it match up?
MR. RAYL: Yeah, I mean as far as being here --
MR. FAASSE: I mean otherwise they will be back because the building is a foot longer than what he has on his --
MR. RAYL: Well from my understanding -- yeah, all the movement he is going to be doing it is not going to match up now but yeah, it matches up to the site plan that you have.
MR. FAASSE: In other words the footprint that he shows on his plans for the building is what you designed here?
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: All right, that is what we want to hear.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I have a question for you.
MR. RAYL: Sure.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And it is probably just a changed from the first to the -- on the room count table on the first sheet A-1 of 6 showing 83 rooms. And the difference is in the first floor you are showing 11 --
MR. GREGOR: Here it is right here if you want to see it.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Your are showing 11 guest rooms and there is only --
MR. RAYL: It should be 81, I am not sure why that it says --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well the first floor, it is in the first floor where you are showing 11 guest rooms and there are only 9 in the plan. All right, so that would be a correction.
MR. WILLSE: Do you have adequate protection for sheet fall snow off that roof with respect to your sidewalk?
MR. RAYL: What do you mean by adding -- I mean on what are you looking -- I guess on what?
MR. WILLSE: Well that is like say you get ice standing and it starts getting warmer and it breaks off.
MR. RAYL: Well first of all we put an ice standing -- ice shield all over the entire roof in northern properties.
MR. WILLSE: All right but you are going to get some snow that is going --
MR. RAYL: Some snow that falls off, yeah.
MR. WILLSE: If it were to come off in sheets, do you have adequate area between the sidewalk and the building that that could fall without hitting people on the sidewalk?
MR. RAYL: I would have to defer to Arthur. I don’t know what the distance is from the sidewalk to the building is, I’m sorry I don’t.
MR. GREGOR: Well I think the site plan is right up there. If you could take a look at the site plan.
MR. WILLSE: It is not dimension, that is why I can’t really tell. Some of them like especially in the front it looks like it is almost right up against the building.
MR. GREGOR: It is probably a foot away.
MR. WILLSE: And from a fourth story, it is even a harder hit.
MR. RAYL: About five feet so yeah there should be adequate -- I don’t know what the velocity or how far out it will fall but it is more than enough to miss.
MR. WILLSE: Do you have any kind of calculation that you use to determine bathroom fixtures for public use?
MR. RAYL: Basically in a hotel most codes requires, since you have guests like for the pool area, since you have guest rooms that people can go shower and bathe in, they don’t require as many fixtures, usually the people using the breakfast area can go to the room and use the bathroom. So typically public bathroom requirements are pretty minimal in public areas. There is usually just one whole bathroom, one toilet, one urinal sometimes and a sink.
MR. WILLSE: So the assumption is here that 42 people are in that meeting room and they get a break after coffee all morning, they are going to go to their room on the 4th Floor.
MR. RAYL: Possibly, yeah, because most people using those meeting rooms are people guests in the hotel.
MR. WILLSE: That is the second assumption.
MR. RAYL: Yeah.
MR. WILLSE: And people from the pool have to come out into the corridor to get into the restrooms.
MR. RAYL: Yes that is true.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah but the people using the meeting rooms won’t be drinking coffee because there is nothing going to be served.
MR. WILLSE: That is another assumption. I am not going to that meeting.
MR. GREGOR: A lot of assumptions there.
MR. RUBIN: Just based upon your experience in handling a number of these, who actually uses the meeting rooms? What is the dynamics?
MR. RAYL: Typically it is the guests that have come for the meeting for a particular purpose. Sometimes you will have outside sources but that is pretty rare from my understanding. I would have to ask the owners how they plan to utilize it but for the most part --
MR. RUBIN: But from your understanding of having designed probably hundreds of these things --
MR. RAYL: Yeah, unless you got a 200 seat meeting room, usually it is not used very often.
MR. CHAIRMAN: How many of these have you built that have not had on site restaurants?
MR. RAYL: I don’t know. I would be 50 to 100, I don’t know. There is quite a few.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Percentage wise per year, 30 percent? 50 percent?
MR. RAYL: It is changing. Right now I would say five years go it was 80 - 75 percent, now a days it is more like 50 percent.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That have no restaurant?
MR. RAYL: Yeah. Hilton Garden Inns are becoming more popular which have restaurants and Holiday Inns, which have restaurants, are becoming more popular but expresses are still being built.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Is it common to have one elevator for hotels of this size?
MR. RAYL: Yeah. Typically the threshold for elevators is 100 rooms. When you have 100 rooms you have two elevators. That is the typical Hilton, Marriott and Intercontinental, which is Holiday Inn and that is in their standards. When you hit 100 rooms you have to add an elevator.
MR. GRYGUS: Could you give me -- what are the dimensions on that pool now?
MR. RAYL: I don’t have a large scale.
MR. GREGOR: 17 by 30, sorry.
MR. GRYGUS: You scaled it, I couldn’t figure it because the scale has as shown too but I didn’t see it.
MR. RAYL: It should be --
MR. GREGOR: 8 to a foot.
MR. RAYL: 8 inch, yeah.
MR. GRYGUS: Where did you see that?
MR. RAYL: Right under the canopy --
MR. GREGOR: Right here under the first floor plan designation. It is about 30 by 17. Is there any reason you made the pool that large from the first plan?
MR. RAYL: Just more of the owners’ request and just a few other things. We had plenty of space to do it so we made a larger pool since we had the space this time.
MR. LUDWIG: Can I ask a question now?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, go right ahead
MR. LUDWIG: Do you have signed and sealed plans to submit to the Board?
MR. RAYL: I can have them here tomorrow.
MR. GREGOR: I would like a set myself.
MR. RAYL: I didn’t want to stamp them until I knew for sure they were okay.
MR. LUDWIG: Well this Board is really not to suppose to consider them unless they are sealed.
MR. RAYL: Okay, I can have them here tomorrow.
MR. LUDWIG: All right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
MR. RUBIN: That is all the questions I would have of this witness.
MR. GRYGUS: I got another question. Let’s go back to the dumpster. What is your -- is it your common experience that a building this size or a hotel this size won’t have a dumpster?
MR. RAYL: It depends on -- typically most hotels have dumpsters, small ones at best. For this one, I don’t know, I would have to defer to what the local -- if there is a dumpster pickup company that does that or not I don’t know and what sizes they offer. Maybe they didn’t offer the right size, I don’t know. In my experience, most hotels have dumpsters.
MR. GREGOR: I think that answers the question then basically.
MR. FAASSE: What was the question?
MR. GRYGUS: Does a hotel of this size normally have a dumpster and he said basically yes.
MR. WILLSE: Could you pass that drawing around?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Which one?
MR. WILLSE: The rendering.
MR. FAASSE: Just for the record Mr. Rubin we did mark the rendering that was given to us as A-1.
MR. RUBIN: Okay, so you will use the smaller one for ease of tabling.
MR. FAASSE: Well we might steal that one too, it all depends. That is a nice one.
MR. GRYGUS: Is that EFIS they use on the front of that building?
MR. RAYL: Yes, brick on the first floor for maintenance purposes because EFIS doesn’t lasts very good on first floors.
MR. GRYGUS: All right, let’s go back to the dumpster again. Where do you normally put the dumpster in this building?
MR. RAYL: Typically you try to keep it close to your service entrances, but we have placed them - some municipalities want them far away and screened off so you never see them. Some municipalities say I want it close to the door so we don’t have people tracking between it. It is typically up to wherever it fits best on the site.
MR. GRYGUS: Your service area is in the front of the building?
MR. RAYL: There is a --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mechanical room.
MR. RAYL: Yeah, a mechanical room on the ends of the door -- typically towards the end or to the back of the hotel is where we like to put them.
MR. GREGOR: Is the applicant going to purpose a dumpster of no?
MR. RUBIN: We can. I just asked Arthur Hanson our site engineer could we fit it. And if, I assume, I don’t want to be presumptuous, but I assume that was a Planning Board site plan item and if we are asked we will just -- Arthur said he could fit it in.
MR. FAASSE: As long as you don’t fill up the wetlands.
MR. GRYGUS: Well that was my concern that the dumpster wasn’t going to be plotted that close the wetlands.
MR. RUBIN: We can’t do it.
MR. GREGOR: You don’t want to do it. The only way I can figure you’ll do it is lose a parking space too so now we are back to Bruce.
MR. RUBIN: No the DEP would have our heads.
MR. GREGOR: If you are going to purpose a dumpster which I think is a fairly good assumption we just asked you to show us where it would be located that’s all.
MR. RUBIN: Do you have any ideas Arthur? If you want --
MR. FAASSE: Come on now, you want to take the site plan?
MR. RUBIN: Perhaps if you could -- in a moment after this witness is over and before we leave tonight, Arthur will take a look and give some ideas as to location.
MR. FAASSE: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: All right. The Planning Board will handle the screening if it is required of such like that on the dumpster.
MR. FAASSE: Any other questions for the architect?
MR. GREGOR: Yeah, basically when you were given the challenge of redoing the problem with the pool you went to a totally different concept and increased sizes on everything.
MR. FAASSE: You were redesigning the entire building.
MR. GREGOR: The entire -- the entire building.
MR. RAYL: Yeah.
MR. GREGOR: So you have totally abandoned the whole concept of the first plan.
MR. RAYL: Um-hum.
MR. GREGOR: Why?
MR. FAASSE: You have to say yes or no, you can’t just nod. We don’t have a videotape yet.
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. GREGOR: We got a little camera up there; you don’t know it is there.
MR. RAYL: One of the reasons I was not the architect on the first plan, the second reason I know Intercontinental Holiday Inn and I know how to design an efficient building and so that is why we went to this plan because, ultimately, you could save the owner up to $500,000 in construction costs. That is a pretty big chunk of change just to keep one design versus going to another.
MR. LUDWIG: And what are the advantages for the town with this design over --
MR. RAYL: I believe it is a better looking quite honestly but I am, of course, the architect.
MR. LUDWIG: You designed it right?
MR. FAASSE: I like that big western candor you notice that, very humbling.
Mr. Rubin: Absolutely very humble.
MR. LUDWIG: I mean because economics aren’t really supposed to be --
MR. RUBIN: No.
MR. FAASSE: But his design is better than the other guys but he is saying with it a little caveat.
MR. RUBIN: Well he is saying something a little different he is saying it looks better.
MR. FAASSE: I know, that is what I am saying.
MR. LUDWIG: So it is aesthetics.
MR. RAYL: Yeah, aesthetics.
MR. RUBIN: The think the roofline was --
MR. GREGOR: The roofline was another issue.
MR. GRYGUS: I am going to ask you a question that I am hoping I am not going to get the answer I think I am going get.
MR. FAASSE: Oh gee, a loaded question.
MR. GRYGUS: Actually the question is probably going to defer to Mr. Hanson also.
MR. FAASSE: He is going to go to
MR. GRYGUS: Recount?
MR. GREGOR: Inauguration.
MR. FAASSE: No, no, no.
MR. GREGOR: Recount.
MR. GRYGUS: The downspouts coming down are showing on your drawing as just exiting out onto the ground. Is there a storm water management plan for this Mr. Hanson?
MR. RUBIN: That’s Arthur.
MR. RAYL: That’s it.
MR. GRYGUS: There is so it is going to go into the detention basin.
MR. HANSON: We are going to pick them all up and play with it.
MR. RUBIN: Arthur you are going to have to --
MR. GRYGUS: That’s okay, he answered it.
MR. RUBIN: Okay.
MR. GRYGUS: There is a storm water management plan, okay. I just -- I saw that on the drawing I was hoping that wasn’t going to be anything.
MR. RUBIN: Yeah.
MR. COVELLI: I have a question.
MR. FAASSE: Go, don’t be shy.
MR. COVELLI: One question regarding the architectural renderings that was provided here
MR. RAYL: Sure.
MR. COVELLI: It appears that the front canopy area as depicted on the architectural rendering, the color rendering we are looking at --
MR. RAYL: Um-hum.
MR. COVELLI: Is separate from the building.
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. COVELLI: It appeared from looking at the site plan that it was attached to the building.
MR. GRYGUS: No, I think it is shown -- actually there is a space there if you look at it.
MR. RAYL: Yeah it overlapped -- why we try to do is -- let me start by saying sprinkler code, anything touching the building I have to sprinkle. So what we typically do on 95 percent of hotels is you pull the canopy away and don’t let it touch the building so you don’t have to sprinkle the canopy. That way, if you have to sprinkle a canopy, you have to put antifreeze in the lines and it is a whole mess and they leak and it’s a problem. So we avoid that by -- so then we overlap the vestibule with the canopy so that the guest coming out of the vestibule does not get wet during a rainstorm to the canopy. So typically those are just overlapped just enough so that you can keep that rain off.
MR. COVELLI: That was my next question because, obviously, there is sidewalk right there between the two.
MR. RAYL: Right, right.
MR. COVELLI: The roofline of the building itself then overlaps -- the roofline of the canopy and the roofline of the building overlap.
MR. RAYL: Yeah, by inches, not by much.
MR. COVELLI: In looking at the site plan and I don’t know who is going to answer this, you are Mr. Hanson so you might want to stand side by side.
MR. RAYL: Sure.
MR. COVELLI: On Sheet 3 of 7, if that is the case then the question regarding the snow sheet fall off the roofs onto the sidewalk to the east of the site appears to be a potential problem. Could either one of you address that?
MR. GREGOR: Towards Burger King you are showing ahead.
MR. RAYL: We can add snow cleats if that is desirable so that is however you want it.
MR. COVELLI: Pardon?
MR. RAYL: We can add snow cleats
MR. GRYGUS: That will break it up before it falls.
MR. RAYL: The roof things that --
MR. GRYGUS: So you get hit with smaller piece.
MR. RAYL: Yeah.
MR. FAASSE: You noticed that.
MR. GREGOR: What I would ask you to do is to propose something to promote the safety of the people using the sidewalk.
MR. RAYL: Okay.
MR. GREGOR: And let the Board know what it is.
MR. RAYL: Okay.
MR. GREGOR: That is what I am asking.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The architecturals also are showing what appeared to be a walk through on the outside edge of the canopy by the parking lot but the site plan doesn’t seem to show it by the canopy.
MR. RAYL: Yeah, I think that was our mistake.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So is it going to be a solid curb there or is there going to be a walk through?
MR. RAYL: I would say we would defer to Arthur, if you want solid curb we change ours that is not a problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well they should match, that is all I am saying. Whichever you are going to have.
MR. RAYL: Yeah.
MR. FAASSE: It is important that they match.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no parking there anyway, right?
MR. GRYGUS: Well with the big island there to the east of there it makes it easier to get to the parking.
MR. RAYL: Yeah, we’ll put a walk through.
MR. GRYGUS: So you are going to put the walk through, okay.
MR. RAYL: Yeah.
MR. GRYGUS: It doesn’t matter one way or another I just said they should match, that’s all.
MR. RAYL: Yeah.
MR. RUBIN: That is all the questions I have for the witness.
MR. FAASSE: Any other questions for the architect? Any one from the public who wishes to ask the Architect a question? No statements just ask -- Come forward.
MRS. BECK: My turn?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MR. FAASSE: Say you name again?
MRS. BECK: Yeah my question, as I said my name is Nancy Beck. I don’t understand why having a pool or increasing the size of a sidewalk between the water and the wall should necessitate increasing the height of the building by another story.
MR. RAYL: There is probably going to be two parts to this. To get me enough room between the pool and the wall I have to have over five feet.
MRS. BECK: How much was there in the original plan?
MR. RAYL: Like a foot. I don’t know right off hand, it was a foot or less I believe.
MRS. BECK: Okay.
MR. RAYL: So I need at least four feet and we always try to do five to six feet, so we always try to get another foot. So that means we had to lengthen the building.
MRS. BECK: Right.
MR. RAYL: And the building was already too long and to lengthen another, tell me if I am wrong, to lengthen it another four or five feet was going to be encroaching the fire lane. So instead of doing that we just said, okay we’ll compress the building and go up one more story.
MS. BECK: And you couldn’t have moved east the four feet?
MR. RAYL: I would have to ask.
MR. GREGOR: They would have lost too much parking.
MR. HANSON: In fact, the Board now is asking me to move the west, the other direction.
MRS. BECK: But now the pool is so big and we have so much room you might as well make it big, it seems like that.
MR. RAYL: Yeah. When you go up a story you gain some efficiencies and there are some other things.
MRS. BECK: Right, it is just that I am going to be looking at it all the time and the shorter it is, the better it is for me.
MR. GRYGUS: Why couldn’t you downsize the number of rooms?
MR. RAYL: Pardon?
MR. GRYGUS: Why couldn’t you downsize the number of rooms?
MR. RAYL: I don’t know, we were asked to do 81 rooms. I mean, yeah, you can downsize the number of rooms but then this probably becomes an economics of will the building support itself and not --
MR. LEONARD: That is not a criteria for a use variance.
MR. GREGOR: I am going to be a little kinder, could you downsize the size of the pool?
MR. GRYGUS: Well that is not going to accomplish -- what I am saying is if they kept the originally plan and eliminate some rooms they could have relocated the pool to the first floor --
MR. GREGOR: I was just adding a different twist to the same question.
MR. GRYGUS: And alleviate having to go for the variance, for the additional storage.
MR. FAASSE: Or they could keep it a three story and put a roof pool. Nobody liked that.
MR. RUBIN: No, I think the question is and I think you are getting a flavor for it is there anything that you could have done other than adding another story.
MR. RAYL: To the old design.
MR. RUBIN: To the old design which would have avoided the use variance or negated the need for use variance.
MR. RAYL: There is always something you can do. I mean I could take a ton of rooms out of this and make it a -- you know -- 30 room hotel and it will fit on the site. But for a market study and economics of the site, you try to maximize the number of rooms for that and the goal was 82 -- I believe 85 years.
MR. GREGOR: 81 rooms.
MR. RAYL: 81 rooms is what we ended up with though.
MR. RUBIN: 81 was the original and that is the application because economically and there are times when economics do enter into the land use arena and this is one of them. We can’t -- we can’t lower the room yield and build this building.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, any other public questions?
MR. DaSILVA: David DaSilva,
MR. RAYL: That was one of the issues, yeah.
MR. DASILVA: Was there any consideration to the fact that you guys didn’t like the design by old architect versus the new plan? You mentioned the atrium; you didn’t like the two-story atrium.
MR. RAYL: Right.
MR. DASILVA: Did that play into your decision to completely change the design?
MR. RAYL: Yeah, that was part of it. Intercontinental or Holiday Inn, they like to keep atriums two stories or less. With a three-story atrium we felt like that was -- you were asking Holiday Inn to accept something they don’t like. So we went back to a one-story lobby area. The pool was another issue. And then looking at the building and the layout, just some efficiencies that they could staff it better and some other things like that also played into it as well.
MR. DASILVA: You said before that you don’t know how much space you needed around the pool. Was it like four or five feet?
MR. RAYL: Well I don’t -- I don’t know what the -- I can’t remember what the distance from the pool water edge to the wall was, I believe it was one foot and code wise you have to have five feet and we like to put six feet but code wise I have to have five feet.
MR. DASILVA: Did you look at any other plans besides going up?
MR. RAYL: No really, no because we felt like to lengthen -- to do anything different would have increased the footprint size. So we felt like the only direction to go was up.
MR. DASILVA: Because it seems to me that there has been a lot of discussions about the meeting rooms and the use of the meetings rooms and the fact that there is not enough parking. The issue about getting food in and out of the meeting rooms. If you got rid of the meeting room, you would then probably -- I think you had said you had 260 square feet in the meeting room or something like that.
MR. RAYL: 625.
MR. DASILVA: Okay, is you remove that, it seems like you have a lot of space and if you reconfigured stuff based on the old design, even if you got rid of your atrium because you pick up space by getting rid of the atrium.
MR. RAYL: Um-hum.
MR. DaSILVA: It seems like then you would have the space that you needed without going up.
MR. RAYL: Probably not quite enough.
MR. DaSILVA: Really?
MR. RAYL: Yeah, by the time -- you think you -- you are only to gain two rooms by eliminating the meeting room. You are not going gain anything.
MR. DaSILVA: My suggestion was to use the space of the meeting room to take care of the pool issue.
MR. RAYL: On the old plan.
MR. DaSILVA: Correct.
MR. RAYL: Oh, okay. I don’t -- I would have to look at the old plan again to see if that could be done.
MR. DaSILVA: Okay. Do you know what the average height was before? I know you said it was 47 and change now, what was the old plan?
MR. RAYL: I don’t know, the plans, again, I don’t have them with me. We just had them to look at and made the decision to go with this plan.
MR. DaSILVA: Okay, thanks.
MR. RUBIN: Something should be said also in response to our neighbor’s question because this does come up in other applications. The one thing an applicant doesn’t want to do and this applicant doesn’t want to do is doom a development for failure before it even starts. Unless you have the proper amenities that are going to draw people in it, it is no use building it. It is not only this application, it is lots of applications that we all see on both sides of the table. If you make things smaller, you do away with some amenities maybe it works from a zoning viewpoint, sometimes it doesn’t and we ask for variances. But the main issue is unless we have the amenities that we need for a successful business, it doesn’t make sense. You need to draw the public. And, quite frankly, and we all know it because I’ve been in this community doing work here for lots and lots of years and you are all residents of the community, even though we are on a ramp on and off Union Avenue the world is not coming to Wanaque Borough to do business. We know that because I represented enough businesses in the community before and we know what is happening in the Pulte site, Wanaque Reserve, which I represented for four years before the Planning Board to get that approval. The issues in the community are not easy. So we have to have as many amenities to draw people. Otherwise an applicant or a builder or the operator eventually is going into a business with one arm tied behind its back. And I know this board and none of the boards in this community and the Mayor and Council and everyone involved don’t want to doom a project for failure. You want it to succeed.
BOARD MEMBER: Mr. Rubin you testified or somebody testified
earlier that this essentially going to be more a transient use. Do you really think that those people who are
stopping in there on an overnight trip from
MR. RUBIN: No, there are -- there will be groups who
will want to use it because for whatever reason. And I tell you one group that would have used
it, because I lived it. When I
represented Wanaque Reserve and what was then the Pulte application, we were
dying for a place to have meetings in this community and we didn’t. We used a local restaurant when we had team
meetings and development meetings and everything. And people had to stay here. We had them stay on Route 23 in
MR. CHAIRMAN: We are going to take a five-minute recess.
FIVE-MINUTE RECESS
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let the record reflect everybody is present.
MR. FAASSE: Even Mr. Rubin is back.
MR. RUBIN: Mr. Chairman before we start with the next witness I would like to bring back Mr. Hanson for a moment during the break Mr. Gregor and Mr. Hanson were able to confer for a moment and Mr. Hanson is able to find a place for a dumpster. Mr. Hanson would you draw in an area where that a dumpster can be placed and would be placed so that this matter may move forward pursuant to the Board’s wishes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What do we mark this A-2?
MR. FAASSE: I think but we are going to have him introduce it first.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. This will be A-2.
MR. HANSON: What we are going do is the small keystone wall that is on our southerly side of our property, we are going to move it down and connect it into the keystone wall that we talked about before. One of the gentlemen asked me how high it was. And right in here then we be able to tuck, it is all this green area that I have cross-sectioned now will all be pavement. So we could put our dumpster right in here. Depending on what type of truck the sanitation people use whether it is a front loader or the back loader. If it is the back loader, he could come in here, pull up here, back in and pick it up. If it is a front loader, he comes in this side, pulls in straight, picks it up and actually does out the opposite direction.
MR. RUBIN: So that site works.
MR. HANSON: So that site works and at the same time --
MR. RUBIN: Could you also advise if we could put a loading area on this site?
MR. HANSON: Right, Mr. Gregor and I talked about this area where I showed the proposed drop curb and moving it westerly into our site some in order to provide, and we’ll pave it, again, I’ll cross that as new pavement, and that would be the loading area for the site too. A truck could -- the same thing, could come in this way, back up, stop, unload, here is the sidewalks in both directions. So he could dolly in whatever goods he is taking in or out into either the side door or the rear door.
MR. RUBIN: Since we marked this up, Ralph why don’t we have this marked?
MR. FAASSE: Oh that would be A-2, I guess. All right, we are going to have to take that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And Mr. Hanson that would be -- you would be providing the loading area and the trash enclosure in conformance with town ordinances and the details would be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board subject to this Board’s consent.
MR. HANSON: Yes.
MR. GRYGUS: Will there be any concern with the dumpster being that close to the retention basin in so far as leakage out of it?
MR. HANSON: It is a fairly good distance, I don’t have the scale with me but --
MR. GREGOR: Could you pitch the detention area such that you would not flow into the existing waterway or the existing detention pond and possibly go through your storm water cleaning facilities?
MR. HANSON: Well this would -- the pavement has to go through our storm water management area.
MR. GREGOR: Right.
MR. HANSON: And there would be curb along this entire edge.
MR. GREGOR: So this would go into your drainage system, which would be cleaned prior to being discharged.
MR. HANSON: So it would go into drainage system and thus being cleaned.
MR. GREGOR: And you are stipulating to that effect?
MR. HANSON: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: Make a note of that. Any questions based upon Mr. Gregor’s addition here? Hearing none.
MR. RUBIN: If there is nothing further for Mr. Hanson, we would like to present our next witness, Mr. Chairman.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
MR. RUBIN: I would like to present to the Board Kathryn Gregory of Kauker, Gregory and Kauker, professional planner for testimony if she could be sworn.
MR. FAASSE: Yes.
KATHRYN GREGORY SWORN
MR. FAASSE: All right, you gave us your full name, you got the spelling thereof, you got a business address Gerri, right, correct.
MS. MAROTTA: Yes.
MR. RUBIN: Kauker, Gregory and Kauker.
MS. GREGORY: Yes, I am the Gregory.
MR. GREGOR: Don’t get my name in there, listen to what she says.
MR. FAASSE: Gregory.
MS. GREGORY: Gregory.
MR. FAASSE: Yeah.
MS. GREGORY: There is a y on the end.
MR. RUBIN: Kathryn could you please advise the Board of your qualifications?
MS. GREGORY: Yes, I am a licensed professional planner in
the State of
MR. FAASSE: And your license is in good force and effect as of today?
MS. GREGORY: Yes, it is.
MR. RUBIN: I would ask that the witness be qualified, thank you.
DIRECT-EXAMINATION OF
KATHRYN GREGORY BY MR. RUBIN
Q Kathryn, tell us about the site. Tell us what surrounds it and tells us what we have as in for the use variance application.
A Absolutely. The first thing that I want to do is I want to sort of clear something up because the word use variance keeps getting thrown around. And what is interesting is that what we are seeking here tonight is D6 Variance, which I do not label as a use variance. A use variance is a D-1 Variance and there are six types of D Variances. The reason that I say that is that the criteria for granting a D6 Variance is very different than granting a D1 Variance or Use Variance. So I just wanted to clear that up, first and foremost.
MR. FAASSE: By label or by Statutes under the same section.
MS. GREGORY: It is under the same section but the criteria for the granting of the variance is actually different. The criteria we need to meet is altered.
MR. FAASSE: You mean you don’t have to prove special reasons, hardship, whatever?
MS. GREGORY: The difference is that --
MR. FAASSE: All right, well we’ll listen to you.
MS. GREGORY: -- we don’t have to prove particular suitability of the site.
MR. LUDWIG: You don’t have to produce Medici Standards.
MS. GREGORY: So that is the one big factor that is left out.
MR. FAASSE: What about the Medici Standards.
MR. LUDWIG: There are none for Medici.
MS. GREGORY: Yeah, the Medici Standard also does not apply because you have to reconcile the omission of the use from the zone but this is a permitted use. So there re a few differences between D-1 Use Variance and a D-6 Variance and I just wanted to make that very clear. But, to go through my testimony, I did prepare for this application, I looked at the architectural plans. I also looked at the site plan. I obviously performed a site visit. So I guess we can mark this as -- I don’t know what number we are up to.
MR. RUBIN: D-3, I believe.
MR. CHAIRMAN: A-3
MR. FAASSE: A-3
MR. RUBIN: A-3.
MS. GREGORY: A-3
MR. FAASSE: That is the one we have the small one of.
MS. GREGORY: Yes, the Board has 11 by 14 -- I’m sorry, 8 1/2 by 14 copies. And I don’t remember what -- what is today’s date?
MR. RUBIN: The 8th.
MR. CHAIRMAN: 8 -- 11/8/06.
MS. GREGORY: Okay.
It is entitled Existing Conditions and Surrounding Neighborhood
Characteristics for
BY MR. RUBIN:
Q So there is no variation from the number of stories that is permitted or being proposed.
A Correct and I think that is a really interesting point. Because what the 40 feet gives you is a 4-story building with a flat roof. There are really no options for providing a pitched roof, as the applicant would like. So what we are deeming here is that we do think that it is a better aesthetic alternative. And with regards to that, I know that the architect talked about like the economics of the roof and stuff like that but I think there are some other things to continue too. What the pitched roof does also is encases the elevator bulkhead. So therefore instead of having a separate structure that sticks out of the front roof, it is encased in that. So I think that is another consideration that the Board can take. Also, it is a little bit more residential in character and there are residences that are in the area. Granted it is a much larger scale building, however, there is also that psychological standpoint of what a pitched roof means versus what a flat roof means. Flat roof - much more industrial commercial. Pitched roof - much more residential. So I think it fits better in character with the neighborhood and really what a hotel is. It is not a downtown hotel; it is a Holiday Inn Express, off the highway. Someone, a tired traveler, coming in, looking for a nice place to rest. So it is a different characteristic and there is a psychological standpoint for having a pitched roof. We are also talking about 7 feet, 9 inches which kicks us into the D6 because technically it is a bulk variance. But, because it is a pitched roof, the massing is not the same as if it were a flat wall at the exterior. So really the massing is not -- the impact isn’t really the same. So I think that you can take that into consideration as well. So I think that the 40 feet ends up becoming a little limiting of what you can really do within 4 stories. Now as far as -- you know -- meeting the positive and the negative criteria, I do believe that we promote some of the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law. Most notable, Purpose A, which talks about the promotion of the general welfare. And what I want to bring to light, actually, is what the purpose of the RD1 Zone is. The purpose of the zone is that it is designed to provide for large-scale commercial uses generally located on major highways providing convenient access to the community. As part of the redevelopment plan, it was described under Existing Conditions; a substantial portion of the project area consists of vacant and underutilized land and buildings. This property was underutilized. While currently a blighting influence, the project area will become the building block for the implementation of redevelopment of the area and form the basis for centralizing non-residential development in close proximity to the I-287 Interchange, thus affording the Borough of Wanaque with the unique opportunity to attract large regional development.
Q What are you reading from Kathryn?
A This is actually straight out of the zoning ordinance and it is
part of the redevelopment plan contained for the RD1 Zone. And when I -- I am trying to emphasize the
fact that it talks about large regional development. This I would not characterize necessarily as
a large regional development but I would say that it is definitely regional
development of a little bit more modest scale.
As far as the height is concerned, since we do promote the purpose of
the redevelopment plan, I think that we do promote Purpose A, which talks about
the general welfare. Now we look at the
D6 variance under the purview of a certain case and that is the Coventry vs.
Westwood case,
Q Do you see any negatives to the community in the event that this application, as proposed, is allowed to move forward?
A Do you want to rephrase that?
Q Is there anything negative, is there anything bad that is happening here?
A I honestly don’t believe so. I don’t know how many -- how many ways to skin a cat or how many ways to say it but we are permitted to have four stories and I just think that it is a better alternative to have the pitched roof because the massing impacts of a pitched roof are not the same and at 7 foot 9 inches above, unfortunately, kicks us to a D6 rather than being a bulk variance. But the building is located a distance away from across the street and that is just from the right-of-way line. You are talking about 120 feet already just to the right-of-way line across the street. And then you have the setback for a house. So I don’t see how there is a negative impact. It is not going to impact anyone’s shadows across the street because the building just isn’t going to cast a shadow that long due to its height. So I don’t see that there is any negative impacts, I only see it as a positive. What you get is a more efficient building and chances are the upkeep on the building on the building is going to be less, so you are going to have a better operator, a better tenant that is going to be in this location because the building is going to be a more efficient type of building for them to maintain and keep up.
Q Just for the record and even though everyone on the Board knows the residential property is the closest property. Do I need to describe?
A Well other than the Burger King property, Yes.
Q Correct -- no residential.
A Residential, yes, across the street.
Q On this side of
A Not until you go over the railroad.
Q So in this immediate vicinity it is commercial.
A More or less, yes.
Q And the redevelopment zone, in fact, does not look to residential, it looks for commercial uses.
A Yes, it does.
Q And that is what we are in, the redevelopment zone.
A Yes, we are.
Q Thank you. Those are the questions I would ask of the witness.
MR. LEONARD: A couple questions I would have. Do you know what the height of that property is across the street is, the rock out property.
MS. GREGORY: I don’t know what the exact elevation is.
MR. LEONARD: Okay, but you are just testifying that you believe it is taller than --
MS. GREGORY: Oh you can see that just from the pictures.
MR. LEONARD: My understanding that the zone adjacent to this property is AH, right?
MR. FAASSE: Um-hum
MR. LEONARD: So it is residential, proposed as residential.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let me correct you on that. The zone adjacent to this property and the zoning of half of this property is AH. This property is in two zones.
MR. LEONARD: I knew that but I wasn’t going to bring that up now.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. I just wanted to -- I thought that was --
MR. FAASSE: Yeah, but they are only building in a permitted zone, correct?
MR. CHAIRMAN: They are only developing in the permitted portion of the zone
MR. LEONARD: So with respect to potential additional residential development adjacent to this property.
MR. CHAIRMAN: There is one issue that you would have to make note of. It is delineated wetlands there and if not delineated there are known wetlands surrounding this whole area. I mean that is a matter of, I think, everybody’s knowledge. So doubtful whether there would be housing adjacent to the site.
MR. LEONARD: But you still feel that it fits in knowing now that is not zoned RD, the adjacent site.
MS. GREGORY: What adjacent property are you speaking of?
MR. LEONARD: To the west.
MS. GREGORY: Right here.
MR. LEONARD: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: The remaining portion of this particular lot.
MR. LEONARD: The remaining portion of that property is actually AH.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And probably across the street.
MS. GREGORY: Okay, well with respect to that I would have to take a look at what the setback requirements are. There is also another difference; I mean I didn’t tell you with the AH-3 requirements are. So I really -- I can’t give a comment other than if it happens to be multi-family than it is going to have a certain amount of height. I don’t know if it is a multi-family in the form of three stories or four stories or just two. So I would really have to take a look of the requirements. But from what my understanding is it is so encumbered by wetlands nothing would ever be built there, at least that is what my understanding is. But, again, I would have to take a look at what the requirements are.
MR. GRYGUS: There is an application before the Planning Board right now for 96 residential uses.
MS. GREGORY: On the wetlands property?
MR. GRYGUS: Right adjacent to this property.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Across the lake.
MR. FAASSE: Across from the lake.
MS. GREGORY: Across the lake. Across the lake?
MS. MAROTTA: I think it is across the street.
MR. FAASSE: Across the street?
MS. MAROTTA: Isn’t it?
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, it is across the lake.
MS. GREGORY: Meaning to the south.
MR. FAASSE: Yes.
MS. MAROTTA: You are talking about Waters Edge.
MR. GRYGUS: Waters Edge, yeah.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is to the south.
MR. GRYGUS: It is across the lake.
MS. GREGORY: To the south? Well number one it is across the lake and number two they are south. The fact that this building is going to be 7 foot 9 inches higher is going to be so far away from that property because it is across the lake, number one, and number two, that is south. So if you are talking about adequate light, air and open space, the shadows come from the south and then they go north because that is how the sun works.
MR. LUDWIG: Those buildings would probably be higher anyway because that’s equipped there.
MS. GREGORY: And the elevation is also different. Well, I mean, yeah, I don’t know exactly what property you are talking about but yeah, if you take a look at Picture A, you could see across the lake about what the elevation is across that lake. So there is absolutely going to be no impact to that property, to that proposed Planning Board application.
MR. CHAIRMAN: What is the property across
MS. GREGORY: Where is my site plan? I have to get my zoning map, I honestly don’t remember. Here is my zoning map. It is zoned R15.
MR. GREGOR: Here is the Burger King.
MS. GREGORY: Right.
MR. GREGOR: Then you got the State Property, that is not to be developed.
MS. GREGORY: It is zoned R15?
MR. GREGOR: It is residential single-family homes.
MS. GREGORY: That would be --
MR. GREGOR: From the corner of
MS. GREGORY: Okay, I’m sorry.
MR. CHAIRMAN: It might be a business zone there.
MS. GREGORY: My map is impossible to read.
MR. GREGOR: I have a bigger map.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill’s got the bigger map.
MR. RUBIN: We need a better map.
MS. GREGORY: Does he have a bigger map. Yeah, I am looking at this and this is not --
MR. GREGOR: I’m trying to relax, but I am going to pull it out.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Got to work for it Bill, you got to work for it.
MR. FAASSE: While we are looking, can you tell us what the height of that flagpole depicted on Photo A is?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is at the Burger King.
MR. RUBIN: I know, I am just trying to get a --
MR. GREGOR: I am going to give the applicant’s planner, let her use my zoning map so that she can answer the Board’s questions.
MS. GREGORY: Okay, great. Oh this really helps. This looks so much better. I’m sorry, I apologize, actually the single family home is in the business zone and then the rock out cropping would be in the RD2 Zone.
MR. CHAIRMAN: So that is a redevelopment area.
MR. RUBIN: So in to the answer the questions both in the redevelopment zone and the business zone.
MS. GREGORY: Yes, so that single family home is technically a non-conforming use.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Preexisting though correct?
MS. GREGORY: Yes, it is a preexisting use but I am just saying that it not conforming.
MR. FAASSE: Now, going to my question, can you tell us how high that flagpole is?
MS. GREGORY: I have absolutely no idea. Does anyone on the development team know how tall the flagpole is at Burger King?
MR. GREGOR: Or the Burger King sign?
MS. GREGORY: Or the Burger King Sign.
MR. HANSON: The Burger King sign, I believe, is 16’6” or 16’7” somewhere around there.
MR. FAASSE: Is how much?
MR. HANSON: 16’6” - 16’7”.
MR. GREGOR: The sign.
MR. FAASSE: It has got to be more than that.
MS. GREGORY: It is taller than that though.
MR. GRYGUS: That sign is higher than 16 feet. That is all going to be replaced.
MR. FAASSE: Yeah, no, no, I am just trying to get perspective here.
MR. GRYGUS: What is an average telephone pole?
MR. CHAIRMAN: The Burger King sign is probably 30 or 40 feet high.
MR. GRYGUS: Bill, what is an average telephone pole?
MR. GREGOR: 22 to 25 feet I’m guessing.
MR. RUBIN: The development team has put their heads together, it is somewhere in the mid 20’s.
MR. FAASSE: The flagpole?
MS. GREGORY: No, the Burger King sign.
MR. RUBIN: The Burger King sign and Mr. Hanson reminded me that we went before the Planning Board and there was a slight adjustment there was a variance granted for that sign. There was a hearing, and, apparently, it wasn’t that high that it would come before the Board of Adjustment but it was a Planning Board variance and approved obviously.
MR. FAASSE: I am just trying to get some kind of perspective as to what this 47’9” would look like. Can you tell us if there is going to be -- how far is this from the traveled way on 287, the proposed building? Will you be able to see it?
MR. HANSON: It is impossible to see it from 287.
MR. FAASSE: From 47 feet up?
MR. HANSON: Yup. But remember there is a rock climbing --
MR. RUBIN: Arthur why don’t you stand so that you are picked up on the microphone.
MR. HANSON: You go passed our lot, you go across the lake, and then as soon as you get to the other side of the lake, it starts to climb real quick to the camp that is up in the top left corner.
MR. GREGOR: Elk Lodge, yeah.
MR. HANSON: And that the
MR. GREGOR: At least.
MR. HANSON: You can’t see over it.
MR. FAASSE: So your testimony would be that this building will not be visible from 287?
MR. HANSON: Not from 287.
MR. FAASSE: All right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Will your sign be visible from 287?
MR. HANSON: No, no until you get off. We tried getting a sign large enough for Burger King so that you could see it from 287, we did not succeed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Don’t you have an approval for a new sign at this site?
MR. HANSON: Excuse me?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you not have an approval for a new sign at this site?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, that was a part of a Burger King site plan, correct?
MR. CHAIRMAN: How high is that sign?
MR. HANSON: The Holiday Inn or Burger King?
MS. GREGORY: 90 feet.
MR. FAASSE: A 90 feet sign?
MR. GREGOR: Yeah, 90 feet off of the ground.
MR. FAASSE: The Burger King, wow.
MR. GREGOR: That is what the Planning Board approved for this. It’s a duel purpose sign, it is in the paperwork we all received. It is in with the drawings to show you the real height of the building.
MR. RUBIN: I was reminded, having appeared here, I must be getting old.
MR. GREGOR: You got that approved, Mr. Rubin.
MR. RUBIN: We did, yes I did. It was 90 feet high and it is for both uses, for the Burger King and for Holiday Inn Express. It is -- the Planning Board did approve it and the land use process is still pending because the Department of Transportation has the ultimate authority.
MR. FAASSE: Right.
MR. RUBIN: And the Department of Transportation has very specific rules which we learned when, those of you may recall when President Johnson was in office, this is the Lady Bird Johnson Rule that Lady Bird, the President’s wife, did not want billboards on interstate highways. That was a rule that went into effect; it is the Lady Bird Rule as they call it in this business. We never got approval from the State for it. It is still pending.
MR. FAASSE: So the State has to approve it not the Federal Government?
MR. RUBIN: The Feds gave approval to the State DOT. They gave the State the right. And there is one person in the Department of Transportation that oversees these things and that person has put it in their file and it hasn’t seen the light of day in two years.
MR. FAASSE: I know we had another sign application one time when we told them they had to go to the State and they never came back.
MR. RUBIN: It is a very hard process.
MR. WILLSE: Is that sign on their property?
MR. HANSON: It is on the Burger King.
MR. WILLSE: Yeah, okay.
MR. RUBIN: The Burger King property.
MR. FAASSE: Where did that come from?
MR. CHAIRMAN: It was in the packet, nobody looks in the packet.
MR. FAASSE: Well I didn’t --
BOARD MEMBER: For Ms. Gregory, a quick question for you?
MS. GREGORY: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER: You had stated that the property to the west of this is undevelopable and, therefore --
MR. FAASSE: She is basing that on Mr. Rubin’s statement.
MS. GREGORY: Well I thought it was what the engineer also stated to earlier about the wetlands that are on the property and encumber it and the reasons why we can’t move the building too much further.
BOARD MEMBER: Okay, so, therefore, this will not impact that westerly portion of this property since there is no development ever to go take place on the westerly portion, is that correct?
MS. GREGORY: Well that is my understanding that is not to say that it can’t ever happen, rules can change.
BOARD MEMBER: Well it is all the same lot, although, there was some discussion of a potential lease line?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, whether it will ever be built on, I don’t know. It will, if it ever happens, it will be for some commercial venture. It is never going to be residential; it is in the redevelopment zone. The redevelopment zone looks to some form of commercial, office, whatever and we have no idea what the future will bring; we just don’t have anything. But if it does, we will either be back here or before the Planning Board, one of the two places.
MR. FAASSE: Mr. Rubin we got a problem.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rubin, not to go too far off.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But you submitted this document called Exhibit D.
MR. RUBIN: It is the cross-easement agreement.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Which shows a leased portion of property, 1.8 6 acres or 5, I can’t read that, in the buyer’s parcel which is 2.4 acres. Is that what you were referring to before as this property being split up?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, I would assume so. That appears logical. I don’t recall; I didn’t draft the document. But it appears logical that that is a proposed site, someday maybe, we have no idea because there are some, there is not a few, but significant environmental issues for the remainder of the site. So whether we ever come back with anything is questionable. We just don’t know.
MR. FAASSE: All right. But the representative earlier tonight was now.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: It was that the applicant owns the entire portion.
MR. RUBIN: He does, absolutely.
MR. FAASSE: Right and has control over it all?
MR. RUBIN: Absolutely.
MR. FAASSE: All right.
MR. RUBIN: Bought the whole site.
BOARD MEMBER: Bill is it a fair assumption to say that the restoration of that area to the west of the site to its natural state is a benefit to that site?
MR. GREGOR: Well the applicant, obviously, has to provide some, in order to gain your approval, some positive benefit in order for you to consider a use variance. A positive benefit to the municipality. Restoring a previously disturbed area with unnecessary impervious surface and restoring that to its natural state provides one such benefit. That is one of the reasons I suggested because the Board is considering a use variance.
MR. FAASSE: Well the other additional argument is that the witness predicated one of our arguments to convince the Board to grant a use variance is on the aesthetics. And if we are concerned with the aesthetics of this particular building, we should be concerned with the aesthetics of the entire parcel and restoring it to a natural state would certainly add to that. Wouldn’t it Madam Witness?
MS. GREGORY: Madam Witness? I would agree.
MR. FAASSE: You see that.
MR. GRYGUS: I like your response.
BOARD MEMBER: Ralph, do you agree with the interpretation of the D Variance though?
MR. FAASSE: What is that?
BOARD MEMBER: Separations between the D1 and the D6.
MR. FAASSE: Well I mean -- you know -- we are not going
to the full Medici situation where you are saying a particularized need and
everything else like that. I haven’t
read the
MR. GRYGUS: She being the Madam Witness.
MR. FAASSE: The witness.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The fathom witness.
MR. RUBIN: Madam Witness.
MR. FAASSE: You have to be very careful.
MR. GRYGUS: I want that clear for the record who he was referring to. He momentarily forget it was Miss Gregory.
MR. FAASSE: No you can’t do that, now that is illegal see.
MR. GRYGUS: What is illegal?
MR. FAASSE: To call her Miss.
MR. GREGOR: Right, Madam Witness.
MR. FAASSE: Madam Witness is much better.
MR. GREGOR: I got to remember, Kauker will hear about it.
MR. GRYGUS: I am glad I not an attorney.
MR. FAASSE: Well when you were out twiddling I was a Judge and then you can say if there were two men attorneys fighting you could say come on guys knock it off; but if had two ladies fighting, you can’t say come on girls knock it off.
MR. RUBIN: Can’t do that.
MR. FAASSE: You would be down in
MR. RUBIN: That is true.
MR. FAASSE: And that’s very true so we have to be very careful and I don’t mean to insult in this way.
MS. GREGORY: No insult whatever.
MR. WILLSE: I have one more -- one small question.
MR. FAASSE: With your length of experience I figured you fell into the Madam category.
MR. WILLSE: I have one small question since the applicant owns both lots --
MR. GRYGUS: It is one lot. He owns the whole lot.
MR. FAASSE: It is one lot.
MR. GREGOR: It never was divided, it has never been subdivided.
MR. FAASSE: I mean, the Exhibit is wrong so that Cross-Easement is going to have to be corrected as well.
MR. WILLSE: Any proposed subdivision we would trigger additional variances on this on lot coverage and everything.
MR. RUBIN: That is correct.
MR. WILLSE: So they would have to get approval as part of the subdivision.
MR. RUBIN: That is correct.
MR. FAASSE: Right.
MR. WILLSE: This is basically the line, it is just for zoning, if the Board approves it.
MS. GREGORY: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: It was wishful thinking at one time, I think by somebody. Is that right Mr. Rubin?
MR. RUBIN: Very wishful. I have no idea if it will ever happen.
MR. HANSON: And part of the proofs that the applicant is presenting is that since that lot --
MR. LUDWIG: Is unbuildable.
MR. HANSON: -- is encumbered that this proposed height will have no effect since there is nothing there and there is nothing proposed there.
MR. RUBIN: There is nothing proposed. You should know and I make no bones about it that we were encouraged by the municipality to look at it to see if we could put maybe a small office building or something there. It hasn’t happened and we haven’t planned it, but we were asked to look at it a couple of years ago to see if anything could happen because it is in the redevelopment zone.
MR. FAASSE: Right.
MR. RUBIN: And the redevelopment zone is for development.
MR. WILLSE: Well that is in the A-H1 Zone right?
MR. GRYGUS: Yeah, that is A-H1 that side.
MR. WILLSE: Um-hum, right.
MR. FAASSE: It is a redevelopment area.
MR. RUBIN: In it is a redevelopment area, I don’t think the municipality really wants affordable housing in that location.
MR. FAASSE: Okay.
MR. WILLSE: Okay, well I’m just -- I have to go by what I see.
MR. RUBIN: You are correct, you’re correct.
MR. FAASSE: Now if you have any questions on that leased ownership you can always ask for a copy of the Deed that Bill could go -- you know -- over the meets and bounds.
MR. WILLSE: No, we beat that to death.
MR. GREGOR: It is confusing in the presentation.
MR. WILLSE: I have already checked the survey, and the property exists all the way to a point where it reaches as one lot. That is in front of you, one lot.
MR. LEONARD: Everything that he has submitted is listing one lot and block number. End of story.
MR. FAASSE: Correct.
MR. GREGOR: Look at Sheet 2 of 7 of your site plan and you will see the entire lot with meets and bounds.
MR. FAASSE: Okay, now are there any other questions for the expert witness here.
MR. RUBIN: That is the extent of the witnesses for this application, thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you want to open up to the public?
MR. FAASSE: Well yes. Does anyone from the public that wishes to question the witness at this time? Questions only. No questions for this witness? Well you get a by.
MS. GREGORY: I got lucky.
MR. RUBIN: And that is the applicant’s case.
MR. FAASSE: All right, the applicant rests. Does the Board have any other questions of the applicant?
MR. LUDWIG: Well the only thing we are voting on this height.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, no, he has to open it up.
MR. FAASSE: Yeah, we are going to open it up to the public.
MR. LUDWIG: Okay.
MR. FAASSE: Yes, that is the only thing we are going to do, we are bifurcating it. We are just using the height variance because that is in our jurisdiction, everything else we are sending back to the site -- excuse me, to the Planning Board. If you wish to make any recommendations to the Planning Board, if you wish to appear at the Planning Board and testify and whatever you want to do is at liberty here. Okay, should I keep going.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Let’s go.
MR. FAASSE: Is there anyone in the public that wishes to make any statements with respect to this application. Step forward. Since you are making a statement now it is the right hand up please.
MR. FAASSE: And we have had her, you got her full name and address Gerri?
MS. MAROTTA: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: Yes, okay.
MRS. BECK: Okay.
MR. FAASSE: Mrs. Beck, right?
MRS. BECK: Yes, thank you. One point of interest, my house has the
address of
MR. FAASSE: All right, did you look at this?
MRS. BECK: No, I am not privy to it, you are privy to it.
MR. FAASSE: Oh well I mean show the young lady.
MR. GREGOR: I have an extra copy right here.
MR. LUDWIG: Let her look at the big one.
MR. FAASSE: Well pick the big one up. Madam, can you see your house the one right across the street?
MRS. BECK: Yes.
MR. GREGOR: The gray one.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The blue one.
MR. FAASSE: Well that’s not here, I mean she could be in one of the apartments there. Excuse me.
MRS. BECK: That’s it.
MR. FAASSE: Your house is right across the street, okay.
MRS. BECK: Yeah.
MR. FAASSE: Okay. All right.
MRS. BECK: Time line, construction?
MR. RUBIN: I’ll have to ask.
MR. FAASSE: That was one of the witnesses here.
MR. RUBIN: How long does it take to build?
MR. RAYL: 10 months.
MR. RUBIN: I have been advised by the builder, 10 months, from when all approvals are in.
MRS. BECK: Okay. I am also curious why the footprint for the hotel would be all smooth and prepared when all the approvals haven’t met. That seems --
MR. RUBIN: Well we did have all the approvals, we did
have all the permits and during the construction process the Construction Code
Official pointed out that there was an
MRS. BECK: Oh so the current footprint is not the projected footprint.
MR. RUBIN: No, they have to -- that is why we are here and we are before the Planning Board in two weeks.
MRS. BECK: Okay, I wasn’t sure, that I didn’t know.
MR. FAASSE: It is Three weeks.
MR. RUBIN: Whatever it be.
MR. FAASSE: The 29th.
MR. RUBIN: I am honestly can’t remember.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Rubin, for the benefit of the question,
explain her what
MR. RUBIN: Americans for Disability Act.
MR. GREGOR: You can keep that.
MRS. BECK: Thank you.
MR. GREGOR: I have a copy.
MR. RUBIN: The Americans for Disability Act is Federal -- what is it -- Federally met -- Federally -- the mandate that requires handicapped persons or persons who need to obtain the ability to go on public or semi-public properties to be able to do so. The rules are many and diverse and one of the rules is that if you have a swimming pool you have to have a certain distance between the pool and the wall and for reasons that just got through the Boards and the original Construction Code Official looked at it and the architect, an error was made in the distance between the pool and the wall. And I will tell you this has now costs the folks who are doing this to go through two hearings and to stop construction cold. So it has not been a pleasant couple of months.
MR. FAASSE: But in fairness to the Board, the Board does not look at whether or not that building and those plans are going to meet the building codes and the other requirements of the town.
MR. CHAIRMAN: And in fairness to the Building Inspector he doesn’t look at it until after the applicant has approval and asked for a building permit.
MRS. BECK: Okay I just anticipated that they were so sure of themselves that they put the building -- that they had cleared.
MR. CHAIRMAN: No. The Planning Board or the Building Official did not make an errors, they were not even privy to that information.
MRS. BECK: Nor was I accusing anyone of any errors.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Well I am just making it clear. No one said --
MR. RUBIN: We take the blame. The applicant’s architect took the blame. There is no credit, he was the foreman on the job, I mean he made a mistake, there was a mistake made.
MR. GREGOR: A tiny mistake, you fire the guy.
MRS. BECK: And just because I feel the need to vent, I just want to share that the passed several months have been horrendous from my point of view too. I am not sure who it is that changed the construction laws to allow for construction 7 days a week. But we had the jackhammers on the ends of those front-end loader things, three of them going at a time from 7 in the morning until 6 at night every day except Sunday and then it was 9 to 6. And then once they were done doing that, they brought in the quarrying machines and broke it all down. So it hasn’t been fun from my point. I made -- I brought the log along of the calls that I made to the Police Department. I also -- apparently they must of contacted the construction boss who came over and brought me a business card. Well the phone number is never answered and the E-mail that I wrote to him was returned. So my experience with any of the construction that is happening across the street is not very happy. So as far as I am concerned I just hope it never happens, but I understand.
MR. FAASSE: They are not very good neighbors you are telling us.
MRS. BECK: That is what I am saying, yes. Thank you.
MR. FAASSE: Well a word to the wise would be sufficient.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Just so you understand that that is purely enforcement.
MRS. BECK: Absolutely.
MR. GRYGUS: You had to tell her.
MRS. BECK: I had to say it.
MR. FAASSE: This is still
MR. CHAIRMAN: Unfortunately our Board has no enforcement power.
MR. LUDWIG: Throw Jeff under the bus.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for explaining that Mr. Rubin. Anyone else in the public? Step forward please.
MR. FAASSE: Is this testimony?
MR.DASILVA: Yes.
DAVID DASILVA SWORN:
MR. FAASSE: Give us your full name, spell your name, again, and we need an address.
MR. DaSILVA: David DaSILVA, D-a-S-I-L-V-A,
MR. FAASSE: The way I understand it, I think they given it for the size of the parking stalls, not for the numbers.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Numbers, yeah.
MR. GREGOR: What we had stated in our review letter is that we had asked that the architectural drawings be revised to show the square footage for the meeting room and the square footage for the, what do they call it, the eating area or breakfast area and appropriate parking for those rooms. That is something that, although it has been in our report has not been addressed. Other than their saying that they are not going to be used for meetings.
MR. DaSILVA: Well appears as though that the applicant and the professionals seem to think that the Planning Board will hear that and not the Zoning Board and they seem to be asserting that you guys are only addressing the height issue.
MR. GREGOR: That is correct.
MR. DaSILVA: Is that correct?
MR. GREGOR: That is correct. That is correct only in it of itself in that those existing conditions existed in the original approval. So the bearing that that has on the height issue is really not that specific. I have the same concern as you do.
MR. DaSILVA: Okay.
MR. GREGOR: Believe me. But what I am trying to say is you would be better spent probably bringing those up at the Planning Board hearing.
MR. DASILVA: Okay, on the 29th.
MR. GREGOR: We did raise that just -- however, we did raise that for this Board’s consideration and for any recommendations they wish to make to the Planning Board should this Board decide to act favorably on this application. I am sure they are going to do so with recommendations. That is the reason that we did this.
MR. DaSILVA: Okay.
MR. GREGOR: No, again, I don’t how they are going to act yet, but we will see.
MR. DaSILVA: Okay.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. DaSILVA you heard the term when we heard -- when we started this, that this application was bifurcated.
MR. DaSILVA: Um-hum.
MR. CHAIRMAN: That is the term that said we will deal with one issue, the Planning Board will deal with the balance of the issues.
MR. DaSILVA: Okay.
MR. GREGOR: We are not trying to escape them, we have the same concern.
MR. DaSILVA: I understand. You guys can send recommendations for the site plan to the Planning Board based on what you have heard tonight?
MR. FAASSE: Well I don’t know if we are going to do it formally. I mean that’s always a distant situation. Obviously, any of the Board Members are at liberty to go there. I mean, one of the things we ought to do is send Mr. Gregor’s report over there as well because there has been some very valid points raised here. But I don’t know if we are going to make any action of the Board if they see fit to grant the height variance conditioned upon the Planning Board doing this, this, and this because I don’t think we want to get involved with all of the site plan situations.
MR. WILLSE: We can’t do that, can we?
MR. GRYGUS: We don’t the authority to do that.
MR. GRYGUS: We don’t have enough information to do that.
MR. FAASSE: No, that is what I am saying.
MR. RUBIN: Just to clarity for a moment and I think it should be clarified for our neighbor. Our plan requires 90 parking spaces as an ordinance requirement. When we were here before the Planning Board, two years ago, we had 91 spaces, which that was the approval then, there are 93 today. The approval then was for what was called a small gathering room/business center. That is that small conference room. We had it in the original plan; we have it in the plan today. It hasn’t gone away. It is the same exact plan. We did not seek then, nor do we seek now a parking variance because the Planning Board determined that 90, based upon 81 rooms and the number of employees was the appropriate number. So we do not seek then nor do we seek now a parking variance. We believe it is conforming and that is our position. But the basic issues of the room being utilized for business purposes was in the original plan and is today’s plan. Our neighbor brings up a very interesting point that attorneys teleconferencing and depositions and things bring sometimes 6 to 8 people into a room and having done the same on very few occasions because that is not what I do but having been involved, usually that is done in the morning or afternoon and I can tell you that is when places like this are empty. That is why you have meeting rooms in hotels; there is lots of room. And that has been the experience and will continue to be the experience. We are not a conference center. Can’t be, it is just too small. So I respectfully suggest that there being insufficient parking just doesn’t ring true for this application. We conform and we will have more than sufficient parking.
MR. DaSILVA: Well if I could just comment on that. The problem here is that the hotel wasn’t big enough; there wasn’t enough space and that is why they are applying to change to the height. So I don’t know -- you know -- it is just a matter of semantics. The other issue is how many of those spots that are now within the ordinance are on their property and not on the adjoining space? And if that agreement goes away, will they have to come before the Zoning Board again to get a variance for use of the property without the proper amount of spots?
MR. RUBIN: It is in the Resolution, not the Planning Board. The Resolution of the Planning Board, done two years ago, specifically makes it a condition -- if I could find it -- but there is a -- yes, number 19, the applicant shall enter into and record cross-easements for ingress/egress to the site with the adjacent Burger King site and easements for property used for parking spaces on the subject site. These easements shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Board Attorney prior to recording; that all occurred. If it went away --
MR. FAASSE: I don’t know about that.
MR. RUBIN: Well we sent it in.
MR. FAASSE: No, but Mr. Veltri said he might have not seen it before it was recorded.
MR. RUBIN: I don’t know that.
MR. FAASSE: Because I pointed that out; I had a little discussion with him about that one little provision on there that it does not require the municipalities consent before those easements go away.
MR. RUBIN: Usually not, but I can say this, if there were no easements the site plan is worthless.
MR. FAASSE: I know.
MR. CHAIRMAN: You would have to come back to the Boards.
MR. FAASSE: You make a valid point.
MR. GREGOR: So I think in his prior testimony it is his position that if either party tried to revoke that easement they would have to come back here with a site plan approval.
MR. DaSILVA: Okay. Is one of the conditions of a D6 Variance proving hardship or special circumstances?
MR. FAASSE: You should ask the planner that.
MS. GREGORY: We do not have to prove hardship in a D6 Variance.
MR. FAASSE: But you did use the term hardship a couple of times, I do believe.
MS. GREGORY: How so?
MR. FAASSE: I don’t know, I just --
MR. WILLSE: I think she did testify the same thing, that you don’t have to prove.
MR. FAASSE: Really, I thought she said there was a couple of things.
MR. CHAIRMAN: I think what she was talking about was the positive and negative criteria regarding the variance.
MR. FAASSE: I heard the word hardship.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, well, I don’t recall hearing it, but that’s all right.
MR. FAASSE: It is getting late, I’m getting old like Mr. Rubin.
MR. RUBIN: We are both in that boat, the years go up.
MR. DaSILVA: My final point, I’m not sure what the Board plans on doing but --
MR. FAASSE: I don’t know either.
MR. DASILVA: -- I believe that if they plan on making any vote tonight there is going to be problems because there was at least two things that you mentioned that weren’t on file from more than 10 days. You were talking about something from the DEP, a letter or something you didn’t have access to in your file and the plans that were presented tonight haven’t even been submitted to you for your review. So I am not sure if they still have to abide by the 10 day rule.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Which plans are you referring to?
MR. DaSILVA: The ones that were put on the bulletin board up there --
MR. FAASSE: The architecturals.
MR. DASILVA: -- that the architect said he would get to by tomorrow.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The revised architecturals.
MR. DaSILVA: Yeah.
MR. GRYGUS: We didn’t say we didn’t have them, we said that they weren’t signed and sealed.
MR. CHAIRMAN: They weren’t sealed.
MR. DaSILVA: Okay.
MR. GREGOR: Because we have the copies but these are not the signed and sealed ones.
MR. DASILVA: I thought they were changing some pages that weren’t part of their plan.
MR. FAASSE: Yeah, there were a couple of pages that were changed.
MR. WILLSE: Well, no, they are changing the pitch of the roof.
MR. GREGOR: The plans that she used as an Exhibit were different than our plans and they had more information on them regarding the height. The information I requested in my report.
MR. DaSILVA: He did change the pitch of the roof too, which would be --
MR. GREGOR: Well she stated that I didn’t --
MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the architect stated that Bill.
MR. GREGOR: Yeah, that’s right. The architect stated that. I didn’t look at that, so I don’t know.
MR. DaSILVA: He changed from an 8 forwarded to full 6. What is your opinion on that Mr. Faasse?
MR. FAASSE: Well I think mostly they were just illustrative and not -- you know -- if it was a different rendering or something else you might have a question or if it was floor plans, where we didn’t have floor plans but that -- you know -- I mean an examination would have to go through it to see exactly what the differences were but --
MR. GREGOR: Not a substantial difference.
MR. FAASSE: I don’t think it is a substantial difference unless -- you know -- you heard something that you thought was substantial.
MR. DaSilva: The height changed.
MR. FAASSE: Pardon?
MR. DASILVA: The average and the actual height of the roof changed.
MR. GREGOR: Well that is what they averaged for though.
MR. CHAIRMAN: They lessened them.
MR. FAASSE: They lessened.
MR. GREGOR: They lessened them.
MR. FAASSE: Which is good.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, from what they were requesting.
MR. DaSILVA: I am saying that it is different, that is my only point.
MR. FAASSE: Well they like lessening.
MR. DaSILVA: I have a question for the planner?
MR. FAASSE: Planner.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Madam Witness.
MR. DaSILVA: I just want to clarify, I heard you say -- I didn’t hear you say you or the architect that the roof pitch changed. I heard you say, correct me if I am wrong, that you could have gone 8 on 12, you went on a lower pitch for aesthetic purposes. Did I hear you correctly?
MS. GREGORY: Let’s ask the architect because we had a prior discussion earlier this evening; prior to this hearing. I was told by the architect that the roof pitch changed from 8/12 to 6/12, and that was to try to accommodate the fact that we did have a variance. So he wanted to try and lessen that variance. Because as listed in the site and -- I’m sorry, on the site plans, it was 50 feet as the mean height and now we are down to 47 feet, 9 inches and that is where the difference came in. But he is going to have to back me up on this.
MR. RAYL: Yeah, we originally submitted plans that were 8/12 and then we read the comments and -- you know -- we were trying to get the roof down so we changed it to the 6/12 pitch to -- we changed it to a 6/12 pitch to better accommodate the variance.
MR. DaSILVA: OKAY.
MR. RAYL: Bring it down some more as much as we could.
MR. FAASSE: Prior to changing that pitch, what would the height of the -- the mean height of the building be?
MR. RAYL: I don’t know that.
MR. FAASSE: Well could you just give us --
MR. GREGOR: 49 feet, 11 inches.
MS. GREGORY: It was 50 feet.
MR. FAASSE: It was 50?
MR. GREGOR: Yeah.
MS. GREGORY: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: Okay so we accomplished then by changing the pitch that difference.
MR. RAYL: We got it lowered.
MR. FAASSE: Okay.
MR. DaSILVA: It was also your testimony that during in listing of the positives that a lot of the equipment, air handlers, things of that nature regarding HVHC and venting is enclosed --
MR. HANSON: That was me. Elevator shaft.
MR. RAYL: She mentioned the elevator shaft.
MS. GREGORY: Yeah I mentioned elevator shaft.
MR. RAYL: That is true, the elevator shaft you typically are about 4 or 5 feet above the flat roof and with the pitched roof we were able to hide that within the roof system.
MR. LUDWIG: Is it just aesthetics or does it cut down the noise from ventilators?
MR. RAYL: It helps also to cut down the noise too.
MR. FAASSE: Are you putting your air handlers under this roof too?
MR. RAYL: No, not on this one, no.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The air handlers on the ground?
MR. RUBIN: Just duct work.
MR. RAYL: Yeah, just duct work, duct work for your exhaust. There are some exhaust fans, I take that back, there are exhaust fans in the attic to pull the exhaust out of the bathrooms.
MR. FAASSE: Right.
MR. RAYL: And those are put in attics to, again, reduce noise.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Now would that, if this had been a flat roof building, would that ductwork be exposed?
MR. RAYL: Yes, and then you would have multiple roof penetrations and it goes into another whole can of worms that if you start over at that point you start doing that.
MR. FAASSE: And you of had to have a penthouse for the other roof.
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. CHAIRMAN: But they would have been quieter than the jackhammer that was running.
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. DaSILVA: Thank you for that clarification.
MR. FAASSE: All right.
Mr. WILLSE: While the architect is there if I can ask one more question and I hate to interrupt this but you have made some good points and I just wanted to follow up on one of them if I could.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Sure.
MR. WILLSE: Thank you. The area that is labeled as Breakfast Area --
MR. RAYL: Um-hum.
MR. WILLSE: Obviously breakfast is early in the morning?
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. WILLSE: What is that used for, for the balance of the say 22 hours of the day?
MR. RAYL: It remains empty. People might use it to come down and read the paper but it is mainly just an empty space that is with tables and chairs. It is not utilized.
MR. WILLSE: It does have tables and chairs then.
MR. RAYL: Yes.
MR. WILLSE: So people could sit down and have an impromptu meeting?
MR. RAYL: Yes, if you need to.
MR. WILLSE: Thank you. A congregation area.
MR. RAYL: Yeah. But typically it is just used for yes, I’ll meet you down at the breakfast area or --
MR. FAASSE: Socialization area.
MR. RAYL: Yeah.
MR. WILLSE: Okay, thank you.
MR. DASILVA: And finally I am not sure if this is an issue for your guys, I mentioned it a second ago. The recycling issue. We dealt with the garbage with the dumpster. What happens to the cans from the vending machines?
MR. FAASSE: Mr. Hanson will your dumpster area include a recycling facility?
MR. HANSON: As required by the municipality.
MR. FAASSE: Right.
MR. GREGOR: Would you tell the applicant --
MR. FAASSE: It will be both, a combination.
MR. GREGOR: Would you tell the public what the size of that is that you had advised me prior. As a matter of fact, you should put it on the record so that we know it is large enough to handling recycling.
MR. HANSON: Minimum 10 feet wide. It could be anywhere from 10 to 20 feet in depth.
MR. DaSILVA: Thank you.
MR. FAASSE: Anyone else from the public?
MRS. BECK: I just realized that I hadn’t ask you --
MR. FAASSE: No, no, no, no, wait, wait, wait. Just come up to the microphone and then start talking.
MRS. BECK: Will the dumpster --
MR. FAASSE: You got to forgive us; the legislature says we have to say this.
MRS. BECK: You can call me Madam or Neighbor will do yes. Will the dumpster be disguised?
MR. HANSON: Yes, it will be enclosed, that is a Borough Ordinance.
MRS. BECK: Okay, thank you.
MR. HANSON: It will be enclosed.
MR. FAASSE: And if they were smart they would do it with colors that would meet with your approval. Anyone else from the public?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, let’s close the public portion.
MR. LUDWIG: So Ralph --
MR. FAASSE: Wait a minute, just a second. Excuse me. Mr. Rubin?
MR. RUBIN: Yes, Sir.
MR. FAASSE: It was pointed out today that you need another variance for that there canopy of yours.
MR. RUBIN: I thought that was a site plan issue.
MR. FAASSE: I don’t -- I think you are going to ask for that because I don’t know if you noticed it.
MR. RUBIN: Yes, we would ask.
MR. FAASSE: You might have to amend your public notice to include that because I don’t know if it is all inclusive. I just looked at it quick.
MR. RUBIN: I have to check, I can’t remember.
MR. FAASSE: All right but you are going to pass that over to the Planning Board.
MR. RUBIN: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: Okay, canopy goes to the Planning Board. I’m sorry, now it is your turn.
MR. LUDWIG: What I was getting ready to ask is I mean since we are lessening the height isn’t this really what we do quite often with plans that come before us and we recommend changes such as -- when we had the garage and we asked him to lower it. We didn’t really have to have the revised plans to okay it at that time. We just made it --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Made it a condition of approval.
MR. LUDWIG: Yeah.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Based on testimony.
MR. LUDWIG: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: Well yeah, I mean, if you think you have enough -- you know -- evidence tonight to move a motion one way then.
MR. LUDWIG: I mean because that is a change from here it is going in the direction that we probably would have pushed or --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Tried to get.
MR. LUDWIG: Tried to get. He just jumped the gun. Am I correct?
MR. FAASSE: Well I don’t know if he jumped the gun but he knew --
MR. LUDWIG: Well I am just saying that he knew --
MR. FAASSE: He knew the hurl that he was going go through tonight. So it made it as most tolerable as possible.
MR. GREGOR: He is coming in with less than what --
MR. FAASSE: Absolutely.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Less is better.
MR. FAASSE: Instead of 50, he is coming in with 47’0”.
MR. WILLSE: Mr. Gregor, even though you would think that every question that could be asked of this applicant has been asked, with regard to your number 2 in your letter.
MR. GREGOR: My memory fails me, let me look at it.
MR. WILLSE: That’s all right -- that’s all right, you don’t have to memorize your letters. The RD1 Zone permits a four-story structure but limits the height of the structure to 40 feet. The proposed hotel is requesting a height of 50, that is based on the mean that we were talking about and that reverts back to the testimony given that that has been reduced from 50 to 47.9.
MR. FAASSE: 9 inch. No, no.
MR. WILLSE: So .75 which is 47 feet 9 inches.
MR. FAASSE: Correct.
MR. WILLSE: Correct Mr. Gregor?
MR. GREGOR: Yes, that is a direct comparison to those two numbers as you described them, yes.
MR. FAASSE: That is one of things he added to his plans that Bill said there was a problem with because they weren’t sealed and also because there was a few things missing.
MR. WILLSE: Okay.
MR. FAASSE: Including enough information.
MR. WILLSE: Ralph you give me too much information.
MR. FAASSE: I know.
MR. WILLSE: Isn’t an attorney only supposed to --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah the 50 feet and the 47 feet 9 inches both refer to the mean which is a definition in the ordinance.
MR. GREGOR: Correct.
MR. LUDWIG: We close to the public now? I want to make a motion to --
MR. FAASSE: No, wait just one -- wait, excuse me I just --
MR. CHAIRMAN: Ralph wants to do some housecleaning here.
MR. GRYGUS: All right.
MR. FAASSE: We did have that rendering tonight from the architect.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The outdoor rendering?
MR. FAASSE: That is the color scheme that is going to be used in the construction of this building, correct?
MR. HANSON: Yes.
MR. RUBIN: The answer is yes, for the audience.
MR. FAASSE: Okay. I mean we want to make sure that there is no fraud here or anything else like that.
MR. HANSON: Those florescent lights blinking.
MR. FAASSE: Yes, I know we don’t want to come up with purple, we don’t want to come up with purple or pink or something.
BOARD MEMBER: Did the public see that rendering?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.
MR. FAASSE: Yes.
BOARD MEMBER: We showed the public the rendering.
MS. MAROTTA: We had the big one up in the board.
BOARD MEMBER: Because they may have not been able to see it.
MR. GREGOR: I passed the small copy around to the members.
MR. FAASSE: You satisfied with the colors?
MR. CHAIRMAN: That was A-3.
MR. LUDWIG: All right. I would like to make a motion that we approve the variance of 7.75 feet; 47 feet, 9 inches where 40 foot is required.
MR. GRYGUS: Allowed.
MR. LUDWIG: Allowed with the use variance with the stipulation that this document prepared by Bill Gregor be forwarded to the Planning Board because it notes just about all the concerns we had as far as the application tonight. The only thing else -- I think they even have to give --
MR. GRYGUS: The items that were agreed to buy the applicant during testimony.
MR. GREGOR: Can we have discussion on the motion a minute. That is my discussion point. I think the applicant here agreed to a garbage and recycling center not to exceed 10 by 20 feet. Extending the paving behind the building to accommodate a loading area. He was going to reinstall the grass pavers across the rear of the site that were on the original site plan. You were going to do something with the roof to control the sheet flow.
MR. HANSON: Correct.
MR. GREGOR: The sidewalks you were going to extend to --
MR. HANSON: From 4 to 6 feet.
MR. GREGOR: -- 6 feet where there are parking stalls abutted to them. You are going to add the walkthrough to the site plan at the end of the canopy and you were going to install a fence on the detention basin. I think those were all the things that we agreed upon.
MR. GRYGUS: And the area for the dumpster.
MR. GREGOR: The dumpster we talked about.
MR. LUDWIG: And the no truck parking sign.
MR. GREGOR: That’s right, the no truck parking sign.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Some kind of signage.
MR. LUDWIG: Correct.
MR. GRYGUS: For the loading I mean.
MR. GREGOR: That loading area.
MR. GRYGUS: The loading area.
MR. GREGOR: I put that.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you accept his amendments to your --
MR. GRYGUS: Yes, add those.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you making a second?
MR. GRYGUS: Yes, I’ll second that motion.
MR. RUBIN: Those were the stipulations that the applicant has agreed to. .
MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. And now who is voting on this?
MR. FAASSE: And the only thing is we are going to recommend to that that cross-easement agreement that the Board look at that as to whether or not it can be appreciated with the proofs.
MR. GRYGUS: Yeah, along with that I would like see Bill’s report be sent to the Planning Board.
MR. GREGOR: One more thing he did stipulate to my request to -- I just looked at my notes, he stipulated to my request to the number of 9 by 18 parking spaces and the 9 by 20 parking spaces to put that on the plan as well as amending the site plan with the zoning map.
MR. GRYGUS: And also amend the table with the number of rooms?
MR. FAASSE: No, that’s all.
MR. GRYGUS: Yeah but he stipulated to that, I don’t know if that is what you --
MR. FAASSE: It shows -- the biggest thing is the plan showed -- what did we say, 93 total spots.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MR. FAASSE: Right, I mean that is the thing. I mean where they are on and how they are number --
MR. CHAIRMAN: It is a Planning Board issue.
MR. FAASSE: Right.
MR. CHAIRMAN: Gerri, you are only going to call 7.
MR. FAASSE: You will type this up and send it to both Gerri and myself, Mr. Grygus?
MS. MAROTTA: Who am I not calling?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Whoever the alternate is?
MS. MAROTTA: Art?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.
MS. MAROTTA: Okay.
MR. FAASSE: Oh yes. You better determine. The members of one of the alternates drops off. Right?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Yeah, Ed is number one.
MR. LEONARD: I think I am one, he is two.
MS. MAROTTA: So I am not going to call Art?
MR. CHAIRMAN: Art gets passed.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE USE VARIANCE
Made by Member Ludwig, Second by member Grygus. Voting yes Chairman Dunning, Members Grygus, Covelli, Hoffman, Ludwig, Willse. Voting no, Member Leonard.
MR. FAASSE: We got 6 to 1.
MR. RUBIN: Thank you very much for all the time you have given us this evening and for having this special meeting.
MR. FAASSE: Please take your notice for the Planning Board so you don’t have to come back for the variance, Mr. Rubin.
MR. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is officially adjourned.
CERTIFICATION
I, Joyce Fleming, the assigned transcriber, hereby
certify the foregoing transcript of proceedings is a true and accurate
non-compressed transcript of the proceedings recorded.
Signature
G & L Transcription of N.J.