BRACCHITTA, BYRNE, ERICKSON, KUBISKY, ZAPF AND ZALEWSKI (ALT. #2) ALSO PRESENT: BOORADY, ENGINEER AND GREENE, COUNSEL (FILLING IN FOR LORBER)

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 2017 Chairman Byrne called to order the regular meeting of the Board and announced the meeting was duly advertised in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act by notice dated April 4, 2017 sent to the Daily Record, Suburban Trends and posted on the bulletin board and website at Borough hall. PRESENT: BRACCHITTA, BYRNE, ERICKSON, KUBISKY, ZAPF AND ZALEWSKI (ALT. #2) ALSO PRESENT: BOORADY, ENGINEER AND GREENE, COUNSEL (FILLING IN FOR LORBER) ABSENT: FOREMAN, WOLFSON AND DUBOWSKY (ALT. #1) Chairman Byrne mentioned the first order of business is the approval of minutes from the March 13 th, 2017 meeting. Mr. Zapf stated I can t vote but I have a couple of notes. Ms. Ward mentioned I figured you would. It s very hard to proof read your own work. Mr. Zapf stated I know it is. Typos aside which I don t think we care about, if you look at page 11 about three quarters of the way down, see the capital letters it should be NJDEP by Mr. Mianecki. Ms. Ward mentioned oh I see it. Any others? Mr. Zapf stated on the top of page 20 it says March 20 not page 20, everything else was just a little typo just in case anybody referenced that page. Ms. Ward mentioned got it. Mr. Zapf stated on page 22 is Mark Mantyla s name spelled right? He was standing in my driveway and I didn t remember that it had an l in it. He is going to do my flood elevation certificate. It says Mantyla not Mantya. Ms. Ward mentioned that s how it is spelled. Mr. Zapf stated okay. Ms. Ward mentioned it is Mantyla (M-a-n-t-y-l-a) that s his name. Mr. Zapf stated okay. Ms. Ward mentioned the members that can vote are Bracchitta, Erickson, Kubisky and Zalewski. Mrs. Kubisky made the motion to accept the minutes. Mr. Bracchitta seconds. Roll call: Yes: Kubisky, Bracchitta, Erickson and Zalewski (Alt. #2) No: Abstain: None None Ms. Ward mentioned they re approved. Chairman Byrne stated the next order of business is the consideration of a resolution for

2 Page 2 April 11, 2017 Amended Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan #339-A, Variance Application # (bulk/use) and Minor Subdivision Application #631 by 499 Pine Brook Realty, LLC and 521 Pine Brook Realty, LLC. This is going to be carried to the May 9 th meeting because the resolution isn t ready yet. The next order of business is Variance Application # (bulk) and Flood Plain Encroachment Application #FPE by Francine M. Chillemi, on property known as Block 120.6, Lot 2.4 on the municipal tax map, also known as 5 Caroline Terrace (complete March 7, 2017 decision by July 5 th, 2017.) This is a public hearing. Chairman Byrne asked what are you doing. Ms. Greene swore in Joseph S. Mianecki, Jr. Ms. Greene asked Mr. Mianecki to give his name and address for the record. Mr. Mianecki testified sure. Joseph S. Mianecki, Jr., 9 Midvale Avenue, Towaco, NJ and I m testifying tonight on behalf of my client, Francine. Ms. Greene thanked Mr. Mianecki. Will your client be testifying as well? Mr. Mianecki testified absolutely. Ms. Greene swore in Ms. Chillemi. Mr. Mianecki testified my client has an existing home and she is looking to put an addition on the right side of it as you are looking at it from the road. On the first floor will be a garage, a singlecar garage where none exists today. Currently there is a small parking area, I ll refer to my drawing, for the record it is the Site Plan for Proposed Addition to a Single Family Dwelling, Sheet 1 of 1, dated March 29 th, 2016, last revision #4 October 11 th, The house fronts on Caroline Terrace adjacent to the intersection with Pine Brook Road. We have an existing driveway area right here right where the proposed driveway is going and it just basically can accommodate like one and a half cars. You can basically pull off and there is no turnaround area you basically pull in and park. When you leave, you back out onto Caroline Terrace and head back out. So we have an existing home and we are putting this garage right here. The garage is generally 29 feet deep, a little over 29 feet deep and just under 18 feet wide. It is a single car garage. The garage floor will be at an elevation of 173 where the hundred year flood elevation is 176 and the DEP flood elevation is 178. The addition is adequately flood vented. We did receive our NJDEP permit by certification for this particular proposal. The second floor will be a home office for my client and the variance we are requesting is a front yard setback. Given the triangular shape of the lot, the lot is narrower at Pine Brook Road and then expands in width to be like pie shaped as you proceed in an easterly direction. We are seeking a front yard setback variance for this little triangular area right here which is the front of the garage, the rest of the garage conforms with regard to rear yard and side yards. Again, it is only the front yard setback where 40 feet is required and we are proposing 33.4 at its closest point. As you proceed easterly, it then complies by the time it gets to the right corner of the garage. It is only the little small triangular area that violates it. We are proposing a new driveway that provides for a turnaround so now a car can enter the garage, park inside and then back out into a little turnaround area and then pull out frontwards as long as there is not another car in the driveway. Under your Borough ordinance today it is a requirement that at least one covered space be provided and that doesn t exist today. As I said, we are going to be providing that so it will bring the site into conformance with regard to providing one covered space for a vehicle. As a tradeoff for that, we are asking for a very de minimis front yard setback variance to achieve that. The

3 Page 3 April 11, 2017 second floor addition is above the base flood elevation substantially, naturally it is 8 or 9 feet in the air so that would be well above the flood elevation. On my drawing we are showing the flood vents to show where the garage is going to be vented adequately, providing one square inch per square foot of floor area. We have a flood vent in the front, two on the side and one in the back so it is more than adequately vented. To mitigate the increase in impervious coverage because there is a very slight increase, we are proposing one dry well underneath the driveway right here which would be in the front, and to that we would be connecting all the leader drains from the proposed addition into that dry well. We would also be in compliance with Mr. Boorady s memo, we would depress it slightly to pick up as much of the driveway area as we could to further reduce runoff to adjacent properties or to Caroline Terrace. To compensate for the flood volume, basically the only volume that we are creating is the walls of the building of the garage itself, so to compensate for that we are providing or proposing a very small area of excavation on the northerly side adjacent to Pine Brook Road, carving out about 16.3 cubic yards right here to compensate for the addition. In all honesty that is pretty much it in a nutshell. Any questions? Mr. Zapf asked the garage that was closed in was on the left side of the house correct. Mr. Mianecki testified there is no garage there now. Mr. Zapf stated no but it was closed in. Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Mr. Zapf asked that was on the left side. There are just two, I think it is just coincidental lines that lead up to that corner of the house that looks like there could be a driveway there that is just a coincidence correct? Mr. Mianecki testified yes those are setback lines actually. Mr. Zapf mentioned sometimes when garages get closed in the driveway stays and I was just going to ask are there going to be three driveways? Mr. Mianecki testified no. We are going to leave the graveled one over here and then have the other one over there. Ms. Chillemi testified either way I mean I have no claim to the gravel driveway. Mr. Zapf stated it was the one that led up to the house, I didn t know whether it was an existing paved driveway that stayed. Ms. Chillemi testified the driveway that was built with the home entered into the rear of the home so there was a two-car garage with a rear entry. Mr. Zapf stated okay. Ms. Chillemi testified when the prior owners of the home built a family room they essentially took that two-car garage, it still exists under my home it s a storage room, but right now there is a family room on top of that so there is no way any car is ever going to go back there it is sealed off. Mr. Zapf stated it was the measurement lines that he had that looked like there could possibly be a garage there because the driveway is still in front of that garage section, but he explained that it is just measurement lines. Ms. Chillemi testified I don t understand what you are referring to where is says EOP here? Mr. Zapf mentioned where it says

4 Page 4 April 11, 2017 Ms. Chillemi testified yeah. Mr. Zapf stated okay that looks like a little driveway there and I was just making sure that wasn t. Mr. Mianecki testified Mr. Zapf thought that that dimension line was going to be a driveway going in that way but no it is not. Ms. Chillemi testified no that was never the case and it will not be the case. Mr. Zapf stated that s why I asked. Mr. Boorady asked Joe did you mention that the shed is going to be removed. Mr. Mianecki testified the shed will be removed yes. Mr. Boorady stated okay. I think you said four flood vents but it is really three. Mr. Mianecki testified oh I m sorry the other one is a man door, it is three vents yes. Mr. Boorady stated I just want to make sure. Mr. Mianecki testified three flood vents I m sorry. Do you want to go to Mr. Boorady s memo? Chairman Byrne asked any questions. Go ahead Tom. Mr. Boorady asked Joe would you prefer if I went through it, or would you prefer to go through it. Mr. Mianecki testified Mr. Boorady and I discussed it before the meeting, we are in agreement essentially with everything in the memo. If you want to go over it item by item that is fine. Mr. Boorady mentioned we don t need to go over it item by item I just want to highlight my letter, maybe paraphrase it so that we don t have to go through all of it. Mr. Mianecki testified perfect that s fine, I ll defer to you. Ms. Ward mentioned if there are any of them that you don t agree on, just mention those to the Board. Mr. Mianecki testified right. There is one that we discussed with regard to a window height which we would just like to have the option, it was under the architectural section, Item 5.j., we would just like to have the option to eliminate the window, to leave window in accordance with what Mr. Boorady wants to raise it up to be 5 feet above the BFE (the base flood elevation), or eliminate the window completely and then just center the garage door on the gable roof. We would like to have that option. Mr. Boorady mentioned the only reason for my comment Item 5.j. is the Borough code requires flood resistant materials up to the FEMA base flood elevation, or the NJDEP flood hazard area design flood elevation. Normally that is accomplished by using block or poured concrete walls so that if a flood event ever occurred in the garage, you are not damaging any sheetrock or siding materials. So the reason to elevate the window is really so you don t have to put the sill into the concrete so that the bottom of the sill of any window is above 178. We can work that out after the fact, the architect has some other corrections to make so the option to move the garage door is certainly agreeable. I don t think it would affect the variance or the architectural look of the building. Mr. Mianecki testified basically if you look at the architectural drawings on the left, you have an oval window on the front and then you have the garage door offset to the right, so we would just like to have the option to eliminate that round window if we want to and then just slide the door to the left to be centered under the gable roof and be centered on the wall that s all. In case when you are out there looking at it, oh I don t like this window it is too high or whatever you know. Mr. Boorady mentioned just to reiterate the variances that are being requested, the shed will be

5 Page 5 April 11, 2017 removed so any variances that were associated with the shed will be eliminated. The nonconformity of no garage or carport will be improved by the construction of a garage and the only bulk variance that appears to be necessary is the front yard setback to the corner of the garage. The bulk of the building will be conforming it is only a little triangle that needs a variance. Those are the variances in a nutshell, and a lot of my report is very detailed information about our Borough s flood rules that we have to follow to be in conformance with their CRS and our National Flood Insurance Program Rules. As Mr. Mianecki indicated, we discussed briefly and I believe just about all the comments, actually all the comments they ve agreed to revise and really it relates to a lot of flood notes. Several of them relate to the fact many of the notes mention the flood elevation of 176 and it really needs to be 178 which is the higher which is the DEP flood hazard area. So things like the air conditioner need to be raised up a couple of feet to 178 and that is going to be in the back of the garage and no one is going to see it, so that extra elevation won t be an eyesore or anything like that. The mason block will have to be brought up to 178 instead of 176, those kind of items. What I did in my report was really detail those out so that the architect and the engineer when they come for building permits or before the plans are signed by the chairman, secretary and myself, all those corrections can be made and there are no questions. The flood rules are met by the fact garages are permitted below the flood hazard area; your ordinance permits that, the DEP permits that and they ve already obtained a general permit by certification from the DEP, and the net fill requirements are being met. If you look at the northern part of the property, there is a crossed hatched area beyond the gravel driveway and that area is going to be lowered generating some volume to compensate for the fill generated by the block of the garage and the addition so the net fill is zero. For every cubic yard they are bringing in they are taking out a cubic yard so that part of the ordinance has been met. So there are really no variances from your flood ordinance so it will be in conformance with our flood rules and with FEMA s rules that we follow for CRS compliance. Chairman Byrne asked so that is a slope over in that corner over there where you are taking the sixteen cubic yards. Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Chairman Byrne asked is that just going to be hole that you are digging or are you going to smooth the whole thing over. Mr. Mianecki testified we can smooth the whole thing out we would not be creating a hole. Chairman Byrne asked where does the runoff for that go. Mr. Mianecki testified generally across the backyard across Mrs. Chillemi s property. Chairman Byrne asked past the wooden deck. Mr. Mianecki testified I ll show you. The water currently drains in this direction just like this, so it will continue to drain in the exact same fashion except it will be a little bit flatter so the water will have a little bit more time to seep into the ground or soak in. Chairman Byrne asked the garage is in front of the existing structure. Mr. Mianecki testified yes it juts out like 8.17 feet. Chairman Byrne asked is there any possibility of moving it back. Mr. Mianecki testified the reason why I didn t, and correct me if I m wrong Francine, there is a cellar entrance right here so they are going to maintain that. See where is say CE in the back left corner of the garage, they want to maintain that cellar entrance so that they have the ability to go from the garage into the basement.

6 Page 6 April 11, 2017 Chairman Byrne stated oh all right. How long is the garage? Mr. Mianecki testified it is 29.3 feet deep. Chairman Byrne mentioned it is long all right. Mr. Mianecki testified the jut out in the front is what gives it character so it s not like one big blank façade. Chairman Byrne stated yeah, I mean you are 6 feet off or 6½ feet off so I was just wondering but that makes sense about the 7 inches. Is the impervious coverage good and we have no issues with that? Are we even close or no? Mr. Mianecki asked to exceeding. Chairman Byrne stated yeah what s the total? Mr. Mianecki testified we are in compliance. Mr. Boorady stated 500 square feet to play with maybe. Chairman Byrne mentioned you re good. Mr. Boorady stated I m sorry less than that. You are almost at the max you are 24½% and you are allowed 25 so you are close. Mr. Mianecki testified we only have like a hundred more feet not much. Mr. Boorady mentioned yeah. Chairman Byrne asked and you are removing some of that stone walkway in the front right to meet up with the driveway. Mr. Mianecki testified yes. The wooden deck is remaining, the front paving stone walkway will be modified, like you said we have a dry well. Chairman Byrne asked are any of the drains now going to be tied into the dry well, or do the existing ones go out on the property and just the addition is being tied in. Mr. Mianecki testified the existing ones will remain as they are, all the new roof drains for the proposed addition will all go into the dry well. Chairman Byrne asked where do the ones that exist now drain are they all over. Mr. Mianecki testified I think they are just on splash pads to grade. Mrs. Chillemi asked are you talking about the gutters/leaders they just go down to the ground yeah. Chairman Byrne stated all right. Anyone from the Board have any questions? Mr. Zapf stated it seems like an improvement to me and it actually brings the house into compliance with zoning. Chairman Byrne stated yeah. Mr. Boorady mentioned if I could just sum up a couple of other things really quickly. Item #1 on page 4 of my report, the home office meets with the Borough code and what do you plan on doing in the home office? Mrs. Chillemi testified I work mostly from home but I do have an office in Cranford. I work mostly

7 Page 7 April 11, 2017 from home and I have the office for when I need to meet people. Mr. Boorady mentioned it is a home office for personal use not necessarily you are receiving clients? Mrs. Chillemi testified I will not be receiving anyone in my home because I do not want anybody in my house, I will be going to Cranford to meet with them. Mr. Boorady stated okay. Then Item 5.k. there were flood vents put in the addition that the prior owners did, would you have any objection to retrofitting those with current flood vents because what is on there now is just some chicken wire and the modern flood vents allow debris and water to flow in and out better. Mrs. Chillemi asked are we speaking underneath the addition on the left hand side. Mr. Boorady mentioned you have flood vents there now that were required to be put in but they really don t meet the standards. Mrs. Chillemi testified they are just basically holes like a little grate right? Mr. Boorady stated yeah but the ones that your engineer shows for your new addition -- Mr. Mianecki testified Tom wants to know if you can replace the ones that are here with new ones, put new ones in. Mrs. Chillemi testified I guess. What I m confused about are you asking me if I would like to, or are you telling me that I have to? Mr. Boorady stated I m not telling you that you have to it is just a recommendation to bring them up to standard and that would affect your insurance as well, it is actually an improvement on your insurance when your current flood vents are modernized. Mrs. Chillemi testified really. Mr. Boorady stated yeah. Mrs. Chillemi asked would an inspector have to come in and check it out and everything to see that it has been done. Mr. Boorady stated when your insurance policy is written. Mr. Mianecki testified when you have this addition done, you are probably going to get a new elevation certificate. So when you get your new elevation certificate, it would be to your advantage to have put these flood vents in and replace the existing ones. Mr. Boorady mentioned it is more favorable on your insurance. It is a recommendation and it helps you in a long run with your policy. Mr. Mianecki testified it is up to you. Mr. Boorady stated because you are going to have to get re-written again and give them an elevation certificate, give the insurance company an elevation certificate, the modern flood vent will give you a better rating or a better class slightly. Mrs. Chillemi testified okay. I mean are you waiting for an agreement right now? Mr. Mianecki asked how many vents are there. Mr. Boorady stated I thought there were three that I counted. Mrs. Chillemi testified that sounds right because there is one on each side and then where it adjoins the house there is not any there.

8 Page 8 April 11, 2017 Mr. Boorady mentioned they are also insulated which keeps the bottom below your family room a little bit warmer, and they meet the modern standards the way your garage is going to meet them and it helps your insurance. It is a recommendation, I m going to leave that in my letter and then you can decide what you want to do when you do the revised plan. If you are going to revise the plans, just make sure the architect and engineer show that. Mrs. Chillemi testified, I m sorry I keep asking this, but do you feel that the application will be denied if I m not committing to it at this time? Mr. Boorady stated I don t vote. Chairman Byrne mentioned it is only a recommendation. Mr. Erickson stated it is only a recommendation. Mr. Boorady mentioned yeah. Mr. Mianecki testified she ll take it under advisement. If there is money in the budget, she ll do it. Ms. Greene stated why don t you tell her what the cost is and maybe you can do it privately. Mr. Zapf mentioned if you are doing something down the road too, it could just make it easier for you. If maybe you want to do something else, another modification on that side then they would make you do it. It is just a recommendation from someone who understands the rules and you guys can work it out. Mr. Boorady stated I m just trying to help you because it helps you in the future with your insurance. Ms. Chillemi testified I m all for saving money so it depends. Mr. Boorady stated it is a little bit up front to replace them but it saves you in the long run on your policy. Chairman Byrne asked the AC compressor is going to be like five feet above the backyard right so how do they service that. Mr. Mianecki testified they will use like a little ladder or something. Chairman Byrne asked is it on a platform. Mr. Mianecki testified it is on a platform. Chairman Byrne asked is it attached to the house or independent. Mr. Mianecki testified it can be attached to the house or it can be on a wooden platform, but that s up to the architect. I usually don t like to attach them, I know a lot of people attach them to the house but then sometimes you get vibration into the dwelling, I would rather have it on a freestanding unit that is separated from the dwelling, but that s completely up to the architect. They are all over the place down the shore like that and I see them like 8 feet in the air. Chairman Byrne stated I ve seen them but I was just curious how they service them. Mr. Zapf stated when my guy comes he gets on a ladder and opens the hood and does all his stuff, then puts the ladder back in the truck and is gone. Mr. Mianecki testified what gets me is an air conditioner compressor is sealed so water can t get in either way. Mr. Zapf stated but there is electrical. Mr. Mianecki testified but it is electrical yeah

9 Page 9 April 11, 2017 Mr. Boorady mentioned they are getting smaller and smaller as the years go on so maybe you won t need such a big one. Mr. Mianecki testified maybe she can put one that s in the wall, a wall unit with a built in compressor. They have them now too. Mr. Boorady mentioned they hang off the house and you don t even know they are there. Mr. Mianecki testified right. Mr. Boorady stated there are options. Chairman Byrne asked do we have other things to go over Tom. Mr. Boorady stated no. As long as they agree to everything in the report, then we don t have to go through it. There is a deed modification that you have to do and all of those items. Mr. Mianecki testified we are working on that. Mr. Boorady mentioned so as long as the engineer and architect submit revised plans showing everything in my letter, then I don t have any objection. Chairman Byrne asked does anyone on the Board have any questions. I would like to open the public portion. Does anyone from the public want to comment on this application? Okay we ll close the public portion. Tom I agree with you, I think this is an improvement both to the structure and it brings it in compliance with the parking requirement. What is it about 6½ feet or so that it is -- Mr. Mianecki testified yeah. Chairman Byrne stated and it is really that one corner and the rest of it is all pretty much -- Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Mr. Zapf stated it is really minor in the impervious coverage. Chairman Byrne asked there is no curb on Caroline Terrace right. Mr. Mianecki testified not that I m aware of. No there is no curb. Mr. Zapf stated some parts of it but not there. Mr. Mianecki testified I think it is asphalt curb isn t there? Chairman Byrne mentioned just like a water runoff. Mr. Zapf stated farther down there might be little spots but not up there. Mr. Mianecki testified yeah. Chairman Byrne stated I mean I don t really think it is that noticeable and like I said, I think it is an improvement. Does anyone from the Board want to comment or make a motion? Mr. Zapf stated if you guys agree with Tom s recommendations and everything that s in his report and to do as he has asked, other than you are going to discuss the recommendation about the other side of the house so I ll make the motion that we grant it. Chairman Byrne asked okay does anyone want to second it. Mr. Erickson seconds.

10 Page 10 April 11, 2017 Roll call: Yes: Zapf, Erickson, Bracchitta, Kubisky and Zalewski (Alt. #2) No: Abstain: None None Mr. Mianecki thanked the Board and wished everyone a good night. Ms. Chillemi thanked the Board too. Chairman Byrne stated take care. Ms. Ward mentioned the resolution will be scheduled for the May 9 th meeting. Chairman Byrne stated the next order of business is waiver request with reference to Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan Application #364, Variance Application # (use and bulk) and Flood Plain Encroachment Application #FPE by New York SMSA, Limited Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, on property known as Block 22.1, Lot 294 on the municipal tax map also known as Main Street. Mr. Michael Stanzione, counsel, from Hiering, Dupignac, Stanzione, Dunn & Beck on behalf of the applicant Verizon Wireless. Mr. James Morowski, principal with the firm E2 Project Management, the engineer of record for the application. Mr. Stanzione stated we are here for waiver requests and I don t know how you want to proceed if you just want to go through your letter? Mr. Boorady stated sure. The Board hasn t seen the plans yet so do you want to give the Board a brief overview of what you are looking to do, where you are looking to do it and those kind of things? Mr. Stanzione mentioned I ll have our engineer do that. I don t believe he needs to be sworn in it s not a full hearing so you ll just proceed. Mr. Morowski stated this application is being submitted on behalf of Verizon Wireless. It is what we call a small network node it is not a full blown twelve antennae wireless site like you are use to seeing, It is a single canister type antenna on the ridge of an existing building located at 242 Main Street, nestled somewhere between Main Street and Route 202. It fronts on Main Street and in addition to the antennae which will be on the roof, we are proposing an elevated platform (4 feet above grade) because we are in a flood zone naturally, A-15 I believe. The elevated platform is normally 7 foot square, 4 foot high, fenced in which will contain the equipment cabinets. The elevated platform is located to the rear of the building located at 242 Main Street. Other than that, the utilities required are electric and telephone; both derived from the property which is fully developed, hence the requests for many of the waivers. There are no new utilities needed and that is pretty much it. Mr. Boorady asked the size of the node that is going on top of the roof. Mr. Morowski stated the canister antenna is 3 foot 2 inches tall by 12 inches in diameter and it sits approximately 5 feet above the ridge of the roof. It is a line of sight technology so height is important and it needs to see in what we call an omni direction; 360 degrees, and there is an antenna there, I m sorry there is a chimney there right behind us along the same ridge so we are trying to get a little bit above that. Mr. Boorady mentioned so it is the size of a round kitchen garbage can, 3 foot by -- Mr. Morowski stated 3 foot 2 by 12 inches in diameter. It is innocuous in color and generally an

11 Page 11 April 11, 2017 off white and it is really hard to notice unless you know it is there. I have seen many of these installed, so it is not really an aesthetic issue it is more of an issue of justification and we try to do our best to comply with the requirements for wireless cell site installations. Mr. Zapf asked how big is the platform or the area that you are going to enclose for your ground facility because that parking lot is super tight as it is. Mr. Morowski stated it is and we are not impinging on any parking positions, we are right up against the back of that building in the corner right up against the fence. It is approximately nominally 7 foot by 7 foot. Mr. Zapf asked is that behind the Riola Design side or behind the nail salon side. Mr. Morowski stated I believe the nail salon side not the ridge structure, the flat roof structure. Mr. Zapf mentioned close to the driveway or close to the fence? Mr. Morowski mentioned away from the driveway close to the property line on the other side. Mr. Zapf stated close to the Riola Design side okay. Mr. Zalewski asked can you explain which building this is by any chance. Mr. Zapf stated behind Linda s Deli. Mr. Boorady mentioned it is between Linda s Deli and Fasani s building. Fasani is the elevated white building and it is between them. Mr. Zalewski stated okay. Mr. Zapf mentioned the Riola Design building that has the house attached to it. It is kind of butterscotch color. Mr. Boorady mentioned the bicycle guy was there for many, many, many years. Mr. Zapf stated yeah. Mr. Zalewski mentioned okay he s gone now and there is a shirt guy there. Mr. Boorady stated Riola Design moved there from where the Minit Mart is. Ms. Ward stated Mr. PC is there too. Mr. Zapf mentioned and the nail salon. Ms. Ward stated right. Mr. Zalewski asked now the site that you are going to use by the Borough garage that is going to be eliminated or is that also going to go up. Ms. Ward mentioned that s another applicant. Mr. Boorady mentioned that s a different application. Mr. Zalewski stated oh that s something else. Ms. Ward mentioned AT & T is doing that one. Mr. Zapf stated oh that was AT & T. Ms. Ward mentioned it is under construction now at the DPW site.

12 Page 12 April 11, 2017 Mr. Zalewski stated okay. Mr. Boorady mentioned we are really not hearing the application tonight but if they become deemed complete, you can ask them about a colocation on other nearby towers. They will have to put on their song and dance on about why they need this location because they have dead spots or whatever their reasons are. Mr. Stanzione stated and those will be the experts that are not here for this tonight. Mr. Boorady mentioned we are here just for completeness waivers. My letter is dated March 16 th, 2017 and thank you for giving them a brief overview. Mr. Stanzione stated you re welcome. Mr. Boorady mentioned it kind of helps with the process. Page 1 lists all the items that the Board received. Moving on to page 2 there are a couple of additional items. About the middle of page 2 of my report is the completeness review, so the standard development application form there is really nothing that they are asking for waivers from. I have some housekeeping items that need to be filled out on the application form so I m guessing that is agreeable to the applicant? Mr. Stanzione stated it has already been done and they have basically asked us to wait until after this meeting to resubmit. Ms. Ward mentioned I did. Mr. Boorady stated okay, so Joan you ll be getting a revised application form. Ms. Ward mentioned I asked them to hold off until after the waivers. Mr. Boorady stated okay. The checklist for general information Item #1 is just to be coordinated with the Board Secretary and we don t need to discuss it tonight. Item #2 we didn t get the letter. There was something that was supposed to be enclosed but it wasn t and I m sure you can handle that. Mr. Stanzione stated I believe we have it I don t know why it wasn t enclosed. Mr. Boorady mentioned the tax search certifying that the taxes were paid that just needs to be included, standard stuff. Item #8 list of owners should be updated. Mr. Stanzione mentioned I believe we ve already requested it. Mr. Boorady stated okay. Ms. Ward mentioned that needs to be done prior to the hearing, like 30 days prior to when you are deemed complete. Mr. Stanzione stated okay. Mr. Boorady stated Item #9 is again coordinating whatever the Board Secretary needs in the way of plans, surveys, exhibits, etc. So the checklist for general information there is generally no waivers requested or to be granted, so I think the applicant is also going to agree to give everything in that checklist as well. The checklist for preliminary major site plan is on page 3 and this is where we get into some of the waivers that they are going to be asking for. They are asking for a waiver for the intent to be served by utility companies. Usually you would see that on a vacant site where there are no utilities existing and you would want to know from the utility company whether they are going to

13 Page 13 April 11, 2017 be able to serve electric, telephone or cable. In this particular case I believe they are connecting to the existing services that are already run to the dwelling and they are capping off the board that s in the house already, the circuit breakers they are connecting right in so there are really no new lines being run. Mr. Zapf asked is it going on top of the house part with the peak roof, or the flat part over the apartment. Mr. Stanzione stated it is the peaked roof. Mr. Zapf mentioned over the house. Mr. Stanzione stated yes. Mr. Boorady mentioned but again if you read the notes in the plans and I know you don t have them, they are essentially connecting to the existing lines that are running to the house, they are going to have a sub-meter. I have no engineering objection to the Board granting a waiver from Item #2 which is letter from the utility companies. I m going to go through all of these, or do you want to decide on them one by one I don t know what is easier? Chairman Byrne asked do you have objections to any of the ones listed in here. Mr. Boorady mentioned not really. I mean I have a couple of items I think they should provide but I don t think it is anything major, so maybe we could agree to them all at once. Chairman Byrne asked have you gone through all of these. Mr. Stanzione stated we ve reviewed them all and for the most part they are mostly for the plans themselves so Jim is ready for them all. Mr. Boorady mentioned Item #4, they ve laid out the platform and showed the foundation. We have everything we need to show that it is set at the right elevation. The one thing that they would have to provide that they haven t provided yet is calculations showing that the platform can stand up and I don t have an objection to that coming later subject to approvals. Item #8E is housekeeping and you need to put north arrows on all of the plans. I don t recommend a waiver from that I think that is pretty easy to put on the plan. Mr. Stanzione stated of course. Mr. Boorady mentioned Item 8H we still haven t received a signed sealed survey of existing conditions. I don t know why that wasn t submitted. Mr. Morowski stated it was done it should have been submitted, it should have been part of the application. Mr. Boorady mentioned okay that s an easy one. I m sure you did it because there is a site plan. Mr. Morowski stated we did the survey. Mr. Boorady stated just make sure it gets submitted signed and sealed. Ms. Ward mentioned we need at least one but we would prefer two so Tom can have one for his file too. Mr. Morowski stated tell us the number. Ms. Ward mentioned two sealed the rest can be copies for Board members. Mr. Morowski stated two sealed all right.

14 Page 14 April 11, 2017 Mr. Boorady mentioned Item 8M utilities within the subject property are shown and they are asking for a partial waiver to not show them within 200 feet. There is a lot going on in Main Street nearby but I don t have an engineering objection for a partial waiver, however, I can t find utility pole 1107LP which apparently is where the telephone service will originate from, and it is potentially a new line coming in to serve so if you could at least show where 1107LP is that would be helpful. Mr. Morowski stated it is in front but we will label it. Mr. Boorady stated okay. So again you are asking for a partial waiver from 8M subject to showing that one utility pole or labeling it. Mr. Morowski stated right. Mr. Boorady mentioned okay. Item 8N.vi. electrical service is shown and again I m recommending that they show the utility pole that s kind of an existing and a proposed checklist item, so I think they are agreeing to show that. Item 8Y existing lighting and landscaping, I have no engineering objection to granting a waiver. There are some flood lights on the back of the building that light up the parking lot which are existing and not scheduled to be changed, again that s up to the Board but I don t have an objection to that. They are shown on the architectural drawings the flood lights on the back of the building. Item 8AA-DD existing and proposed solid waste and recycling facilities. I don t think that applies for what they are doing here, I don t think they are going to be generating any waste so it is pretty much an unmanned facility. Item 8GG, II & JJ again this is an unmanned facility. They are not going to have any signs identifying the antenna as Verizon Wireless antenna so I don t have an objection to not showing the existing signs or proposed signs. There are no proposed signs essentially. Item 8OO a waiver from supply existing information within 200 feet of the subject property. That is just vicinity dated; just driveway curb cuts, other buildings, again I don t think that information is necessary. Item 9 the applicant requests a waiver from stormwater management. There is no impervious coverage being added, the platform being constructed is over the pavement that is existing so I don t have an objection to granting a waiver from that item. Item 10 a waiver from supplying existing lighting information. For some reason your checklist has two items on lighting and I don t know why, but again just to repeat I don t have an objection from showing that. Mr. Zapf asked are there lights on the garage. There is like a little garage building in the back maybe that is for that one. Mr. Boorady mentioned no it is your checklist that actually has duplicated it for some reason it is a typo I think. Item 15 an environmental impact statement. I don t have an engineering objection to not supplying an environmental impact statement. Item #19 the applicant requests a waiver from supplying architectural plans. Elevation plans and photograph simulations have been provided. I think that is sufficient and I don t think you need full blown architecturals from an architect. The plans do show the elevations and they are also providing some photograph simulations of the existing building and then they superimposed the scaled version of an antenna. Item 20 they are requesting a waiver from supplying samples of exterior finishes. They are proposing an antenna unless you want them to bring in an antenna.

15 Page 15 April 11, 2017 Mr. Stanzione stated I don t think we have one to bring in. Mr. Boorady mentioned I don t know that they can give you a sample of an antenna. I don t have an engineering objection to that. The platform is going to be painted steel I believe. Mr. Morowski stated it will be galvanized. Mr. Boorady mentioned it will be galvanized steel okay, so again I don t have an engineering objection. Before I move on to page 4, those are the checklist waivers for the preliminary major site plan. I think they have agreed to give me the pole location and subject to approvals they will give me calculations for the platform, and I believe all the other ones I have recommended that they be granted if I summarized that correctly? Really quickly the other checklists, flood plain development it is similar to preliminary major site plan, so if you are granting waivers from those, you would also be granting them from the flood plain development checklist, as well as final major site plan. Chairman Byrne asked what about the variances. Mr. Boorady stated I m going to go back to the variances. We already spoke about a signed and sealed survey and they are going to provide that that s Item 1D. Item 1E that is the architectural repeat and Item 4 a planner s report. I believe the reason they are asking for a planner s report waiver is that even though this is a use variance they d prefer to put that testimony on at the night of the meeting. You know that is something the Board may want to think about whether you want a written summary about some of the planning testimony. This is technically a use variance and your ordinance does not allow for wireless telecommunication facilities in this zone. So it is up to the Board for the record, you might want to have something written, it doesn t have to be a full blown you know 100 page report on the planning testimony, but that is up to the applicant maybe to chime in and state whether they would prefer to give us one. Mr. Stanzione mentioned generally most towns on these applications the testimony is sufficient, he comes and presents it. The planners are the ones who put together the photo simulations and all of that and they go through checklists on the record. I mean if we are required to I guess we would have to, but generally throughout the state we are not required to do a planner s report which is why we requested the waiver. Mr. Zapf stated when you come back to us for the meeting, we are going to have pictures, designs and all that? Mr. Stanzione mentioned actually you already have them, I guess they haven t been distributed yet. Mr. Boorady stated during the completeness process you may not be aware of this, we don t ask for 15 full blown sets for the whole Board because if there are changes, then it is just a big waste of paper. Mr. Stanzione stated right. Mr. Boorady mentioned there are exhibits. Mr. Stanzione stated actually our planner who comes brings them on a board as well to go through as you can look at your own. Mr. Zapf stated perfect. Mr. Stanzione mentioned as well as other experts we have. Chairman Byrne asked does anyone have any questions from the Board. Ms. Ward mentioned you have to decide whether you want a planner s report or not.

16 Page 16 April 11, 2017 Mr. Zapf stated we can make do with a project like explanation report. What did you call that instead of planner s report? Mr. Boorady mentioned it is a use variance so the planners would normally go through some case law and you know they give you the benefits and detriments of an application like that, the positive and the negative, and give you the planning reasons why you can vote yes for such a variance. You have your attorney here who is probably better at that stuff than I am, but I m not a planner but that is generally what s in the report. All the proofs that you need to vote yes for a use variance. Mr. Zapf stated we don t need a telephone book we can have a relatively abbreviated version is that the point you are trying to make? Mr. Stanzione stated generally just to sum up how our applications usually go, our planner nine times out of ten goes last. So what happens is you ll hear all the other experts and he ll summarize it and tell you why based on what you ve heard. the positives and negatives and things like that, and go through his photo simulations, and you know if adjustments are made that report will change on the fly, so a lot of times we don t submit it ahead of time. It is up to you whether you want him to do it or not. Chairman Byrne asked does anyone have any comments on it. I don t know that we need one. Mr. Zapf asked are we going to have one. Mr. Erickson asked are we going to have oral testimony. Mr. Stanzione stated you won t have a physical report but he ll stand up there and you ll have oral testimony from the planner. Mr. Zapf stated I m okay with that that s enough. Chairman Byrne stated it is a relatively small project and I m sure we ll have our questions answered. Does anyone have any other questions about it or comments about the application? So Tom, other than the two items that you mentioned, you recommending that we provide the waivers for the rest of the items? Mr. Boorady stated yeah. Chairman Byrne mentioned the pole. Mr. Boorady stated I don t feel that s necessary for you to make a determination on the use variance and site plan. Chairman Byrne mentioned all right. If there are no questions, does anyone want to make a motion? Mr. Zapf made the motion to grant the waivers. Chairman Byrne asked is there a second. Mr. Bracchitta seconds. Roll call: Yes: Zapf, Bracchitta, Byrne, Erickson, Kubisky and Zalewski (Alt. #2) No: Abstain: None None Chairman Byrne asked is there any other business.

17 Page 17 April 11, 2017 Messrs. Stanzione and Morowski thanked the Board. Ms. Ward mentioned the next meeting is May 9 th. Mr. Zapf made the motion to adjourn. Mrs. Kubisky seconds. Meeting adjourned 8:09 P.M. Respectfully submitted: Joan Ward, Secretary Patrick Byrne, Chairman