BOROUGH OF WOODCLIFF LAKE

PLANNING BOARD

REORGANIZATION & REGULAR MEETING

January 8, 2007

MINUTES

=================================================================

CALL TO ORDER:

The Meeting was called to Order at 8:00 p.m., at the Borough Hall.

ADEQUATE NOTICE STATEMENT:

The Chairman announced that this Meeting, in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Law, P.L. 1975, Chapter 231, was announced at the Reorganization Meeting held on January 9, 2006 in the Municipal Building. Notice of this Meeting was posted and two newspapers, The Record and The Ridgewood News, were notified. Notice was also provided, in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Law, of the Planning Board’s intention to conduct formal business at this Meeting.

The public is advised of the Planning Board’s rule that meetings will be concluded by 11:00 p.m.

==================================================================

FLAG SALUTE

ROLL CALL:

Kenneth Glemby, Chairman Willford Morrison

John Glaser Al Dattoli

Robert McDonough Robert Boffa

Bruce Mautz Joseph Langschultz,Alt.#1(9:05pm)

Mayor Joseph LaPaglia Peter Michelis, Alt. #2

George Fry, Vice-Chairman

ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS

The following oaths were administered by the Board Attorney,

John Glaser Class III Member-One-year term expires 12/31/07

Bruce Mautz Class II Member-One-year term expires 12/31/07

Willford Morrison Class IV Member-Four-year term expires 12/31/10

Robert Boffa Class IV Member-Four-year term expires 12/31/10

Joseph Langschultz Alt. #1 -Two-year term expires 12/31/08

Peter Michelis Alt. #2 -One-year term expires 12/31/07

The Board welcomed new member, Peter Michelis.

REORGANIZATION

Election of Chairman:

A motion to nominate Ken Glemby as Chairman was made by Mr. Fry, and seconded by Mr. Glaser. There were no further nominations. The Board proceeded to cast one vote, a unanimous vote, and the motion carried unanimously.

Election of Vice-Chairman:

A motion to nominate George Fry as Vice-Chairman was made by Mr. Glemby and seconded by Mr. Mautz. There were no further nominations. The Board proceeded to cast one vote, a unanimous vote, and the motion carried unanimously.

Appointment of Attorney:

A motion to nominate Paul C. Kaufman, Esq., Kaufman, Bern & Deutsch, LLP as Planning Board Attorney was made by Mr. Glemby and seconded by Mr. Fry. There were no further nominations. The Board proceeded to cast one vote, a unanimous vote, and the motion carried unanimously.

Appointment of Engineer:

A motion to nominate Boswell Engineering, Elliot Sachs, as Planning Board Engineer was made by Mr. Glemby and seconded by Mr. Fry. There were no further nominations. The Board proceeded to cast one vote, a unanimous vote, and the motion carried unanimously.

Appointment of Planner:

A motion to nominate Burgis Associates, Donna Holmqvist, as Planning Board Planner was made by Mr. Glemby and seconded by Mr. McDonough. There were no further nominations. The Board proceeded to cast one vote, a unanimous vote, and the motion carried unanimously.

Appointment of Traffic Engineer/Consultant:

A motion to nominate Edwards & Kelcey, as Planning Board Traffic Consultant was made by Mr. Glemby and seconded by Mr. Fry. There were no further nominations. The Board proceeded to cast one vote, a unanimous vote, and the motion carried unanimously.

Appointment of Secretary:

A motion to nominate Mary Verducci as Secretary was made by Mr. Glemby and seconded by Mr. Mautz. There were no further nominations. The Board proceeded to cast one vote, a unanimous vote, and the motion carried unanimously.

RESOLUTION – SCHEDULE OF MEETING DATES

Mayor LaPaglia questioned whether the 7/23/07 meeting was necessary. Mr. Glemby suggested keeping it on as scheduled and possibly canceling if not needed. A motion for approval of the following Resolution was made by Mr. Glemby, seconded by Mr. Mautz, and carried.

RESOLVED, that pursuant to requirements of the Open Public Meetings Act, P.L. 1975, Chapter 231, the meetings of the Woodcliff Lake Planning Board shall be held on the second and fourth Mondays* of each month at the Woodcliff Lake Borough Hall, 188 Pascack Road, Woodcliff Lake, NJ at the hour of 8:00 p.m. Such meetings shall be held on the following dates:

2007

January 8 Reorganization & Agenda/Regular

January 22 Regular

February 12 Agenda February 26 Regular

March 12 Agenda March 26 Regular

April 9 Agenda April 23 Regular

May 14 Agenda May 29* Regular

June 11 Agenda June 25 Regular

July 9 Agenda July 23 Regular

August 13 Agenda/Regular

September 10 Agenda September 24 Regular

October 9* Agenda October 22 Regular

November 12 Agenda/Regular

December 10 Agenda /Regular

2008

January 14 Agenda/Reorganization January 28 Regular

*Meeting dates changed to Tuesday due to holidays

MINUTES: September 11, October 10, November 13, and December 11, 2006 – Carried to next meeting.

SWEARING IN OF BOROUGH PROFESSIONALS:

Paul Kaufman, Esq. swore in Elliot Sachs, Boswell Engineering, Donna Holmqvist, Burgis Associates, and John Pavlovich, Edwards & Kelcey, for the entire year.

PUBLIC HEARINGS:

1. ROBERT DUBOVICH – MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION

229 Chestnut Ridge Road, Block 701, Lot 8 (Heard 12/11/06)

Andy Del Vecchio, Esq. represented the applicant and reviewed from the last hearing. The proposed driveway for Lot 8.1 should possibly come out of the easement area for the southerly lot. Mr. Eichenlaub prepared and distributed a handout, which consisted of sketches marked A4. Mr. Kaufman clarified the old driveway is shown in blue and the new one in purple. Mr. Eichenlaub described the sketch in detail. Mr. Fry noted the driveway is too close, in that the ordinance allows 5’, and 6-1/2’ is proposed. Mayor LaPaglia requested clarification of what presently exists on the driveway and lot. Mr. Eichenlaub explained and stated there would be only one driveway cut. Mayor LaPaglia asked if the lot would be landlocked. Mr. Eichenlaub responded yes, and Saddle River has a provision that 25’ to the side and rear of a property cannot be disturbed. Anyone wanting to develop this would have to go to the Saddle River Planning Board. This lot has no frontage. The Mayor asked, and Mr. Del Vecchio answered they cannot vacate the right-of-way, as there are two separate owners. Mr. Fry noted this has come before the Board previously. It is not permitted in the Borough to allow a driveway to cut across a property that does not go to a house. Mr. Del Vecchio stated whether they are approved or denied will not change the situation. Mayor LaPaglia was concerned about three driveways where one exists now. Mr. Del Vecchio stated if the Board wants two curb cuts, he would build one for the current house and one for the new house. He submitted the easement.

The matter was opened to the public on motion of Mr. Fry and second by Mr. Boffa, and the following persons came forward: Ted Lull, 30’ from this property, who questioned Mr. Del Vecchio and then asked if this means he could also subdivide his property. Mr. Kaufman advised they have made an application to subdivide the property with frontage of 100’ on each lot where 150’ is required, and they will present their case.

Peter Steck, Planner, 80 Maplewood Avenue, Maplewood, NJ, was sworn in, gave his credentials, and was accepted. He prepared A5, dated 1/8/07, an outline of this planning testimony for the record. Mr. Steck described the lot frontages of all the homes on Chestnut Ridge road. The property has several borders. Across is the BMW site, Chestnut Ridge Road is the main road. Lot 12 is a landlocked parcel. The site is buffered by landscaping. Based on is analysis, Mr. Steck stated, there are several approaches that can justify approval of this minor subdivision, i.e., C1, hardship, and C2, benefits outweigh detriments; that the variances can be granted without detriment to the public good or concern to the zone plan or zoning ordinances. He spoke to hardship first. Some of the landlocked property is in the Borough of Saddle River, and based on case law, the Borough is obligated to look at that land to make the 30,000 sq. ft. of lot area. Mr. Kaufman advised when the Board looks at the lot, the Board must look at the entire lot regardless of the boundary. Mr. Steck continued. It is an irregular property in that there is a 25’ easement along the side of the property. It restricts the owner in that he cannot build on that easement. The lot to the North can be subdivided. The benefits are the Master Plan goal that provides for one house on 30,000 sq. ft., the coordination of property, in that Lot 11 is to be used for the rear yard; encouraging population densities; and more efficient use of land. The goals of the Master Plan are advanced by this subdivision. Some of the lots are accommodating very large houses. In his opinion, that is not the best way to insulate yourself from very large houses. Smaller lots discourage super large houses. That is reflected in the MLUL and can be viewed as benefits that outweigh the detriments.

Mr. Steck continued with the negative criteria, stating 23 lots are in the study with non-conforming frontages, which can provide justification that the negative criteria is satisfied. Mr. Glemby his asked if he could remember when the Board has ever granted a subdivision creating a non-conforming lot. Mr. Kaufman advised that each application would be reviewed on its own merits. Mr. Dattoli asked how the irregular shape of the lot creates hardship on the frontage. Mr. Steck responded because it is deeper than it is wide. Mr. Dattoli asked how does that affect frontage, and commented there is still only 208’. He further noted his comments about house trends. The house at #291 has an “under contract” sign, and that is at least 6,000 sq. ft. The newer houses are all bigger houses, and it is the smaller houses that are being turned down. Mr. Dattoli noted Mr. Steck made a comment about the trend which he did not see happening on Chestnut Ridge Road.

Mayor LaPaglia, referring to an exhibit, commented all lot showing less than 200’ frontage pre-dated the current zoning, which goes back to the 1970’s. He noted Mr. Steck referred to $30,000 sq. ft., but there are other criteria in the zone. This was not planned this way. When the Borough looked at this area it wanted larger houses, not row houses like the applicant is proposing. The neighbor with 300’ is the last in the dividing line. The real question before this Board is do we want to allow and further the development of 100’ lots. He would like to hear from the Borough Planner regarding this. Mr. Steck discussed that the Master Plan does not say this. Mayor LaPaglia stated the neighbor is objecting. These properties pre-dated the Master Plan. Mr. Kaufman advised it would be appropriate for the Borough Planner to provide a report of what the intent was of the municipality over the years. Ms. Holmqvist stated she has not yet had the opportunity to do this. That would be evidentiary to the Board in making decision. Mr. Glemby commented the Board may want to look at the property and requested they come back at the next meeting. Mr. Kaufman advised Mr. Steck may want the opportunity to review the Borough’s records as well. Based on the issues raised by the Mayor, there is clearly an issue that does require Mr. Steck to return and give an opportunity to Ms. Holmqvist. He asked her if there were any areas for Mr. Steck to focus on for the next meeting. Ms. Holmqvist responded no. Mayor LaPaglia stated another issue which appears from this map is that the property owner of Lot 12 was intending to create a flat lot. If he is successful, the frontage will be reduced further, and there will be a driveway to a third lot. He would want to preclude the access easement. Mr. Kaufman advised the Borough Planner is to look into the subdivisions granted in the Borough in the last 20 years. Mr. Del Vecchio stated this neighborhood already existed.

Mr. Kaufman commented there are too many comments on the record. He wants to get the facts so the record is complete. What the Mayor said is there is a reason why the zoning ordinance was changed, and there was intent to regulate the future development of the neighborhood so over the course of time, there would be a change with what would appear to be larger frontages. This subdivision would be perpetuating a condition that the Borough wants to change. We need an opinion from our planner on the issues the Mayor brought up, and Mr. Steck can give an opinion too. Mr. Del Vecchio said they would withdraw comments about other subdivisions, so as not to be charged a Borough wide evaluation. Mr. Glemby wants to give a fair hearing, field trip. Mr. Kaufman advised the Mayor stated the planner should review properties that are within the neighborhood which is what Peter Steck relied upon. Mr. Del Vecchio asked if they would open to the public for Mr. Steck at the conclusion. Mr. Glaser asked Mr. Steck to elaborate on the efficient use of land. The matter was carried to the 1/22/07 hearing with no new notice required.

RESOLUTIONS:

1. COLLETTA – MINOR SUBDIVISION APPLICATION - DENIAL

55 Woodcliff Avenue - Block 2004, Lot 5 (Heard 7/10, 7/24, 8/14, 9/11/06; Denied 11/13/06)

2. K. HOVNANIAN’S FOUR SEASONS AT RIDGEMONT - APPROVAL

Montvale and Woodcliff Lake

Application to Construct an Age-Restricted Condominium Development

Chestnut Ridge Road

Block 202, Lots 1, 1.1, 2, 3, and 4, Woodcliff Lake, and

Block 3301, Lots 2, 3 and 4, Montvale

(Heard 7/11/06, 8/1/06, 9/19/06, 10/17/06-Approved 11/13/06)

OPEN TO PUBLIC - A motion to open to the public was made by Mr. Fry and seconded by Mr. Mautz. The following person came forward: Maryann Dill came forward regarding The Rink property and stated her November letter was never acknowledged, and this is not a safety issue; the professionals have testified. There were no further comments, and the matter was closed to the public.

ADJOURNMENT - Upon motion made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:15 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________

Mary R. Verducci, Paralegal

Planning Board Secretary