Planning Board Meeting s2

PLANNING BOARD MEETING – JULY 19, 2006

Adequate notice of the meeting has been posted and published as required by law. The meeting will start at 7:30 PM and adjourn at 11:00 PM.

The Pledge of Allegiance was recited by all present.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT Mr. Bohrer, Mr. Conte, Mr. Friscia, Mr. Gostkowski, Mr. Pullaro, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Vierheilig

ABSENT Mr. Cobuzio, Mayor Donch, Mr. Lauber,

Jim Kelly, Boswell Engineering John Spizziri, Planning Board Attorney William Smith, Borough Attorney

Mr. Conte stated that the first fifteen minutes would be for Board Discussion. Mr. Pullaro has an item on the agenda regarding dosing systems vs. gravity systems. The Board received a memorandum from Marjorie Vanacore, which explains these systems.

Mr. Pullaro stated that as per Mrs. Vanacore’s memo either a dosing or gravity system can be used. The State Code makes no preference for use. This is contrary to what Mr. Rotonda told the Board at the last meeting. Mr. Nieradka said there was no preference. The dosing system comes up with a smaller footprint. He was wondering if during the review of the application and there are trees the Board would like to be saved we could suggest a dosing system for this purpose. This is good information for the Board. We should ask our engineer to advise us regarding these systems.

Mr. Bohrer stated that Mrs. Vanacore refers to three types of systems, which are gravity flow, gravity dosing method and pressure dosing method.

Mr. Conte stated that the next time an applicant comes in and wants to take down a large tree the Board will ask him to show all three systems to determine which one would be best to save the tree in question. Mr. Spizziri will address the Board regarding the drainage for Colonial Estates to amend the resolution.

Mr. Spizziri stated that when the Board approved the resolution for the preliminary subdivision plan in September of last year one of the conditions which is set forth on Page 13, Paragraph 7, “The applicant shall receive approval from the Borough Engineer for a stormwater plan for the drainage system that will serve the premises connecting across Colonial Road to Dogwood Trail into Upper Lake”. He has spoken with Kevin Boswell on this matter. He advises me that for reasons beyond the control of J & K Construction they are not able to run the stormwater into Upper Lake. It is his opinion that because of that fact this resolution should be amended by the Board to permit such drainage system that would satisfy the Borough Engineer. The initial proposal was to put the drainage into the pipes in the street.

Mr. Falconieri was present. He agreed with Mr. Spizziri’s statement. Mr. Spizziri stated that the Board should amend the resolution in that respect. He recommended that the Board make a motion to amend the resolution to change Paragraph 7 to a stormwater system approved by the Borough Engineer.

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 7-19-06 PAGE 2

The Clerk stated that the Board received a letter from Mr. Rubin requesting a one- year extension of approval be granted to September 7, 2006. She suggested that this could be incorporated in the amended resolution.

Mr. Spizziri stated that this can be done. The resolution of Preliminary Approval has a time life. The applicant has filed the Final Plat with the Borough. The Ordinance states that if a variance approval is not acted upon within the one-year time frame the approval is void. This has a Sunset Provision and it expires.

Mr. Pullaro stated that the resolution needs to refer to a drawing. There is no drawing because the drawing was revised to remove that detention basin. The applicant needs to revise that drawing to what it was originally showing the detention basin and that is the drawing the Board approves.

Mr. Falconieri stated that the Final Plat shows the detention basin, which is larger than the original plan.

Mr. Kelly stated that Boswell Engineering is satisfied with that plan. This plan shows additional storage, which should help further mitigate the future impact on Upper Lake.

Mr. Spizziri will need a copy of that plan.

Mr. Falconieri will provide a copy of that plan for Mr. Spizziri.

Mr. Kelly stated that by making the detention basin larger it did not affect the road, trees or anything the Board would be interested in.

A motion to approve the amendment to this resolution regarding a one-year extension of approval and the inclusion of the plan showing the detention basin was moved by Mr. Pullaro and seconded by Mr. Bohrer.

ROLL CALL

Yes Mr. Bohrer, Mr. Conte, Mr. Friscia, Mr. Gostkowski, Mr. Pullaro, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Vierheilig

It was APPROVED.

Mr. Spizziri submitted a copy of a land use case to the Board. The case was Gagnon vs. Mayor And Council Of the Borough of Point Pleasant Beach. The property was partially in a commercial zone and partially in a residential zone, which was not a permitted use. The Zoning Board of Adjustment denied the defendant’s application and the court upheld the Board’s determination as to valid pre-existing use of the property for a commercial parking lot for 25 vehicles. The Law Division erred by upholding the Zoning Board’s grant of a use variance for the owners to expand the nonconforming use to allow parking for 47 vehicles.

Mr. Conte stated that since some Board Members are not present he wanted to put off the issue regarding the Exposure of the Basements.

The Clerk informed that the Board that at the meeting for the review of the Rules and Procedures of the Board it was recommended that a Committee headed by Mrs. Vierheilig be formed to discuss the Exposure of Basements. PLANNING BOARD MEETING 7-19-06 PAGE 3

Mr. Conte felt that was a good idea.

Mr. Pullaro felt that since we have been putting this off for several meetings it might be better to have a Committee to review that issue and report back to the Board.

It was suggested that Mr. Lauber and Mr. Friscia be on that Committee.

Mrs. Vierheilig will inform Mr. Lauber of this.

Mr. Pullaro made a motion that a Committee of Mrs. Vierheilig, Mr. Lauber and Mr. Friscia get together on this basement issue and advise the Board of their recommendations. This motion was seconded by Mr. Gostkowski. All in favor (aye).

The minutes of the Regular Meeting of July 5, 2006 were presented for approval. A motion to approve the minutes as presented was moved by Mr. Bohrer and seconded by Mrs. Vierheilig. All in favor (aye).

They were APPROVED.

The Clerk informed the Board that we received a thank you note from Jane Pullaro. She read that note for the Board. June 30, 2006 To All The Members of the Franklin Lakes Planning Board, Many thanks for the beautiful bouquet you sent to me. The flowers are lovely and arrived on the fourth day of rain and gloom. What a bright, cheerful remembrance it was. I am doing very well and am recuperating on schedule. Thank you all so very much for your thoughtful gift. Jane Pullaro.

Mr. Spizziri stepped down for this application.

Mr. Smith stepped in for this application.

RESOLUTIONS

FLK-2168 STELIGA, REAFFIRM SUBDIVISION, NOT PERFECTED, 574 COMMERCE STREET, BLOCK 1404, LOT 11.07 Mr. Smith read the resolution. Mr. Steliga is the owner of Lots 11.02 and 11.07 in Block 1404. In 1994, he received a minor subdivision of lands known as Lot 11.02 in Block 1404. The total area of the lot consisted of 349,836.2 square feet. The subdivision resulted in two lots of 86,496 square feet and 260,913 square feet. A copy of the Site Plan Resolution approving the subdivision is attached as Exhibit A. In 1994, Mr. Steliga was granted a variance permitting the construction of a building on Lot 11.02 in Block 1404 within 40.39 feet of the front property line, rather than 50 feet as required by the Ordinance. The New Jersey Statute provides that the approval of a minor subdivision shall expire 190 days from the date of adoption of the Resolution. An appropriate Deed or Plat was never filed. The circumstances upon which the subdivision was granted continued to apply, and the applicant has submitted a subdivision application, which fully conforms to the present requirements, and does not require any variances. A building has been constructed on the property in conformance with the subdivision and variance granted. Mr. Steliga has requested that the Board reconfirm the subdivision granted in 1994 and the subdivision has been reviewed and approved again by the engineer and there were no objections raised by any members of the public. The applicant has filed a fully conforming minor subdivision application. It is hereby resolved that the subdivision creating Lots 11.02 and 11.07 in Block 1404 granted by this Board by a Resolution signed on May 4, 1994, a copy of which is PLANNING BOARD MEETING 7-19-06 PAGE 4 attached as Exhibit A, is hereby reconfirmed and the present application is hereby granted as a new subdivision, as described on the Plat entitled, “Minor Subdivision Plat Masterson Development, Inc. Lot 11.07 Block 1404, 574 Commerce Street, Borough of Franklin Lakes, Bergen County, New Jersey, revised through 7/12/06 and the filing of said subdivision Plat, in accordance with the requirements of the New Jersey Map Filing Law.

Mr. Kelly and Mr. Smith agreed that this is ready to be approved by the Board.

Mr. Pullaro had a question for Mr. Smith regarding the numbers on the plan versus the numbers on the resolution. The resolution stated 349,836.2 square feet. The plan stated 347,409 square feet. The 86,496 square feet and the 260,913 square feet agree with the plan. This plan was revised through 7/12/06.

Mr. Kelly stated that the larger number incorporates the Commerce Street area. The number reflects the original lot back in 1994. When it was subdivided two lots were created and the extension of the municipal right-of-way of Commerce Street was 2,427.2 square feet. He deferred that to Mr. Weissman.

Mr. Weissman stated, “I think that is correct”.

Mr. Kelly stated that this is the difference.

Mr. Pullaro felt that the explanation of the extension of Commerce Street should be added to the second paragraph after the number 260,913 square feet for clarification. He suggested that the Board approve this Resolution and have Mr. Smith make that correction. Mr. Smith will make that correction to the resolution.

Mr. Pullaro stated that the setback on the resolution is 40.39 feet and the plan shows 40.4 feet.

Mr. Kelly explained that the variance was 40.39 feet and the as-built shows 40.4 feet. Since it is greater than the approved it is satisfactory.

Mr. Pullaro agreed.

Mr. Smith stated that the reference is to the original approval, which is 40.39 feet.

Mr. Pullaro had no problem with that.

A motion to approve the resolution as revised was moved by Mr. Gostkowski and seconded by Mrs. Vierheilig.

ROLL CALL

Yes Mr. Friscia, Mr. Gostkowski, Mrs. Vierheilig

It was APPROVED.

FLK-2135 LONGO, MAJOR SUBDIVISION WITH VARIANCE/TWO SINGLE- FAMILY SITE PLANS AND SOIL MOVING PERMITS FOR THESE LOTS (PROPOSED LOT 17.01 AND PROPOSED LOT 17.04 AND FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT, GLEN PLACE, BLOCK 2709, LOT 17.01 (2ND HEARING 6-21-06 APPROVED) (1ST HEARING 6-7-06)

Mr. Spizziri summarized the resolution.

A motion to approve the resolution as presented was moved by Mrs. Vierheilig and seconded by Mr. Gostkowski. . ROLL CALL

Yes Mr. Gostkowski, Mrs. Vierheilig

It was APPROVED.

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Gilbert Wheless from the firm of Environmental Design Associates PC addressed the Board regarding a grass pave system. He represents a client who lives on the corner of Green Ridge Road and Old Mill Road. He showed the site plan with the driveway in the front that goes around the back. The reason for this design is that coming out on Old Mill Road is dangerous. We have a coverage situation because you allow 25% and we have existing 19% lot coverage. We will be taking some of the pavers out around the pool. He spoke with Ms. Tiberi and showed her a product that he would like to use. She suggested that he come to the Board to show you the material he wants to use. It consists of a gravel base, hydrogrow polymer fertilizer mixture, the Grasspave ring and grid structure, sharp concrete sand and grass seed or sod. Water goes through this product. This would be good for a fire truck turnaround. Your engineer felt that this was a good product. He asked the Board if this could be used to cut down on the coverage.

Mr. Bohrer stated that you propose this to be pervious coverage.

Mr. Wheless stated, “Yes”.

Mr. Bohrer stated that the Borough’s definition goes beyond whether it is pervious or impervious coverage. It speaks to whether it is developed or not developed. A gravel driveway is pervious but we count it as impervious coverage.

Mr. Spizziri stated that if that relates strictly to the driveway he did not know if it affects this.

Mr. Wheless stated that one of the reasons he wants to use this is that at the old driveway apron behind the garages there is a section that goes out to Old Mill Road. He would like to put this product in that area. This would be used for emergency purposes only. The water runs through this product.

Mr. Conte felt that this is a fantastic product. It can be used for the fire truck issue. The gravel driveway is considered impervious coverage. You need to prepare this and ask for a variance.

Mr. Wheless felt that this could be considered a hardship. It is very steep getting up the driveway.

Mr. Spizziri could not say if this is a hardship. If you are exceeding the maximum permitted coverage by utilizing this product, you would have to come in for a variance request. If you are not exceeding the permitted coverage, you can go ahead and do it.

Mr. Bohrer stated that he would need a new curb cut.

Mr. Spizziri stated that he would have to make sure there are no steep slope variances required due to the driveway. Mr. Wheless stated that the product is 7 feet wide and comes in 30-foot rolls. You can plow over this product. He wants to create a courtyard for two or three cars to park in the front of the house.

Mr. Conte stated that parking is not permitted in the front of the house.

PENDING SITE PLANS AND SUBDIVISIONS

FLK-2168 BURLYUK, SITE PLAN/SOIL MOVING PERMIT, 276 GLEN PLACE, BLOCK 2709, LOT 4.01 (PART OF BARRETT HOMES SUBD.)

Mr. Robert Weissman, the engineer was present.

Mr. Weissman stated that this application is to construct a single-family dwelling. The site has restrictions on the limit of disturbance. Boswell’s letter states that the topography of this lot is not consistent with the approved subdivision plan’s topography. From his site inspection, it does not seem that anything was disturbed on the site. There is a hollow, which we plan to build up in conformance with the height. No tree removal is proposed. There will be a curb cut into the lot from Glen Place. Walls are proposed in that area to support the grade because the grade drops down. We do not require any variances. The drainage has been approved. The coverages are in compliance. There is enough room for a pool. He is aware of the Stop Work Order. He asked that the Board approve this application so that when the Stop Work Order is lifted they can commence construction.

Mr. Conte asked Mr. Kelly to comment on Item 11. of Boswell’s letter dated June 7, 2006.

Mr. Kelly stated that he reviewed the prior subdivision plan and the contours shown on that plan. We are not sure if the same datum applies. The prior plan used the 1929 datum. Mr. Weissman used the USGS Datum. Three of the four corners seem to be consistent between the two plans. The prior plan as opposed to this plan shows significant changes. It appears that there has been some grading on this property. We cannot verify if any trees have been removed as part of the grading operation. There might have been more adjustment in the steep slopes. If we had the original topography before us, the applicant would be performing a steep slope analysis. That issue has to be addressed and resolved.

Mr. Weissman and Mr. Kelly discussed the Preliminary Subdivision Plan versus his site plan. They both agreed that there has been a change.

Mr. Weissman stated that the front portion, which slopes down towards the road, is consistent with the original grading for the roadway. The center and rear portion of the lot seems to have been graded and filled in this area. The conditions on this lot are what was there when the survey was done.

Mr. Conte stated that Mr. Weissman’s drawing should conform to what was approved.

PLANNING BOARD MEETING 7-19-06 PAGE 7 Mr. Weissman stated that the site is what it is today. That is what he based his plan on. The original plan showed quite a bit of fill coming in to this lot. He thought this might have been done when they did the road. The site was graded. On the west side, no disturbance was done.

Mr. Conte asked, “Where is the area that is not in compliance with what the Board approved?”

Mr. Weissman stated that it would be the center and southerly portion of the lot.

Mr. Conte stated that it was not graded as to what the Board approved. He did not know how the Board should proceed.

Mr. Weissman stated that there are evergreens along the southerly property line. The southwesterly portion of the site has not changed. There was a riding area that was changed to some degree. There was a large amount of fill to be placed in the center portion of this lot. He was not sure if this was brought back to the original grade what would be accomplished. His client bought the property as it is and this is what we based everything on.

Mr. Pullaro asked, “What is the difference in grade as to what the preliminary plan showed and what is there now?”

Mr. Weissman stated that in the center portion of the lot there is three to four feet of fill.

Mr. Pullaro asked, “What was the first floor elevation shown on the preliminary plan for the house?”

Mr. Weissman stated that the first floor elevation was 348. It is now 352. There is a house to the west.

Mr. Pullaro stated that the Board set elevations for the houses on this subdivision. This house is four feet higher. Does this change anything else as we go down the road and finish the other lots?

Mr. Weissman showed the plan to the Board and explained it to them.

Mr. Conte was very concerned that this property was not in the condition as approved from the subdivision. He felt that at some point you have to draw the line and say you cannot do that. The property has been filled to three to four feet in the center portion of the lot. If you want this to be approved, you get to what was approved during the time of the subdivision. This is the risk the developer takes when selling a lot.

Mr. Pullaro agreed with Mr. Conte. The Board fights to get certain things done as part of the subdivision. We need something from Boswell Engineering on this.

Mr. Bohrer stated that they probably avoided a height variance by putting in four feet of fill. Mr. Weissman stated that they would not have been able to construct the original house without a height variance. They were starting at an elevation of 340. They were proposing to fill six feet of this area.

Mr. Pullaro felt that the Board needs a report from Boswell Engineering to tell us is it a bad thing that this lot was filled, will it affect the neighbor across the street or next door when it is built? What are the implications of their bringing in this four foot of fill and calling that original ground and working from there? PLANNING BOARD MEETING 7-19-06 PAGE 8

Mr. Conte suggested that the developer come in with a current as-built to address the other lots.

The Clerk informed the Board that this could be a problem. Mr. Boswell has written a letter to the developer, which states that the Borough will be pulling his bond to do the access road. The developer did not respond to Mr. Boswell’s first letter regarding this issue. It would be difficult to get the developer to respond to this.

Mr. Spizziri stated that from the time the approval was granted to the present time the issue of the Medco access has been in the forefront and Twinbrooks has totally ignored any correction or meeting of the Borough at all to resolve that. As a result of this, Mr. Boswell has written a Stop Work Order and is recommending that the bond be pulled to do the access road.

Mr. Pullaro stated that the resolution was not very clear.

The Clerk stated that the access agreement was cited in the resolution but it was not clear as to what material was to be used.

Mr. Spizziri stated that they represented to the Board that they would use grass pavers. He suggested that Mr. Kelly report this to Mr. Boswell for his attention.

Mr. Kelly will bring this to Mr. Boswell’s attention. He will ask that the top course be included in the claim.

Mr. Conte wanted to find out how this will impact the lot next door.

Mr. Weissman stated that this lot is lower than the lot across the street. The proposed first floor elevation is 352. For the house to the east, we are proposing no disturbance within 20 feet. The driveway for this house is shown close to what is shown on the preliminary plan.

Mr. Pullaro suggested that a field trip be taken to the site.

Mrs. Vierheilig asked, “When we determine the building height can we take it from what was proposed?”

Mr. Weissman stated that if you went by the existing grade we would be at 3.8 feet over the allowable height. Mr. Conte was concerned about the fact that the Board gave approval for the subdivision and changes were made to this lot afterwards. The Board had an issue with the slopes.

Mr. Weissman did not think that the flat area affects the slopes. The grades in the back have not been disturbed. The limit of disturbance shown on the filed map has been respected.

Mr. Pullaro made a motion for the Board to take a field trip on Wednesday, July 26, 2006 at 6:30 PM. He would like Boswell Engineering to look at this lot to see if the addition of the fill is causing any problems on the adjacent lots and that they compare this proposed grade with the existing grade that we had at the time of preliminary approval and tell us if there are any steep slopes involved or a height variance The motion was seconded by Mrs. Vierheilig.

ROLL CALL

Yes Mr. Bohrer, Mr. Conte, Mr. Friscia, Mr. Gostkowski, Mr. Pullaro, Mr. Roberts, Mrs. Vierheilig

A motion to table this application to the August 2, 2006 meeting was moved by Mr. Pullaro and seconded by Mr. Roberts. All in favor (aye).

Mr. Bohrer brought up a procedural matter. Under the Zoning Data, Mr. Weissman has lot coverage 25% and proposed lot coverage 12.53%. Since the Ordinance has been changed to 22.5% without a pool for lot coverage and 25% with a pool for lot coverage the engineers should be instructed to include the extra column to provide the lot coverage.

SOIL APPLICATIONS

FLK-2191 KRAMER DEVELOPMENT, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, 896 APACHE DRIVE, BLOCK 2101.11, LOT 2

Mr. Robert Weissman, the engineer and Mr. Gary Kramer, the applicant were present.

Mr. Weissman stated that this is an application to demolish the existing home and build a two-story dwelling. The adjustment regarding the amount of trees to be removed will be made to the plan. The septic system has been reconfigured to save the trees in the front. The drainage calculations have been submitted and approved. The lot coverage is 24.97%.

Mr. Kelly stated that there is no lot coverage leeway. There is no room to make adjustments for the pool.

Mr. Pullaro stated that trees will be removed at the septic location. Is this a gravity or a dosing system? Mr. Weissman stated that this is a gravity system. The actual reduction is a flow allowance of 1.61 square feet per gallon a day for gravity versus 1.33 for pressure dose whether it be pump pressure or siphon pressure dose. The pump pressure dose and the siphon pressure dose have the same size requirements. The gravity system is preferred. The square footage of this field is 1,260. The down side of a pressure dose system is the mechanical failure.

Mr. Friscia stated that the 18” tree by the pool equipment should be ringed. The 21” tree above the well should also be ringed. The 12” tree by the back of the driveway should be saved.

Mr. Weissman agreed with Mr. Friscia recommendations regarding the trees.

Mr. Pullaro stated that the pool has a patio on only two sides.

Mr. Weissman will work with the landscape architect to make sure this is watched. The dog run will be removed. The plan will be marked to show this.

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

It was APPROVED.

FLK-2186 BISONE, CONTRACT PURCHASER, OWNERS TILEY & WASHIENKO, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, 396 CRESCENT AVENUE, BLOCK 1207, LOT 24

Mr. Robert Weissman, the engineer and Mrs. Bisone, the applicant were present.

Mr. Spizziri stepped down for this application.

Mr. Weissman stated that this is a vacant lot, which backs up to Baker’s Long Pond. Two separate environmental experts have given documentation that this is designated as State Open Waters. There is a small wall that defines the State Open Waters. There are no wetlands associated with this.

Mr. Conte stated that this may have been changed. The County did a Cross- Acceptance Program of the Open Waters and the Wetlands. He worked on this with Mr. Lauber. He seemed to recall that this is now Protected Water.

Mr. Weissman stated that he is respecting the 25-foot setback to this as required by the State. The house and the improvements will respect the 50-foot setback. Tree removal is proposed. There is a 15” tree, which is dead shown to be removed. The 18” tree by the well will be removed due to the substantial grade change. The 15” tree by the septic field will be removed. We have tried to save as many trees as possible around the perimeter. The driveway has been located in the safest area to access the site. The cartway width is restrictive. A paver parking area is proposed in the front. The proposal for road widening within the right-of-way will require Mayor and Council approval. Mrs. Bisone had pictures of areas in town that have been done similarly. We conform to the height requirement. The drainage calculations have been submitted and approved. The parking area has been moved farther away from the bend in the road. This is a safer condition than what presently exists.

Mrs. Bisone stated that at 387 Crescent and 377 Crescent, one has parallel parking and the other has a spot for two or three cars so that you do not have to back out into the road.

Mr. Weissman stated that there are two tiered walls to support the driveway. The site is dictated by the constraints of the site itself and the roadway.

Mr. Conte had a copy of the environmental reports in the Planning Board file.

Mr. Kelly stated that Mr. Weissman has addressed Boswell’s letter dated June 28, 2006. The two-tiered walls, which are 8 feet, will require stability calculations and inspections. For the tree removal, five replacement trees will be required.

Mr. Weissman agreed to the replacement requirement. The steep slopes occur in the southerly corner. We are respecting that area.

Mr. Friscia asked Mr. Kelly to explain what his suggestion would be to the Mayor and Council about the proposal for road widening within the right-of-way.

Mr. Kelly stated that the concern was about the turnaround. If cars wanted to make a three point turn, would that be a safe maneuver. This would be at the point to be widened. Mr. Weissman had stated that the most practical way to do this would be to go past the parking area and make a U-turn in the next available driveway. It is practical for a condition like this to provide for off-street parking. Boswell Engineering does agree that this is the right spot.

Mr. Pullaro asked, “Do we allow parking on Crescent?”

A resident of Franklin Lakes stated, “Yes”.

Mr. Conte asked if the 16” tree, which is hovering over the walk, can be saved?

Mr. Weissman agreed to save that tree.

The Clerk asked Mr. Weissman what he submits to the Mayor and Council regarding the road widening.

Mr. Weissman stated that he would submit a copy of his plan and a letter to the Mayor and Council citing the reasons for this request.

The Clerk felt that the decision of the Mayor and Council should be given to the Board for our records.

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

It was APPROVED.

Mr. Spizziri returned to the meeting.

FLK-2197 WEISS, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, POOL, 230 ARBOR ROAD, BLOCK 2602.05, LOT 7

Mr. Weissman stated that this is an application for a pool behind an existing dwelling. The lot coverage is increased to 21.37&. We show a seepage pit for the drainage. The construction access will be identified. The zone data, the silt fencing placement and the correct block in the title block will be corrected on the plan.

Mr. Kelly stated that he has not seen the revised plan.

The Planning Board does not have the revised plan.

Mr. Pullaro stated that there is enough room for a walkway around the pool.

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

It was APPROVED.

FLK-2198 SCHEPS, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, NEW HOME, 310 HOBAR COURT, BLOCK 2602.11, LOT 4.01

Mr. Weissman stated that this is an application to demolish the existing home and construct a new home. We comply with the height and the coverage. The septic system has been reconfigured so that there is no tree removal in this area. A pool is not proposed. The lot coverage is 19.80%. Seven trees are proposed for removal. The 24” tree in the rear may be able to be saved. If it cannot be saved, we will comply with the tree replacement.

Mr. Kelly stated that the existing nonconformities will be removed.

A motion to approve the Soil Moving Permit for this application was moved by Mr. Bohrer and seconded by Mrs. Vierheilig. It was APPROVED.

FLK-2200 SOLIMENE, SOIL MOVING PERMIT, POOL, 771 COLONIAL ROAD, BLOCK 1304, LOT 6

Mr. George Solimene, the applicant and Mr. Louis Slaby, the engineer were present.

Mr. Solimene stated that he proposes to put a pool in his yard.

Mr. Slaby stated that the elevation of the existing deck where the proposed deck will extend will be shown on the plan. We were cautioned as to the pool, pool patio and pool equipment setback of 25.45 feet that there is limited leeway. He discussed the grading in the setback area. We are proposing a new septic system. In order to build this system, we would like to be able to grade in the setback area. This area will be topsoiled and seeded so that no one will know that the system is there. This is a modest system. He has tried to look into ways of avoid the encroachment into the 20-foot no disturbance buffer along the north side yard. The benefit of having this new septic system would outweigh the detriment.

Mr. Bohrer asked, “Could the system be made longer and thinner so that there is no problem with the grade?”

Mr. Slaby stated, “No”. There would be disturbance to the trees in the area.

Mr. Bohrer asked, “Are you showing any trees?’

Mr. Slaby stated that the initial plan showed the trees. No tree removal is proposed.

Mr. Conte asked, “Where would the trees that need to be removed if you elongate the septic system be located?” He did not think it makes sense to elongate this system.

Mr. Slaby stated that the trees are not shown on these plans.

Mr. Kelly stated that the site was checked to see if the trees shown on the plan are on site. There are no trees shown adjacent to the septic system. There are two nonconformities, which are the driveway and the shed. These nonconformities are deferred to the Zoning Official for research as to how this came to exist.

The Board agreed that it would not make sense to elongate this system.

Mr. Conte was not concerned about the driveway but he asked that the shed be moved to a conforming location.

Mr. Solimene agreed to move the shed out of the 25-foot side yard setback and the 20-foot no disturbance area.

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

It was APPROVED.

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

The meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM.