Township of Mahwah
Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes
October 21, 2009
TOWNSHIP OF MAHWAH
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
MINUTES
OCTOBER 21, 2009
The combined public/work session meeting of the Board of Adjustment held at the Municipal Building, 475 Corporate Drive, Mahwah, NJ, beginning at 8:04 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. Dator
Mr. Savino Mr. Kezmarsky
Mr. Rabolli Mr. DeSilva
Mr. Slot
ABSENT: Ms. Neumann Mr. Whiteman
ATTORNEY: Mr. Ben R. Cascio, Esq.
I. APPROVAL OF BILLS:
None to present.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. MINUTES OF AUGUST 26, 2009 (FIRST AND SECOND SESSIONS)
A motion to approve both sessions of the August 26, 2009 minutes was made by Mr. Slot and seconded by Mr. DeSilva. All voted in favor with Mr. Kezmarsky abstaining.
III. MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTIONS:
None to present.
IV. OPEN TO THE PUBLIC:
Mr. Cimis opened the meeting to the Public for general questions or statements. None
were received.
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. DKT. #1292-09 – ADAM JOSEF NOTARFRANCESCO
2 MARY COURT, BLOCK 20, LOT 2
This is an application for a C Variance to enclose a backyard with a 54” aluminum
Jerith fence. Property is considered to have two front yards. Front yard faces Mary Court
and back yard faces Campgaw Road.
Mr. Cimis swore in Mr. Notarfrancesco. There was a question on the notices being in order. Mr. Cascio later commented that all notices were in order. Mr. Notarfrancesco explained the application an stated his property has frontage on two roads. He described the 54” Jerith fence showing photos, and commented on a possible future pool. This fence meets the town’s pool code. His application proposes the fence be 14 feet from the property line and 20 feet from the road. The following was marked:
Exhibit A-1 Photo Board of proposed fence and existing property
Neighbors on both sides have existing fences. Mr. Notarfrancesco sloped the yard facing Campgaw Road to match the elevation of his neighbors. Mr. Notarfrancesco indicated he met with Gary Montroy, and there were no issues with the Jerith fence and a possible future pool. Mr. Notarfrancesco described each photo on the photo board in detail.
Mr. Cimis opened the meeting to the Public for questions. There were none.
A motion was made by Mr. Dator, seconded by Mr. Slot, to close the Public Hearing of this docket. All voted in favor.
B. DKT.#1284-09 – CHAI LIFELINE, INC.
1058 RAMAPO VALLEY ROAD, BLOCK 25, LOT 28
This is a continuation of the Public Hearing from August 19, 2009. Mr. Dator recused himself from this application.
Attorney present:
Marc E. Leibman, Attorney for the Applicant, Chai Lifeline, Inc.
William T. Smith, Attorney for the Objectors, William and Mary Grob, 1064 Ramapo
Valley Road, Mahwah, New Jersey 07430
Also in Attendance: Joseph Burgis, PP, Burgis Associates, Inc.
Mr. Leibman approached. He received a file, via an OPRA request, from the Building Department of all prior Building Department plans, permits and Board of Health information. The file is available to any Board or Public member. All documents are authentic. Mr. Smith questioned the documents. It was discussed that if any of the documents within this file are relied upon or referred to during testimony, the appropriate document will be marked. The file was given to Ms. Entrup, the Board’s secretary.
In reply to questions from a prior meeting, Mr. Leibman explained the oil tank holds 1,000 gallons. The well water pump was installed November 26, 2003, 160 PSI and 230 volts. The fuel tank is located in the ground.
Mr. Leibman called Mr. Richard Pelmadesso. Mr. Cimis swore in Mr. Pelmadesso.
Mr. Pelmadesso provides the maintenance services at the property. Mr. Palmadesso described the services he provides, such as clearing leaves and logs from the slew way under the grist mill as well as trimming trees/branches per Mr. Tom Mulvey’s direction and redirecting the outside lights. Mr. Cimis questioned who the caretaker is. The caretaker is Mr. Stewart Schoenbrun.
There were no questions from the Board.
Mr. Cimis opened the meeting to the Public for questions.
Mr. Marek Kaczor, 1052 Ramapo Valley Road approached. Mr. Kaczor asked
Mr. Palmadesso if he has any licenses (electric, plumber, septic). Mr. Palmadesso does not. Mr. Palmadesso indicated he has a Home Improvement License/Residential Contractor’s License.
Mr. Leibman recalled Mr. Matthew Jakubowski. Mr. Jakubowski was previously sworn in and reminded he remains under Oath.
The following was marked:
Exhibit A-7 Content of Zoning Definitions/Ordinances created by Mr. Jakubowski
Mr. Jakuboswki explained and described Exhibit A-7 as a timeline of the general zoning ordinance amendments through the years in the Township. The report focused on:
(1) Dwelling, One-Family, (2) Family and (3) Household. Mr. Savino questioned Controlled Economic Development Ordinance and gave his opinion on the history of this ordinance. A discussion ensued regarding the definition evolvement of family and household. Single-family use was also discussed. Mr. Leibman concluded his questioning of Mr. Jakubowski.
Mr. Savino questioned the Ramapo College date referred to. Per Mr. Dator, who was sitting in the Public, the college was chartered as a college in 1969 and opened in 1972.
There were no further questions from the Board.
Mr. William Smith, on behalf of Mary Grob, questioned Mr. Jakubowski on the R-80 Zone (residential district). Mr. Jakubowski explained other uses permitted in this zone. The proposed use is a single-family use. Mr. Smith continued asking questions about a single-family use. He compared the facility to a motel. Arguments began regarding residential versus motel/hotel uses. Mr. Jakubowski explained the differences between a motel and the Chai Lifeline proposed use. Questions and answers continued regarding the definitions of transient housing, family, transitional housing and boarding houses. Mr. Jakubowski explained his definitions of these terms. Mr. Smith continued questioning transient housing and boarding houses. Arguments continued regarding occupancy for a period of time, permanent residence and transient/transitional residency. Mr. Smith concluded his line of questioning.
Mr. Burgis questioned the definition of family and the words transient / transitional housing with regards to affordable housing. Mr. Jakubowski referenced the third-round rules, adopted in 2008, and a specific definition of transitional housing for the homeless. In the second-round rules, there was no specific term for transitional housing, but it was referred to in the alternative living arrangement’s definition. Mr. Burgis referenced the first-round rules under COAH, and transitional was not referred to. A discussion ensued regarding transitional housing. Mr. Burgis indicated the classic term of transient defines occupancy as less than 30 days.
The terminology continued to be debated. Mr. Jakubowski mentioned that there is definition confusion. He believes that this application is a unique case. Mr. Cascio questioned the governing body terminology of transient instead of transitional housing. Testimony continued regarding housing types (boarding homes, fraternities, sororities and the like) and transient housing as a separate and distinct type of home. Mr. Jakubowski indicated the potential impacts at Chai Lifeline are less than a typical dwelling as it is not occupied all year.
Mr. Slot asked why there is a discussion on COAH and commented that transient is a well-known term. Mr. Slot does not find the definition confusing at all.
There were no further questions from the Board.
Mr. Marek Kaczor, 1052 Ramapo Valley Road re-approached. Mr. Kaczor asked
Mr. Jakubowski if he did any analysis on the overlay of the permitted uses in the R-80 zone. Mr. Jakubowski described accessory uses or conditional uses in the R-80 zone. He did not look at any other districts. A discussion on the reference of overlay occurred.
Mr. William Krame, 58 James Brite Circle, approached. Mr. Krame questioned the property size. Mr. Jakubowski noted the property is about 4 ½ acres with woods.
Mr. Krame commented on conditional uses/principal permitted uses. Mr. Krame questioned the zone of the Carmel Retreat. Mr. Cascio explained why Chai Lifeline is before the Board. This is a two prong application: (1) level of interpretation as to whether or not the proposed application does fit within the municipal ordinances of permitted uses, specifically single-family resident use and (2) if the interpretation is to the contrary, they are requesting a use variance.
Mr. Edward Slade, 1068 Ramapo Valley Road, approached. Mr. Slade questioned
Mr. Jakubowski’s quantifiable basis on his conclusion that the impact of what is proposed at the retreat will possibly be less than the typical activities of a single-family dwelling. Mr. Jakubowski gave his reasons and his interpretation of how the property fits into the existing neighborhood, but there was no modeling completed. Mr. Slade questioned
Mr. Jakubowski’s qualifications, education and planning experiences. Mr. Cimis interjected noting Mr. Jakubowski was accepted by the Board as an expert witness.
Mr. Jim Ribaudo, 1050 Ramapo Valley Road, approached. He questioned if the distinguishing difference between a motel and Chai Lifeline is that no money is exchanged. Mr. Jakubowski commented there are a number of distinctions such as a hotel/motel has signage, advertising, money exchange, and banquet facilities. Hotel/motels are open to the public. Social workers bring their cases to Chai Lifeline and go through a process to be able to use the house. There were comments on profit versus non-profit.
Ms. Adrian Vas, 1056 River Valley Road, approached. Ms. Vas asked if the clients were familial. Ms. Vas mentioned that she has spoken to some of the people that have come to the retreat. They come from various states, are technically not related and come for short periods of time. Mr. Leibman addressed Mr. Jakubowski not to answer. Mr. Cimis noted the question should be directed to Chai Lifeline, not directly to Mr. Jakubowski.
Mr. Slot commented that there has been testimony that the people in the house are members of one family.
Mr. Savino asked what are the similarities of Chai Lifeline and an extended-stay facility. Mr. Jakubowski replied that he would group an extended-stay facility in the same grouping as a motel/hotel.
Mr. Leibman asked Mr. Jakubowski to clarify his testimony that the proposed use is less intense than an ordinary single-family use. The retreat is not utilized 365 days a year and there is a calendar of the number of people who stayed in the house, which is quantifiable. Mr. Leibman asked if there is a definition of transient housing anywhere in the Mahwah ordinance. Mr. Jakubowski replied no.
Mr. Smith questioned the definition of transient, again.
Mr. Cimis commented on Exhibit A-6. Mr. Smith has a copy and sent a response dated October 20, 2009 to the Board. Mr. Cimis asked Mr. Smith to provide Mr. Leibman with a copy.
Mr. Cascio indicated that the following signed certifications were received pertaining to this docket:
Mr. Kezmarsky May 6, 2009
June 17, 2009
Mr. Slot August 19, 2009
Future dates were reviewed. A motion to carry the Public Hearing to January 6, 2010 was made by Mr. Rabolli, seconded by Mr. Slot, with all voting in favor.
C. DKT.#1293-09 & 1293-09SP – AMERICAN TOWER, INC.
1000 MOUNTAIN ROAD, BLOCK 1, LOT 6
This application is seeking a D Variance, expansion of a non-conforming use, to place six (6) FAA antennas at 119’3” on an existing 150’ tower and to place related equipment at the base of the tower.
Mr. Dator rejoined the meeting.
Ms. Judith Babinski approached on behalf of the Applicant. Mr. Cascio commented that all notices were in order. Ms. Babinski described the application. She noted this is mandated by the Federal Government and is an act of Congress. Mr. Cascio indicated that the Board is familiar with the tower and the original approval. Mr. Cascio asked Ms. Babinski to give specifics of this request.
Ms. Babinski stated the original approval included a 150’ tower. Five antennas will be placed at 119’ and one antenna at 114’. The antennas are long poles that stick up.
Ms. Babinski called Mr. Glen Scherer, a licensed Professional Engineer. Mr. Cimis swore in Mr. Scherer. Mr. Scherer described the antennas. The pole size is 4-6” in diameter and are approximately 7-8’ in height. There is one antenna that is a paneling antenna that has the ability to extend approximately 18’, and is approximately 10” in height. Equipment will be put inside a building with an emergency generator at the base of the structure, which is 3x3x6. The generator will not fit inside the building.
Ms. Babinski called Mr. Richard Corpuz. Mr. Cimis swore in Mr. Corpuz. Mr. Corpuz graduated with a BS degree in electronics and communications engineering. He is a subcontractor for ITT and has been in the business for 14 years. Mr. Corpuz described the radio waves and indicated that there is no interference with existing cellular waves. The radio waves operate on 970 and 1090 megahertz bands. The property line setbacks are:
Required Proposed
Front yard 75 feet 90 feet
Side yard 50 feet 280 feet
Rear yard 75 feet 180 feet
Mr. Cimis asked what are the risks of radar emissions. There is minimal risk. Mr. Corpuz noted the transmitted power is focused up into the sky, not down. This is to cover aircraft only. The signals need to reach 60,000 feet. The lowest point is 4 degrees above the horizon. Ms. Babinski mentioned that this is being mandated by Congress.
There were no further questions from the Board.
Ms. Babinski asked that if this application is approved, can they apply for the building permit, although the resolution will not be adopted until next month. Mr. Cascio commented this is not up to the Board, but that word could be given to Ms. Patricia Puorro/Mr. Gary Montroy that this would not be an issue for the Board.
A motion was made by Mr. Slot, seconded by Mr. Rabolli, to close the Public Hearing of this docket. All voted in favor.
A motion was made by Mr. Slot, seconded by Mr. Rabolli, to continue into the Work Session of the meeting.
VI. WORK SESSION:
A. DKT. #1292-09 – ADAM JOSEF NOTARFRANCESCO