BYRNE, KUBISKY, REHFUSS, ZAPF, LENOIR (ALT. #1) AND FOREMAN (ALT. #2) BOORADY, ENGINEER AND LORBER, COUNSEL BAKELAAR, IBERER, AND PIORKOWSKI

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF REGULAR ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MEETING HELD ON TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 8, 2011 Vice Chairman Rehfuss called to order the regular meeting of the Board and announced the meeting was duly advertised in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act by noticed dated February 1, 2011, sent to the Daily Record, Suburban Trends, and posted on the bulletin board at Borough hall. PRESENT: ALSO PRESENT: ABSENT: BYRNE, KUBISKY, REHFUSS, ZAPF, LENOIR (ALT. #1) AND FOREMAN (ALT. #2) BOORADY, ENGINEER AND LORBER, COUNSEL BAKELAAR, IBERER, AND PIORKOWSKI Vice Chairman Rehfuss mentioned the first item on the agenda is Variance Application # (use/bulk), Preliminary & Final Major Site Plan Application #325 and Flood Plain Encroachment Application #FPE 09-2 by Demeri Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Stager s Auto Body, on property known as Block 22, Lot 1 on the municipal tax map also known as 107 Park Avenue (time extension granted until March 31 st, 2011). This is a public hearing. Ms. Ward mentioned she sent correspondence to the applicant requesting additional escrow money, as we were short in the account. The professionals asked for $2,500 be put in the escrow account. Mr. Demeri came in yesterday and paid $1,000 towards the account and she didn t know if that was sufficient. Mr. Schepis asked is there a deficiency in the account? Ms. Ward stated there is about nine hundred and something in the account. There was a deficiency of about seventy-five dollars and change so we have about nine hundred and something in the account now. Mr. Lorber asked is there a reason why your client hasn t made the deposit as requested? Mr. Schepis stated he could ask his client. Since he is going to be his first witness maybe he can be sworn in and we go from there. Mr. Lorber stated he doesn t have to be sworn to answer that question. Mr. Schepis asked Mr. Demeri to identify himself for the record. Can you tell the board why you posted $1,000 additional in the escrow account instead of the full amount requested the $2,500? Mr. Lorber stated it is pursuant to ordinance the zoning board is entitled to receive escrow in anticipation of expenses that the board is going to occur in hearing an application. If your client chooses not to obey the ordinance, then the board can choose not to hear the application and you know that. Mr. Demeri mentioned he made the deposit of $1,000 because that is what he had available at the time. He can fund it as necessary, but he figured $1,000 would be a satisfactory amount to get him back in the black until he could make another payment on it. Mr. Lorber stated except it is not your call. Mr. Demeri stated he understands that now he wasn t aware of that prior. Would it help if I made the rest of the payment now? Mr. Lorber stated if you can sure. Mr. Schepis, counsel, represents Mr. Demeri in this matter. Mr. Schepis stated Mr. Demeri is the proprietor of Stager s Auto Body located at 107 Park Avenue and the facility has been around for some 40 plus years. He purchased the business from Hoby Stager, the original founder. The property is located in a TI (Transitional Industrial) Zone and the zoning ordinance does not permit such auto body/auto repair facilities in the TI Zone. At one time the property was zoned I (Industrial) Zone prior to 1979 the auto body/auto repair facility was a permitted use. There was an approval for the

2 Page 2 February 8, 2011 use. Since that time this project was the subject of subsequent applications before the zoning board of adjustment after the ordinance change for expansions of that pre-existing non-conforming use. The ordinance that changed the use from being permitted to be nonpermitted took effect in 1979 and Mr. Mianecki will give you testimony on that. Since then he believed there were two applications before the board granting expansions to that facility. More recently Mr. Demeri has found it necessary to add new spray booths to the facility of modern mechanics and performance. Unfortunately, they didn t fit in the building so Mr. Demeri is here to petition the board for an expansion so as to be permitted, to have these spray booths over a three sided enclosure and leaving one side open for flood waters to enter/exit the area. Mr. Demeri secured approval from the DEP relatively to the New Jersey State Flood Hazard Area Control Act. The entire property is located within the flood hazard area subject to the zero net fill requirements of the Central Passaic Basin. The project provides for zero net increase in volume of material in the flood hazard area. As part of this application, there is a removal of three accessory structures (a couple of garage buildings and shed) in order to help compensate for the additional volume for the spray booths, and some re-grading of a gravel parking area. There is no additional impervious coverage generated from this site and it is basically an improvement over an existing paved area. The addition is to the rear of the building and it is not readily visible from the street, but because the property is in a TI Zone they are required to secure what is known as a D.2 Variance to permit an expansion of this pre-existing non-conforming use. In addition the property is located in the flood hazard area so it is subject to the Borough s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance so they are seeking approval relative to that. There are some setback variances associated with the structure. The facility abuts up against the railroad so the railroad is the rear property neighbor. Adjacent to the site to the east is an undeveloped wooded wetland property also in the TI Zone and triangular in shape. Across the street is the Beaver Brook, so there are no immediate uses contiguous to the property other than basically the railroad. Mr. Schepis asked to have Mr. Demeri sworn so he can give some testimony about his use and what is proposed? Mr. Lorber mentioned before you start there are only six members here. Mr. Schepis understood. Mr. Lorber mentioned you need five out of the six votes. Mr. Lorber sworn in Mr. Demeri. Mr. Lorber asked him to state his name and spell his last name for the record? Mr. Demeri testified Kenneth Demeri (D-e-m-e-r-i). Mr. Schepis asked what relationship do you have to Demeri Enterprises, LLC? Mr. Demeri testified he is the owner. Mr. Schepis asked him to tell them about his relationship to Stager s Auto Body and about the business? Mr. Demeri testified he purchased it from Hoby Stager. Since he s owned it they ve been serving the community and surrounding towns. They do auto body repairs and mechanical towing, and they take care of municipal vehicles from Lincoln Park and Pequannock. Mr. Schepis asked how many years has Stager s Auto Body been in operation? Mr. Demeri testified since 1961.

3 Page 3 February 8, 2011 Mr. Schepis asked generally speaking what is the nature of the operations on site, what exactly the company does? Mr. Demeri testified the majority of the work is auto body/collision repair, accidents and mechanical work and the towing of the vehicles. Mr. Schepis asked him to tell the board what necessitated this application? Mr. Demeri testified the spray booths that came with the company were antiquated spray booths and they had no proper filtration, or ability to spray the waterborne paints which are environmentally friendly. The energy consumption and the BTU s of the old spray booths were incredibly high where the newer ones have variable speed motors which run more efficiently on electric because it re-circulates the heat inside so it doesn t waste the natural gas. They are also filtered. It also gives them the ability to spray the new waterborne paints which are environmentally friendly. Mr. Schepis asked what is the difference between waterborne paints and your average car paint? Mr. Demeri testified they take all the solvent out of them and everything is reduced with water so there are no isocyanides and things of that nature in the paint itself. Mr. Schepis mentioned you handed me a flyer of this spray booth that you are proposing entitled Accudraft, is that the spray booth that you are proposing? Mr. Demeri testified yes. Mr. Schepis marked this as A-1, which is more or less the spray booth that you are proposing to add to the facility? Mr. Demeri testified correct. Mr. Lorber mentioned you say proposing I understood they are already in. Mr. Schepis stated well they are proposing it to get it approved. Mr. Lorber mentioned okay. Mr. Boorady stated we received something but he just wanted to make sure it was the same one. Mr. Lorber asked him to describe what he just marked. Mr. Schepis called it a spray booth rendering. Mr. Boorady stated we can figure it out another time. Mr. Schepis stated it s on the prongs. Shall we go ahead Tom? Mr. Boorady stated yes. Mr. Schepis asked is this already in existence? Mr. Demeri testified yes. Mr. Schepis asked you already put the spray booths behind the building? Mr. Demeri testified he put the spray booths behind the building to continue working. These spray booths are like a metal shed so he took down the two existing booths inside and purchased these two. He assembled them and basically set them on the ground not thinking they are a permanent structure and put the roof over it to protect them from the elements. He didn t think it was a problem because it wasn t in a flood area and then he was told otherwise.

4 Page 4 February 8, 2011 Mr. Schepis mentioned you realize now that you have to secure an approval from this board and a building permit, so this is part of the approval process. Mr. Demeri testified yes. Mr. Schepis mentioned you already secured the DEP approval correct? Mr. Demeri testified yes. Mr. Schepis mentioned he didn t have anything more of Mr. Demeri and he is certainly open for questions from the board or board professionals. Mr. Foreman asked why did it have to be put somewhere else not just where the existing booths were at? Mr. Demeri testified the height of the newer ones were too high to fit inside with the ceilings. The older ones were kind of constructed into the building more or less where they used the sheet rock ceiling of the building as a roof for these paint booths. Mr. Foreman asked do we see it on the photograph on the last page? Mr. Demeri testified it s on the last page. Mr. Foreman asked behind the blue doors? Mr. Demeri testified that blue box is it. When they first came out they didn t have like a unit you can buy as a spray booth, they basically constructed them in your building and retrofitted the heat and lights, things like that. As time progressed they started furnishing them assembled. Mr. Foreman asked you and your staff assembled it? Mr. Demeri testified the company that sold them assembled them. Mr. Foreman asked does it come with electric and heat already in them? Mr. Demeri testified everything is in them it is like plugging then where the old ones where connected. Mr. Lenoir stated they look like a shed. Mr. Demeri testified it looks like a shed. Mr. Zapf stated it is like a container and it s complete. Mr. Demeri testified the wall thickness is just maybe an inch and a half just sheet metal. Mr. Lenoir stated he thought it was a must for a body shop today, and especially for the operator too. Mr. Zapf asked is this complete because it looks like it is open and you can see in where the spray booths are, is the intent to close that in? Mr. Schepis stated the DEP required the easterly wall to remain open so that floodwaters could freely enter, and Mr. Mianecki will address that. They were only allowed to put a wall on the south side facing the railroad track. Mr. Zapf stated okay. Mr. Lenoir mentioned you open the doors, drive the car in and close it and start painting. Mr. Demeri testified yes. Vice Chairman Rehfuss asked when you purchased this spray booth did you know at that time it would not fit in the building?

5 Page 5 February 8, 2011 Mr. Demeri testified yes. Vice Chairman Rehfuss stated and your sales rep knew it wouldn t fit in this building? Mr. Demeri testified yes. Vice Chairman Rehfuss stated because they have one here in Exhibit A-`1 that has the external enclosure and he asked why he chose to put it in the structure? Mr. Demeri testified that s the same spray booth but you can buy what they call a roof kit and the price was the factor. The roof kit was the same as it would cost to put a roof on that would last forever. It is basically a sheet metal roof that the water would be laying on and eventually rust and ruin the equipment, so we would rather protect it for long term and put a roof over it. Vice Chairman Rehfuss asked whoever sold this unit installed the unit? Mr. Demeri testified they just set them up and connect them and hooked them up to wherever the others were. Vice Chairman Rehfuss asked wouldn t they be responsible for securing the permits for this as far as electrical or hooking up to natural gas? Mr. Boorady mentioned if they are a licensed contractor they should have secured permits first. Mr. Lorber asked who was supposed to get the permits? Mr. Demeri testified they didn t mention that. He didn t have anything with him but he could look it up. It was basically purchasing from them and they put it together. Mr. Lorber mentioned the point the chairman was making, even if you didn t know you needed a variance for the expansion of a non-conforming use, you should know that you needed an electrical permit. Mr. Demeri testified it was like a piece of equipment, like if you bought a welder or whatever you have to connect it to the power. This wasn t like building a house it was a piece of equipment and spraying machines are electric and you don t require any special permits for it that. Mr. Boorady asked are you still using the spray booths that you had prior to this? Mr. Demeri testified they were removed. Mr. Boorady mentioned you stated the height of these spray booths was such that you couldn t put them in the existing building. Mr. Demeri testified correct. Mr. Boorady mentioned looking at the last photo submitted back in January 2009, the spray booth on the right the height of that seems like you have substantial amount of room above it. Mr. Demeri testified the ceilings in the shop are 8-foot ceilings and I know it is over 8 foot on that booth. The larger one is closer to 13 feet high so that s got to be at least over 10 feet high. Mr. Boorady asked would it be safe to say the larger one is for commercial vehicles? What is the height difference and why did you need taller booths? Mr. Demeri testified we do a lot of municipal work where we are putting larger vehicles like an ambulance or vans, and everything is just getting higher and higher, and we just wanted to accommodate those vehicles.

6 Page 6 February 8, 2011 Mr. Boorady asked the ventilation system is going up the side of the smaller spray booth, the shorter spray booth, and up to the roof and exhausting onto the roof, what kind of permitting is needed for that? Is that exhausting both of them? Mr. Demeri testified there is one right behind it one for each booth. There is no stack permits required for that. The amount of volume that we produce is under the threshold so there is no EPA. Mr. Boorady mentioned it will be the DEP and the Health Department requested that you might need one, so do you have anything that confirms? Mr. Demeri testified he has the paperwork in his office. You have to have an auto body shop license and that is part of the licensing package is the waiver for stack permits and things like that, so he does have it available and he could provide it but it is not a requirement for that. Mr. Boorady mentioned okay. It s an item in my report, so that will stand as some kind of condition if there are any kind of approval here tonight or another night. There would have to be some kind of confirmation that permits are or are not necessary from DEP and we will need that documentation. Mr. Demeri testified he could provide that. Mr. Boorady mentioned it is important with the spray booths that you have the necessary permits because you do have some residential uses near you. Mr. Demeri testified he ll provide it. Mr. Byrne asked these booths are made to spray this waterborne paint? Mr. Demeri testified they are geared for waterborne, they can spray any type of paint, but waterborne requires a lot of air movement and a lot of CFM s where the older booths couldn t accomplish that. Mr. Byrne asked is there any plan to use any other type of paint in the booths? Mr. Demeri asked other than the waterborne? Mr. Byrne mentioned yes. Mr. Demeri testified well not everything is converted to waterborne yet so we have a half and half mixture until they mandate that everything becomes waterborne. Mr. Byrne asked is that how the industry is going towards waterborne? Mr. Demeri testified yes in California they are all waterborne and we ve just been converting over to it slowly. Mr. Byrne mentioned with the volatile chemicals used in the older types of paint how is that exhausted? How it that handled through these booths? Is there some sort of collection system? Mr. Demeri testified there is collection and filtration inside probably, four or five different filtration points. Mr. Byrne asked for your older spray booths did you secure permits for handling that type of paint? Mr. Demeri testified there was nothing necessary it goes by the volume per hour that you produce, unless you are a manufacturing facility that is painting constantly all day it wasn t required. Mr. Byrne mentioned the booths are made to handle either type of paint and you have the air handling system for both if you need it.

7 Page 7 February 8, 2011 Mr. Demeri testified correct. Mr. Byrne asked there is no prior approval that you need from any other state department? Mr. Demeri testified no. Mr. Boorady asked what happens to the filters can they be disposed of in a normal dumpster? Mr. Demeri testified yes. Mr. Boorady asked filters in the floors what does that mean? Mr. Demeri testified in the grating where the air travels through there is what they call a pre-filter, so any of the over spray or painted would get trapped on that first and then go to the next stage and get trapped, and by the time it exited the roof there would be nothing to trap. Mr. Boorady stated okay. Mr. Lorber asked when you say the filters can be disposed of in the dumpster is there literature to that affect? Other than A-1 is there anything they gave you to discuss the operation of this equipment? Mr. Demeri testified we recycle everything from paint thinner to paint and the only time that product can t be thrown away is in liquid form. Whenever it is cured it is nonhazardous it would be like the paint on your car you know it is hardened and nonhazardous. If it is in liquid form and you put it out somewhere it would be hazardous material. Any of the residual paints or chemicals are baked into like a hard plastic and that can be disposed of without any special Hazmat treatment. Mr. Boorady asked who halls the garbage away? Mr. Demeri testified Roselli. Mr. Boorady stated okay you have a dumpster and all that goes in the dumpster. Mr. Demeri testified yeah. Mr. Boorady asked for confirmation that the waste stream is being handled properly? Is anything connected to the sanitary sewer system like floor drains? Mr. Demeri testified no. Mr. Lorber mentioned that was in an old resolution that floor drains are not permitted in this building. Mr. Boorady stated all right. Mr. Foreman asked the recycling process you describe do you do that all on site? Mr. Demeri testified yes. Mr. Foreman asked when stuff leaves your site it s already been recycled and all the hazardous materials taken out are put into this plastic baked material you are talking about? Mr. Demeri testified correct. Mr. Zapf mentioned in looking at the floor plan you are replacing spray booths with spray booths but you are not really changing your practice, whether it s recycling or anything else. They are in a different location they are outside the building where they were right inside the building before, has anything else changed from the previous practice?

8 Page 8 February 8, 2011 Mr. Demeri testified the practice is the same just it is more of an environmental impact and just to handle the newer products that came about. Vice Chairman Rehfuss asked is there any type of fire suppression in the spray booths? Mr. Demeri testified no. Vice Chairman Rehfuss asked it is not required? Mr. Demeri testified no to his knowledge. There is no liquid stored in there and I m assuming that s why. Vice Chairman Rehfuss asked any more questions for the applicant? Mr. Lorber mentioned you said this was more environmentally friendly that the old one, could you just describe how? Mr. Demeri testified this is better because of the amount of electricity used to operate these booths is probably a third of the power to run these. The motors are soft start variable speed which means they don t draw the amperage that the other ones did on start up. The filtration system is a million times better than the old ones. The heat in the old booths you went into a bake cycle, the temperature up to about 130 degrees and it would pump in 130 degree air and the fan would suck it right back out, and the new booth it recycles probably 89% of the baked cycle air back into the booth. Mr. Byrne asked there is a heat exchanger built in with the unit. Mr. Demeri testified everything is part of the unit. Mr. Zapf mentioned that s the underlying product that you are using that is the biggest change correct? Mr. Demeri testified the waterborne paint is the biggest change yeah. Once it becomes mandatory to use waterborne you d have no way to operate, you have to have that or you can t repair cars. Mr. Boorady asked if the MSDS sheets are on file with the Borough and a floor plan where you store your hazardous materials? Mr. Demeri testified I know the floor plan is and he assumed the MSDS sheets are with the town. He d have to check. They are all available at his facility on the computers. Mr. Boorady stated you are probably going to have to update your floor plan and make sure they have updated MSDS sheets now that you are using new materials as well. Mr. Demeri testified he believes they do have it because he had to supply it to Chilton Hospital for emergencies. Mr. Boorady mentioned you can update it and it will be a condition anyway. Mr. Demeri testified it wasn t a problem. Mr. Lenoir asked if they had a knock box too for the Fire Department? Mr. Demeri testified correct. Vice Chairman Rehfuss asked if there were any more questions for the applicant? Meeting was opened to the public. No one came forward public portion closed. Mr. Schepis stated their next witness is James Cutillo, the project architect. Mr. Schepis stated Mr. Cutillo has given testimony before this board on numerous occasions as a licensed architect. Mr. Lorber swore in Mr. Cutillo.

9 Page 9 February 8, 2011 Mr. Lorber asked Mr. Cutillo to state and spell his name for the record. Mr. Cutillo testified James P. Cutillo (C-u-t-i-l-l-o). He s an architect in the states of New Jersey and New York. Mr. Schepis asked if there were any questions regarding his credentials? You are the project architect in this project is that fair to say? Mr. Cutillo testified yes. Mr. Schepis asked and you brought your plans you prepared with you? Mr. Cutillo testified he did. Mr. Schepis asked him to tell the Board what was proposed here in the way of an architectural modification? Walk through what is there today and what is proposed as part of this application, or maybe I should say what we are proposing as part of this application? Mr. Cutillo testified the exhibit he has tonight is the exact same one you have in your packet, last revised August 6 th, The first page A-1 is the elevations of the building. The front is the part that faces the road and the left side and the rear elevation, actually is where you ll be able to see the proposed work where the spray booths are going to go. If you go to page 2 and look at the floor plan, you ll see we have the entire building outlined so the whole facility is being represented here tonight. In the upper left hand corner of the page is the area that we are proposing for this wall addition that is going to house the two spray booths. It is a total of 34½ feet wide by 52 feet deep. Basically, it is a steel frame structure and there is going to be one solid wall along the back elevation or rear elevation where the railroad tracks are in the back. The front (the left side elevation) is required to remain open with no doors as part of the DEP approval. It is all to scale. You see the existing facility, the bays, it s all primarily work areas. There is a small office area/storage area within the building and you can get the magnitude of the size of the spray booths and the addition to house them. Vice Chairman Rehfuss asked what is the reason for wanting to enclose the rear wall there since it is facing the railroad? Mr. Cutillo testified pretty much as much of a weather protection as possible for the units and also for the people that are going to be working in and out of here to get some protection from the elements. Mr. Zapf asked the doorways will not have doors on them correct? Mr. Cutillo testified correct. Mr. Schepis stated one big vent. Mr. Boorady asked the plans on sheet 1 and sheet 2 the left side elevation that is really not the way it is going to look right? The plans are going to be updated to show a clear span opening there. Mr. Cutillo testified it is. Just to simplify that, on the left side elevation we are required to have an opening that s 13 feet tall, and the width from one edge to the other where I show two pilasters in there on the construction documents those two pilasters will be removed and it will be one clear opening. Mr. Boorady mentioned I think they should be removed as part of this process before construction because this board has to sign off on the clear span too. Mr. Schepis mentioned we anticipated this coming up so Mr. Cutillo why don t you flip the board.

10 Page 10 February 8, 2011 Mr. Cutillo testified he ll have to mark it as an exhibit. Mr. Schepis stated mark it as A-2. Mr. Cutillo asked A-2 and A-3 or both pages? Mr. Schepis stated go with A-2 and A-3 and just identify A-2 by the title block. Mr. Cutillo testified these drawings were revised today with today s date. The first page is the elevations that will be A-2, and the second page is the floor plans and that will be A-3. The only difference if you look at the left side elevation is that you ll see that there is two piers that have been eliminated and that s the only difference between this drawing and the one that you have in front of you. Mr. Boorady mentioned the floor plan has changed as well. Mr. Cutillo testified the floor plan reflects that there is one large opening. On Exhibit A-3 the left side of the building just shows one clear opening as opposed to the three. There were two garage doors and a man door now it is just one large opening and that s the only difference. Mr. Lorber asked is that as-built or is the other an as-built? Mr. Cutillo testified nothing is as-built that part of the construction has not taken place yet. Mr. Lorber stated the booths are in but the construction isn t. Mr. Cutillo testified some of the roof structure with the steel columns exists and you have those photos in front of you, but the wall area and other certain things are not there yet. Mr. Boorady stated you ll have to leave all the exhibits with Joan. Mr. Schepis asked Mr. Cutillo is it fair to say that the building addition that you re proposing is not readily seen from the street, Park Avenue? Mr. Cutillo testified no it cannot been seen from the street it is in the rear of the building. Mr. Schepis stated he didn t have anything further for Mr. Cutillo. If there are any questions he s available. Vice Chairman Rehfuss opened it to the public. Seeing no one from the public the public portion is closed. Mr. Schepis stated their next witness is Joseph Mianecki, a licensed engineer and licensed professional planner. In the past he s given testimony to the board in both of those capacities and asked that the board accepts him as an expert in those areas and he ll give testimony on this application. Mr. Lorber asked he is going to testify as to both an engineer and planner? Mr. Schepis stated yes. He ll do the engineering first and then the planning testimony. Mr. Lorber swore in Mr. Mianecki. Mr. Mianecki testified for the record Joseph S. Mianecki, Jr. (M-i-a-n-e-c-k-i), 9 Midvale Avenue, Towaco, NJ. Mr. Schepis stated for the record you are a licensed engineer and professional planner in the State of New Jersey? Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Mr. Schepis asked you ll be giving testimony in both of those capacities?

11 Page 11 February 8, 2011 Mr. Mianecki testified correct. Mr. Schepis asked you are the design engineer on this project? Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Mr. Schepis mentioned you have an exhibit up on the board a colorized site plan of what was previously submitted to the board is that fair to say? Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Mr. Schepis asked him to mark that as A-4 and identify the title block? Mr. Mianecki testified this is a plan prepared by me, titled Site Plan Expansion of Auto Body Repair Facility, Sheet 3 of 4, dated January 27 th, 2009, last revised August 6 th, Mr. Schepis mentioned he noticed the inscription of the NJDEP on that plan is that fair to say? Mr. Mianecki testified yes and your plans should have the state stamp for the flood hazard area permit for the proposed spray booth. Mr. Schepis asked this is the actual plan apart from the colorization that you ve added that was approved by the DEP is that fair to say as it relates to the Flood Hazard Area Control Act? Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Mr. Schepis asked him to tell them what is existing on the site and maybe walk the board through the colorized exhibit and what the significance of the colors are? Mr. Mianecki testified sure. The property is located in the Transitional Industrial Zone. You have the Erie-Lackawanna Railroad along the southerly boundary, north is straight down on the paper, and to the east they have a vacant wetland/woodland complex, to the north Beaver Brook or actually we have Park Avenue, Beaver Brook and then we have the Beaver Brook Apartments beyond that. The property is triangular in shape it is 2.55 acres in size and the existing building is outlined in yellow right here, which consists of an office, auto body repair shop, a car repair shop also, a vehicle prep area, and then the orange is the proposed spray booth addition. Actually the spray both is 924 square feet and the roof overhang is 34½ feet by 52 feet, so the spray booths are actually set back into the spray booth addition area towards the back of the building, or towards the westerly wall of the building. Highlighted in blue to the north of the site is the Beaver Brook, the top of the bank of Beaver Brook, and highlighted in blue on the easterly end of the site is a drainage ditch, which discharges directly into the Beaver Dam Brook. Also it goes underneath the railway for stormwater control from I ll call it the Borough DPW garage area over there, so that basically gives you kind of an overview of what is going on with the site. Generally parking is in front of the building and there is a fenced in area on the east side of the building where he believes it is more like for cars being repairs that haven t been brought inside yet or an impound area. There is also another fenced in area on the westerly side of the property that is utilized for storage of cars and car parts. There are two existing sheet metal buildings marked by these two x s along Park Avenue and there is another storage shed also marked by a small x adjacent to the building. As Steve also pointed out, we did secure a flood hazard area permit for this use and there are several conditions that they had to comply with in order to get it approved. The main controlling factor was that the subject property is substantially affected by the flood plain, the flood hazard elevation is 182 and the site is generally at 171. The floor elevations are as low as or like 10½ feet below the flood elevation. The pink line represents the floodway limit for the Beaver Dam Brook. As you can see, the floodway limit just touches the front of the existing building and generally traverses the site in an east/west direction. They had to make some concessions in order to get this approved. The main one was the fact that the addition was not located within the floodway that was the biggest hurdle to overcome, which we demonstrated it was not. The other issue was creating enclosed floor area below the flood hazard elevation without it being flood proofed and that s why the DEP mandated that we have to keep the easterly wall of the proposed addition open at all times. Through some negotiations with them they came to the compromise that the easterly side of the building

12 Page 12 February 8, 2011 be left open from floor elevation of 171.5, which is the floor above the new spray booth area, to 13 feet above that or So basically the condition of the flood hazard area permit is that the opening on the easterly side must remain open at all times. They would be able to put a curtain on it that could be moved back and forth or vertical strips similar to what s on a meat locker room but he couldn t attached doors, he couldn t put any kind of metal skin on it or anything like that. They did allow us to put a metal skin on the southerly wall to keep the elements from blowing on the vehicles. To offset net fill they agreed to move the three existing accessory structures that are marked by the red x s, one is a sheet metal storage building, the other one is a smaller sheet metal storage building and another one is a metal shed. As you can see, we are removing two structures from the floodway and they are in the front yard, so that s an aesthetic improvement, as well as a safety improvement from removing a structure from the floodway. Additionally to offset the net fill with the spray booths, the small gravel stone area they are going to be removing a half inch of stone to remove 5½ cubic yards of material to comply with the net fill. The next fill summary analysis is on the plan and it is a balanced site. Mr. Schepis asked what are the existing setbacks for the structure and likewise what is proposed as part of this application? Mr. Mianecki testified the existing building is setback about 98.4 feet and the proposed addition is setback about 200 feet. It is setback adequately. Mr. Schepis asked now as it relates to the railroad property? Mr. Mianecki testified to the rear yard there is a requirement that would be considered a side yard, so the side yard setback for the zone is 50 feet and we are proposing 32.3 feet at the closest point here, which would be the southwesterly corner and 54.4 feet at the southeasterly corner. It is a small triangular area which violates the side yard setback requirement. Mr. Schepis asked what is the existing setback on the building? Mr. Mianecki testified 0.7 feet. Mr. Schepis asked where is that at its closest point? Mr. Mianecki testified 0.7 feet is right here to this back corner of the existing shop up against the railroad right-of-way. Mr. Schepis mentioned maybe we should address Mr. Boorady s comments. Mr. Mianecki asked are there any questions while he s up here? Vice Chairman Rehfuss asked the three auxiliary structures have they been removed? Mr. Mianecki testified they have not been removed yet. They will be removed as conditions of this approval. Mr. Lorber mentioned that s a condition of the DEP. Mr. Mianecki testified it is also a condition of the Flood Hazard Area Permit that s correct. Mr. Lorber asked when was the DEP approval months ago right? Mr. Mianecki testified yeah. Mr. Lorber asked how come it hasn t been done? Mr. Mianecki testified we can t take a structure down without getting permits to do it. Mr. Lorber mentioned you are not here to get permits for that.

13 Page 13 February 8, 2011 Mr. Mianecki testified they are here for site plan approval. Mr. Boorady stated he s got to get the demolition approved and needs to see Sal. Mr. Lorber stated the point he is making at the hearing here it isn t necessary in order to take the structures down. Mr. Zapf asked the property to the east who does that belong too? Mr. Mianecki testified it is privately owned by Celusiak. He s looked at the property at least a half dozen times and it is wetlands and it essentially has zero development potential although you never know. Mr. Boorady mentioned the structures being taken down your zoning table proposes the front yard setback will actually be greater that 25.2 so you are going to want to revise it. Mr. Mianecki testified he ll lose the accessory structure completely. Mr. Boorady stated that will be NA so that will be an improvement. Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Mr. Boorady stated it is also an improvement because you are taking it out of the floodway, which is where you might see waters that actually pick up speed. Mr. Mianecki testified although that is the limit of the floodway that is like at a breakpoint, usually you get velocity at your 10 year water surface elevation and that road is above the 10 year flood (Park Avenue), so you don t have big velocity here. Mr. Boorady asked if there were any outdoor storage areas for dumpsters? Mr. Mianecki testified he believes they keep them on the west side of the building. Mr. Schepis asked Mr. Demeri to mark on the plans where they have the storage dumpsters. Mark it with a D and circle it for dumpster. Mr. Foreman asked how many yard dumpster is it? Mr. Demeri testified he didn t know. Mr. Foreman asked is it small one, two or three yarder? Mr. Demeri testified yeah. Mr. Mianecki testified it is right behind parking spaces #21 and 22. Mr. Boorady stated it s in the front yard. Mr. Demeri testified it is behind the fence in the front yard yes. Mr. Boorady asked is there any possibility in relocating that to the concrete pad on the west side of the building behind parking space #23? Mr. Demeri testified it is not possible for the garbage truck to get in there to pick it up. Where it is located now it has it s own set of gates so they can pull right into that parking spot. Mr. Boorady asked it goes through where? Mr. Demeri testified it would be halfway in between numbers 21 and 22 more towards 22 than 21 about 3½ feet. It comes right in off Park Avenue between the planter and the curb drop and makes a right and backs in to 20 and 21. Mr. Boorady asked you don t have cars parked there?

14 Page 14 February 8, 2011 Mr. Demeri testified correct not on dumpster day. Mr. Boorady asked that the plans be revised to show the dumpster area and to confirm the screening of same since it is in the front yard. I know you have a high fence there but I just think it should be on the plan so that this memorializes that you have it there, if that is where you want it? Normally we don t like to see dumpsters in the front yard but the board needs to be aware of it and put it on the plan. Mr. Demeri testified okay it is beyond the privacy fencing and also it is not see through. Mr. Boorady stated dumpster locations are still a site plan checklist requirement so it has to be on there. Mr. Demeri testified it will be added. Mr. Mianecki testified no problem. Mr. Boorady asked Joe your parking notes the first point mentions public garages, what is the relevance of that? Mr. Mianecki testified there is no standard within the zoning regulations for this use with regard to parking so the closest thing to it is public garages, which are only permitted in the B-1 and B-3 Zones. We had discussed this with Joe Maiella and he thought that was the appropriate interpretation with reference to the parking ratio to use for this site. Mr. Boorady stated so you went into the B-1 and B-3 Zones to use the parking requirements for auto repair facilities and you are applying it here just for reference to say if this was an approved use this is what the parking would be. Mr. Mianecki testified yes. I think the total is 8 spaces required and we are at like 41. Mr. Lorber mentioned there were a bunch of prior applications and wasn t there at least one where parking was approved for a certain number? Wouldn t that be the number you would use? He thought there was a variance granted years ago for parking. Mr. Mianecki stated there was a resolution where Hoby Stager asked for an expansion of the parking lot. Mr. Lorber stated he thought whatever that plan showed was what the parking requirement is. Mr. Mianecki testified you re right, to be honest with you I didn t think about it at the time but it is a good idea though. Mr. Byrne mentioned February 3 rd, 1981 resolution says there is no specific parking requirements for auto repair, however provisions should be made for parking of employees cars, tow trucks during the day, and it is noted that 10 spaces have been provided for the operation at the rear of the building. Mr. Lorber asked is that still there? Mr. Demeri testified no. Mr. Lorber asked do you do towing now? Mr. Demeri testified yes. Mr. Lorber asked so it is the same uses but just a different owner? Mr. Schepis stated you are the only operator in the facility is that correct? Mr. Demeri testified correct. Mr. Schepis asked so you do the auto repair, the auto body, and the towing?

15 Page 15 February 8, 2011 Mr. Demeri testified correct. Mr. Lorber asked do you still do police towing? Mr. Demeri testified yes. Mr. Mianecki stated he also does auto repair. Mr. Demeri testified correct. Mr. Boorady asked is there any way you can identify which parking is for customers and which is for storage of vehicles? Mr. Mianecki mention Mr. Demeri can answer that. Mr. Demeri testified there is no set parking space generally anything behind the fencing, which would be spots 24 through 41 are for impounded and vehicles being worked on. The parking spaces for employees and customers are 23 through 16, and maybe some of the 15 to 9 area. Some of them just stop right in the middle without parking in a spot too. Mr. Boorady asked how about spaces 32 through 41 it seems like some of those aren t conforming and the turning radius to get back behind the new spray booth I don t know how you get into space #32? Mr. Demeri testified those are impound areas. Mr. Mianecki stated those are impound spots. Mr. Boorady stated they are non-conforming spaces but the general public isn t accessing them. Mr. Demeri testified correct. Mr. Mianecki testified that area is all behind the fence. Mr. Boorady stated right. Mr. Mianecki testified as well as this entire are over here there is no striping but that is all fenced off too. The general public doesn t have access to the western half or the eastern half. Mr. Boorady asked the area to the west of the storage sheds are going to be removed? It just says existing stone parking is that where you are going to excavate a little bit? Mr. Mianecki testified yes. Mr. Boorady asked what happens on that side of the site it is just general parking for cars you are working on? Mr. Demeri testified impounded or being worked on. Mr. Lorber mentioned on November 13 th, 1979 there was a finding of fact that the traffic can be controlled in an appropriate and safe manner and sufficient parking maintained as provided in the aforesaid map, which would be referring I think to the site plan. So whatever site plan was provided in 79 laid out parking in some way and I assume it doesn t look like it was changed in any way. Mr. Demeri testified the only thing is the spray booth. Mr. Boorady stated the spray booth area was expanded everything else is the same. See the cross-hatched to the west corner. Mr. Lorber mentioned he sees it.

16 Page 16 February 8, 2011 Mr. Boorady mentioned he just wanted to make it clear that the site plan that s being approved is larger in parking by thirty six eighteen square feet that s all. The plan that was approved is slightly different than this plan by thirty six eighteen square feet is that what it is? Now you are reducing and excavating out for DEP on the west side of the property the cross-hatched. Mr. Mianecki testified yeah okay. Mr. Boorady mentioned that wasn t on the approved site plan. Mr. Mianecki testified he had no idea. Mr. Lorber asked the cross-hatched area is going to be removed? Mr. Mianecki testified it is going to be lowered by a half inch. Mr. Lorber asked there will be no parking in that area? Mr. Mianecki testified there will be parking there. Mr. Schepis stated just a little lower. Mr. Lorber asked so the number of available places to park isn t changing? Mr. Mianecki testified no that s correct. Mr. Boorady mentioned his available storage is changing and his impervious increased slightly from what was previously approved. Mr. Byrne asked is there any differentiation between the public parking and visitor parking? Mr. Boorady mentioned it is gated off so the public probably wouldn t be able to go back there. Mr. Byrne asked none of the public spaces are changing? Mr. Boorady stated no the public spaces are fairly the same as they were forty years ago, the whole front of the building is where you are parking. I just think any approval should recognize there is a slight increase in available parking. Mr. Lorber asked can we be more precise rather than say in the resolution a slight increase? Mr. Boorady mentioned it is thirty six eighteen. Mr. Mianecki testified he thought that graveled area was always there? Mr. Boorady mentioned not in the approved plans that are on file. Mr. Demeri asked the approved plans from when? Mr. Boorady mentioned from that resolution. Mr. Mianecki asked you have them? Mr. Boorady stated he has some plans. He stated it is this area over here that use to have landscaping that plan was in the board s files. Mr. Schepis mentioned the plan was from 81. Mr. Lorber asked him to testify to how many parking spaces existed on the plan that you are providing? Mr. Mianecki testified 41 spaces.

17 Page 17 February 8, 2011 Mr. Lorber asked and how many of those spaces are going to be for visitors and cars that you are working on? Mr. Mianecki testified the ones in the front stalls 1 through 23 are for employee and visitor parking, stalls 24 through 41 are for vehicles being repaired or impounds. Then there is general parking, as Mr. Demeri said, throughout the western portion but there is nothing delineated over there. Mr. Demeri testified general parking as far as impounded cars being worked on. Mr. Mianecki testified you also put impounds over here too but there aren t any stalls shown. How many cars can be put in there? Mr. Boorady mentioned that whole westerly area you have a good neighbor now, and it is a good looking site for the most part, but he didn t want somebody else to operate the site with the whole westerly area that is maybe twenty thousand square feet or whatever and then all of a sudden take that area and put a hundred cars in there or a junkyard. He sees existing asphalt pavement and I think it should be labeled as parking, and maybe with some kind of a number to say you are allowed twenty cars or forty cars, whatever the number is. I think that area should be delineated for the benefit of the applicant to know that he has approved parking there and for the benefit of any future owner to know that he can t get away with parking god knows what. As long as we are here, we should button up that number and give him that number. Vice Chairman Rehfuss asked on day-to-day operations in the western parking lot average, how many cars there? Mr. Lorber asked can t you lay this out these are cars? Mr. Boorady mentioned he didn t want the applicant to commit to a number and then find out that it is not enough. Mr. Lorber stated in another resolution he believed there was a prohibition against stacking cars so they all have to be on the ground. Mr. Demeri testified they don t stack them they are cars that are being worked on so stacking would be a hindrance. Mr. Boorady stated the board can make it a condition, and the applicant s engineer and our office can work that out whatever that number is, or the board can decide that they want to hear that number and have it presented to them. Vice Chairman Rehfuss mentioned since there are 41 marked spots would it be fair to say 75 total. Mr. Demeri testified he thought that was fair. Vice Chairman Rehfuss stated no more than 75. Mr. Boorady mentioned again it is a number and he just didn t want to lock him in because maybe it should be 80. Mr. Lorber mentioned he thought it might be helpful to make sure that the old resolution are being complied with. He assumed they are and he knows that Tom has not finished his report yet, but there needs to be testimony about hours of operation. Mr. Demeri testified 8 o clock in the morning until 6 o clock at night. towing but nobody is there waiting for a call. Towing is 24 hour Mr. Lorber asked 7 days a week? Mr. Demeri testified he is closed on Sundays. Mr. Lorber stated 6 days a week. Can you describe the lighting?

18 Page 18 February 8, 2011 Mr. Demeri asked exterior or interior? Mr. Lorber stated exterior. Mr. Demeri testified there are floodlights in the parking lot, some on the building and they are dusk to dawn for the most part. Mr. Boorady asked are you comparing this to an old resolution? Mr. Lorber stated from an old resolution. Mr. Boorady mentioned we still didn t cover those aspects of the application so I see what you are doing now. Mr. Lorber mentioned one of the things that should go in the new resolution is that all the old resolution are being complied with, so I just want to make sure if there are going to be any changes from the old resolution they are put in the new resolution. Mr. Boorady stated okay. Mr. Lorber mentioned that s assuming that there is an approval of this application. It just makes sense to go over the terms of the old resolutions to make sure that everything is under control. One of the resolutions said there were no floor drains and I assume that s still the case correct? Mr. Demeri testified yes. Mr. Lorber asked them to testify to landscaping? Mr. Mianecki testified there is no change being made to the landscaping at all. Whatever is shown in the photos he didn t do any landscaping plan actually because there were no changes. The proposed addition was behind the building. He did do a lighting plan and it shows spotlights that are out there today which are all 400- watt high-pressure sodium floodlights mounted on utility poles. They are 25 feet high and illuminate essentially the front half three quarters of the property, and there is another 400 watt floodlight over here and then there is perimeter lighting around the building. They are not proposing any new lighting as a result of this application everything is existing. Mr. Darmofalski s office requested a lighting plan to give an inventory of what is there and this is the inventory of what s is there. It has some soffit lighting in the front that casts down in the front and that is really it. These lights over here were part of the prior approval on the prior addition of the building. Mr. Lorber asked Tom if he had any suggestions with regard to the lighting. Mr. Boorady stated he does but if we are going over the old resolution we can go over that later. Mr. Lorber why don t you address it now. Mr. Boorady mentioned #10 in his report from November the mounting height is 25 feet and it is along the right-of-way and it is also 400 watt and there is some bleeding that goes onto Park Avenue. Also he was curious about the timing of those lights how long they were on for? Mr. Demeri testified they are on from dusk to dawn. Mr. Mianecki testified they are on all night. Mr. Boorady asked is there any reason for them to be on all night? Mr. Demeri testified security. We have 24 hour towing and they need to be safe.