NORWOOD PLANNING BOARD

REGULAR MEETING

AUGUST 21, 2003

The Regular Meeting of the Norwood Planning Board convened at 8:00PM with Vice-Chairman Peter Altenbach presiding. Mr. Altenbach announced that this meeting is held in accordance with the Open Meetings Act and has been advertised in the newspaper according to law. Mr. Altenbach indicated out the exit locations for the benefit of the public.

The following board members were present:

Mr. DeBiasa Mr. Butti Mr. Altenbach

Mayor D’Ercole Mr. DeMaria Councilman Brizzolara

Mr. Byrne Mr. Zacco Mr. Van Dyke

Mr. Jacobs

The following board members were absent:

Dr. Koffler Mr. Ascolese

The Board Attorney Harold Ritvo, Dan Vechesky, and Dan Kaufman from the Board Engineer’s office were present

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Mr. Altenbach announced that the following application has been rescheduled for the September 18, 2003 meeting:

Variance Application #677 – Caridi

Block 22, Lot 1 – 130 Fifth Ave.

Mr. Altenbach announced that a Special Meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 20, 2003, 8:00PM, at the Norwood Borough Hall, 455 Broadway to review and discuss zoning matters.

SUBDIVISION APPLICATION #674 – Continued from July 17, 2003

Eastern Allied Construction Co.

Block 120, Lots 20 & 21 – 283 & 275 Summit St.

Mr. Van Dyke recused himself from this application. Attorney Judith C. Reilly came forward on behalf of Eastern Allied Construction Co., in this matter continued from the July 17, 2003 meeting.

Michael Hubschman, PE, PP, 263 S. Washington Ave., Bergenfield, NJ came forward, was sworn in, and qualified as an expert witness in planning and engineering. Mr. Hubschman testified that during the course of the previous meeting, the applicant agreed to address lot depth questions concerning the possibility of a variance requirement on Lot 20.02. Applicant has revised plans in order to eliminate the possibility of a variance by shifting the cul-de-sac six feet to the south; the intersection remains the same and the lot depth at the center of the lot is now 105.06 feet. The revised plan has been submitted to Neglia Engineering and their latest review letter dated August 20, 2003 concurs that a lot depth variance is not required on any of the proposed lots and the application is variance free. The cul-de-sac has also been extended twenty feet to the west in order to lengthen the lot depth. A revised and shaded plan, dated August 8, 2003, was marked as Exhibit A-1. Mr. Hubschman additionally testified that he has reviewed the Neglia Letter (8/20/03) and applicant would comply with all comments and suggestions. A fire hydrant will be added at the rear or as the Fire Dept. recommends along with two additional streetlights. Applicant proposes three forty-eight inch drainage pipes to contain and release water slowly in accordance with Residential Site Improvement Standards. The entire system will be relocated and shifted to the north as recommended. Neglia also recommends that the northerly side yard on Lot 20.01 be considered a rear yard and applicant will so comply. Applicant has provided drainage design that complies with the RSIS regulations. Detailed site plans will be submitted to the engineer for review as requested. Applicant proposes a waiver of the RSIS sidewalk requirement, and drainage easements shall be provided as requested. The roadway is a standard thirty-foot width

PAGE TWO, AUGUST 21, 2003

Application #674 Continued

with a thirty-five-foot curb radius. A sight triangle measurement indicates that there is over 200 feet to a crest on Summit St.; the State RSIS requires 150 feet in a 25 mph zone. Applicant has received Bergen County Planning, Soil Conservation, and NJDEP approvals. In conclusion, Mr. Hubschman testified that applicant can and will comply will all recommendations of Neglia Engineering. The revised plans comply with the Borough Zoning Ordinance and, except for the sidewalk waiver, all RSIS requirements, and design criteria.

In response to board questions, Mr. Hubschman testified that the existing house that is proposed to remain conforms to all zoning requirements. Applicant proposes approximately twenty shade trees planted at fifty-foot intervals around the property. Existing trees on the proposed roadway will be removed and replaced in various locations as indicated on the plans that have been submitted. Drainage flows towards Summit Street; Mr. Vechesky commented that his office has accepted and approved drainage calculations from both this project and the subdivision currently under construction on the adjacent property. Both projects comply with the RSIS requirement to ensure that there is no additional runoff from either property. Mr. Hubschman testified that applicant would comply with the Board Engineer’s recommendation that the northerly side yard for proposed Lot 20.01, adjacent to Lot 19, be considered a rear yard since the lot orientation in relation to the cul-de-sac is similar to proposed Lot 20.02 and Lot 20.03. Mr. Vechesky commented that his office has so recommended in order to provide consistency with the adjacent subdivision; Mr. Hubschman added that this configuration provides a thirty-foot setback, as opposed to ten feet, from the property line.

It was duly moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public to address questions to Mr. Hubschman’s testimony. All members voted yes.

Michael Knigin, 287 Summit St., came forward. Mr. Knigin asked that the board accept a letter from Casino Engineering & Planning, whom he has hired on behalf of himself and other members of the community. Following objection from Ms. Reilly because the engineer was not present to testify, Mr. Knigin agreed to return during the open comment portion of the hearing.

Dr. Marshall, 25 Norwood Pl., came forward and questioned the alignment of the proposed street with Norwood Pl. in terms of the traffic pattern. She commented that Norwood Pl. is used as a shortcut to Livingston St. and expressed concern for the safety of the children walking and playing in the area.

Inge Lake, owner of the preschool at the Presbyterian Church, inquired if the trees at the rear of the church property would be removed; Mr. Hubschman testified that those in the proposed roadway are scheduled for removal and that some of these would be replaced. Ms. Lake expressed concern that these trees have provided a noise barrier and the applicant agreed to provide fencing and pine trees in order to buffer the noise from the school.

Fred Marshall, 25 Norwood Pl. came forward and Mr. Hubschman testified that applicant hopes to leave those trees near, but not in the sight triangle, standing.

Barbara Broomall, 304 Summit St., came forward regarding removal of trees and Mr. Hubschman commented that applicant hopes to save as many of the existing trees as possible.

Michael Knigin, 287 Summit St. asked if consideration has been given to sloping, regarding Lot 20.01, in order to determine setbacks. Mr. Hubschman testified that this issue has been under discussion with the board engineer and that the property has not been identified as one with slope concerns. Mr. Knigin commented that, in his and his engineer’s opinion, the property slopes approximately 10-40% and this would increase the setback requirements.

PAGE THREE, AUGUST 21, 2003

Application #674 Continued

Mr. Vechesky commented on the definition of the “steep slope” ordinance and added that both his office and the applicant’s engineer have determined by visual inspection and calculations that subject property does not qualify as “steep slope.” Following additional discussion, Mr. Hubschman testified in agreement with Mr. Vechesky that the property does not qualify as “steep slope.” Mr. Knigin observed that this question severely affects his property and should be further addressed by both the applicant and board engineers.

James Elling, 263 Summit St., came forward to question the possibility of increased traffic flow on Norwood Pl. and thru to Livingston St.

Peter Sideris, 282 Summit St., and expressed concern regarding the safety of children and pedestrians on Norwood Pl. and Summit St.

Alex Shea, 214 Rockland Ave., and asked Mr. Hubschman if he was a resident of Norwood.

David Fuhrmann, 69 Kensington Ave., came forward. In response to his question, Ms. Reilly commented that a traffic study is not required in this type of application.

Dr. Marshall came forward and suggested that a thru-street sign on Norwood Pl. would not resolve her concern.

Connie Klein, 298 Summit St., came forward with additional questions regarding trees and buffering at the back of the proposed subdivision. Mr. Hubschman testified that applicant would buffer Inge Lake, leave an existing buffer of pine trees, and comply with all requirements of the Developers Agreement as set forth.

Ed Lamp, 120 Summit St., came forward regarding enforcement of drainage requirements. Mr. Hubschman testified that the Borough Engineer traditionally reviews individual site plans before building permits are issued. Ms. Reilly additionally commented that borough professionals provide various inspections, including drainage requirements, throughout the duration of project and before building permits or certificates of occupancy are issued by the Construction Office.

In response to the board, Ms. Reilly testified that applicant would provide fencing and buffering requirements as desired by the board, providing that it does not interfere with existing trees.

Corinne Lynch, 677 Broadway, came forward, commented on removal of trees, and noted that replacing approximately one hundred trees with twenty is not sufficient. A brief discussion took place regarding aligning Norwood Pl. and the new road. She also asked that the large tree in front of the property remain in place and the applicant so agreed.

Dave Elling, 263 Summit St., came forward, expressed concern regarding increased traffic flow, and suggested that the board demand a traffic study of the applicant. Mr. Ritvo commented that although traffic studies are within the board’s discretion, the law says that traffic in the immediate area is not the responsibility of the applicant. In a subdivision of this size without variances, it is not customary to require a traffic study, however, the board could request same, if it had a concern about a layout or location.

Kristy Chrenko, 290 Summit St., came forward and questioned the location of sidewalks.

ubH

As there were no further questions of Mr. Hubschman, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public. All members voted yes.

It was duly moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public for comment on this application. All members voted yes.

PAGE FOUR, AUGUST 21, 2003

Application #674 Continued

Dr. Ken Klein, 298 Summit St., came forward and spoke in opposition to this application.

Alex Shea, 214 Rockland Ave., came forward, was sworn in, and spoke in opposition to this application.

Michael Knigin, 287 Summit St. came forward and was sworn in for his testimony. Mr. Knigin commented that he has hired his own professional to review the plans applicant has submitted and has written comment from the engineer. Ms. Reilly objected and stated that the engineer, Mr. Casino, is not present to either qualify as expert or question. Mr. Ritvo agreed that written comment is inappropriate because the engineer is not here so that applicant might question or challenge his findings; boards may not except either the report or its content unless the engineer is present to testify. Mr. Knigin testified that he has read the Residential Site Improvement Standards and read into the record, the standards for “sidewalk requirements.” He also commented on and read the NJ DOT web site “...that the sight distance...be 280 feet...” and not 180 feet as applicant has previously testified. Mr. Knigin again offered his opinion that slopes on the lot exceed ten percent and commented that the board has an opportunity to interpret the borough’s side and rear lot requirements.

Ms. Reilly testified that applicant would comply with the board’s requirement regarding sidewalks. Mr. Hubschman testified that sight distance is over 200 feet and a 25mph zone requires 150 feet.

Judith Lamp, 120 Summit St., came forward, was sworn in, and commented on Municipal Land Use Law, its relation to the Borough Zoning Ordinance and drainage problems that might arise in the future.

The following residents came forward, were sworn in, and spoke in opposition to this application.

Joanne Bass, 331 Piermont Rd.

Sarah Knigin, 287 Summit St.

Jim Gallagher, 81 Kensington Ave.

Dr. Marshall, 25 Norwood Pl.

Irene Levy, 341 Westwind Ct.

Mayor D’Ercole commented that this application conforms to all requirements of the zoning ordinance. Mr. Ritvo added that the board has a meeting scheduled on September 10^th to look at and review current zoning requirements. Until changes are made in the ordinance, this application complies with everything that the current zoning code requires and this board has an obligation to implement said ordinances as drawn. The board also has no jurisdiction to consider the impact of development on schools. Although the board might review and make recommendations concerning zoning matters, the Mayor and Council make the ultimate decision on changes. While these ordinances are in place, the board is bound by law to follow the zoning requirements. Mr. Ritvo additionally commented, that once the board has reviewed changes and made recommendation to the Governing Body, and if they so agree, these changes are put into ordinance form, and that takes approximately forty-five to sixty days to implement.

David Fuhrmann, 69 Kensington Ave., came forward, was sworn in, and spoke in opposition to this application. He additionally commented on the number of this type of developments that have taken place over the past several years and added that it is his opinion that the board has “rubber stamped” these applications. Mr. Byrne commented in response that he has lived in town for many years and suggested that the public continue to attend Planning Board meetings in order to make their wishes known to the board.

The following residents came forward, were sworn in, asked for explanations of various zoning regulations, drainage, flooding, traffic impact, and generally spoke in opposition to this application:

PAGE FIVE, AUGUST 21, 2003

Application #674 Continued

Bill Bajakian, 295 Summit St.

Ed Lamp, 120 Summit St.

Peter Sideris, 282 Summit St.

Mr. Kaufman commented that residents experiencing water or drainage problems during construction might contact the Construction Official with their complaints. Following inspection, the Borough Engineer would review the project for compliance with site plan issues.

Mr. Altenbach asked that those members of the public who have not yet spoken, come

forward, and in the interest of time, set a 10:00PM curfew on questions.

Barry Scott, 345 15^th St., came forward and was sworn in for his testimony. Mr. Scott suggested that it might benefit the public if the vote on this matter were postponed.

James Elling, 263 Summit St., came forward, was sworn in for his testimony, and spoke in opposition to this application.

David Elling, 263 Summit St., came forward, was sworn in for his testimony, and spoke in opposition to this application.

Corinne Lynch, 677 Broadway, came forward, was sworn in, and spoke in opposition to this application.

As there were no further comment or questions from the public, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public. All members voted yes.

Mr. Byrne offered a motion to schedule the vote on this application to the next meeting with a request that Mr. Knigin have his engineer available for testimony.

Mr. Ritvo questioned the date modified plans were submitted to the board (8/8/03) and the date the application was deemed complete (Neglia Review Letter dated 7/16/03) because the Municipal Land Use Act imposes a time-limit within which boards must act. Ms. Reilly commented that the applicant would and could provide any additional information the board requires. Mr. Knigin came forward and advised that he would bring his professional, or a representative, to the next meeting in order to provide testimony concerning the report offered earlier in the evening. Additional discussion took place regarding time limitations, and Mr. Ritvo advised that an application for subdivision, with no variances and less than ten lots, must be acted upon within forty-five days of submission of a complete application. Application has been modified within the past month; however, if the board does not act during this meeting it might not meet the time-constraints imposed by the state and thereby grant the application. Ms. Reilly advised that applicant is not willing to grant additional time.

Mr. Byrne retracted his original motion and offered a motion that the board request a traffic study. Following further discussion concerning time constraints, Mr. Byrne suggested that a motion to deny might delay the project indefinitely pending additional information that might be forthcoming from Mr. Knigin’s engineer. Ms. Reilly advised that applicant is unwilling to provide a time waiver.

RESOLVED: Mr. Byrne introduced a motion to deny the application. Seconded by Mr. Altenbach.

Mr. Byrne commented that he is voting to deny because applicant has not granted the time waiver to allow Mr. Knigin’s engineer to testify.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Butti, Mr. Altenbach, Mr. DeMaria, Councilman Brizzolara, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Zacco, and Mr. Jacobs voted yes. Mr. DeBiasa and Mayor D’Ercole voted no.

PAGE SIX, AUGUST 21, 2003

At this time, Mr. Altenbach called a five-minute recess.

VARIANCE/SITE PLAN APPLICATION #673

DiMora Restaurant

Block 10, Lot 4 – 100 Piermont Rd.

Attorney Ray Jacobs, Jacobs & Bell, 26 Franklin St., Tenafly, NJ came forward representing DiMora Restaurant in this application for expansion of a non-conforming use. Mr. Jacobs explained that this application does not add additional space to the restaurant but proposes six outdoor tables on an existing outdoor patio to seat a maximum of thirty patrons bringing total seating to one hundred fifty. Parking is sufficient for additional customers and no additional lighting is proposed.

Mayor D’Ercole and Councilman Brizzolara recused themselves from hearing this application and stepped down from the dais.

Sokol Gjevukat, President of DiMora Restaurant, came forward and was sworn in for his testimony. Mr. Gjevukat testified that it was his misunderstanding when he purchased the restaurant that outdoor dining on the front patio was permitted. Applicant proposes to serve outside during pleasant weather (approximately April through October) and no later then 9:00PM. No additional lighting, entertainment, or music is planned and applicant is willing to accept these as a condition of approval. Mr. Gjevukat also testified that this is the only restaurant he currently owns.

It was duly moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public for questions of this witness. All members voted yes.

Joseph Lee, 124 Piermont Rd., came forward and questioned the hours proposed for outdoor dining and voiced a complaint regarding the noise that currently emanates from both the parking and kitchen areas. Mr. Gjevukat testified that some of his clientele are on their home from work and leave following their dinner. He proposes six tables that would seat approximately thirty or less patrons; service would end at 9:00PM, however, some customers might remain at their table following dinner. One neighbor has complained regarding noise and he has resolved this matter with the employee(s) involved.

Ani Karatoprak, 33 Mohawk Ave., came forward and complained about the noise coming from the kitchen at the rear of the restaurant. Ms. Karatoprak explained that when they purchased their house, the restaurant was less active. Applicant has also removed a landscaped area in the backyard that buffered the two properties.

David Rosen, 43 Mohawk Ave., came forward and questioned increased noise level and rodents that might be caused by the outside dining. Mr. Jacobs indicated that the applicant would provide landscaping at the rear of the property as a condition of approval.

Adrienne Karatoprak, 33 Mohawk Ave., came forward and questioned the increase in noise level asked if the restaurant includes a party room, cigar bar, and billiards.

Alka Chandra, 89 Piermont Rd., came forward, asked if the restaurant was a house converted into a restaurant, and questioned the number of existing parking spaces. Mr. Jacobs commented that existing parking is sufficient under the ordinance.

Tiffany Lee, 124 Piermont Rd., came forward and expressed concern regarding the increase in noise level.

Mary Barry, 96 Piermont Rd., came forward and questioned the take-out business that the restaurant anticipates.

As there were no further questions from the public, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public.

PAGE SEVEN, AUGUST 21, 2003

APPLICATION #673 Continued

Michael Hubschman, PE, PP, 263A South Washington Ave., Bergenfield, NJ, came forward, was sworn in and qualified as an expert witness in his field. Mr. Hubschman testified that he prepared the site plan submitted several years ago for the handicapped additions, and the site plan in this appeal. The restaurant is located in the center of the property; the lot is approximately 99 feet across the front, 400 feet deep on the south, and 367 feet deep on the northerly side. There is a parking lot surrounding the building and a landscaped buffer at the rear of the property where the lot juts towards Mohawk Avenue. Applicant proposes seasonal outdoor seating on an existing terrace at the front of the building for an additional thirty patrons. Mr. Hubschman testified that, in his opinion, the small scope of the project and additional patrons would not greatly increase the noise level. The applicant agrees to provide additional plantings at both the rear of the building and around the patio area to additionally buffer noise. Mr. Hubschman testified, that applicant is not expanding the non-conforming use, but is creating an alternate seating arrangement.

It was duly moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public to question Mr. Hubschman’s testimony.

Judith Lamp, 120 Summit St., came forward and asked Mr. Hubschman if he was also an audio or sound engineer.

Naveen Chandra, 89 Piermont Rd., came forward and asked questions regarding the scope of this application. Mr. Ritvo commented that the prior Resolution of Approval allowed for handicapped access only and does not reference seating on the patio area; however, the minutes of that meeting indicate that the area was approved as a waiting area only.

Peter Sideris, 282 Summit St., came forward and enquired about Board of Health approval for outdoor dining. Mr. Jacobs responded that applicant would secure these approvals if required.

As there were no further questions from the public for Mr. Hubschman, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public.

VARIANCE/SITE PLAN APPLICATION #675

Colonial Inn

Mr. Jacobs, as the attorney representing the above-indicated application, indicated to the board that, in the interest of time, he would agree to postpone this appeal until next month and granted an extension of time.

DIMORA RESTAURANT, Continued

It was duly moved and seconded to open the meeting to the public for comment on this application. All members voted yes.

Dr. Karatoprak, 33 Mohawk Ave., came forward and was sworn in for any testimony he might offer. He testified that the trees and landscaped area at the rear property of the restaurant has been totally removed and that area is now barren and noise from all areas of the restaurant is constant during the early evening and late night hours. A shaded version of the plan submitted to the board was marked at Exhibit A-1. In response to Mr. Jacobs, Dr. Karatoprak testified that the front patio is not visible from his yard.

MOTION TO CARRY

VARIANCE/SITE PLAN APP. #675

Colonial Inn, Block 126, Lot 2

SUBDIVISION APP# 678

Block 122, Lot 2 – 430 Tappan Rd.

(Formerly Casa D’Amici)

PAGE EIGHT, AUGUST 21, 2003

RESOLVED: Mr. Altenbach offered a motion to carry the above-indicated applications to the September 18, 2003 meeting with time-waivers and without further notice to the public. Seconded by Mr. Van Dyke. All members voted yes.

APPLICATION #673 Continued

The following members of the public came forward, were sworn in for any testimony they might offer, and spoke in opposition to this application.

Dave Rosen, 43 Mohawk Ave.

Alka Chandra, 89 Piermont Rd.

Mary Barry, 96 Piermont Rd.

Michael Benedict, 92 Piermont Rd.

Stephanie Lee, 124 Piermont Rd.

As there was no further comment from the public, it was duly moved and seconded to close the meeting to the public. All members voted yes.

Mr. Jacobs advised that applicant is willing to address the noise issues, which has not previously been brought to his attention. He suggested that the board carry this application to the next meeting and further investigate the patio area for screening and separation from the adjoining properties. Applicant would also eliminate the equivalent seating inside the restaurant during the seasonal period so as not to increase the usage. If the application is approved, the board would have the opportunity to correct a situation created by the previous owner in terms of screening requirements.

RESOLVED: A motion was offered by Mr. Byrne and seconded by Mr. Jacobs to deny Application # 673.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. DeBiasa, Mr. Altenbach, and Mr. DeMaria, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Zacco, and Mr. Jacobs voted yes. Mr. Butti and Mr. Van Dyke voted no.

RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL

Variance Application #672 – Luby

Block 114, Lot 23 – 88 Kensington Ave.

RESOLVED: A motion was offered by Mr. Van Dyke and seconded by Mr. Butti to accept the Resolution of Approval on the above-indicated application.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Butti, Mr. Altenbach, Mr. Byrne, Mayor D’Ercole, Councilman Brizzolara, and Mr. Van Dyke voted yes.

RESOLUTION OF DENIAL

Variance Application #671 – Roehrer

Block 6, Lot 8 – 41 Ridge Rd.

RESOLVED: A motion was offered by Mr. Van Dyke and seconded by Mr. Butti to adopt the Resolution of Denial on the above-indicated application.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. Butti, Mr. Altenbach, Mr. Byrne, Mayor D’Ercole, Councilman Brizzolara, and Mr. Van Dyke voted yes.

APPROVAL OF VOUCHERS

It was duly moved and seconded to approve payment of the following vouchers:

Neglia Engineering Associates $5,740.75

All members voted yes.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

REGULAR MEETING JULY 17, 2003

It was duly moved and seconded to accept the minutes of the above-indicated meeting. All members voted yes.

OPEN TO PUBLIC – CLOSE TO PUBLIC

Barry Scott, 345 Fifthteenth St., came forward and inquired when and if the board had officially recommended that the Governing Body approve Resolution 03:106 concerning parkland. Mayor D’Ercole commented that the board has never offered a resolution regarding this matter and the subject was discussed informally on several occasions.

PAGE NINE, AUGUST 21, 2003

Peter Yahr, 336 Westwind Ct., came forward and asked for copies of correspondence to the board regarding proposed zoning changes and modifications. Mr. Ritvo explained that these matters are in progress and printed materials are not yet available.

Barbara Broomall, 304 Summit St., asked if permits are required for tree removal.

WILLIAM MCGUIRE

BLOCK 102, LOT 11

520 Summit St.

RESOLVED: Following discussion regarding vacation of a small piece of the above-indicated property, and with written review and recommendation from the Board Engineer, Mr. DeMaria offered a motion to recommend same to the Mayor & Council. Seconded by Mr. Altenbach.

ROLL CALL VOTE: Mr. DeBiasa, Mr. Butti, Mr. Altenbach, Mayor D’Ercole, Mr. DeMaria, Councilman Brizzolara, Mr. Byrne, Mr. Zacco, Mr. Van Dyke, and Mr. Jacobs voted yes.

As there were no further members of the public to come forward, or business before the board, it was duly moved and seconded to adjourn at 11:50PM.

Linda Grove

Clerk to Board