Create an Account - Increase your productivity, customize your experience, and engage in information you care about.
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
A regular meeting of the Planning
Board of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Scott Meyer presiding. After a salute to the Flag, the Chairman
read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Meyer,
Larry Sweeney, Gary Behrens, Jim Rilee, Richard Zoschak, Michael Shadiack,
Joseph Schwab, Steven Alford, Lisa Voyce.
ABSENT: Teresa DeVincentis,
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Tom
Germinario, Tom Bodolsky, Russell Stern.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
M-3-05 – BUILT RITE HOMES –
SOIL APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON BERKSHIRE VALLEY RD. BLOCK 7001, LOT 2
IN R-2 ZONE
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
SOIL REMOVAL/RELOCATION PERMIT
Pursuant to Chapter XVII of the General Ordinances of
the Township of Roxbury, Article 17-1 et seq. (the
"Ordinance), the Roxbury Township Planning Board (the "Board"),
having conducted a public hearing with public notice pursuant to the Ordinance,
does hereby grant to the Applicant identified herein a Major Soil Permit,
subject to the terms and conditions enumerated herein below.
Applicant/Permittee: Built-Right Homes, LLC
2. Application Number: M-3-05
Property Identification: Block 7001, Lot 2
Subdivision/Site Plan Approval Date(s): Minor Subdivision 11/3/04
Major Soil Permit Approval Date: 4/20/05
Effective Date: 4/20/05
Findings of Fact:
A. The Board has received an
Application consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-6, and the
Applicant has paid the application fee pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-7.1.
B. Proof of adequate notice of
this Application, pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-6.5, has been furnished to
C. A public hearing was
conducted, in accordance with the Ordinance, and with opportunity for comment
by interested members of the public, on the following date(s): 4/20/05
D. In granting this Permit,
the Board has considered the factors enumerated in Section 17-6.6 of the
Ordinance. The Board has received and considered the following documents in
connection with this Application: (1) soil moving application dated 3/15/05;
(2) soil movements stockpile plan by Frederick C. Meola, P.E. revised to
1/13/05; (3) earthwork calculations by Frederick C. Meola dated 4/6/05; and (4)
reports of the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 4/12/05.
E. The Board has made the
following additional findings of fact:
1. The Applicant intends to
export 954 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil.
2. The Applicant proposes to
relocate within the site 5,424 c.y. of soil.
3. The Applicant intends to
export fill to outside the Township.
4. The route of truck travel
from Applicant's site to the disposal site will be: Berkshire Valley Road to Route 46 West to Route 80 West.
5. The Applicant has agreed
to comply with the recommendations contained in the report of the Planning
Board Engineer dated 4/12/05.
6. Pursuant to Section 17-9d
of the Ordinance, the Board finds that circumstances warrant the restriction of
the hours of soil moving operations to 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays (with such operations prohibited on
Sundays and legal holidays).
7. Pursuant to Section 17-17
of the Ordinance, the Board finds that strict application of the following
Ordinance provisions would impose hardship and hereby grants waivers with
8. Conditions of Approval: This
Permit is granted subject to the following terms and conditions:
A. Applicant shall post a
performance guarantee, consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section
17-8, in an amount indicated in Subparagraph H.5 below, as determined by the
B. This Permit shall remain
valid for a term of one year from the Effective Date specified in Paragraph 6
hereinabove, subject to extension thereafter in accordance with Ordinance
C. The Applicant shall pay the
engineering review and inspection fees as required in Ordinance Section 17-7.3.
D. This approval shall not
become effective until: (i) Applicant has paid all outstanding property taxes
and assessments due or delinquent as of the date hereof; and (ii) all
conditions of the minor subdivision approval have been fulfilled to the
satisfaction of the Board Engineer.
E. Applicant shall comply
with: (i) "Hours of Operation" established pursuant to Ordinance
Section 17-9d, as modified pursuant to paragraph 7.E.6 hereinabove; (ii)
"General Terms and Conditions of Operation" stipulated in Section
17-10; (iii) "Topsoil Restrictions", pursuant to Section 17-11; (iv)
"Depth of Excavation", pursuant to Section 17-12; and (v) "Final
Grades", pursuant to Section 17-13.
F. Applicant grants to the
Township Engineer, and/or his duly authorized agents, the right of entry to the
property to conduct inspections to determine compliance with this Permit.
G. This approval is subject to
all outside agency review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.
H. This Permit is subject to
the following additional terms and conditions:
1. All fill will be exported
from Applicant's site to outside the Township.
2. The route of truck travel
from Applicant's site to the disposal site shall be: Berkshire Valley Road to
Route 46 West to Route 80 West.
3. The Erosion Control Plan
shall be modified to indicate the following note:
"Notwithstanding the approved Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan, the Applicant shall implement all measures needed to
satisfactorily control erosion, dust, and sediment transport as may be
reasonably determined by the Township Engineer during construction."
4. Applicant shall post fees
Section 17-7.1 Application Fee - $250.00
Section 17-7.2 Soil Moving Fee - $143.00 ($0.15/cy
times 954 cy)
Section 17-7.3 Engineering Inspection Fees pursuant
to Section 13-2.404 of the
5. Per Section 17-8 of the
Ordinance, Applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount of $2,000.
6. Applicant shall place hay
bales on the site to supplement planned silt fencing for erosion control to the
satisfaction of the Planning Board Engineer.
7. In accordance with
Ordinance Sections 17-6.1(t) and 17-6.4, the Applicant shall stake out interior
improvements with appropriate cut sheets to the satisfaction of the Township
Engineer, and a professional land surveyor shall stake out lot corners and
appropriate points on line.
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is an accurate recitation of the action taken by the Planning Board on the
approval date designated hereinabove.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve
the resolution. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr.
Sweeney, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Mr. Meyer announced Applications
S-24-05 - McArdle, S-21-04 – Glenn Bott, and M-3-04 – Mark Tucci will not
be heard and are carried to May 18, 2005.
S-8-05 – DELL AVE.
PROPERTIES – SITE PLAN FOR FLEX/WAREHOUSE LOCATED ON DELL AVE. BLOCK 7101 – LOT
17/18 IN I-3 ZONE
Attorney Lawrence Berger
represented the applicant. He stated we have had testimony from the traffic
consultant and addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s letter except for a few items. We also
addressed Mr. Stern’s memo regarding the variances and waivers. Tonight we
will address the outstanding items. The main issue is paving for Dell Avenue.
Mr. Ritter said at the last
meeting there was discussion on tree replacement and issues that grew out of
the fact we had proposed a stormwater detention system in a required buffer
adjacent to a residential area. Originally we had established a 25 foot buffer
area adjacent to the site, and it was pointed out to us that the buffer
adjacent to a residential area is increased to 50 feet. We have redesigned the
detention system and relocated parking on the site to increase the amount of
green space where the property abuts the residential district. We also changed
the tree replacement calculations. The plan shows a much thinner detention
basin and the buffer has been increased to 50 feet in width. The parking originally
on the north side of the building has been moved out of the buffer area and 7
additional overflow spaces have been provided in the back, bringing the total
spaces to 42. There is still a small area of the driveway that encroaches.
Under the original submission we were required to replace about 673 spaces, and
now we will be required to replace 427 trees. We redeveloped the landscape
plan – original plan dated 3/14/05 (marked A-5) – revised plan dated
An amended landscape plan dated
5/4/05 was marked A-7.
Mr. Ritter said the landscape
plan in the package increases the number of trees and the total landscaping
will be 271 replacement trees, with 11 street trees in addition to that. That
would still have required a waiver. What we are willing to do now (shown on
A-7) is to provide landscaping on an abutting property that also abuts a
residential district. We will eliminate the need for relief from the tree
ordinance by adding 93 trees, additional screening and landscaping, and
thickening the number of evergreens, add under-plantings along the southern
edge of the driveway. We have also added trees in the front, for a total of 93
additional trees. Mr. Petillo owns the abutting tract across the street, and
the tramway continues across along the frontage, and the land to the north of
his parcel is in the residential zone. We propose, with this package, to
establish the buffer between the residential area and what could be the
industrial development and start it growing. We propose planting an additional
63 pine trees along the road frontage.
Mr. Zoschak asked if the numbers
Mr. Stern said there was a
shortfall in the most recent submission. When that occurs, the Board typically
accepts a contribution to the tree fund. Mr. Petillo prefers to put the trees
on his adjoining parcel. It would eliminate gravel and pavement along that
property line and provides an opportunity to establish landscaping in that
area. We have recently received a subdivision application for the northerly
property along Dell Avenue and B Rd. The proposal does make sense. My concern
would be that the applicant makes sure the vegetation across the street be
protected, and not restrict future re-development of that property.
Mr. Germinario said that tract is
not part of this application, but we can provide for payment of off site
landscaping in lieu of plantings on site so this does fit within the ordinance
scheme as far as tree replacement.
Mr. Stern said there would have
to be a landscapers guarantee, and a long range agreement for replacement on a
one-to-one basis. If the trees come down on that property in the future, they
would have to be replaced elsewhere.
The applicant agreed.
Mr. Berger said one of the
conditions in Mr. Stern’s report stated that to remove any tree on the tract,
there would have to be a performance bond for the tree replacement.
Mr. Berger requested that the
tree bond be made a condition of C.O., rather than preliminary site plan.
Mr. Stern said the purpose of the
bond is to have it in the event the trees are removed, and the project is not
completed for some unforeseen circumstance.
Mr. Berger said regarding wooden
gates on the trash enclosure, item 2.3 in Mr. Stern’s report, that is
Mr. Berger said regarding the
outstanding items in Mr. Bodolsky’s report:
Item 7 – Discussion. Mr. Berger
said the applicant prefers the easement be a condition of final, rather than
Mr. Bodolsky asked if this
project is imminent.
Mr. Petillo stated this project
will be built, and he would like it completed before Christmas.
It was determined the project can
be started, as long as the process of the easement is underway. It will be a
condition that there will be a submission of a draft easement simultaneously
with the signing of preliminary site plan.
Item 15 – Held for further
Item 18 – Agree to connect to
public water when available.
Item 20 – Applicant prefers the
option of either gravel or asphalt. The Board agreed.
Item 22 – Discussion. It was
determined the ½ width will be reduced to 15 feet.
Item 15 – Regarding the pavement
of Dell Avenue, Mr. Berger said there was no requirement for the paving with
the other project which was approved. Should we repave Dell Avenue, it will
look the same as it does now in 18 months.
Mr. Petillo said County Concrete
uses the road extensively and that is why the road is the way it is now. There
is no drainage. We are improving the drainage as much as we can on our site.
Discussion. Mr. Petillo agreed
to change the curb piece head on the inlets on Dell avenue to conform with the
new stormwater regulations.
Mr. Meyer said there will be
other applications on Dell Avenue. Does everyone get a pass because of County
Mr. Bodolsky said I believe for
the other site we asked for the same thing, and it was bartered against other
improvements. Is that the way it was resolved?
Mr. Petillo said we had talked
about widening it by 20 feet, and the spread in the difference went into the
cost for the water line.
Mr. Zoschak asked if Mr. Petillo
will put the water line on the other side.
Mr. Petillo said yes. It goes to
Mr. Berger said, in answer to Mr.
Meyer, the town could do a special assessment based on usage of the road.
Mr. Rilee said the township has
never dealt with special assessment.
Mr. Bodolsky said there is the
option to require the monetary equivalent.
Mr. Berger said he does not
believe we have an obligation to repair the road under any circumstances. The
maximum we would do is our pro rata share of the traffic vs. the total traffic
on the road, which would be insignificant.
Mr. Germinario said the pro rata
formula comes into play for off tract contributions. The portion of the road
way that directly abuts the site is an off-site improvement. I would think
that is not governed by pro rata share. The Board has the discretion to
require off site improvements. Those go along with the site improvements. I
agree with Mr. Berger that if this is a situation that has nothing to do with
the site improvements they are proposing, and is going to be created by the
traffic of other users of Dell Avenue, it probably not be proper for this Board
to require that the applicant pay 100% of the cost of restoring the road to its
original state. To come up with some kind of contribution for the upgrading of
the road makes sense, at some point in time. That would be something that
benefits this site.
Mr. Berger said we think with
whatever money anyone spends on the road, 18 months later it will look the same
as it looks today.
Mr. Rilee said if the proper
drainage is put in and the road is done properly, it can be maintained.
Mr. Petillo said re-doing the
road would require a total reconstruction of the road for its whole width, and
that would require a special assessment.
Mr. Behrens said I don’t think it
makes sense to just pave that small portion. Granting a waiver would not set a
precedent, as it was not required for the property on the other side of the road
anyway, and he has already been granted an exception as a trade-off for the
After further discussion, it was
determined the waiver will be granted.
Mr. Bodolsky said regarding the
drainage scheme relative to Dell Avenue, the drainage is unconventional from
the standpoint of conventional engineering thought. They are providing 3
inlets along their frontage and dumping into the detention pond that takes a
portion of Dell Avenue from there to a crest in the road, and the front portion
of the site. The applicant has said he would assume the maintenance
responsibilities for the pond. On the other side of the street they proposed
the same thing and the Board at that time thought that was a good idea because
we don’t have anywhere to go on Dell Avenue. There was a discussion about an
off tract contribution to pipe this down to the Corwin Pit, and the board
rejected that idea because of water quality to the Corwin pit. This road is
extremely dirty through this area. I am asking for the Board to vote on the
Mr. Zoschak said Mr. Bodolsky
said this meets the new stormwater regulations.
Mr. Bodolsky said yes, except if
you are going to do infiltration under the new regulations, you are not
supposed to take parking areas in it. Here, it is a dirty roadway. From that
standpoint it doesn’t meet the standards. Other than that, they do meet the
Mr. Berger said the applicant has
agreed they will maintain the basin.
Mr. Bodolsky said the issue of
permeability is a question. I am not satisfied there were good representative
results on the soil. I want to be sure this pond will work.
Mr. Plante stated as to the
permeability and percolation tests, we are doing additional tests in front of
the lot near the basin, to make sure we have a high perk rate. If we get that
high perk rate, this basin will function more than adequately and will contain
the 100 year design inflow. There is a very good level of security and
insurance in the design of that structure.
It was determined it will be a
condition that if the perk tests don’t meet the requirement, they will return
to the Board.
Mr. Bodolsky suggested the
township have someone there to observe the new soil logs.
Mr. Berger said the applicant
agrees to have it observed by the appropriate municipal official.
Mr. Germinario said if the
permeability tests are not adequate, can the sizing of the pond be worked out
between Mr. Bodolsky and the applicant’s engineer?
Ms. Voyce said the NRI shows this
as being well drained, and on the permeability, it is listed as 1 to 2 inches
per hour. There may be an issue. Septic effluent limitations are slight. It
looks like it will probably perk. Regarding the maintenance, in sand there are
problems with iron bacteria at times. That would be a concern. The long term
maintenance is a concern.
Mr. Berger said in the event the
soils don’t pass, we would work it out with Mr. Bodolsky for the normal
standard for a 25 year storm.
The Board determined that will be
New Item 2A – applicant agreed to
All other comments dealing with
stormwater management – addressed
Item 5 – agreed
Item 10 – agreed
Item 17 – agreed
Item 19 – agreed
All other items – addressed
Mr. Stern said a design waiver
will be required for the area inventoried for the tree replacement
Mr. Ritter said justification for
that is that there is a fairly even mix of standing trees. We felt the samples
we used were adequate.
Mr. Stern had no objection.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLI PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the application. Mr. Sweeney seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr.
Alford, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
There was a 5 minute recess at
S-2-05 VILLAGES AT ROXBURY
– AMENDED SUBDIVISION FOR 186 LOTS LCOATED ON SHIPPENPORT RD. BLOCK 11201, LOTS
1, 2, 3 IN R-6 ZONE
Attorney Steven Tripp represented
the applicant. He said at the last hearing we were going through the overview
of the plans and where the differences are. One issue we will address is the
Susan Berninger was present. She
stated the current plan shows 14.71 acres of steep slope disturbance, and an
additional .137 acres related to the tot lot at the corner of Salmon and
Mansel, for a total of 14.874 acres steep slope disturbance. This includes
slopes that will be temporarily disturbed when we are building retaining
walls. The original number approved was 14.3 acres which didn’t include the
disturbance behind the retaining walls.
Mr. Bodolsky asked if the 14.8
acres includes everything within the designated limits of disturbance on the
Ms. Berninger said that is
Ms. Berninger said the limits of
disturbance have decrease because of the loss of lots and shortening of roads.
Common open space has increased from 86.84 acres to 88.4 acres. We currently
have 49.3% open space where the ordinance requires 35%. Regarding retaining
walls, there is an increase in the number of walls. We looked at walls in the
open space lots, tot lots and recreation lots and on individual lots and
detention basin lots. Basin F (shown on A-3) was allowed to have retaining
walls added to get the volume we needed to meet peak flow reductions. In
general, the retaining wall length has increased on the individual lots by 644
lineal feet, or 8%. Five percent of the increase was due to drainage at the
end of Road L (exhibit A-3). We added 391 feet of retaining wall there.
Mr. Tripp said other than this,
there is 250 feet spread out over the entire site?
Ms. Berninger said yes. On this
plan we have included the footprints of the largest possible homes we intend to
build. Some lots had walls before that don’t have them now, and others did not
have them and now do. We tried to stay within the height of the walls we had
Mr. Bodolsky said when he issues
a report, he will go sheet by sheet and discuss a comparison of the original
walls vs. the present walls.
Ms. Berninger said for the walls
in the open space area, there were 3,539 feet in the original plan, and now
there are 3,932 linear feet. That is mainly due to designing the tot lots and
recreation area. We designed the tot lot at Mansel and Salmon after discussion
with the recreation department. We also moved a tot lot from lot 183 to the
emergency connection to Oren Drive. In the detention basins, the approved
plan had 1,502 feet and the current plan has 2,968 feet. 1,350 feet of that
additional wall is related to basin F, where the condition of the resolution
said we could use retaining walls to meet the volume and the peak flow rate
reduction criteria. The condition also talks about having two tiers of wall
maximum. We had a staff meeting in February and discussed safety shelves. In
order to do that we went to a third terrace. The other basins, A & B have
each an additional 16 feet of wall in them.
Mr. Stern requested the wall
information be submitted in a tabular form.
Ms. Berninger submitted a chart
(marked A-4) showing the comparison of lot width variances, net area variances,
and comparison of lots with proposed decks. She said regarding lot width,
there were a total of 18 lots requiring variances and we now have 13. The
width is the same as approved or slightly increased. Lot 49 complied during
the original approval, and now requires a variance, however, there were 6 that
previously required variances and now don’t. There is a total of 5 more
Ms. Berninger said on the net
area variances, there is a comparison. There were 17 lots that required the
variance and we now have 6. All of those lots have increased in size, but
still require relief. There is more net area now that originally approved. Net
area is the area within the lot that is free of slopes 20% or greater. All of
the 6 now have more net area than previously approved.
Ms. Berninger said the next chart
compares the decks. There were 21 lots previously approved with decks. We now
have 11. The decks do conform, but you don’t need the decks on 10 of the
lots. You can meet the ordinance by providing them. It is preferable to have
the rear yard without the deck.
Ms. Berninger said regarding the
water supply, since 1999 we have been working with the Engineering Department
for the water plan.
Ms. Berninger referred to the
off-site water plan revised 1/31/05 (marked A-5). Because we don’t have a
confirmed route, the plan shows water coming from Rt. 46 on the other side of
Route 80, under Route 80, towards Shippenport Road, under the railroad bridge,
and then either up Shippenport Road or up Orben Drive onto Landing Road and
into the project.
Mr. Tripp said during the prior
hearings, the Lake Rogerene people requested the water line be brought up Orben
Drive, and we agreed, if it was consistent with the township water plan, that
the engineering department agreed, and that the two municipalities were able to
work out an agreement. When we submitted the amended preliminary plans, an
agreement had not been reached. We fully engineered both routes. There have
been meetings, and I have been advised there is now an agreement in principal,
as to the Orben Drive Route, but it is not a written agreement at this time.
Mr. Germinario said that is correct.
Mr. Rilee said at the Council
level, he heard there were some unreasonable requests from Mount Arlington.
Mr. Germinario said there was a
meeting about 6 weeks ago, and they significantly scaled back what they were
Mr. Tripp said after discussions,
they then agreed to withdraw some of their requests, and the engineering
details were discussed.
Ms. Berninger said we did agree
to give curb boxes for about 43 homes, hydrants every 500 feet and T’s and
valves at intersections, and their engineer will review the plans once Mike
Kobylarz is done. We fully engineered both routes. Mr. Kobylarz’s office has
reviewed the plans, and we are nearing agreement. The engineering department
has indicated they won’t sign any DEP applications until it is resolved. The
on-site water is a different issue, as it doesn’t need the route picked.
Mr. Tripp said by the time the
Board is able to act on this application, I think there will be an agreement.
Mr. Germinario agreed.
Mr. Bodolsky asked, if there is
no agreement, what would be the appropriate condition in our resolution
relative to water?
Mr. Tripp said he believes it
would say the route would be Orben Drive unless the agreement is not reached
within a date certain, at which point it would be along Shippenport.
Mr. Germinario said that is
correct, subject to the municipal agreement being finalized, and then they
would fall back on the Shippenport route.
Ms. Berninger said regarding
phasing for the on site water system, there has been a report by the Township
Engineer indicating how much water is available. Until there is water for the
full build-out we will have to prepare a water phasing plan.
Mr. Tripp said the first phase
will be all the infrastructure, and then work on a number of lots that can be
served by water (41 lots). Phase 2 will be either the remainder of the lots or
Ms. Berninger said the time frame
for build-out if we have water would be about 5 years.
Ms. Berninger said the other
major issue is soil movement. We will be addressing that once the layout is
Mr. Tripp said there are a number
of conditions of the original approval that will need to be modified.
Mr. Meyer asked when we will have
the benefit of reports from the staff.
Mr. Bodolsky said in about 2
weeks time. Mr. Stern said toward the end of June for his report.
Resolution items that need to be
modified will be brought before the Board.
Mr. Bodolsky said he had asked
for a digital copy of the (reduced number of lots. There is a new slope
delineation, and we need a digital copy of their file to check that more
quickly, or we can accept the applicant’s representation.
After discussion, the applicant
agreed to submit the digital copy of the file for his review.
Mr. Meyer said he feels the
applicant should submit the copy to Mr. Bodolsky to check for any gross areas,
and not to split hairs.
The application was carried to
6/15/05. The applicant granted an extension of time through the end of June.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Bodolsky said there was a
pre-construction meeting for the soil movement aspects of the Gemini site. The
Board had required the applicant to move earth on the site without fulfilling
the resolution compliance items, with the caveat they were not to
put in any improvements
until full resolution compliance. There was a realization that the fill for
the Route 46 side of the phase 1 building is the big fill on that site. Some
of the pipes are 25 to 30 feet below the fill area, but only about 5 feet below
the existing road. The applicant wants to put those pipes in now. They are
seeking an amendment to that condition to allow those particular pipes to be
placed now. Mr. Kobylarz and I don’t object. Soil Conservation promotes it as
The Board agreed to allow the
pipes to go in.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 10:00 p.m.
A. DeMasi, Secretary