MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE RINGWOOD … · Regular Meeting July 21, 2014 Page 2 Docket...

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE RINGWOOD ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,

HELD ON MONDAY, JULY 21, 2014, BOROUGH HALL,

60 MARGARET KING AVENUE, RINGWOOD, NEW JERSEY

___________________________________________________________

The Chairman called the meeting to order at 8:00 P.M. and stated that it was in

compliance with the Statute.

Present on roll call were Amariuta, Buongiorno, Dyer, Shaughnessy, Tennant,

Foster and Diamond. Also present were Attorney Van Eck and Zoning Officer Hafner.

The Chairman opened the meeting to the public. There being no one wishing to

speak, it was moved by Mr. Amariuta, seconded by Mr. Dyer and unanimously carried

that the public portion be closed.

Approval of Minutes

It was moved by Mr. Shaughnessy and seconded by Mr. Diamond that the

minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 16, 2014 be approved. On roll call Amariuta,

Buongiorno, Dyer, Shaughnessy, Tennant, Foster and Diamond voted “aye”.

Approval of Vouchers

It was moved by Mr. Tennant, seconded by Mr. Amariuta and unanimously

carried that the following vouchers be approved for payment: Schwanewede/Hals -

$630.00, $630.00; Verde, Steinberg & Pontell - $69.50.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 2

Docket #1903 – Wasserman – Block 732, Lot 49– Skyline Lakes Drive

Ann Wasserman and Robert Hewitt were present and reminded that they were still

under oath.

This is a continuation of the meeting held on June 16, 2014.

Mr. Van Eck confirmed for the record that the deed was in order.

The Chairman stated that some Board members were on site to look at the

property. We saw some problems we discussed with the applicant. We saw a lot of

positive change from the last time we were out there. The biggest problem was the smell

from the wooden deck where the urine has soaked through.

The Chairman stated that she did check out the inside of the sheds and the sheds

contained what looked to be gardening and home property maintenance items. There was

absolutely no smell or odors of animals at all in the sheds.

Mr. Amariuta stated that the smell also comes from the ground under the deck

being soaked over time with urine.

Ms. Wasserman stated they repaired the concrete steps. The Health Officer also

recommended that we take the dogs off the deck and we did that. We are replacing all

the wood of the deck with treks. The dogs will be on the ground.

The Chairman asked at most, how many dogs do you have on the property? Ms.

Wasserman said 11.

The Chairman asked those are all pugs? Ms. Wasserman stated 9 Pugs and 2

Labs.

The Chairman asked you said sometimes they are not there because they are out

working?

Ms. Wasserman stated that is correct. For instance, the day before you came they

were doing a job for Microsoft in Boston. They do Saturday Night Live and all sorts of

things where someone picks them up.

The Chairman asked the 11 dogs are always the same 11? Ms. Wasserman said

that is correct.

The Chairman asked do you breed dogs? Ms. Wasserman stated I do not breed

anything in Ringwood.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 3

The Chairman asked there is never any kind of equipment, baby puppies, it is

always the same 11 dogs.

Ms. Wasserman said yes unless one expires.

Mr. Van Eck asked do you have any relationship with Meshuga Kennels? Ms.

Wasserman said yes, that is the name of what my dogs are called. I work for three animal

agencies and that is my name.

The Chairman asked you are not kenneling other people’s dogs ever on the

property? Ms. Wasserman said no.

The Chairman asked is the trailer still there? Ms. Wasserman stated the trailer is

there because we are mulching and when we are done, we will move it to storage.

The Chairman stated the Borough has an ordinance regarding trailers and

recreational vehicles.

Mr. Amariuta stated that there is a letter that came from Tennessee regarding

purchasing puppies. Ms. Wasserman stated I rented them to use them for Saturday Night

Live. They don’t stay at my house anymore.

The Chairman asked about a chicken coop with chickens? Ms. Wasserman stated

she did have chickens but they were removed and are not coming back.

Donna Ruccione of the Ringwood Health Department was sworn in. She stated

that she is a Registered Environmental Health Specialist.

Ms. Ruccione gave a summary of the history of the property.

It was last summer that I began to get some complaints regarding this property.

When I did go out to investigate, as I approached the property, the odor was very strong

and that was approximately July of 2013. For a number of months, I would go back

trying to identify odor. I walked along the lake to see if I saw anything. I never saw any

discharge or any waste going into the lake, but there was a very strong odor. After

talking to Ms. Wasserman, she did tell me that last April 2013 was when she brought in

the chicken coop and that may have been a significant part of the odor problem. All

through the summer I went back, but did not identify anything specific. I would see 6 to

8 dogs on the deck at one time. The odor was so overpowering at times that I did not

want to enter the backyard.

By October we did receive some complaints from SLPOA and we went out there.

I didn’t see any evidence of any real waste being disposed of. The complaints were

concerns about washing off the deck and any kind of runoff going into the lake. The

Building Department got involved in terms of property maintenance and we didn’t have

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 4

any complaints about odors probably because of the cold temperatures. Once spring

came around, we started getting complaints.

My first investigation of 2014 was May 2, 2014 at which time I did walk along

the perimeter of the lake and I did not see any evidence of feces, animal waste and the

odor at that point really wasn’t that discernible. As the temperatures got warmer, I

started detecting the odor. I was back in the middle of June and at that point, the odor

became pungent and I kept assuming it was from the dogs. I guess at that point we were

asked to comment about the sheds. We did not know what the sheds were housing and I

did go out to determine where the sheds were located in relation to the septic system. I

identified that the sheds were not close to the septic system but we were starting to get

additional complaints and the odor was definitely a problem. The previous summer the

complaints were from SLPOA, but in spring, we started getting complaints from

neighbors. I also received a few anonymous complaints from people who detected odors

while they were on their boats.

Our concern was that 11 dogs were in a small confined area. They obviously

spend a majority of their time on the deck which poses a problem in terms of waste

disposal and odors from the waste. Since the last meeting, the Health Officer and I went

out and we spoke with the applicant about the conditions and outlined certain things that

we wanted her to do: (1) removal of the chickens which has been done; (2) remove the

outdoor cages from the lakeside of the property and she is moving the dogs and pens to

the side of the house; (3) begin a program of sanitation and deodorizing the property to

eliminate the odor. We did advise that in terms of the deck there should be some real

strong sanitizing bleach agent and scrubbing.

The removal of the chicken coop was a definite improvement. They were putting

cedar mulch down to try to eliminate some of the odor.

The Chairman asked if the Health Department has tested the water in that area?

Ms. Ruccione stated we did. It was after the June meeting and the results were 1 fecal

coliform. When they test lake water, because it is lake water, it is 200 coliforms total and

you can have a maximum of 200 per 100 mililiters of water. For drinking water, it is 0

and recreational waters are 200.

Ms. Wasserman stated we have an easement on our property and that drains from

the street and comes out 10 feet from our dock. The neighbor two houses down stated he

complained to the Borough several times about people walking their dogs on the street

and not picking up after them.

Ms. Ruccione stated these are the variables you have to take into consideration.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 5

Mr. Dyer stated that having been active with Erskine Lake, as far as water

ecology, when they mention the fact that the coliform was 1 I would be shocked if it was

higher. It’s not a legitimate reading unless you draw it right then and there. It is in a

body of water, that 1 is non-significant.

Ms. Ruccione stated I would like to see an ongoing monitoring of the lake.

The Chairman asked what would be the effect of all the bleach and chemicals

going into the lake?

Mr. Dyer stated the coliform would stay.

The Chairman opened the meeting to the public for questions of Ms. Ruccione:

Ms. Vesna Bubalo of 337 Skyline Lakes Drive was reminded she was still under

oath. She stated that they had filed a complaint and they were concerned about rainwater

and the drainage to the lake. We were concerned about the hosing of the deck and that

going into the lake. The important thing here is that they have more dogs than they can

take care of and dogs coming and being delivered to them. She read from the memo of

Ringwood Health Department dated March 31, 2009. We do know that neighbors are

complaining. She referred to other complaints made to the Health Department.

The Chairman stated we are allowing an opportunity for you to get this on the

record, but in actuality, things related to the Health Department are things that we have

no power over. We are listening and giving you a chance to voice your concerns, but our

job is to deal with the sheds.

Ms. Bubalo asked what kind of follow up will there be and what power does the

Health Department have. The reason we were against the sheds because when the old

shed was knocked down, the dogs were in that shed.

Ms. Wasserman stated there was never a dog in a shed in 35 years, never.

Ms. Bubalo said that from the boat, she could see dogs in the shed. Are the dogs

going to be kept in the sheds? The reason we are against the sheds is because the dogs

were kept in the shed.

Mr. Sinisa Nikolin asked after our last meeting, the inspector was at their house 5

or 6 times. I think 4 of them they have smelled odors on the property and even after our

meeting here, the smell continued from this house. We have had since 2003 smell from

this house. This is a very long history and this continues. Right now, they are doing

everything to get their permit and we are afraid this is not going to stop.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 6

Ms. Ruccione stated that I have only been involved in this particular circumstance

for about one year. I do think since the last meeting the Health Department has been

making a considerable effort to try to identify what the issues are on the property. I think

we have started a process making sure that the homeowner will clean up. I feel that given

the extent of the problem as well as the fact that it has been ongoing, I would like to see

the Health Department make sure we have regular inspections of the property to see that

it is maintained, make sure they are doing what we are asking them to do and in the

process hopefully find ways to eliminate the level of odor that does emanate from the

property. If the odors continue, we have to continue to look for a resolution of the

problem.

The Chairman asked would the granting of the variance end the Health

Department’s involvement with this piece of property?

Ms. Ruccione said no, they are two separate issues. I feel it is the responsibility

of the Health Department to ensure the comfort of the residents, to make sure the

surrounding community is not impacted by the property and do everything in our power

to ensure that which is difficult to do because there are many variables involved.

Mr. Amariuta asked what is the frequency of inspections that you think will be

done?

Ms. Ruccione stated when I have had problems in establishments and other

properties, I do make sure that I am there weekly to inspect.

Mr. Van Eck asked is there some role in this for Passaic County Health

Department?

Ms. Ruccione stated she would investigate but she believes the County becomes

more involved with chemicals and hazards resulting from chemicals.

Ms. Wasserman stated you had me send out letters to people within 200 feet

including SLPOA and I want it noted that these neighbors are the only ones that came.

Mr. Amariuta stated we cannot dismiss the smell. The fact that they are

complaining and you are alluding to the fact that they might be the only ones, I think that

is trying to skirt the issue. There is a problem and what we are trying to do here is to fix

it somehow.

Ms. Wasserman stated we are trying to do everything that has been asked.

The Chairman stated that the one person with the courage to speak up is usually

representing people too afraid to speak up.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 7

Mr. Dyer asked we have the power to make people put up fences around noisy

things like generators. Wouldn’t we have the power to make it so that they have to put a

fence to keep the hosings in one area and the Health Department could come right to that

area and check.

Mr. Van Eck stated if we can tie it to an objective of the Land Use Ordinance, we

could do that. For instance, a condition we could not impose in this case is every month

you must wash out the backyard; that is not a condition we can impose. It can’t be

enforced. You can impose a condition that says since you are increasing the impervious

coverage by adding an accessory structure and a shed, you have to remove all the

concrete in your backyard because that is an impervious surface. In my opinion, that is a

condition this Board could impose in relation to a land use objective.

Mr. Dyer stated that at one time, a septic could only be so far from a lake. When

you are hosing urine, etc., that’s the same thing and you are putting it near the lake. This

is a lot of dogs and there is concrete which is a direct line into the lake and we know it’s

been hosed.

The Chairman stated we had discussed that one way to take care of this is to have

less impervious surface between where the dogs are and the lake.

Mr. Dyer stated I would like to see something to stop it from going into the lake

so it’s forced to stay on the property.

Mr. Van Eck stated the Board can impose conditions that no animal products, dog

supplies, nothing like that can be stored in the sheds. She mentions she does auctions of

car parts on E-Bay; technically a commercial use shouldn’t be done from a residential

property. We can restrict zero car parts or anything of that nature be maintained in the

sheds. Our power isn’t limited only to the sheds; it is limited to the goals of the Land Use

Ordinance and the Municipal Land Use Law.

Mr. Amariuta asked have you considered kind of a drywell to hose all that stuff in

rather than the lake.

Ms. Wasserman stated she mentioned that to Mr. Chapman. He said he did not

know if we have to go that far.

Mr. Diamond asked is it true that your sister is your neighbor? Ms. Wasserman

said that is correct. My sister needed a septic and the Health Department was there

several times and never told me they smelled anything.

Ms. Ruccione stated I was there doing septic inspections and it was in December

and it was very cold. As an inspector, having been in numerous types of circumstances

and investigations, you can go on any given day and the conditions are one way and you

can go back 24 hours later and they are different. There are many variables, but it

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 8

doesn’t negate the fact that there is a problem. My goal is to figure out if we can

eliminate this problem.

Mr. Van Eck asked do you think the sheds are playing any role?

Ms. Ruccione stated when we were there, I did not look into the sheds. The sheds

are within the distance for the septic and in that case, they didn’t pose a problem.

Mr. Amariuta stated the mulch that you have spread all over the property is very

good for now. It cuts the odor, but if you have those dogs and the urine on top of that

mulch for one month in the summer, that is going to actually make the condition worse

because it is going to absorb all that odor. The mulch is good for today but twice as bad

for tomorrow.

Ms. Wasserman stated that is why the trailer is there with the mulch.

John Stack, resident of the Skyline Lakes community, member of SLPOA and I

currently serve on the Board of Directors for that Association, was sworn in.

Mr. Stack read a statement on behalf of SLPOA expressing concern about

activities on the Wasserman property. Some of the concerns were activities taking place

on the property that were affecting lake. They are seeking help for members who are

affected by the foul odor and members who use the lake and experience the foul odor.

SLPOA is suggesting that a containment system be put in place on the property to

prevent any waste, solid or liquid, from contaminating our buffer zone and entering our

lake through hosing and storm runoff.

The Chairman asked if SLPOA received complaints about the property? Mr.

Stack said yes. I spend a lot of time on the lake and when you are on a boat, the odor is

overpowering. The 2 ½ foot sewer pipe does come in right off their dock and the odor

we experience on the lake is not coming from that pipe. During the winter, I saw the

shed and it seemed somewhat smaller. It seems like an extension was added of about 7

feet and is now surrounded by a 4’ x 8’ white lattice fencing that wooded area in. It looks

like there may not be dogs in there now, but maybe there will be dogs in that corral in the

not too distant future.

Ms. Foster stated that one of the conditions the Board will be imposing is that the

sheds never be used to house animals.

Mr. Van Eck stated if the Board grants a variance and allows the sheds to be on

the property, we would impose conditions. Most likely, I would recommend that the car

parts as well as any animal use whatsoever be restricted. If in the future, a neighbor raises

a complaint, it becomes a zoning enforcement issue and the Zoning Officer has the right

to go to Municipal Court and the Judge can decide.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 9

Ms. Buongiorno stated that I have been on the lake in my kayak and there is a

very strong odor.

Mr. Stack stated that the fecal count of 1 I think was a bad test because the levels

on the lake, although it is very clean, have been higher than that on a normal basis.

Mr. Van Eck asked if Mr. Stack knew the size of the buffer along this property?

Mr. Stack stated it is probably in the 3 to 5 foot range.

Mr. Jim Martocci was sworn in. He stated that he is there as President of SLPOA

and he wanted to mention some positive things and some things that need to be

addressed. Ms. Wasserman has been a member of the lake for many, many years. She

has volunteered to help out with the lake. We have had an increasing amount of

complaints about the property. We have had a couple of things happen that are different;

the climate has changed, we have had more rain and heavy downpours and those things

affect the lake and runoff. What I want the most is what is best for the lake. I am hoping

we can resolve this for the benefit of the lake. Even with a drywell system, we have to

prevent things from leaching into the lake. I think we have to come together to resolve

this.

Mr. Vanya Nikolin was sworn in. He is the son of the neighbor at 337 Skyline

Lakes Drive. He stated that the applicant had been arrested on over 30 counts to cruelty

to animals. The smell was there 10 or 15 years ago and it is still there. I don’t live there

anymore but when I go there, the smell is still there. I don’t allow my son to swim in the

lake anymore. I feel bad for my parents and the people living around this.

Ms. Wasserman stated the charges were dismissed.

Mr. Van Eck stated there is certain leeway with evidence for the Board that a

court of law would not have. We are allowed to take in hearsay evidence; however, when

we do that we have to analyze all the evidence and the Board decides what deserves more

weight and what doesn’t. I would encourage you to give less weight to hearsay evidence

as opposed to evidence of direct testimony.

Ms. Wasserman explained the circumstances regarding the charges. The charges

were in Clifton and they were dropped. I did pay a fine for one circumstance.

Mr. Stack stated that article appeared in February 2003 in the Record. There were

34 summonses issued for 34 dogs being kept in the garage covered in urine and feces.

There were 34 charges of improper shelter and unnecessary cruelty by the Passaic County

SPCA.

There being no one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Mr. Shaughnessy,

seconded by Mr. Amariuta and unanimously carried that the public portion be closed.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 10

Mr. Van Eck asked Mr. Dyer about containment? It does go along the lines of

runoff and impervious surface. If we could eliminate impervious surface to try to reduce

the impact and the flip side is to try to handle the runoff, allow there to be increased

impervious surface to try to handle the runoff, I am not opposed to having a condition

that asks for containment; the problem I am having with it is that it is very conceptual.

What would the system look like because if there are some specifics behind the plan, I

think there is some weight of adding that kind of condition. We would need more of a

plan.

Mr. Dyer stated my thought was more in line of an area that, if it is hosed, the

water is going to stay on the property and the Health Department can come and test it. A

drywell wouldn’t be it.

Mr. Van Eck stated we would need specifics.

The Board discussed what kind of system would be required.

Mr. Tennant stated I think we need to separate the things we are concerned about

versus what the Health Department is concerned about. There is an issue on the property

and there are steps being taken in conjunction with the Health Department and progress is

being made there.

The Chairman stated it does make sense to be concerned about the fact that there

is much less ground to deal with cleaning things up.

Ms. Buongiorno stated I have a concern that trapping any stormwater runoff from

the property for any period of time will alleviate one problem and create another because

you are going to have a basin of water gathering.

SLPOA is saying don’t let anything go in the lake and Mr. Dyer is saying let’s see

what is going in the lake.

Mr. Diamond suggested doing a trench going east to west, north to south, property

line to property line, 3 feet down of ¾ inch gravel, but it would have to be designed by a

professional.

Mr. Shaughnessy stated we should not be designing a plan; the applicant should

be coming to us with a plan prepared by a professional. I would like to see a system that

pretty much functions on its own.

Mr. Amariuta stated it will give them incentive to keep the property cleaner

because the measurement is going to come and we are going to know what the

measurement is.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 11

The Chairman stated that we have no power over the smell problems, but we do

have power over runoff and if you want to have such a large shed, we can say that this is

no longer ground that can do its natural job and we have to find something else to do that

job.

Ms. Wasserman stated if we remove one side of our shed, we didn’t need a

variance.

The Chairman stated you have also come to us with another shed that you need a

variance for and we are looking at it all now.

Mr. Van Eck stated if you removed that side of the shed, you wouldn’t need a side

yard variance, but you would still need a rear yard variance.

Ms. Wasserman stated we need to get an expert to figure out how to stop the

runoff from ending up in the lake.

Ms. Buongiorno stated it is essentially a stormwater management system.

It was suggested that Ms. Wasserman discuss the matter with the Health Officer.

The Chairman asked the Board if they had any problem with the variances for the

sheds?

Mr. Amariuta stated if we take the sheds down, it won’t solve the odor problem.

If we can approve the sheds and couple that with some conditions that will alleviate the

smell, I think we have achieved the most that we can.

Ms. Foster stated I can say I like the sheds being there as long as we don’t create

what was in the front of the house before.

The application is carried to the Board meeting of August 18, 2014.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 12

Docket #1914 – Ringwood Baptist Church – Block 927, Lot 11 – Carletondale Road

Mr. Diamond recused himself from the application.

Donna Furrey, School Principal, John Dumont, Deacon and Steve Abma, General

Contractor, were present and sworn.

Proof of service, legal notice and the deed were reviewed and deemed to be in

order.

Mr. Van Eck stated no bulk variances are required for this application; the

applicant is here for a conditional use variance and amended site plan approval.

Conditional use is a use permitted in the zone so long as you meet the conditions listed.

Five votes are required for approval this evening. Churches are permitted in the R-20

zone but the Ringwood Baptist Church does not meet the requirements for lot area and lot

depth.

Mr. Van Eck stated our question this evening is this site still suitable to have a

church and an appurtenant school if it is 13,000 square feet smaller than it should be in

area and is not sufficient in lot depth. The Church does own property across the street so,

although they do not meet a contiguous lot of 100,000 square feet, they probably exceed

100,000 square feet in area when you add the property across the street.

Mr. Van Eck stated from a site plan perspective, Mr. Hals has addressed that in

his report. They are requesting waivers from submission requirements of site plan

approval.

Dr. Furrey stated the smaller building, where our pre-school is, we would like to

open it up on the side and provide an entranceway to get into the classroom which from a

safety perspective is much better.

Dr. Furrey stated that the walkway is being proposed also for safety issues.

Attached to the application were photographs of snow and ice in the walkway which is

not covered. Nothing in the parking area is being impacted.

Dr. Furrey stated that both requests revolve around safety issues.

The striping and drainage noted in Mr. Hals engineering report were discussed.

Mr. Van Eck stated that for both additions you are going to have to tie that roof into the

existing drainage system.

Mr. Van Eck asked are there any lights on the back of the main church building

that would have to be removed or are you proposing new lighting?

Dr. Furrey stated the lights would remain.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 13

Mr. Amariuta asked would the lighting be less under that new roof?

Mr. Abma stated there are two existing lights up high on the building that flood

the area so it might cast a shadow. There are two lights by the entrance door on the side.

At the minimum, that is what is there now.

Mr. Van Eck stated from a site plan standard, the Board does not have any

discretion. If they meet the code, they get an approval. If there is new lighting, that may

affect the existing site plan.

The Chairman opened the meeting to the public:

Teri Cisek and Charles Cisek were sworn in. Ms. Cisek stated they live at 98

Cedar Road and their property is directly behind the parking lot. Our concern with the

improvements would be the lighting. Currently there is lighting that shines into our

house and with the overhang, I would like assurance from the Board that any additional

lighting would take into consideration our property. The lighting does not shine down; it

shines forward.

The Chairman asked when there are functions, are these doors used?

Dr. Furrey said yes.

Ms. Cisek stated the lights are on every night until 10:00 P.M.

The Chairman stated that one of our goals is to control light pollution. She asked

if the lights could be redirected somewhat so that it shines only on the church property.

Ms. Cisek stated I think it is the height of the lights that creates the problem.

The Board asked Mr. Abma to look at the lights and see if they could be aimed

downward more or have shields put on.

The Chairman stated any additional lighting should be underneath the walkway,

but no additional lighting at the top of the building.

Mr. Van Eck stated that it is certainly reasonable to consider the lighting because

they have not submitted a lighting plan and there is the potential that there will be

lighting placed under the structure that we limit how those lights go in.

There being no one else wishing to speak, it was moved by Mr. Amariuta,

seconded by Mr. Dyer and unanimously carried that the public portion be closed.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 14

The following exhibits were marked into evidence:

Exhibit A-1 being the application packet with two letters dated May 12, 2014

from Ringwood Christian School as well as a copy of the deed.

Exhibit A-2 being photocopy of survey showing the proposed additions and

marked received 5/15/2014, Amended S.P. 1974-#14.

Exhibit A-3 being four sheets of photographs: (1) rear of the church where the

proposed awning structure is going to be located; (2) computer generated depiction of

that proposed improvement; (3) specifications; (4) specifications and drawings.

Exhibit A-4 being plan entitled Proposed Addition for Ringwood Christian School

marked received 5/15/2014, consisting of two sheets, and showing proposed construction.

Exhibit B-1 being the entire contents of the Ringwood Zoning Board of

Adjustment file.

Exhibit B-2 being engineering report from Hals Engineering dated July 21, 2014.

Exhibit B-3 being memorandum from the Fire Prevention Bureau dated May 21,

2014 stating they have no concerns.

Conditions of the approval are piping the storm drainage, restriping in front of the

new entry for the preschool and any additional lighting would be confined to the

overhang.

There are two lights on the side of door and they would be on a timer. Condition

that the lights be on timer and off at 10:00 P.M. unless being used for a function.

It was moved by Mr. Amariuta and seconded by Ms. Buongiorno that the Board

of Adjustment Attorney be authorized to prepare a Memorializing Resolution approving

Conditional Use Variance and Amended Preliminary and Final Site Plan with conditions

discussed.

On roll call Amariuta, Buongiorno, Dyer, Shaughnessy, Tennant and Foster voted

“aye”.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 15

Docket #1915 – Bloomingdale Regional Animal Shelter – Block 310, Lot 1.04 –

Greenwood Lake Turnpike________________________________________________

Ms. Ellen Ribitzki, President of the Bloomingdale Regional Animal Shelter

Society, Inc., was present and sworn in.

Proof of service, owner’s authorization, legal notice and the deed were reviewed

and deemed to be in order.

Mr. Van Eck stated that typically non-profits and companies need an attorney to

appear under our By-Laws. Being that it is a non-profit and specifically an animal

shelter, I would ask the Board to waive that requirement.

It was move by Mr. Diamond, seconded by Mr. Dyer and unanimously carried

that the applicant be allowed to appear without counsel.

Ms. Ribitzki stated that we ran the Bloomingdale Animal Shelter for 18 years and

explained the circumstances. She stated they are no longer in Bloomingdale and now

they need a little more space.

The Chairman asked what is the anticipated average length of stay? Ms. Ribitzki

stated about one week.

Ms. Ribitzki stated we would like the opportunity to keep cats, but mostly dogs.

The Chairman asked is there any limitation on the size of dogs?

Ms. Ribitzki stated we will not be bringing pit bulls in. It doesn’t make sense in

the area we have to have anything other than small or medium dogs.

Ms. Buongiorno asked how large do you anticipate the exercise area to be?

Ms. Ritbitzki stated approximately the length of the building in back – 30’ x 20’.

Mr. Hafner stated that the outside area has to be approved by the Board. The

Chairman stated we don’t have a drawing for that.

Mr. Van Eck suggested that between now and the August 18th

meeting, the

applicant submit a drawing showing the location for the outdoor exercise area with the

size of it and how far it is from the building.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 16

The following exhibits were marked into evidence:

Exhibit A-1 being application packet including cover letter from Bloomingdale

Animal Shelter, copy of deed, a floor plan of the portion of the building proposed to be

utilized by the shelter. It is noted that the owner of the property has authorized this

application.

Exhibit A-2 being copy of survey of the property for 1159 Greenwood Lake

Turnpike.


Adjustment file.

Exhibit B-2 being memorandum from the Environmental Commission stating

they have no issue.

Mr. Dyer asked is there a maximum number of animals being housed?

The Chairman asked the applicant if she could give us an estimate?

Ms. Ribitizki stated we only have a cage bank on one wall and a cage bank on a

small wall and the other room is for isolation. Occasionally we would have 12 dogs. We

usually have a high number on Saturday, by Sunday, most of them have gone. It is fluid.

The Board asked about the hours of operation?

Ms. Ribitizki stated we are open to the public 4:00 to 6:00 P.M. during the week –

1:00 to 4:00 P.M. on Saturday and Sunday.

Mr. Van Eck stated we would put the hours in at 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M. to allow

flexibility.

If the applicant is adding lighting, it should be shown on the map she is

submitting with the exercise area and the hours that the lights are going to be on.

The Board asked about additional signage or directional signage.

Ms. Ribitizki stated that the owner was going to include them on the sign in front.




Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 17

Mr. Van Eck stated we can approve that a sign be added to the existing sign for

the building within the permitted limits; we can easily permit a sign to be placed over the

rear door identifying the entranceway within permitted limits.

Mr. Van Eck stated this is a use variance and we need five votes. He went over

the positive and negative criteria. There is an enhanced proof required for the negative

criteria in that it is consistent with the zone plan and the Master Plan. I think because of

the obscurity of the use, I am not worried about that. There is no prohibition against the

use. The positive criteria in that it is not adjacent to residential properties, it has buffers

in the back, it is in a less densely populated area and would clearly meet the particular

suitability test. There is sufficient room on the property to have an animal run.

The applicant will submit a plan showing the exercise run, hours to the public

from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., any new lighting to be added to the map.

It was moved by Mr. Shaughnessy and seconded by Mr. Dyer that the Board of

Adjustment attorney be authorized to prepare a Memorializing Resolution approving the

Use Variance and Amended Preliminary and Final Site Plan as amended with conditions

discussed.

On roll call Amariuta, Buongiorno, Dyer, Shaughnessy, Tennant, Foster and

Diamond voted “aye”.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 18

Docket #1916 – Carroll/Volpe – Block 732, Lot 32 – Skyline Lakes Drive

Mr. James Carroll was present and sworn in.

Proof of service, owner’s authorization, legal notice and the deed were reviewed

and deemed to be in order.

Mr. Carroll stated that Mr. Volpe is not sure what he is going to do, but I am

going forward with the application.

Mr. Carroll stated he is proposing an addition. The house currently contains 750

square feet. He would like to go back about 12 feet, out a little in the front and go up

with a second story.

Ms. Buongiorno asked you are demolishing the old deck, are you putting in a new

deck? Mr. Carroll said no.

The Chairman stated there are woods across the street so there is no neighbor

across the street that would be impacted by a second floor on the house.

Ms. Buongiorno asked what is the final height of the house? Mr. Carroll stated it

will be in accordance with the ordinance.

Ms. Buongiorno asked will there be windows on the side. Mr. Carroll said

probably very little windows on side, more of a lake view.

Ms. Buongiorno asked are you coming out further in the back than the existing

deck? Mr. Carroll stated approximately 2 feet.




RESOLUTION

INTRODUCED: Mr. Diamond

SECONDED: Ms. Buongiorno

WHEREAS, JAMES CARROLL, as Applicant and SCOTT VOLPE, as Owner,

have made variance application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for property known

as 213 Skyline Lakes Drive, Lot 32 in Block 732, located in the R-20 zone, seeking

permission to construct an addition to the first floor as well as an addition for a second

story and in so doing are requesting two side yard variances as follows: a left side yard

variance of 4.5 feet and a right side yard 11.0 feet where a setback of 15 feet are required

in the zone; and

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 19

WHEREAS, the Zoning Board of Adjustment conducted a public hearing on July

21, 2014, at which time James Carroll was sworn and testified; and

WHEREAS, proof of service, legal notice and the deed were reviewed and

deemed to be in order; and

WHEREAS, the meeting was opened to the public and no one appeared to offer

comment or testimony; and

WHEREAS, during the course of the hearing, the applicant introduced the

following exhibits and testimony:

Exhibit A-1 being application packet containing application, copy of zoning

denial letter as well as correspondence from Scott and Danielle Volpe, minutes of the

prior approval from April 21, 2014 and copy of deed.

Exhibit A-2 being set of plans containing two sheets entitled Renovations and

Extension at 213 Skyline Lakes Drive.

Exhibit A-3 being a set of hand drawn sketches consisting of 2 sheets showing

proposed floor plan and layout of the proposed additions.

Exhibit B-1 being entire contents of the Ringwood Zoning Board of Adjustment

file.

Exhibit B-2 being Environmental Commission memorandum dated June 23, 2014

indicating they have no problems with the addition as long as the septic can handle the

proposed improvements.

Exhibit B-3 being Ringwood Health Department memorandum dated July 21,

2014.

The applicant explained that, although there is an existing and pending approval

for this property, that was done by the actual owner in April of 2014. The applicant is

proposing to purchase the property and in so doing requested permission from the owner

to come in and receive approval for a dwelling that he and his wife would find suitable if

they did purchase the property.

The applicant explained that the dwelling is approximately 750 square feet which

would be insufficient living space. Therefore he is proposing to extend an addition on the

first story that would go out towards the front and overtake a portion of the existing deck

and front porch and would also go out the rear. The addition to the rear would be much

larger and would cover and go 2 feet beyond the existing deck in the rear.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 20

The applicant explained that the deck would be removed and there are no current

plans to replace the deck. The applicant also explained that there would be a second

story addition located above the first story addition with a terrace as noted on the hand

drawn sketch of the floor plan.

The applicant explained that he will stay either within the existing footprint or

with direct linear extensions of that footprint; in other words, the building will go no

closer to the existing property line than the existing side walls of the structure except that

the right rear corner will be slightly closer than the existing right side wall of the building

and that is due to the fact that the existing dwelling is offset with relation to that right

property line.

The Board noted that, from site inspection, there is no dwelling located directly

across the street, which would be across Skyline Lakes Drive, and therefore no one on the

opposite side of the street would have their views impacted by this second story addition.

The Board also noted that the plan which calls for an addition out the rear of the

property could have some slight impact on the aesthetic and visual attributes of the

neighbor to the left, but the Board notes that the neighbor would still have access over

their own property for views of the lake and that the neighbor is not here to offer any

objections.

The applicant noted that he will stay within the height requirements and that the

second story addition would not exceed the height limit as imposed by the Borough

Ordinance.

The Board, after considering the drawings, plans and exhibits and listening to the

testimony of the applicant, accept his testimony and finds same to be credible.

The Board makes the following additional findings of fact and law:

The Board finds that the property is subject to several pre-existing non-

conformities in lot area and lot width. The Board finds that those pre-existing non-

conformities, in combination with the location of the existing structure on the lot,

combine to form a sufficient basis of hardship and support of the positive criteria.

The Board also finds that the negative criteria has been complied with in that

there is no substantial detriment to the public good and no substantial impairment to the

intent and purpose of the zone plan and Zoning Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for a left side yard

variance of 4.5 feet and a right side yard variance of 11 feet be and are hereby granted

subject to the following terms and conditions:

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 21

1. The applicant shall obtain the necessary building permits from the

Building Department prior to commencement of any construction.

2. All improvements shall be constructed in strict accordance with the plans

submitted to and approved by the board

.

3. The applicant shall obtain approval of all matters within the jurisdiction of

the Borough Engineer, including topographic layout, drainage and related matters, if

required.


the Ringwood Health Department, if required.


any county, regional or State entity.

6. The applicant shall comply with all applicable State statutes, and county

and municipal ordinances, rules and regulations, and shall obtain all applicable approvals.

7. No Certificate of Occupancy shall issue until there is full compliance with

the above.



Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 22

Docket #1917 – Huston – Block 922, Lot 24 – Windbeam Avenue

Ms. Foster stated for the record that she has known the applicant and her family

for a number of years. She has no financial connection to this application.

Mr. Van Eck stated for the record that the applicant is the neighbor of his parents,

but I don’t represent them and I don’t live at that residence so there is no basis for me to

have a conflict.

Ms. Bari Huston and Mr. Barry Huston were present and sworn in.


order.

The applicant stated she proposes to construct a covered front porch and a garage.

She stated that in order to get to her laundry and utilities, she has to go outside to access

them. The garage would allow her to get her car off the street as well as giving her

access to the basement without having to go outside.


speak, it was moved by Mr. Amariuta, seconded by Mr. Shaughnessy and unanimously

carried that the public portion be closed.

The applicant stated that all the siding will be redone.

Mr. Amariuta stated that the applicant requires a variance for the driveway. The

driveway is existing, but it is on the property line.

RESOLUTION

INTRODUCED: Mr. Diamond

SECONDED: Ms. Buongiorno

WHEREAS, BARI HUSTON, as Applicant and Owner, has made variance

application to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for property known as 31 Windbeam

Avenue, Lot24 in Block 922, located in the R-20 zone, seeking permission to construct a

one story addition with attached garage and also requesting permission to have driveway

within 5 feet of the property line and in so doing is requesting the following variances:

1. Front Yard Variance of 12.9 feet where 35 feet is required;

2. Right Side Yard Variance of 6.1 feet where 15 feet is required;

3. Left Side Yard Variance of 11.4 feet where 15 feet is required;

4. Driveway Variance of 0 feet where 5 feet is required.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 23


21, 2014, at which time Bari Huston and Barry Huston were sworn and testified; and



WHEREAS, the meeting was opened to the public and no one appeared to offer

comment or testimony; and

WHEREAS, during the course of the hearing, the applicant introduced the



denial letter, minutes of the prior approval from December 15, 1986, copy of floor plan of

the existing and proposed and copy of deed.

Exhibit A-2 being two pages consisting of survey entitled Proposed Survey for

Lot 24 in Block 922, prepared by Christopher J. Lantelme and Plan and Elevation Views

dated June 20, 2014, marked Docket #1917.

Exhibit B-1 being entire contents of the Ringwood Zoning Board of Adjustment

file.

The applicant testified that the present dwelling is a single story dwelling and is

significantly undersized for her purposes. The applicant explained that she would like to

extend the living space on the inside and also add an attached garage. There is currently

no garage on the property. The applicant also explained that she would like to have a

front porch so as to provide protection from the elements and to have an aesthetic front

entranceway.

The applicant explained that presently one of the main motivating factors, in

addition to having a garage, was also to provide indoor access to the utilities. The

applicant explained that the utilities and laundry are located in the basement and that the

present access to this basement are bilko doors located on the outside of the dwelling and

that every time you need to use any of these items, you have to go outside and down

through what almost amounts to a crawlspace.

The applicant explained that, in proposing the addition, she could have indoor

access through the garage into the basement.


testimony of the applicant, accept his testimony and finds same to be credible.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 24


The Board finds that the property is subject to pre-existing non-conformities in lot

area and insufficient lot width. The Board finds that these two pre-existing non-

conformities, in combination with the location of the existing structure on the lot,

combine to form a sufficient basis of hardship and support of the positive criteria.

The Board also finds that the negative criteria has been satisfied in that there is no

substantial detriment to the public good and no substantial impairment to the intent and

purpose of the zone plan and Zoning Ordinance.

The Board also finds that there is a benefit by having indoor parking space for

vehicles and that therefore this lessens any negative impact from the proposed project.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for a covered front

porch, garage addition and driveway be and is hereby approved together with the

following variances and conditions:

a. Front Yard Variance of 12.9 feet;

b. Right Side Yard Variance of 6.1 feet;

c. Left Side Yard Variance of 11.4 feet;

d. Driveway Variance of 0 feet.

1. The applicant shall obtain the necessary building permits from the




.


the Borough Engineer, including topographic layout, drainage and related matters, if

required.


the Ringwood Health Department, if required.


any county, regional or State entity.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 25




the above.



Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 26

Docket #1919 – Critelli – Block 930, Lot 4 – Lakeview Avenue

Ms. Nicole Critelli and Ms. Theresa Pizza were present and sworn in.


order.

The applicant stated that their house is a tiny lake cottage. The approximate

dimensions are 20 feet by 30 feet, 600 square feet. Our biggest problem is that our

family is growing and we need more space, but we need a wider house. Going up won’t

work for us so we are proposing to expand an extension off the side and we require a 22

foot rear yard variance in order to expand off the current structure. We are not proposing

to go any closer to the rear setback than we already are.

The Chairman stated this appears to be the most logical place for the addition; any

other location would require more variances.

Ms. Buongiorno asked how many bedrooms do you have? Ms. Critelli said one.

We are not adding any bedrooms at this time because budget-wise, we had to choose

what our main concern was and our priority is living space.

The Chairman opened the meeting to the public:

Mr. Sergi Stein was sworn in. Mr. Stein stated that this house is in second row

from Erskine Lake and our house is in the third row. Their property is between our house

and the lake. Our family objects to this addition, but we would not object to a second

story. Our house has a direct line of sight to the lake from October to April and the house

gets a lot of sunlight. Most of this light comes from this line of sight to the lake. If this

addition is built, it will be right between our house and the lake. We will lose the view of

the lake and the light and quality of life will be significantly reduced.

The Chairman asked how far off the property that you share with the applicant is

your home? Mr. Stein said approximately 15 feet.

Ms. Critelli stated we currently have a 6 foot fence which is according to code

around the perimeter of our entire property and he has a fence behind it so we have two

fences that butt up against each other. If you are standing in my yard, you can’t really see

the lake unless you are on a ladder. The view is obstructed with the fence in place. I

could build a separate structure on my property according to code but it would be

building almost two separate houses in the way the addition would have to be

constructed. That structure would completely block his view, more so than the addition

being proposed.

It was moved by Mr. Shaughnessy, seconded by Mr. Amariuta and unanimously

carried that the meeting be continued until 12:00 A.M.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 27

The Board discussed the location of Mr. Stein’s house on the property, the trees

on the property, the light and view of the lake.

Mr. Diamond asked Ms. Critelli the height of her house? Ms. Critelli stated 20

feet.

Mr. Van Eck stated there is enough buildable space on the side of the property

and no any variances whatsoever would be needed.

The Chairman asked the applicant to explain to the Board details of the addition

that could be built without a variance.

Ms. Critelli explained to the Board that the L-shaped addition would have a

corridor so it doesn’t help because you would have two narrow structures. A variance

would be required for this addition also. Blocking the view is going to happen regardless

of which route I take.

The Chairman stated if the addition is put where it is being proposed, you have

simply the width of the building. If we gave her permission to construct a true L-shape,

now you are going to be completely blocked. I think it would be worse.

Mr. Stein stated the proposed addition currently blocks the view.

Mr. Diamond stated if she builds the L-shape, I think your view of the lake is

totally gone. I think you would be unhappier with the other addition than this addition.

Mr. Stein stated his view from the house will be totally gone with this addition.

Ms. Critelli stated I am here because we can’t afford to put on a second story and

addition; this is practical and what works for my family. There is no scenario that is ideal

for my neighbor unfortunately.

Ms. Buongiorno stated whatever addition she constructs, this is a short term

solution for her and her family and there is going to be another application in the future

whether it is by the applicant or someone else who purchases the house.

The Chairman stated no one would go up on such a narrow house. They will go

out and up. This is a common expansion for a small house.

Mr. Stein stated regardless of what has been said, the L-shaped addition will be

further from our house and will be better and the quality of life in our house will be

reduced much less.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 28


speak, it was moved by Mr. Diamond, seconded by Mr. Amariuta and unanimously

carried that the public portion be closed.

Mr. Dyer stated I can see if the L-shape addition was constructed, in a few years,

the whole thing will be squared off with a second story. It would be a logical thing.

There is too much yard there to waste.

Mr. Shaughnessy stated it is a big piece of property. I’m sorry that the neighbor

may lose some view, but that sometimes happens. She could put some trees there and

block his view.

Mr. Tennant stated it is a big lot and theoretically they could build elsewhere; the

problem is that the house is positioned where it is.

Mr. Amariuta stated it is not an ideal situation but balancing all the facts, I would

vote yes.

RESOLUTION

INTRODUCED: Mr. Amariuta

SECONDED: Mr. Shaughnessy

WHEREAS, NICOLE CRITELLI, as Applicant and Owner, residing at 162

Lakeview Avenue, Ringwood, New Jersey, has made variance application to the Zoning

Board of Adjustment for property known as Lot 4 in Block 830, located in the R-20 zone,

seeking permission to erect a 16 foot by 32 foot first story addition to the principal

dwelling, and requesting a rear yard variance of 22 feet where a 35 foot setback is

required; and


21, 2014, at which time Nicole Critelli and Theresa Pizza were sworn and testified; and



WHEREAS, the meeting was opened to the public and Sergi Stein appeared to

offer comment or testimony; and

WHEREAS, during the course of the hearing, the applicants introduced the



denial letter, copy of survey and copy of deed.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 29

Exhibit A-2 being set of plans consisting of two sheets entitled Proposed

Addition, LaGrotteria Residence, prepared by Jacob Solomon, dated 6/5/2014.


Adjustment file.

Exhibit B-2 being memorandum from the Health Department, dated July 21,

2014.

The applicant testified that they currently live in a one story dwelling of

approximately 600 square feet. The applicant explained that she has a growing family

and wants to provide sufficient living space within the dwelling for the family to grow

and enjoy the home. Currently it is a one bedroom home with living space of

approximately 10 feet in width when you consider the internal layout. That interior

layout is not conducive to home living.

The applicant explained that the home is situated on the rear right portion of the

property. The applicant explained that there were basically three alternatives for

additions. One option would be to put a second story directly over the existing

foundation. The second option would be the proposal and the third option would be

placing an L-shaped addition within the permitted building envelope but it would be

designed in such a way as to not have a convenient interior layout and would not achieve

the goals of having a common room and family living space, but would in effect would

actually be two separate dwellings.

The applicant explained that she proposes to come out in line with the existing

rear wall of the building and that, in so doing, she would be approximately 13.9 feet off

the new corner of the dwelling. The applicant noted that the setback would be

approximately the same as the existing setback and would not be going any closer to the

rear yard. No other variances were requested.

The meeting was opened to the public and Sergi Stein appeared to offer comment

and testimony. He is identified as the owner of Lot 19 with frontage on Bellot Road. Mr.

Stein explained that he objected to the proposed addition for two reasons, (1) it would

impact his views of Erskine Lake and (2) his dwelling and the proposed dwelling would

be approximately 25 feet in separation which could impact the light traveling into his

interior space. He also explained that he would have no objection if the proposal was to

install a second story addition, but his main concern was having his viewshed blocked.

He also felt that the rear yard of both of these dwellings were somewhat small due to the

location of the dwellings on the property.

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 30

The applicant also explained that there is a 6 foot fence at the rear of the property

separating her property from Mr. Stein’s property and she believed the fence offset some

of his view. Mr. Stein testified that while some of his view was blocked, he did have a

view from the interior of his dwelling which he claimed he could see over that fence.


testimony of the applicants, accept their testimony and finds same to be credible. The

Board also finds the testimony of Mr. Stein to be credible.


The Board finds that the property is subject to pre-existing non-conformity in lot

depth. The zone requires a lot depth of 175 feet where the lot depth of this lot is

approximately 100 feet, a little more than 50% of the required setback.

The Board also finds that the pre-existing lot depth, in connection with the

location of the existing structure on the property, combine to form a sufficient basis of

hardship to satisfy the positive criteria. The Board notes that had this dwelling been

centered on the lot there would be sufficient space for additions that would not require

any variance and therefore that location in the back right corner is significantly

contributing to the rear yard variance.

The Board also finds that a second story addition would not be suitable under the

circumstances of this application given the narrowness of the property and the goals the

applicant is trying to obtain.

The Board also notes that an addition could be built on this lot that would not

require any variances from this Board resulting in that alternative described previously of

the L-shape. The Board notes that if that L-shape addition was constructed, the views of

the objector would also be impacted and therefore it is not necessarily the rear yard

variance that is obstructing the views, but rather the location of the existing structure on

the lot being offset to the right and the sufficient yard space in the center of the lot that

any addition constructed would result in blocking his view.

The Board therefore finds that the positive criteria have been established as well

as the negative criteria. There will be no substantial detriment to the public good and no

substantial impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan and Zoning Ordinance.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for construction of

a one-story addition with a rear yard setback variance of 22 feet be and is hereby granted

subject to the following terms and conditions:

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 31

1. The applicants shall obtain the necessary building permits from the




.

3. The applicants shall obtain approval of all matters within the jurisdiction

of the Borough Engineer, including topographic layout, drainage and related matters, if

required.


of the Ringwood Health Department, if required.


of any county, regional or State entity.




the above.

On roll call Amariuta, Buongiorno, Dyer, Shaughnessy Tennant, Foster and


Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 32

Resolution Permitting Member Absence

ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

BOROUGH OF RINGWOOD

RESOLUTION PERMITTING MEMBER ABSENCE

WHEREAS, JOSEPH BARANSKI (the “MEMBER”) has been appointed by the

Mayor and Council of the Borough of Ringwood (the “Mayor and Council”) as Member

to the Ringwood Zoning Board of Adjustment (the “Board”);

WHEREAS, the MEMBER has been appointed to serve on the Board for a term

from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2014;

WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council have adopted Resolution No. 2010-309,

entitled Absence from Meetings Policy for Appointed Officials, which requires that all

boards, committees, commissions, authorities and other agencies of the Borough adhere

to the Best Practices of the State of New Jersey and specifically N.J.S.A. 40A:9-12.1;

WHEREAS, N.J.S.A. 40A:9-12.1 establishes that a member can be removed from

the Board if the member fails to attend and participate at four (4) consecutive meetings,

unless excused by a majority of the Board;

WHEREAS, the Member has advised the Board that he will be unable to attend

and participate in the next four (4) meetings of the Board, commencing with the meeting

in July 2014, for personal reasons; and

WHEREAS, the Board finds it reasonable and appropriate to excuse the

Member’s absence at said meetings;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board excuses the Member

from attending and participating in the meetings of the Board for July, August,

September and October 2014; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board shall consider, in its discretion,

additional absences at the request of the MEMBER.

DATED: July 21, 2014

MOVED: Mr. Shaughnessy

SECONDED: Mr. Diamond

VOTING FOR: Amariuta, Buongiorno, Dyer, Shaughnessy Tennant, Foster and Diamond

Regular Meeting

July 21, 2014

Page 33

Attorney’s Report

Mr. Van Eck stated that we have received a letter from the Highlands Council and

they have determined the application of HAL, LLC is inconsistent with the Highlands

Regional Master Plan.

There being no further business, it was moved by Mr. Diamond, seconded by Mr.

Amariuta and unanimously carried that the meeting be adjourned at 11:55 P.M.

Helen M. Forsa, Secretary

Date post:	14-Jan-2019
Category:	Documents
Upload:	lyphuc
View:	212 times
Download:	0 times

MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE RINGWOOD … · Regular Meeting July 21, 2014 Page 2 Docket...

Documents