Planning Board Meeting

PLANNING BOARD MEETING – JUNE 1, 2005

Adequate notice of the meeting has been posted and published by law. The meeting will start now and adjourn at 11:00 PM.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT Mr. Bohrer, Mr. Cobuzio (7:36 PM), Mr. Conte, Mayor Donch (7:40 PM), Mr. Friscia, Mr. Lauber, Mr. Pullaro, Mr. Roberts

ABSENT Mr. Gostkowski, Mr. Schroeder

Carl O’Brien, Boswell Engineering John Spizziri, Planning Board Attorney

Mr. Friscia stated that the first fifteen minutes would be for Board Discussion. At the last meeting the engineer was asked to check on the playset setback requirement for 102 Greenfield Hill Road.

Mr. Spizziri asked to address that issue. He spoke with the owner of that property and was told that the playset will be removed or relocated.

Mr. O’Brien stated that the Zoning Officer has reviewed this and a playset is considered an accessory structure, which is not permitted in the 50’ front yard setback.

Mr. Spizziri stated that the Zoning Officer has to enforce that.

Mr. Friscia referred to two items that were on the last agenda. They are 1002 Dogwood Trail tracking stone and the Sewer Permit for Colonial Road Associates. The stone access was put in for 1002 Dogwood Trail. The Mayor was going to look into the Sewer approval for Colonial Road Associates. Mr. Spizziri had a question as to whether he was properly notified.

Mr. Spizziri has not received notification from the applicant that they received the Sewer Permit from the State. The resolution for this project required that he and the engineer be given this information.

Mr. Friscia will ask the Mayor when he arrives about the Sewer approval.

Mr. Lauber stated that the Mayor and Council have to be part of that.

The Clerk informed that the Board that she requested that information from Greg Allen of Colonial Road Associates. She received a copy of the Sewer Permit approval from Northwest Bergen Utility Authority and a permit from the NJDEP. The Sewer Permit approval from the Utility Authority was required before NJDEP would issue their permit. This was part of the approval process.

Mr. Bohrer asked, “Has the engineer approved the change in the sewer design from a forced main to a separate system?” Mr. Spizziri stated that the jurisdiction is with DEP and Northwest Bergen. That should be reviewed by the Borough Engineer.

The Mayor arrived.

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 6-1-05 PAGE 2

Mr. Friscia asked the Mayor about the Sewer Permit for Colonial Road Associates. “Do they have the proper authority to do what they have done so far?”

Mayor Donch stated that the Building Official gave them permission to do the trailer. No further work has been done. He was not sure where it stands tonight. He will check to see if they are allowed to continue work on this site. We cannot make them remove the trailer at this point. We have issues with them regarding rentals versus sale units and we are in negotiations with them as to how many additional units they will give us for our Mount Laurel. No work is to be done on this site.

Mr. Spizziri stated that the applicant was Colonial Road Associates, LLC. They have signed over the development rights to Kara Homes. Our Developer’s Agreement requires any transfer to be approved by way of assignment and signed by the Mayor and Council. He forwarded the attorney for Kara Homes the form of assignment that is used by his office. He has not heard from him regarding that.

Mayor Donch will have the Borough Attorney check with them.

Mr. Spizziri will write the attorney and ask him what is the status of the assignment that was forwarded. Mr. Smith was copied on the letter of transmittal. He will also write a letter to Mr. Allen asking him to send Mr. Spizziri a copy of the Sewer Permit.

Mr. Lauber stated that at 255 Haven Road there is no wheel-cleaning blanket. This should be checked. On the Carfagna subdivision, one of the items in the resolution cited that a new septic system was to be installed on the Carfagna property. John guaranteed that this would be done before the certificate of occupancy was issued. The people are living in the house and there is no new septic system. This was one of the terms of the variances given to the Carfagnas. He spoke with Marjorie, the Sanitarian, and she has not seen anything on this. The engineer should check this.

Mr. O’Brien stated that these issues will be checked.

Mr. Conte asked if the engineering department could check 785 Ewing Avenue. There is a temporary roof on the house for over a year.

Mr. O’Brien stated that this will be checked.

The minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 18, 2005 were presented for approval. A motion to approve the minutes as presented was moved by Bohrer and seconded by Mr. Conte. All in favor (aye). They were APPROVED.

RESOLUTIONS

FLK-2022 AVF QUALITY HOMES, MINOR SUBDIVISION, 383 HILLVIEW TERRACE, BLOCK 1107, LOT 15

Mr. Spizziri summarized the resolution.

A motion to approve the resolution as presented was moved by Mr. Bohrer and seconded by Mr. Conte.

ROLL CALL

Yes Mr. Bohrer, Mr. Cobuzio, Mr. Conte, Mayor Donch, Mr. Friscia, Mr. Lauber

It was APPROVED.

A revised plan was submitted. A letter is needed from the engineer. This resolution may need to be revised.

FLK-2029 EXCLUSIVE HOMES, SITE PLAN/SOIL MOVING PERMIT, 263 GLEN PLACE, BLOCK 2709, LOT 4.04 (PART OF BARRETT HOMES SUBD.)

Mr. Spizziri summarized the resolution. This resolution will be amended to note that the 18” tree will be saved.

Mr. Lauber asked, “Did the approved drainage system for Barrett Homes allow driveway drains to be put into that drainage?” He did not remember because it is not usual. Under the new regulations you would have put the driveway drains into a seepage pit. He did not think that those drains were included in the total drainage system.

Mr. Bohrer did not remember that.

Mr. Lauber felt that this should be checked. A tank should be put in.

Mr. Spizziri stated that in many instances where drainage is in a roadway or drainage easement throughout the Borough the Board has been permitting tie ins. Those existing drainage systems were never sized to permit that additional drainage.

Mr. Lauber stated that there are new drainage regulations. Mr. Spizziri was sure that the engineer has looked at that. The engineer required a Hold Harmless Agreement for this lot.

Mr. Lauber felt that if it was not specifically allowed for in that drainage then it is not accounted for in the total drainage package.

Mr. Spizziri stated that this information was in Boswell’s review letter.

The engineer should check this.

Mr. O’Brien stated that this will be checked.

Mr. Spizziri suggested that the Hold Harmless Agreement be required provided the Borough Engineer approves the additional drainage from this into the drainage system. If they do not approve this, then they must put in a tank for the drainage.

A motion to approve the resolution as revised was moved by Mayor Donch and seconded by Mr. Conte.

ROLL CALL

Yes Mr. Bohrer, Mr. Cobuzio, Mr. Conte, Mayor Donch, Mr. Friscia, Mr. Lauber

It was APPROVED.

A revised plan was submitted. A letter is needed from the engineer. This resolution may need to be revised.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

FLK-1920 COLONIAL ESTATES, AMENDED MAJOR SUBDIVISION, J & K CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT, FALCONIERI, OWNER, VITALE, OWNER, 930, 934 & 940 COLONIAL ROAD, BLOCK 1203, LOT 4, BLOCK 1204, LOTS 1, 2 & 3 (1ST HEARING)

Mr. Michael Rubin, the attorney, Mr. Vincent Facchino, the engineer and Mr. Falconieri, the applicant were present.

Mr. Rubin introduced himself. At the preliminary subdivision review meeting, the applicant discussed the six-lot major subdivision. Mr. Falconieri acquired two lots to be included in the initial four-lot subdivision. The required notice was sent regarding this Public Hearing.

Mr. Spizziri has reviewed the notices. The notices are in order. The Board has jurisdiction to proceed with this application. A motion to open the Public Hearing for this application was moved by Mr. Bohrer and seconded by Mayor Donch. All in favor (aye).

Mr. Pullaro had a procedural question. “Is this a new application?” He did not see the issue regarding the time frame for determination in the minutes of the previous meeting. “When was this application deemed complete?”

The Clerk informed Mr. Pullaro that the application was deemed complete on May 13, 2005 by a copy of the completeness letter from Boswell Engineering.

Mr. Friscia stated that the Board did not set the time limit for this application.

Mr. Pullaro stated that the Board usually certifies the application as a major subdivision with variances and gives the time frame for determination.

Mr. Spizziri stated that it is not necessary to specifically cite this by way of a motion. It is on the record that the time frame begins as of the date it was deemed complete by the engineer. In this case, there are variances required so that the time frame is 120 days.

A motion to certify this application as a major subdivision with variances was moved by Mr. Lauber and seconded by Mr. Conte. All in favor (aye).

The application was deemed complete on May 13, 2005. The Board has 120 days to make their determination on this application, which would be September 10, 2005. PLANNING BOARD MEETING 6-1-05 PAGE 5

Mr. Rubin asked that Mr. Facchino be sworn so that he can give testimony regarding the plans for the Board.

Mr. Spizziri sworn in Mr. Facchino.

Mr. Facchino introduced himself. He has been with Keller & Kirkpatrick, Inc. for nine years. He is a licensed Professional Engineer and Planner in the State of New Jersey. He has dealt mostly with Site Plans and Subdivisions for residential and commercial properties. He has been before this Board numerous times.

Mr. Rubin stated that Mr. Facchino will be testifying as a Professional Engineer. He asked Mr. Facchino to discuss present site conditions.

Mr. Spizziri was given the exhibits to be marked for identification.

Mr. Facchino stated that there are three existing homes. There are five different lots. Existing Block 1204, Lots 2 and 3 have one dwelling, existing Block 1204, Lot 1, existing Block 1203, Lot 4 have one dwelling and existing Block 1204, Lot 4 has one dwelling. There are three separate landowners combining their properties for this subdivision.

Mr. Rubin asked, “Are there any topographic features or issues that should be brought to the Board’s attention?” Mr. Facchino stated that currently the lot is basically long forest areas. It gently slopes toward Colonial Road. The drainage goes towards Colonial Road.

Mr. Rubin asked, “Is it the intention of the applicant that there will eventually be all new homes on all of the lots?”

Mr. Facchino stated that at some point we intend to build six new homes. Proposed Lot 3.01 will remain with the current owner. At such time as Mr. Vitale decides to leave and sell the land, a new home will be built on that lot.

Mr. Rubin asked Mr. Facchino, “What is being proposed for the six-lot subdivision?”

Mr. Spizziri stated that he marked 11 drawings (A-1 through A-11). All variously identified by their titles, which were not given. Exhibit A-11 is the colored drawings of Sheet 5 of 11.

Mr. Facchino referred to Sheet 4 of 11 with a date of April 22, 2005. We are subdividing the existing property, which is approximately 6.8 acres. Six lots are proposed. All the lots are fully conforming to lot area. We are proposing a 40-foot right-of-way called Patriot’s Way coming off the intersection with Colonial Road. It will be intersecting another road called Falcon Road. Lot 3.01 has the existing home of Mr. Vitale, which is intended to remain until he decides to leave when the home will be demolished and another home built. We are proposing an eight-foot wide easement for Bergen County for any future road purposes. We propose this configuration for two reasons. Patriot’s Way has enough sight distance on Colonial Road. It is across from Dogwood Trail, which makes an even intersection with the adjacent road. This is a statewide concept. You do not want any cross streets with more than 150 feet separation. The previous application showed the four lots with a cul-de-sac. The road was extended towards the south. A variance is required for Lot 3.01 for the existing home to remain. It requires a 50-

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 6-1-05 PAGE 6 foot setback off the new roadway. The front yard setback for this lot is 41.01 feet. That is not an existing condition. This is due to the new roadway. It is for the garage section of the home. Proposed Lot 3.02 needs a variance for lot width at 190.12 feet. Proposed Lot 3.05 needs a variance for lot width at 189.84 feet. There is no detriment to the Zoning Plan or the Zoning Ordinance involved in the granting of these variances. The lots are large enough to incorporate a normal Franklin Lakes dwelling. When a new home is built on Lot 3.01, it will be conforming in all respects. He referred to the colored drawing marked as Exhibit A-11. This is the grading and utility plan. It is a rendered drawing of Sheet 5. There are five new dwellings being proposed. A conforming dwelling can fit on Lot 3.01. All the driveways will be exiting on the new roads. There is a new driveway proposed for Lot 3.01 to the new road because it will be safer than existing onto Colonial Road. The proposed dwellings will have future pool locations. The septic systems will be in the front or rear of the properties. There will be shade trees along the entire length of the road. The grading will slope towards Colonial Road. The stormwater will go into the storm sewers within the road, which will drain to an underground detention system, which will overflow on Colonial Road as it does today. RSIS requires a 28-foot road, we are proposing a 30-foot road. No sidewalks are proposed. Granite curbing will be installed throughout the subdivision. The pavement will be thickness than what is required by RSIS. He discussed the driveway easement right-of-way on the easterly side of the property. There exists a common gravel driveway in this area servicing three dwellings. Block 1203, Lots 3, 7, 14, Block 1203, Lot 14 and Lot 6 are the lots that use this easement. This was a vacated road known as Cedar Street. There is no problem with these homeowners using this driveway. There are three utility poles on this driveway. We are proposing to remove the gravel driveway from Colonial Road to Falcon Road. His client has meet with the homeowners of Lots 3, 7, 14 and 15. He has agreed to pave the gravel driveway and provide a “T” intersection. This will extend throughout the properties for the turnaround of buses and garbage trucks.

Mr. Rubin stated that the developer would have to get the permission from these property owners to go on their properties to do the work.

Mr. Facchino stated, “Yes”. There would have to be an easement provided by the property owners to use that piece of property as they do today. We would need a temporary work easement to do the work. The road will be wider than it is. It will be 16 feet wide. It is 12’ to 14’ in width. There are trees in front of Lot 15 that we would like to avoid disturbing. We will remove the existing gravel driveway on our property. This will be for Lot 3.05. The existing gravel driveway from the intersection of Falcon Road to Colonial Road will be removed and restored with lawn. This will not require tree removal. We will propose to Rockland Electric Company that the utility poles be removed and electrical connection be made to the underground utilities for this project. The buffer in this area will be maintained.

Mr. Lauber referred to the “T” turnaround. The Borough has to get an easement from the two property owners. The Fire Department and the Engineering Department should review this to make sure the size is right.

Mr. Rubin agreed with Mr. Lauber. He has been speaking with the attorney for those property owners, Mr. Ohnegian. We will work through him to get the easements for the Borough.

Mr. Pullaro asked, “Why do we not have a cul-de-sac within the property of the applicant?” There should be a cul-de-sac on the west and east sides.

Mr. Facchino stated that the previous submission showed a cul-de-sac. We propose to do dead ends. This is for the future extension of Falcon Road. The Board suggested a “T” instead of putting 80 feet of pavement for a turnaround. A bus or garbage truck can easily maneuver in a “T” turnaround. We have PLANNING BOARD MEETING 6-1-05 PAGE 7 not proposed anything at the west side at this time. We would like to get some feedback from the Board. Mr. Pullaro asked, “Is this something that we have done before?” He could not remember this being done in the last twenty years.

Mr. Lauber stated that this was done before that on Iron Latch Road. The “T” turnaround works.

Mr. Pullaro asked, “Why do we build cul-de-sacs?”

Mr. Lauber stated that cul-de-sacs are permanent these are temporary “T” turnarounds. There are places in town where we forgot to remove the cul-de-sacs.

Mr. Facchino stated that if we propose turnarounds we would like to propose temporary easements for the roadway. We would have to rotate the dwellings to conform to the 50-foot setback. If the Board recommends that we do turnarounds his client has no problem with that but we would like to maintain the dwellings to face forward and be perpendicular to the right-of-way.

Mr. Friscia stated that when the Board was presented with the idea of a turnaround we were interested in the idea. We need to see maps showing what you are proposing and an alternate to see to explore what else can be done there.

Mayor Donch stated that there is a unique situation on the right side. He wanted to be sure that those property owners were protected with a “T” turnaround. On the left side, if a cul-de-sac were placed there the lots would become substandard. They may require variances. “How much of a substandard would there be?” “What variances would be required?” The variances would be for coverage, the square footage of the lot and maybe other variances.

Mr. Spizziri stated that if the applicant was permitted to give temporary easements for the cul-de-sac that would not disturb the coverage requirements because it is only an easement. It would be temporary until Falcon Road is extended. There are half cul-de-sacs in the Borough. With respect to the residents on the right side of Falcon Road, putting a “T” turnaround on their property could create liability problems for them and possibly the Borough with a lawsuit for allowing that to go on private property. If the Board feels that a “T” turnaround is more appropriate, it should be on the applicant’s property on Lot 3.05 and 3.06.

Mr. Facchino submitted a sketch to the Board. This shows the “T” turnaround at the end. The area along the two properties will be paved. This will avoid any tree removal. It has been an issue from the previous application.

Mr. Rubin asked Mr. Facchino, “Is there anything else you want to bring to the Board’s attention?”

Mr. Facchino stated, “No”.

Mr. Rubin stated that this is the extent of the testimony by the applicant.

Mr. Pullaro stated that now we have a 30-foot road with 5 feet between the curb and the property line. “Is that enough room for the utilities?” PLANNING BOARD MEETING 6-1-05 PAGE 8

Mr. Facchino referred to Sheet 5 of 11, the Grading Plan. This shows the layout of the utilities. The utilities will be within the right-of-way and the curb. The Borough has a five-foot wide shade tree easement.

Mr. Bohrer asked, “Why have you not provided us with a detail on the left side?”

Mr. Facchino stated, “We did not propose anything on the left side”. We propose to keep it as a dead end. A 30-foot wide road is enough for a car to maneuver a “K” turn. This is a residential rural street. We are not going to consider any traffic problems. If the Board requires a “T” turnaround at the end, we will provide one.

Mr. Lauber asked, “Are you requesting waivers from the RSIS for the curbing, the thicker road and the 30-foot road in the 40-foot right-of-way?”

Mr. Facchino stated that those are waiver requirements. We need to get a diminimus exemption for the right-of-way.

Mr. Bohrer asked, “Who would own the turnaround they are proposing on the right side?”

Mr. Facchino stated that it would be an easement for a turnaround.

Mr. Spizziri will work out the easement language with Mr. Rubin and Mr. Ohnegian. It would have to permit the use of the turnaround for the public.

Mr. Pullaro stated that if the Board would consider a cul-de-sac on the right side then at the end of the cul-de-sac you could have a curb cut of 16 feet. Then it would be clearly a driveway for these people. People who are visiting would not go in there. It would look like a driveway.

Mr. Spizziri swore in Mr. Falconieri.

Mr. Falconieri introduced himself. Several conceptual sketches were submitted which showed cul-de-sacs. It did not work because it cut into the lots. We had the easement issue.

Mr. Pullaro asked, “Why doesn’t it work?”

Mr. Falconieri stated that the cul-de-sac cuts to far into Lot 3.05. We are not proposing to put the cul-de-sac on Mr. Ackerman’s or Mr. Vogel’s property.

Mr. Pullaro stated that the cul-de-sac would have to be on Lot 3.05 and Lot 3.06.

Mr. Falconieri stated that conceptuals were done on that. He was under the impression, after several meetings, that the Board would be inclined to approve this because of the expansion. The original application was for a four-lot subdivision with a cul-de-sac. The vacated road has created a problem. This problem of the driveway easement for the properties on the right side has been given to him to address as part of this subdivision.

Mr. Pullaro stated that if it creates a variance on Lots 3.05 and 3.06 then that could be a reason to grant the variance. This would take away the problem of having service vehicles turning around on private property.

PLANNIG BOARD MEETING 6-1-05 PAGE 9

Mr. Rubin stated that there may be some liability issues as Mr. Spizziri has pointed out previously.

Mayor Donch stated that the Board is concerned about landlocking the two homeowners. He referred to Lot 3.01, Lot 3.02 and Lot 3.06. There is an eight- foot wide easement for Bergen County road future purposes. “Are you incorporating that into the calculations of the square footage of those three lots?”

Mr. Facchino stated, “Yes”. The easement is for any grading. The right-of-way will stay where it is.

Mayor Donch stated that the back lots are over 40,000 square feet. The front lots are all 40,000 square feet. If you had moved the front lots back eight feet, you would still have six conforming lots. You would not have to calculate the easement on Colonial Road.

Mr. Facchino stated, “That is correct”. We want to minimize the disturbance. If the property line were brought back, more trees would be disturbed.

Mr. Spizziri stated that the easement is the County’s right to use the land. The ownership is retained by the lot owners.

Mayor Donch stated that the new houses will face Falcon Road. The pools will face Colonial Road. “Will you be able to conform to the required dimensions if the County widens the road?”

Mr. Facchino stated that the right-of-way will still be in its existing place. It would still conform.

Mr. Falconieri stated that the road could be shifted back. The reason we went with the 40-foot was to save trees.

Mr. Friscia agreed with the Mayor that this layout addressed the Board’s concerns. We are trying to figure out the best turnarounds at the ends. Maybe a portion cul- de-sac could be shown. Let’s talk about a bulb at the northern portion at the end of the road on the west side.

Mr. Falconieri stated that he had a conversation with Mrs. Mc Bride about this.

Mayor Donch suggested a half a bulb for the end of the road. The other half would be on the other property eventually. That would not take as much away from the frontage of Lot 3.03 and 3.02. Mr. Lauber stated that the engineers would have to check this to see if it would work.

Mr. Pullaro felt that you should be able to turnaround within this property. There should be one on the west and one on the east side. This is not a bad place to have a 28-foot wide road.

Mr. Falconieri agreed to submit a conceptual sketch showing a half bulb cul-de-sac on the west and east side on his property.

Mr. Rubin stated that this would require another RSIS waiver.

Mr. O’Brien recommended that they do a half bulb cul-de-sac. It will diminish the lot size for the northern lots. A variance would be required for this. This would be for Lot 3.05 and Lot 3.03.

Mr. Falconieri asked, “Do you know how many square feet this would take?”

Mr. O’Brien stated that it would take off 2,000 to 3,000 square feet on each end.

Mr. Rubin stated that Mr. Facchino will prepare that sketch for the Board.

Mr. Falconieri stated that the Board is requesting two half bulbs at each end.

Mr. Rubin asked if he could get input from the public at this time.

Mr. Spizziri asked Mr. Rubin, “Is Mr. Falconieri under contract to purchase that property from Mr. Vitale when he decides to leave Franklin Lakes or would that be an open market situation?”

Mr. Falconieri stated that right now it is an open market situation. Verbally it is not.

Mr. Spizziri stated that if you are asking for a variance to keep the house on Mr. Vitale’s property how can be ask the next owner to tear it down to build a conforming house.

Mr. Falconieri stated that he is to be the next owner.

Mr. Spizziri stated that this is a serious impediment for granting the variance when a future owner could say he likes this house and does not want to take it down.

Mr. Rubin stated that Mr. Vitale consented to this application. If this is part of the Developer’s Agreement and Mr. Vitale signs the Agreement that would run with the land. The new owner of that property would be obligated.

Mr. Spizziri was not confident with Mr. Rubin’s statement. The variance is the question. There will need to be proofs and testimony in this regard. Mr. Rubin stated that by the next meeting this may be resolved.

Mr. Spizziri has not heard enough testimony regarding the benefit/detriment on that lot. Mr. Rubin should address that issue.

Mr. Rubin will address those issues.

Mr. O’Brien asked about the water lines.

Mr. Falconieri stated that the water line can be brought down from Colonial Road.

Mayor Donch stated that the line will be brought down from Colonial Road and Franklin Lake Road to the new subdivision.

Mr. Falconieri will use public water for these lots.

Mr. Friscia asked if the public had any questions.

Mr. Spizziri swore in Mr. Vogel.

Mr. Jim Vogel lives at 928 Colonial Road. We like this plan. We are concerned about a full circle or half circle because it will open up a lot more territory and force the removal of more trees. If this is left as shown, where will the snow go when it is plowed.

Mayor Donch stated that the snow would be pushed off the road. Arrangements would be made with the DPW.

There were no other comments from the public.

A motion to continue the Public Hearing for this application to the June 15, 2005 meeting was moved by Mr. Bohrer and seconded by Mr. Conte. All in favor (aye).

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

There were no comments under this Section.

SOIL APPLICATIONS

FLK-2021 DE NICOLA, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, POOL & ADDITION, 775 COMANCHE LANE, BLOCK 2204, LOT 11

Mr. Sean Mc Clellan, the engineer was present.

Mayor Donch stepped down for this application. Mr. Mc Clellan stated that the application is for an addition, septic disposal field, pool and driveway expansion.

Mr. O’Brien summarized Boswell’s letter dated May 27, 2005. The applicant is proposing a two-story addition, a second driveway, patio, seepage pit, new septic disposal field, pool and fencing for the pool area. Board of Health approval is required for the new septic system. Six trees are noted for removal. A Tree Removal Permit is required. The existing shed is nonconforming to the south side yard required 25-foot setback at 23.47 feet. It was permitted proposed with a 30- foot setback but was constructed at a nonconforming setback.

Mr. Friscia asked, “Will the shed be removed or moved?”

Mr. Mc Clellan stated that the shed will be relocated to respect the 25-foot setback required.

Mr. White inspected the site. In the area of the septic field there are four to six additional trees that are not identified.

Mr. Mc Clellan stated that those trees will be shown on the plan as to be removed.

A motion to approve the Soil Moving Permit for this application subject to the revised plan showing the shed relocated and the additional trees in the septic area as to be removed was moved by Mr. Cobuzio and seconded by Mr. Conte. All in favor (aye).

It was APPROVED.

A revised plan is required.

FLK-2027 STONE MANORS, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, HOME, 426 VANCE AVENUE, BLOCK 2419.03, LOT 5

Mr. Marvin Rosenzweig, the applicant and Mr. James Nieradka, the engineer were present.

Mr. Nieradka stated that this is an application for a soil moving permit for a home, garage, basement, front entrance pad with access walk, new driveway, three seepage pits, public water service, gas service and septic disposal field.

Mr. O’Brien summarized Boswell’s letter dated May 17, 2005. Board of Health approval is required for the proposed septic disposal system. Thirty-five trees are noted for removal. A Tree Removal Permit is required. The 30” Oak tree in the front yard can be saved with the relocation of the septic tank. The location of the proposed seepage tanks is within the Township of Wyckoff. The building and lot coverages in Franklin Lakes are 8.95% and 16.45%. The 18” and 24” Oak trees within the rear yard limit of disturbance shall be protected with construction fencing during construction.

Mr. Lauber asked, “What is the overall square footage of impervious coverage?”

Mr. Nieradka stated, “We are well under the ¼ acre of impervious. It would be approximately 6,000 square feet”.

Mr. Bohrer asked, “Is this property directly on Route 208?”

Mr. Nieradka stated, “The 105 foot setback required for Route 208 does not pertain to this lot”. There was an exemption when these lots were approved through the subdivision.

Mr. Spizziri asked, “Are you saying that when this subdivision was approved there was an exemption for the setback from Route 208?”

Mr. Nieradka stated, “That is my understanding”.

Mr. Spizziri will speak with Ms. Tiberi about that.

Mr. Lauber asked, “Is there any difference with this lot as opposed to the other lots the Board has approved?”

Mr. Nieradka stated, “It is five feet further back towards Route 208 than the others approved on Vance Avenue”.

Mayor Donch felt that this was only for lots that face Route 208.

Mr. Lauber stated that this was enforced on the north side of Summit Avenue. That was the back yard.

Mayor Donch stated that you can put up a six-foot fence at the back portion of the lot, which backs up to Route 208.

Mr. White stated that the 30” tree is really a 22” tree. Many trees show diameters greater than the actual size. This tree can be removed. The 24” Oak about 40 feet to the southeast of the driveway can be removed.

Mr. Lauber stated that this subdivision has no shade trees. This should be checked.

Mayor Donch felt that the Shade Tree Commission should check this.

Mr. Conte asked, “Are there any slope issues on this property?”

Mr. O’Brien stated, “Not as far as I know”. A motion to approve the Soil Moving Permit for this application subject to verification by the attorney regarding the setback on Route 208 was moved by Mayor Donch and seconded by Mr. Conte. All in favor (aye).

It was APPROVED.

FLK-2040 PAGANO, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, POOL, 235 HAVEN ROAD, BLOCK 1311.02, LOT 4

Mr. Barry Marson, Marson Pools and Mr. Pagano, the applicant were present.

Mr. Marson introduced himself. The application is for a pool with spa and full patio surround within the rear yard portion of the parcel.

Mr. O’Brien summarized Boswell’s letter dated May 26, 2005. Two trees are indicated for removal. A Tree Removal Permit is not required due to the sizes at 6” and 3”. The lot coverage is indicated as increased to 17.8%. The pool and patio are located at the 25-foot rear and side yard setbacks. There is no leeway provided. Adequate runoff control is provided for this lot. The existing home’s front and side yard setbacks are not conforming at 46.86 feet and 19.2 feet.

Mr. Bohrer did not see a full circle for the pool fence on the plan.

Mr. Marson stated that there is an enclosure between the house and the garage. That is why there is not a full circle for the pool fence.

Mr. White had no comments.

A motion to approve the Soil Moving Permit for this application was moved by Mr. Conte and seconded by Mayor Donch. All in favor (aye).

It was APPROVED.

FLK-2041 MAURA, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, POOL, 402 JAY COURT, BLOCK 2205, LOT 3.01

Mr. O’Brien summarized Boswell’s letter dated May 25, 2005. One tree is indicated for removal. A Tree Removal Permit is required. The lot coverage is indicated as increased to 19.8%. The pool and patio are located in the required 25-foot rear and side yard setbacks. Adequate runoff control is provided for this lot. The existing seepage pit will need to be re-examined after construction vehicle traffic overtop of it if the south side yard is the intended access. This should be testified to. Mr. Mc Clellan stated that the pool and patio will be staked out. To get to the pool, you will have to go up the driveway and across the seepage pit. We will be careful not to damage the seepage pit.

Mr. Bohrer stated that this should be shown on the plan along with the wheel cleaning blanket.

Mr. Mc Clellan stated that there is a detail on the plan for the wheel cleaning blanket. It will be shown on the plan in the designated area.

Mr. White stated that the 30” Maple tree adjacent to the pool will need protection during construction.

A motion to approve the Soil Moving Permit for this application subject to the construction access being shown on the plan was moved by Mr. Conte and seconded by Mr. Bohrer. All in favor (aye).

It was APPROVED.

A revised plan is required.

NEW BUSINESS

FLK-2028 CORALLO, JARI DEVELOPMENT, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, HOME, VARIANCES FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, STEEP SLOPES, WALL HEIGHT AND DRIVEWAY SETBACK, 594 SUMMIT AVENUE, BLOCK 2301.01, LOT 2

Mr. James Nieradka, the engineer, Mr. Joseph Danado, the architect and Mr. Mark Sokolich, the attorney were present.

Mr. Mark Sokolich introduced himself. He is from the law firm of Sokolich & Marci. The application is for a hearing for the Board.

Mr. Spizziri stated that the Planning Board does not operate like the Zoning Board does with respect to a Public Hearing. The attorney has filed an application for the variances for this lot. Public notices have been sent out that this is a Public Hearing. This information has not been sent to his office prior to tonight’s meeting. He cannot represent to the Board that they have jurisdiction.

Mr. Sokolich stated that he was directed to serve public notice through the Herald News and also by way of publication.

The Clerk informed the Board that Mr. Sokolich was instructed to do a Notice of Application not a notice for Public Hearing.

Mr. Sokolich apologized for the confusion. He appeared on behalf of Jari Development. The property is 594 Summit Avenue, Block 2301.02, Lot 2. Mr. Nieradka and Mr. Danado are present to discuss this application. Mr. Danado is a licensed architect in the State of New Jersey. His client proposes to construct a single-family residence. PLANNING BOARD MEETING 6-1-05 PAGE 15

Mr. Nieradka discussed this application. This is an existing vacant tract. The applicant is proposing a single-family residence with a driveway, septic system and stormwater storage system for the site. Variances are requested for building height, disturbance within the steep slopes, wall height and for the location of the driveway with respect to the side yard. The site is unique. It contains a significant amount of steep slopes. In Range 1, Beginning at zero percent to 14.99%, Area 2,761.59, 5.62%, Range 2, 15% to 19.99%, Area 10,381.32, 21.12%, Range 3, 20% to 24.99%, Area 10,534.31, 21.43%, Range 4, 25% and above, Area 12,655.92, 25.75%, Range 5, King’s Pond, Area 12,815.86, 26.08%. With these constraints along with the requirement of a septic field to be constructed on this site, due to the fact that test holes were allowed in one range, we were restricted as to what elevations and locations we had for access. The partial site plan has been prepared at a larger scale. The allowable building height is 40 feet. We are requesting 43.87 feet, which is a height variance of 3.87 feet. The architect will explain this. We are requesting disturbance into the steep slopes based upon the fact that almost the entire site is within the steep slopes zone. A wall height variance is also being requested. As per Boswell’s review letter, they feel we should increase the walls along the right-of-way of Summit Avenue from a four-foot height to a six-foot height. That would be a structure in the front yard setback, which requires a variance. The driveway was shifted further to the west for safer access. This encroaches into the side yard setback for the driveway.

Mr. Sokolich stated that he understands that this is a preliminary hearing he did not know how much more information the Board needs.

Mr. Lauber stated that the location of the driveway at Summit Avenue requires a variance due to the fact that it is 10 feet from the side yard setback.

Mr. Sokolich will add that variance when he notices for the Public Hearing.

Mr. Bohrer asked, “Is the height variance from the original height or the constructed height?”

Mr. Nieradka stated that the height would be from the original grade to the highest point of the roof. The reason why we need the height variance is for aesthetics.

Mr. O’Brien summarized Boswell’s letter dated May 9, 2005. The secondary interior turning radius of the driveway can be increased to accommodate an entering westbound vehicle. The walls can be reworked to save the tree in that area. An on-site inspection and certification will be required for the walls. The application will require NJDEP approval for wetland L.O.I. and associated buffer. The silt fencing will require certification in its placement onsite prior to construction commencement. A steep slope analysis has been provided. The entire site is steep slopes except for the pond and a 2,762 square foot area along the west portion of the site. The proposed development requires variances for Category 1 for 75.8% disturbance versus 50% allowable, Category 2 for 67.8% disturbance versus 45% allowable and Category 3 for 31.8% disturbance versus 35% allowable. The pond and wetland buffer occupy approximately 24,840 square feet of the site. Several variances are required due to the fact that this site is restrictive.

Mr. Nieradka stated that the wetlands consultant has applied for the L.O.I. with the NJDEP. They are also filing for a wetlands buffer exemption. The adjacent lots have been granted a buffer exemption in 1996. If this is granted, there will be more area in the back yard for recreation.

Mr. Lauber stated that Parisi was the one lot. You can look that up if you would like.

Mr. Spizziri stated that Mr. Albigese was the original developer of this subdivision. PLANNING BOARD MEETING 6-1-05 PAGE 16

Mr. Friscia stated that the Board will schedule a field trip for this application.

The corners of the house should be staked.

Mr. Spizziri asked, “Why did you notice the Edgewater Municipal Utilities Authority?”

Mr. Sokolich stated that it may have been an extra label.

Mr. Spizziri asked, “Why did you notice the EPA?”

Mr. Sokolich stated that he did not know. We have a standard list of utilities.

Mr. White stated that there is a 36” Oak tree on the wetlands buffer. He suggested that the applicant be given a variance to permit the building of a wall higher than four feet to save this tree. A silt fence should be installed to define the trees that will be removed. The soil stockpile should be in a location where the trees will not be damaged.

Mr. Nieradka stated that we may be able to modify the driveway to save that tree.

A motion to schedule a field trip on Wednesday, June 8, 2005 at 6:30 PM (you should park on Knollwood) was moved by Mr. Pullaro and seconded by Mr. Lauber. All in favor (aye).

This application will be schedule for the June 15, 2005 meeting under PENDING SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS.

FLK-2037 BERARDO/BECKER, SITE PLAN/SOIL MOVING PERMIT, 103 JASMINE COURT, BLOCK 1205, LOT 1.03 (PART OF CHT GROUP SUBD.)

Mr. Sean Mc Clellan, the engineer was present. Mr. Lauber stated that there are two applications on the agenda. The second course of pavement is not on the roadway cul-de-sac. Only one application should be allowed to proceed or they can be approved subject to that course being done.

Mr. Spizziri stated that the developer has posted the bonds and a Developer’s Agreement is in place. The procedure is that as long as the base course is in the engineer does not want the top course or final course installed until all construction on these lots is completed.

Mr. O’Brien summarized Boswell’s letter dated May 25, 2005. The applicant is proposing a two story dwelling with attached garage, a basement, front entrance porch and eastern side yard access walkway. Board of Health preliminary approval was received for the septic disposal system. Nine trees are noted for removal. A Tree Removal Permit is required. The allowable roof ridge elevation is 481.5. The proposed roof ridge elevation is 481.5. A steep slope analysis has been provided. The percentages of disturbance are conforming. The silt fencing placement onsite will need to be certified in location to ensure the protection of these steep slope areas. The existing 50” tree is located in the rear where regrading is proposed. This tree must be adequately protected during construction. The lot coverage is 24.94%. The home proposed provides for a 26- foot side yard setback on the southeast side and 27- foot side yard setback on the west side. The driveways’ circular pervious area is awkward for a vehicle backing out or onto the southernmost garage stall. This should be addressed. Runoff

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 6-1-05 PAGE 17 control has been adequately addressed with all impervious surfaces draining underground to seepage pits. Public water is provided for this lot.

Mr. Mc Clellan stated that the lower side of the driveway to the driveway land is 25 feet. There is room for a car turnaround south towards the street. Any damage to the buffer area will be restored to its original condition. There will be no grading in the area where the 50” tree is located. The property will be staked out to avoid a lot coverage problem. The roof ridge elevation is 481.5.

Mr. Bohrer stated that when you build the pool it will be on the wrong side of the construction fence.

Mr. Mc Clellan stated that the access to the rear will be on the right side of the property.

Mr. Friscia stated that you will be going through the silt fence.

Mr. Mc Clellan stated that either the silt fence will be removed or a gap will to left so that you can go through. There are no trees in the buffer area.

Mr. Lauber was not sure how they can tell the height of the house because he could not read the contours.

Mr. Mc Clellan stated that the existing contours will be shown on the plan so that they are more readable. Mr. White stated that the 50” tree is a huge Maple bush. The tree in the middle of the pool is a 21” American Chestnut tree. This tree is classified as “extinct”. The 24” Maple tree at the front left corner of the property should be removed.

Mr. Mc Clellan stated that the 24” Maple tree will be shown as to be removed. The pool can be moved to the right and to the north to save the Chestnut tree.

Mayor Donch stated that the applicant and engineers should go on record as to what contour they are working with to determine the building height.

Mr. Mc Clellan stated that the lowest existing grade will be shown on the revised plan with the other information the Board has requested.

Mr. Bohrer wanted the plan to show how they will get to the pool.

A motion to table this application to the June 15, 2005 was moved by Mr. Cobuzio and seconded by Mr. Lauber. All in favor (aye).

A revised plan is required addressing the concerns of the Board.

FLK-2038 BERARDO/GLUSHANOK, SITE PLAN/SOIL MOVING PERMIT, 105 JASMINE COURT, BLOCK 1205, LOT 1.02 (PART OF CHT GROUP SUBD.)

Mr. O’Brien summarized Boswell’s letter dated May 25, 2005. The Board of Health has given preliminary approval for the septic disposal system. Three trees are noted for removal. A Tree PLANNING BOARD MEETING 6-1-05 PAGE 18

Removal Permit is required. The driveway section indicates curbing but the plan does not indicate Belgium Block driveway curbing. The lot coverage is 24.39%. The applicant shall be prepared to testify to the pool improvements proposed. Note #7 should be changed to cite public water. Runoff control for the proposed dwelling and improvements is adequately addressed. With minimal side yards, the applicant must testify as to how trucks will access the rear of the property for pool construction.

Mr. Mc Clellan stated that the driveway will be curbed. The walkways will be staked as to the side yard setback. The pool will be as shown. It will not be any larger. Note #7 will be changed. The trucks will access the property on the westerly side of the property for pool construction.

Mr. White stated that the 14” Crimson King Maple tree can be removed.

A motion to approve the Site Plan/Soil Moving Permit for this application subject to the submission of a revised plan showing Note #7 changed to public water was moved by Mayor Donch and seconded by Mr. Conte. Mr. Lauber asked Mr. White to work with the applicant to see if that Maple tree can be saved.

ROLL CALL

Yes Mr. Bohrer, Mr. Cobuzio, Mr. Conte, Mayor Donch, Mr. Friscia, Mr. Lauber, Mr. Pullaro, Mr. Roberts

It was APPROVED.

Mr. Spizziri was authorized to prepare the resolution upon receipt of the revised plan and the review letter from Boswell Engineering.

VOUCHERS

A motion to approve the VOUCHERS as presented was moved by Mr. Lauber and seconded by Mr. Bohrer.

ROLL CALL

Yes Mr. Bohrer, Mr. Cobuzio, Mr. Conte, Mayor Donch, Mr. Friscia, Mr. Lauber, Mr. Pullaro, Mr. Roberts

They were APPROVED.

A motion to adjourn the meeting was moved by Mayor Donch and seconded by Mr. Bohrer. All in favor (aye).

The meeting adjourned at 10:30 PM.