July 31, 2013 THE VILLADOM TIMES I • Page 9 Franklin Lakes Planners in lot coverage dispute with owner by Frank J. McMahon The lot coverage calculation for a dwelling and drive- way constructed on Shawnee Drive is at the center of a dispute between the Franklin Lakes Planning Board and the lot owner. The board has been engaged in a zoning dispute with Hackensack resident Bashar Sabbagh, the owner of the residential lot, since the board approved an application for the construction of a conforming dwelling and other improvements in January 2006. During several recent planning board meetings, how- ever, the permeability of a paver block driveway at the site has been the subject of extensive testimony by a civil engi- neer hired by Sabbagh. The conformity of the construction on that lot continues to be the subject of a public hearing that is scheduled to continue at the board’s Aug. 7 public meeting. The dispute centers on the calculation of impervious coverage or total coverage, which includes the house, now assessed at almost $1.1 million, and the driveway. The calculation by borough engineers indicates 33.85 percent coverage of the property. The maximum allowable total lot coverage is 25 percent. Joseph Ferriero, the attorney representing Sabbagh, claims the borough’s change to the zoning ordinance in 2010 (when the wording was changed from “impervious” coverage to “total” coverage) is contrary to case law. He said his client’s lot coverage should be calculated accord- ing to the language in the prior ordinance. Ferriero elicited extensive testimony from Nasr Sheta, a civil engineer hired by Sabbagh, concerning the size and nature of the driveway. He claims that testimony is an important part of the record in case his client’s request for a variance is denied by the board and the matter is reviewed in Superior Court. The most recent board meetings on this application, therefore, have included lengthy discussions about the per- meability of the paver block driveway and the amount of rainwater that runs off that driveway into the street and onto a neighboring property. Sheta claims the spaces between the pavers allow the rainwater to drain into the subsurface material and would produce significantly less runoff, perhaps 50 percent less, than the previously approved asphalt driveway. He said that, even though the paver driveway is twice the size of the asphalt driveway, the asphalt is totally impervious. Kevin Boswell of Boswell McClave Engineering, the borough’s professional engineering firm, questioned Sheta extensively about the nature of the pavers and their perme- ability. Boswell said he will provide the board with reports on the type of pavers used and the runoff from the drive- way into the curb line. The engineer also asked Ferierro to provide him with specifications of the paver blocks prior to the next meeting. When Sabbagh’s application was approved in 2006, a pool was not proposed and the lot coverage was calculated at 24.4 percent, which is under the 25 percent allowable coverage for all lots within the A-40 residential zone with or without a pool. Sabbagh then revised his plan to reduce the proposed driveway limits and add a pool in the rear yard. That revised plan was found to be fully conforming with the zoning code and an amended soil moving permit was issued in April 2010. The following November, a stop work order was issued to Sabbagh when it was found the improvements constructed on the site were not in confor- mance with the approved plan. The following July, Sabbagh submitted conforming corrective measures that included a further reduction of the driveway limits and the removal of the pool from the plans. The stop work order was lifted and an amended soil moving permit was issued in July 2011. During an inspection of the site in May 2012, it was noticed that the driveway was not being constructed according to the most recent revised plan. Sabbagh was directed to restore the driveway according to the approved plan or submit a variance application to the planning board seeking approval to allow the driveway to remain. Another stop work order was issued in July 2012 since Sabbagh had not addressed the need to restore the site to conform to the approved plan and he had not submitted a variance application. Sabbagh then submitted a new revised plan propos- ing an expansion of the driveway limits, driveway piers, a new pool and patio with a pool equipment pad in the rear yard, a five-foot high aluminum safety fence enclosing the pool area, and a fountain adjacent to the western retaining walls. That plan resulted in the 33.85 percent lot cover- age calculation which is above the 25 percent allowed for lots containing a pool and requires a variance, according to borough officials. Diva Muller, who owns the property at the corner of Shawnee Drive and Dakota Trail, which is downhill from the Sabbagh lot, has complained about the pooling of rain- water on her property since Sabbagh’s construction began. But Henry Fisher, who owns the property uphill and north of the Sabbagh lot, told the planning board recently that he feels the driveway Sabbagh installed last year has addressed the runoff problem since that runoff has been directed to the borough’s storm drain and the nearby creek. “My concern is runoff,” Fisher said. “I think the runoff has been contained to a large degree. I don’t know if it’s perfect, but it is directed into the sewer. If it’s working well, it’s best not to touch it. If you fool around with it, you may impact the current retention.” Since this application was discussed in June, Sabbagh has notified the board that he is disputing the disburse- ments made from his escrow account to the Boswell McClave Engineering firm. Sabbagh’s claim concerns (continued on page 19)