TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH PLANNING BOARD
MINUTES
AUGUST 28, 2006
1. OPENING STATEMENT
The combined public/work session meeting of the Planning Board of the Township of Mahwah held at the Municipal Building, 475 Corporate Dr., Mahwah, N. J. was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Dr. Ross, Chairman. The Opening Statement was read according to the Sunshine Law followed by the flag salute and roll call.
These minutes are a synopsis of the meeting. A verbatim audio tape recording is on file with the Board Secretary at the Planning Board Office, 475 Corporate Dr., Mahwah, N. J. Copies of the tapes may be purchased for a fee.
PRESENT: Mr. Brotherton, Mr. DaPuzzo, Dr. Ross, Mr. Trent, Mr. Crean,
ABSENT: Mr. Jandris, Mayor Martel, Mr. Donigian, Mr. Rudolph, Mr. Sherer,
Ms. Richter
PROFESSIONALS: Peter Scandariato, Esq., Mike Kelly, P.E., Brigette Bogart, P.P.
II. APPROVAL OF BILLS:
8/11/06 Peter J. Scandariato, Esq. $200.00
8/11/06 Peter J. Scandariato, Esq. 400.00
8/11/06 Peter J. Scandarirto, Esq. 200.00
8/11/06 Peter J. Scandariato, Esq. 400.00
A motion to approve the bills was made by Mr. DaPuzzo and seconded by Mr. Trent. All voted in favor.
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A motion to approve the minutes of August 14, 2006 was made by Mr. Crean and seconded by Mr. DaPuzzo. All voted in favor.
IV. MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS
No Resolutions were presented.
V. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC
Planning Board Minutes
August 28, 2006
Page 2.
A motion to open the meeting to the Public was made by Mr. DaPuzzo and seconded by Mr. Trent. All voted in favor.
A motion to close the meeting to the Public was made by Mr. DaPuzzo and seconded by Mr. Brotherton.
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. E-BD-216-1972 – NICK UZEIRI, 5 ROBIN RD.
Paul Azzolina, P.E., 30 Madison Ave., Paramus was sworn in.
Kreshnik Uzeiri, 344 Linden Street, Mahwah was sworn in.
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing home on 5 Robin Rd. and construct a new single family residence. The Plot Plan is dated June 22, 2006 with a revision date of August 2, 2006. Mr. Azzolina stated he has prepared an amended plat dated August 28, 2006 showing a large tree to be removed in the proposed driveway area.
Mr. Azzolina stated the proposed dwelling will conform to all zoning regulations. The in ground pool and concrete patio are to remain.
Mr. Azzolina gave the total quantities of soil movement. The dwelling is 1,035 cubic yards and the seepage pit excavation is 65 cubic yards for a total volume of cut of 1100 cubic yards. Volume of fill is 111 cubic yards and volume to be exported is 989 cubic yards which is to be removed from the site.
Mr. Azzolina addressed the modification to the foundation drain which meets with Mike Kelly’s approval.
Mr. Azzolina indicated that the application shows no trees to be removed. The applicant wishes to amend this to read 6 trees to be removed. Mr. Brotherton stated that the applicant will be required to replace 2 trees. Mr. Azzolina presented the Board with the revised plans to show the removal of these trees.
Dr. Ross questioned Mr. Uzeiri as to the number of trees removed prior to this revision. Mr. Uzeiri stated that when he purchased the home he removed 9 trees without the town’s permission which has since been addressed. He then removed 3 additional trees with a permit. Based on this information he now has to replace 5 trees.
Mr. Azzolina stated that the applicant wishes to push the house back 5 ft. from the front property line.
Planning Board Minutes
August 28, 2006
Page 3.
The applicant agrees to comply with all comments in the Boswell Engineering Report dated August 18, 2006.
Mr. Kelly stated that the Revegetation Guarantee will be revised based on the revised plans.
A motion to open to the Public was made by Mr. Brotherton and seconded by Mr. DaPuzzo. All voted in favor.
A motion to close was made by Mr. Brotherton and seconded by Mr.DaPuzzo. All voted in favor.
A motion to conditionally approve was made by Mr. DaPuzzo and seconded by Mr. Crean. A roll call revealed 5 aye votes by Mr. Brotherton, Dr. Ross, Mr. Trent, Mr. Crean, Mr. DaPuzzo.
B. E-BD-216-1990 – AMB PROPERTY CORP., 750 CORPORATE DR.
Linda Herlihy, Attorney for the Applicant appeared before the Board.
The applicant proposes to replace the existing railroad tie retaining wall with new block retaining wall. Ms. Herlihy indicated that the applicant is seeking a variance for a 15 ft. wall height where 6 ft. is permitted and a waiver for slopes greater than 1V:4H. The applicant is proposing to create slopes up to 1V:3H.
Mark Seel, P.E., 16 Farm Rd., Chester, New Jersey was sworn in. Mr. Seel prepared revised plans based on Boswell Engineering’s letter dated August 8, 2006. Mr. Seel described the existing 3 tier wall and the proposed 15 ft. wall.
Mr. Seel stated the soil movement quantities as follows: Volume of Cut 5,450 cubic yards; Volume to be Imported 274 cubic yards of gravel for the drainage layer.
The Board members indicated to Mr. Steel that they were not in favor of one wall as opposed to tiered walls.
Mike Kelly stated that the benefit to having one wall is that you would limit the amount of disturbance going into the slope. They would not be disturbing the woods that have already been established.
Mike Kelly indicated that there was one issue that needs to be addressed. On the north side the proposed wall varies up to 14 feet. If this is approved Mike stated that at the time of construction they would need the property line marked out since they will be
Planning Board Minutes
August 28, 2006
Page 4.
close to disturbing onto the neighbor property or they will have to obtain an easement from the adjoining neighbor.
In answer to Mike Kelly’s comment, Mr. Seel stated that they believe they can build this section of the wall without disturbing the property to the North. An agreement can be put in place with the adjacent property owner to insure that if there is any encroachment his land will be replaced. Mike stated that he would need to see a copy of the agreement plus if any soil is to be disturbed on the adjacent owner’s property they will need to take out a soil movement permit also.
The applicant will have to put a 4 foot high fence on top of the wall.
A motion to open the meeting to the Public was made by Mr. DaPuzzo and seconded by Mr. Brotherton.
John Stolz, Esq. representing H. W. Baker Realty appeared before the Board. He asked if the applicant could explain the current limits of disturbance as they relate to the existing property line and then how far to the north those limits of disturbance would continue.
A motion to close to the Public was made by Mr. DaPuzzo and seconded by Mr. Brotherton.
A motion to conditionally approve was made by Mr. DaPuzzo and seconded by Mr. Trent. Mr. DaPuzzo asked that the Resolution state the reason for allowing the 15 ft. wall as opposed to the tiered wall is that it will reduce the limit of disturbance. Also the applicant must obtain a temporary easement from the adjoining neighbor or have the option to use the method described by Mr. Seel to insure that they will not have any disturbance on the adjacent property. Mike Kelly was in agreement with this. Mike Kelly stated that from an engineering standpoint the 15 ft. high wall can be designed to be this high. A roll call revealed 4 aye votes by Mr. DaPuzzo, Mr. Trent, Dr. Ross, Mr. Crean and 1 nay vote by Mr. Brotherton.
C. DKT. #495 & 495S – GRAHAM ENTERPRISES, INC. 184 FRANKLIN
TURNPIKE
John Spizziri, Attorney for the applicant appeared before the Board.
Mr. Spizziri stated that they have had several meetings with the Mechanics regarding the 30 ft. easement and the financial aspects of the work to take place in this easement. Mike Kelly requested an amended site plan application presented by the Mechanics in conjunction with what the applicant proposes, at their request, to do on a small portion of their property. Mr. Spizziri stated that the Mechanic’s attorney, Mr Trawinksi, indicated
Planning Board Minutes
August 28, 2006
Page 5.
to him that they would not be willing to undergo any cost for an amended site plan application to present to the Board for work done on their property. The Grahams are not willing to absorb the cost for these plans.
There was a discussion regarding this agreement. Mr. Scandariato feels this is a personal matter between parties. Mr. Spizziri indicated to the Board that if they insist on having a site plan for the Mechanic’s property they will not be able to move forward at this point. They will have to make amendments to their plan which would not involve any part of the Mechanic’s property.
Mr. Trawinski, Attorney for the Mechanics appeared before the Board. He feels there are no site plan design issues and there is no reason for them to have to incur any costs for a site plan application. Mr. Scandariato stated that if the 2 feet were taken away they could shift the driveway and still maintain a 35 ft. driveway. Mike was in agreement. The attorneys were in agreement.
Mr. Kelly stated his reasons for the Mechanics needing a site plan application. New curbing is proposed on the Mechanic’s property, there will be a slightly new traffic circulation, they will be creating additional impervious area and the lot coverage calculations should be confirmed to be sure they meet the current zoning requirements.
According to Mr. Scandariato, the Board does not have the power to not require a site plan. There is no way in the ordinance that the Board could give them any relief. Based on this, Mr. Spizziri stated they will come back with a revised plan.
Public Hearing will continue on October 9, 2006.
VII. ADJOURNMENT
A motion to adjourn was made by Mr. Brotherton and seconded by Mr. DaPuzzo.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m.
These minutes were prepared by Rosalie DeMartino.