Township of Mahwah s2

TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

MINUTES

JULY 15, 2009

The combined public/work session meeting of the Board of Adjustment held at the Municipal Building, 475 Corporate Drive, Mahwah, NJ, beginning at 8:07 pm was called to order by Mr. Cimis, Chairman.

These minutes are a synopsis of the meeting. A verbatim audio tape recording is on file with the Board Secretary at the Board of Adjustment Office, 475 Corporate Drive, Mahwah, NJ. Copies of the tapes may be purchased for a fee.

PRESENT: Mr. Cimis Mr. Slot Ms. Neumann Mr. Whiteman

ABSENT: Mr. Savino Mr. Kezmarsky Mr. Rabolli Mr. DeSilva Mr. Dator

ATTORNEY: Mr. Ben R. Cascio, Esq.

I. APPROVAL OF BILLS:

6/3/09; 6/17/09 $400.00 Ben R. Cascio, Esq. – Attendance Two meetings, 6/3/09 & 6/17/09

Period – June 2009 $175.50 Ben R. Cascio, Esq. – Services Rendered, Docket #1269-08, (Filippone)

A motion to approve was made by Ms. Neumann and seconded by Mr. Whiteman. A roll call revealed 4 aye votes by Mr. Cimis, Ms. Neumann, Mr. Slot and Mr. Whiteman.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:

A. MINUTES OF JUNE 17, 2009

Mr. Cimis referenced Page 9, the paragraph beginning with Mr. Jim Ribaudo, and asked that the word ‘not’ be added in the third line to read, “… it’s (sic) not

1 Township of Mahwah Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes July 15, 2009

unreasonable to want to know who the people are.” A motion to approve was made by Mr. Whiteman and seconded by Mr. Slot. All voted in favor.

III. MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:

A. DKT#1158-05 – PRESTIGE TOYOTA, BLOCK 65, LOT 1, 16 McKEE DRIVE

Resolution granting the request of Prestige Toyota that the original Resolution of Approval dated August 17, 2005 be modified to indicate mechanical or hand car wash and that it remains limited to customer vehicles only and not to the general public for adoption.

A motion to approve was made by Mr. Slot and seconded by Mr. Whiteman, with one change on Page 3, adding ‘being serviced’ within the sentence, “… to permit the mechanical washing of customer vehicles being serviced and inventory in lieu of hand washing only,…” A roll call vote of members eligible revealed 2 aye votes by Mr. Slot and Mr. Whiteman.

IV. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:

Mr. Cimis opened the meeting to the Public for questions or statements. None were received.

V: PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A. DKT#1269-08 – PHILIP FILIPPONE, MIDVALE MOUNTAIN ROAD, BLOCK 1, LOT 154

This is a continuation of the Public Hearing from July 1, 2009.

Attorney present:

Mr. Robert Zisgen, Attorney for the Objector, Mr. Venusti

Also present:

Mr. Matthew Fox, Engineer for the Applicant, Mr. Filippone

Mr. Zisgen opened by referencing photos previously marked as OV-13, 1 - 12 and OV-13, A – E. He stated it was requested at the last meeting he furnish copies of these photos. Although Mr. Zisgen mailed copies of the photos by certified mail to Mr. Filippone, Mr. Filippone did not receive them prior to this evening’s

meeting. Mr. Zisgen furnished a set of photos to Mr. Filippone and Mr. Fox so they are prepared to cross examine Mr. Ashbahian.

Mr. Michael Kelly and Mr. Thomas Dillon were in attendance. Mr. Zisgen asked to interrupt Mr. Ashbahian’s testimony and proceed with Mr. Kelly.

For the record, Mr. Cimis asked to make note he was not in attendance at the July 1 meeting but it is his intention to listen to the audio CD. Mr. Zisgen stated he has a transcript. Mr. Cimis will pick up a copy of this transcript from Mr. Zisgen.

Mr. Zisgen called Mr. Michael Kelly. Mr. Cimis swore in Mr. Kelly. Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Kelly to introduce himself and state his position. Mr. Kelly is a professional engineer in the State of New Jersey. He represents Boswell Engineering and is the Mahwah Township Engineer for the Township of Mahwah Planning Board and Zoning Board. He has held this position since July 1, 1999.

Mr. Zisgen referred to Mr. Kelly’s letter dated December 4, 2008. Mr. Zisgen noted the second paragraph of the letter, which reads, “The Applicant proposes to construct a 12-foot wide access road to a 40-foot radii cul-de-sac. A driveway from the cul-de-sac would then lead to the proposed dwelling. Approximately 465 feet of the access road is located within access easement across Lot 152.03 in Block 1. The remaining 265 feet and cul-de-sac bulb are located on Lot 154 in Block 1 (the applicant’s property).” This paragraph is Mr. Kelly’s opinion in terms of describing the proposed pavement which leads from Midvale Mountain Road up to the cul-de- sac with respect to its relationship with the Highlands Preservation area.

Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Kelly if he believes the Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS) apply to the proposed route stretching from Midvale Mountain Road to the cul-de-sac. Mr. Kelly does not believe RSIS standards would apply as the proposed route would be a private driveway. The RSIS states, under NJAC 5:21-1.5, letter F, that these rules shall not apply to driveways on private property held in fee simple as individual residential lots outside of the public right-of-way, including common driveways established by easements shared by more than one but not more than four dwelling units on private property. It is Mr. Kelly’s position that this would not be subject to the RSIS.

Mr. Zisgen read NJSA 5:21-1.4, which is the definition of a street. Mr. Zisgen also read the definition for a cul-de-sac, questioning the proposed route. Mr. Kelly stated the route is going to serve as a cul-de-sac, however, he does not believe it is going to meet the definition of a street.

Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Kelly several questions regarding the route and the route traversing two parcels of land. The route from the cul-de-sac to the proposed home site is a driveway on Mr. Filippone’s property and the route that stretches from Midvale Mountain Road to the cul-de-sac starts on the Venusti property and ends on the Filippone property. Mr. Zisgen referenced Mr. Kelly’s letter dated September 8, 2008 where a line item stated ‘a waiver from RSIS should be

requested.” Mr. Zisgen asked if this was erroneous. Mr. Kelly answered that it was. Mr. Kelly noted it was put on the record April 15, 2009 by the Chairman that a discussion was held that day regarding this matter. Mr. Kelly indicated to the Chairman that his previous comment in his letter was incorrect. It is his belief that this driveway is not subject to the RSIS requirements.

Questions and answers continued. Mr. Kelly mentioned these pieces of properties are located within the Highlands Preservation area. In a guide titled, A Municipal Role to Implementing the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, provided by the Highlands Council, Page 5 of the guide discusses access roads. Mr. Kelly believes the Highlands Commission would view the proposed route as an access road.

The maximum grade for a road was discussed. Mr. Zisgen referenced OV-7, NJSA 5:21-4.19 A2. Mr. Zisgen read a section and asked Mr. Kelly if he agreed that the maximum grade allowed for any roadway in the State of New Jersey is 16%. Mr. Kelly agreed.

Mr. Zisgen referred to the C-200 Zone, and believes there is a requirement that an applicant submit an Environmental Impact Study with the development in a C-200 Zone. Mr. Zisgen read from Mr. Kelly’s letter dated September 8, 2008, Page 3, Item E, regarding the submission of an EIS for any application in the conservation zone that requires a permit or approval from the Township. Mr. Zisgen noted the same text appeared on Page 2, Paragraph E, 2E, in Mr. Kelly’s letter from November. Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Kelly if he would endorse or recommend the waiver of the EIS requirement given that the project involves two separate parcels in two separate names. Mr. Kelly replied that in his opinion, he does not think the requirement or submission of an EIS would be more important due to the involvement of two properties. It is up to the Board to decide if that waiver should be granted.

Mr. Zisgen continued his line of questioning on the EIS waiver. He asked Mr. Kelly that given the circumstances of the C-200 Zone, the Highlands Preservation, the involvement of two properties, the extent of disturbance, and the extent of additional impervious area to be created, is waiving the requirement appropriate. Mr. Kelly indicated that he does not have an opinion and again stated it’s up to the Board to decide.

Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Kelly if there would be any way to reduce the grade of the road that stretches from Midvale Mountain Road to the cul-de-sac and if so, how might that be accomplished. Mr. Kelly replied the grade could be reduced by winding the road up the slope, like a serpentine effect, going up to the cul-de-sac.

Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Kelly several questions regarding slopes. The plan calls for extensive 1:1 slopes, the municipal requirement is 1:4 and 1:1 is significantly steeper than 1:4. Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Kelly if he thought it would be possible to achieve 1:1 slopes given the existing topography and the probable subsurface soil

and rock conditions. Mr. Kelly indicated for a 1:1 slope, it would have to be a rock condition. He stated he is not in a position to give potential odds for a 1:1 slope. It would depend on what is found during construction. If there is more soil, the limit of disturbance may increase; if there is more rock, it may decrease the limit of disturbance. Mr. Kelly repeated it is going to depend on what is found during construction.

Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Kelly several questions regarding fire department equipment. Mr. Kelly confirmed his testimony is he completed no independent calculations to determine whether or not a particular fire engine, Model TE70DA (the tanker pumper) can make the maneuver from Midvale Mountain Road into the driveway without bottoming out. Also, no calculations were performed to tell if the fire engine would bottom out while exiting the roadway on to Midvale Mountain Road.

Mr. Zisgen indicated in prior testimony, Mr. Fox and Mr. Filippone testified they did not think it would be necessary to engage in any blasting in order to build the access road. Per Mr. Zisgen, they are going to accomplish the construction through the use of a hydraulic chipper. Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Kelly if he thought this was possible and economically feasible time wise. Mr. Kelly replied it’s possible and probably economically if you were just going to remove a piece of rock. Mr. Zisgen continued asking about blasting mentioning a 25-foot high and wide section of rock and does it become more practical to use dynamite to blow it up and then cart away the pieces as opposed to chipping. Mr. Kelly noted he is not a blasting expert but either could be used to move the rock. He also commented it would probably be quicker to blast it, but he could not say for sure.

Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Kelly if the application meets the Mahwah soil management ordinance requirements. Mr. Kelly indicated the Applicant requires a waiver for creating slopes up to 1:4, and he doesn’t believe the Applicant requires any other waivers from the town’s soil ordinance. Mr. Zisgen referred to Chapter 28-2B6 of the Code Book, #7, regarding present and proposed surface water drainage and means of control of same. The Applicant’s engineer shall also demonstrate and provide certification that there shall be no increase in the rate of storm water runoff as a result of the application. Mr. Zisgen mentioned Mr. Fox previously testified that the construction of this project would result in a negligible increase in surface water runoff. Mr. Kelly agrees that the ordinance requires zero increase and the Applicant would have to meet this requirement.

There are a total of 12 requirements of 28-2B. Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Kelly if he reviewed them all and he replied yes, and he believes the Application is in compliance. Mr. Zisgen inquired about Item #12 – which he believes contemplates the Applicant submit his plan to Bergen County Soil Conservation District. Mr. Kelly indicated this type of development as proposed would require Bergen County Soil Conservation District approval.

Mr. Zisgen concluded his questioning of Mr. Kelly. There were no questions from the Board.

Mr. Fox referenced Section 5:21-4.14 of the RSIS, street hierarchy, specifically a rural residential lane with average daily trips of 200 cars per day, the smallest classification under RSIS. Referencing Section 5:21-4.3, under table 4.1, 10.1 trips per day are generated by a single family detached dwelling.

Through further testimony regarding slopes, Mr. Kelly stated a 1:1 rock slope, without any vegetation on it, could be created stable but a 1:1 slope of soil most likely would be difficult to stabilize. Mr. Fox noted that the 21 % slope is for a very short distance (about 65 feet) and the majority of the driveway is 18%. Mr. Kelly agreed this was fair to say. The entire driveway is not at a 21% slope.

Per Mr. Fox, with regards to permanent soil erosion and sediment control measures, if the Board approves this application, it would be customary that the Applicant apply to the Bergen County Soil Conservation District for their review and approval. Mr. Fox asked Mr. Kelly if lowering the grade to 16% from 18% or the small stretch that is 21%, would that increase or decrease the amount of disturbance. Mr. Kelly replied it would increase the amount of disturbance.

Mr. Fox had no further questions for Mr. Kelly.

On redirect, Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Kelly if he approved this plan or certify that it was ready for review by this Board. Mr. Kelly replied he did not approve this application.

Mr. Zisgen had no further questions for Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Cimis addressed Mr. Zisgen asking for clarification for the water runoff requirement. Mr. Fox addressed Mr. Cimis asking if he could ask Mr. Kelly one more question. Mr. Fox proceeded clarifying an earlier statement made by Mr. Zisgen regarding runoff. Mr. Fox/Mr. Filippone’s testimony was that the runoff directed to Mr. Venusti’s property (the rear of the dwelling), would be imperceptible based on the small increase in the impervious area which includes approximately 100 feet of driveway. Mr. Fox continued stating the drainage area had been calculated as about 8/10 of an acre with a runoff coefficient of .35 and a rain fall intensity of 5.7 CFS. The peak runoff was 1.5 CFS prior to the construction of the driveway and 1.6 CFS as a result of the runoff which includes the driveway. Mr. Fox asked Mr. Kelly if he would consider the increase from 1.5 CFS to 1.6 CFS an imperceptible increase. Mr. Kelly replied he would consider this negligible.

Mr. Zisgen addressed Mr. Cimis referring to Exhibit OV-11, 28-2B7, the second sentence – “the applicant’s engineer shall also demonstrate and provide certification that there shall be no increase in the rate of storm water runoff as a result of the application.” Mr. Cimis asked Mr. Fox if he saw any problem in achieving a zero increase in the rate of runoff. Mr. Fox replied he testified there was a 1/10 increase in the rate, but if their only option is to employ additional measures, it would be easily attainable.

Mr. Zisgen questioned a drainage study done by Mr. Fox and asked he be provided with a written copy. Mr. Fox commented a drainage study was done but is not required under the application. It was submitted to Mr. Kelly, and he reviewed it to be in compliance with the ordinance. Mr. Fox again stated his testimony was there is an imperceptible increase. It is not zero, but it was a diminimus increase.

Mr. Zisgen addressed Mr. Cimis declaring that in order for him to effectively cross examine the 1.5 to 1.6 CFS testimony, he needs to know how the Applicant arrived at the calculation. Questioning and clarification followed by Mr. Cimis, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Filippone, Mr. Cascio and Mr. Fox regarding run off. Mr. Kelly’s recommendation would be that a drainage study or calculations be provided to demonstrate that there is no increase in rate of runoff as part of the project improvements.

Mr. Fox argued that the additional runoff is originated on Mr. Venusti’s property as a result of the Applicant crossing his property with a driveway. Any storm water management devices would have to be installed on Mr. Venusti’s property, which would increase the amount of disturbance. Mr. Fox mentioned the Applicant was ordered by Judge Contillo on where the road is to be located. Mr. Cimis asked if the proposed impervious surfaces on portions of the driveway could be altered. Mr. Fox replied yes. A discussion followed on descriptions of a porous pavement and concrete block that is buried and filled with soil. Mr. Cimis asked Mr. Fox to provide Mr. Kelly with calculations demonstrating that there is no increase in rate of runoff with respect to the improvements proposed for this project including the road that traverses Mr. Venusti’s property.

Conversations continued regarding water runoff. Mr. Cascio stated the ordinance is very clear - zero increase in runoff, period – no matter where it’s generated from. Mr. Cascio remarked there can’t be an increase in runoff anywhere along the property. The Applicant has to demonstrate that they are not going to increase the rate of runoff at all off the property.

Mr. Filippone addressed Mr. Kelly in regards to any collecting of runoff water. Perpendicular flow to a contour and flow as the contour changes was discussed. Mr. Filippone stated the length of any rain water on the driveway, no matter where it falls, will traverse 12 feet diagonally to the driveway to shed into the original ground. Mr. Kelly agreed if there is a 2% cross slope, as Mr. Filippone previously stated, the water would be directed off the driveway onto the adjacent land.

Mr. Fox interjected to clarify. The Applicant is trying to convey that as a result of the proposed driveway configuration, with a 2% cross slope, the waters are shed from the center of the road to the gutter. Based on the design, the drainage patterns are not changing for any of the flows that are upland of Mr. Venusti’s property. There will be a diminimus increase for the water flow that is directly tributary for 100 feet behind Mr. Venusti’s house, but the drainage patterns are unchanged. Mr. Kelly agreed but wants to see documentation that with the 2% cross slope, there is going to be no increase in rate of runoff as part of the improvements.

Mr. Cascio stated from a legal perspective, the ordinance says zero increase in the rate of runoff from the property. Whatever is done on the site, there will be no increase in the rate of runoff on to the adjoining properties. Discussions continued regarding the ordinance. Mr. Fox noted this is a unique site. It is not like many other properties in town that the regulations were written for and regulate. The literal law of this regulation would cause undue hardship on Mr. Filippone.

Mr. Zisgen again referred to Exhibit OV-11 and read the section with plan requirements. In #7, it states ‘the applicant’s engineer shall also demonstrate and provide certification that there shall be no increase in the rate of storm water runoff as a result of the application.” Mr. Cascio replied, ‘runoff to where?” Arguments continued as to the interpretation of the ordinance. Mr. Cascio continued stating what the Applicant has to do is show that whatever is done on his property is not going to increase the rate of runoff on the adjoining property, and whatever he does on the Venusti’s property is not going to increase the runoff onto adjoining properties. Mr. Kelly also clarified this point.

Mr. Zisgen called Mr. Thomas Dillon. Mr. Cimis swore in Mr. Dillon. Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Dillon what his job title is in town. Mr. Dillon is the Fire Official for Fire Prevention and he is the Fire Sub-Code Official for the Construction Department for the Township of Mahwah. Mr. Dillon confirmed he has been reviewing site plans like the subject hearing for two years. He is certified by the State of New Jersey as a Fire Sub-Code Official for reviewing plans and also has on-the-job training prior to his appointment.

Mr. Zisgen brought to Mr. Dillon’s attention a memo dated October 9, 2008 where he asked the Applicant’s Engineer, Mr. Fox, to make certain changes to the proposal. Certain modifications to the plan occurred per Mr. Klein’s letter dated October 22, 2008. Mr. Dillon testified he relied upon the Applicant’s engineer to determine if the Model TE70DA pumper/tanker fire truck will be able to enter the driveway. There were arguments with the terminology of access road versus driveway. Mr. Dillon also testified he relied on the Applicant’s engineer on whether this pumper could make the transition from the 5% grade to the 21.95% grade without bottoming out.

Mr. Zisgen questioned Mr. Dillon on standard Fire Department protocols such as what would happen if there was a structure fire at the home site. Mr. Dillon indicated that three fire companies would respond to a confirmed fire with close to seven vehicles. Mr. Dillon mentioned the tower ladder would not be able to access the site due to prior incidents on Midvale Mountain Road. The tower ladder is longer and heavier. In most incidents, a ladder unit without a bucket will be used for the residential section. It is most important to get as many pumper and tankers to the site to get the water source there.

Mr. Zisgen referenced Exhibit A-1, which was Mr. Dillon’s application review report dated November 10, 2008. It was checked approved with no comments. Mr. Zisgen asked what fire code, if any, in New Jersey provides jurisdiction for

Mr. Dillon to review a plan and require changes to a proposed new residential dwelling. Mr. Dillon replied he reviewed plans for the Board of Adjustment or Planning Board to give suggestions and to advise them of operating procedure of the fire department.

Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Dillon if he took into consideration the grade of the route that runs from Midvale Mountain Road to the cul-de-sac before he issued the application review report of November 10, 2008. Mr. Dillon replied that he had a discussion with Mr. Kelly regarding this. Mr. Dillon relied on Mr. Kelly to tell him whether or not RSIS standards governed the grade or slope of this driveway. Mr. Dillon’s training is this route falls into the category of a driveway.

Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Dillon if any of the fire vehicles had any problems ascending Midvale Mountain Road in the winter. Mr. Dillon replied not to his knowledge. Mr. Dillon explained the fire department vehicles have on-spot chains, which is a setup for automatic chains to fit on, spin underneath the tire to get out of the traction. Mr. Dillon confirmed that Company #2’s ladder truck with the bucket and the nozzle would have difficulty accessing the driveway.

Mr. Zisgen had no further questions for Mr. Dillon.

Mr. Fox asked to make one point of clarification. The driveway profile that Mr. Zisgen referred to as between 5% and 21% only refers to the driveway grade at the center/middle of the driveway. Mr. Fox asked Mr. Dillon if he felt that the site could safely be accessed to provide fire protection along the driveway with the creation of the turn-around. Mr. Dillon’s personal opinion is yes. Mr. Cimis asked if there are systems in which homes in remote areas can employ self-protection measures. Mr. Dillon replied yes, there are domestic fire sprinkler systems for homes.

Mr. Filippone clarified the approach to the site further and will have Mr. Fox provide a sealed and signed copy of the profile to Mr. Kelly.

Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Dillon about his reply to Mr. Fox’s question regarding the safety of access to the site. Mr. Zisgen asked Mr. Dillon if he took into consideration winter weather, such as the presence of ice, snow, or mud slide. Mr. Cimis interjected stating everyone on Midvale Mountain Road would be subject the same hazards. Mr. Dillon replied that his letter stated it is the homeowner’s responsibility to maintain his driveway. The fire service has dealt with different categories and emergencies and they do the best they can. They can’t predict what is going to happen. Mr. Zisgen concluded his line of questioning of Mr. Dillon.

There were no further questions from the Board or the Public for Mr. Dillon.

Mr. Cimis asked Mr. Zisgen if he has concluded his case. Mr. Zisgen replied he has not as he still has to finish his cross of Mr. Ashbahian, his continued direct of Mr. Venusti and his intentions to present Mr. John Joseph, who is a blaster.

Mr. Zisgen asked for the Applicant’s drainage calculation report and the access study (profile) so he has an opportunity to cross examine. Once the drainage study is complete, an application will be filed with the Soil Conservation Service and Mr. Fox will provide copies to Mr. Kelly and it will be made available for the application.

Mr. Cimis suggested to Mr. Fox and Mr. Filippone that they may want to think about the residential fire sprinkler suppression system as an added safeguard.

There was a discussion regarding the next meeting, and all agreed to carry the hearing to August 5, 2009, in the second position.

VII. NEW BUSINESS:

A. DKT. #1287-09-VARIANCE APPLICATION OF ANTHONY & CHRISTINE GUZIO, BLOCK 20, LOT 11, 50 SEMINARY ROAD, MAHWAH

This application is requesting variance relief for a front yard setback of 26.51 feet to erect a one-story and two-story addition with a covered patio for extra living space on property located in an R-40 (Single Family Residential Zone District).

Mr. Cimis swore in all parties: Anthony and Christine Guzio, and Greig Andersen, Registered Architect.

Mr. Cascio reviewed the application and all notices are in order.

Mr. Andersen explained the application request. The property is a corner lot resulting in two front yard setbacks. Mr. Andersen explained the proposed addition. To minimize the street encroachment side, the addition there will be one floor. Dimensions of the addition were discussed. Mr. Andersen stated they meet all the requirements for the building coverage and the impervious coverage. Mr. Slot questioned the distance from the property line to the paved street. Mr. Andersen believes it is 10 feet. Mr. Guzio stated they had a fence put up and recalls the fence was put up 10 feet off of Mary Court. Distance to the adjoining neighbor was also discussed.

Mr. Cimis commented that this property was subject to a prior variance, Docket #869-95, which was a front yard variance for an addition.

Photographs within the application were reviewed to determine the distance from Mary Court to the Applicant’s fence.

There were no further questions from the Board.

Mr. Andersen summarized. Mr. Cascio asked what the height of the addition is. Mr. Andersen replied 26.5 feet. Mr. Cimis explained the Resolution phase. Mr. Andersen 10 Township of Mahwah Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes July 15, 2009

noted that on the zoning schedule the lot size is incorrectly noted as proposed 10,000 square feet. It is an existing square footage and the actual lot size is 29,600. Mr. Cimis asked Mr. Andersen to have this amended to the Construction Department.

A motion was made to close the Public Hearing portion of the meeting by Mr. Slot, seconded by Ms. Neumann.

A motion was made to move to the Work Session portion of the meeting by Mr. Slot, seconded by Ms. Neumann.

VIII.WORK SESSION:

A. DKT. #1287-09-VARIANCE APPLICATION OF ANTHONY & CHRISTINE GUZIO, BLOCK 20, LOT 11, 50 SEMINARY ROAD, MAHWAH

After a brief discussion, a motion to approve was made to grant variance relief for a front yard setback of 26.51 feet to erect a one-story and two-story addition with a covered patio for extra living space on property located in an R-40 (Single Family Residential Zone District). The motion was made by Mr. Slot and seconded by Mr. Whiteman. A roll call vote revealed 4 affirmative votes by Mr. Cimis, Ms. Neumann, Mr. Slot and Mr. Whiteman.

B) Mr. Cimis referenced an envelope received by all Board members by Patricia Puorro regarding the adoption of By Laws and asked they review.

C) Mr. Cimis reviewed a letter dated July 15, 2009 from Mr. James L. Lott, Jr., asking for two additional hearings prior to the end of August with regard to the Pilot Corporation’s application. Mr. Cimis stated there were too many Board members absent to determine if the Board could commit to two additional special meetings. Mr. Cimis asked Ms. Entrup to relay this information to Ms. Puorro. This will have to wait until August 5, 2009 for further discussion.

IX. ADJOURNMENT:

The meeting was adjourned at 11:06 pm by Mr. Slot, seconded by Ms. Neumann.

These minutes were prepared by Geri Entrup, Zoning Board Recording Secretary.