View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

A regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:00 p.m. with Chairperson Gail Robortaccio presiding.  After a salute to the Flag, Ms. Robortaccio read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Gail Robortaccio, Robert Kurtz, Mark Crowley, Kathy DeFillippo, Joyce Dargel, Heather Darling, Barbara Kinback.

 

ABSENT:  Scott Meyer, Robert Church

 

Ms. DeMasi stated Mr. Roome has resigned from the Board.  Ms. Kinback is now a regular member, and Heather Darling has been appointed as Alternate #2.

 

Minutes of 1/10/05

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. Crowley seconded. 

 

Discussion.  Changes noted and made.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

BA-21-04 – KENBAR INVESTMENTS – USE VARIANCE/SITE PLAN/SUBDIVISON FOR FLEXIBLE WAREHOUSE LOCATED ON ORBEN DR. BLOCK 8602, LOT 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 & 15 IN LI/OR ZONE

 

 

In the matter of Kenbar Investments, LLC

Case No. BA-21-04

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

                                                               

Approved: January 10, 2005

Memorialized: March 15, 2005

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, Kenbar Investments, LLC have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for minor subdivision, “d” variance, preliminary site plan approval, “c” variance(s), design waivers for premises located at Orben Drive and Hillcrest Avenue and known as Block 8602, Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, & 15 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “LI/OR/B2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.3102D and 13-7.3402B2 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. Alan Goldstein, Esquire and Paul Nussbaum, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is a limited liability company and the proposed developer of six properties encompassing just under seven acres most of which are located in the LI/OR district.  A small portion of the premises is located in the B2 district.
  3. The present Lot 15 is a 2/3 of an acre developed property containing a dwelling, commercial building, and associated parking.  The dual use and site plan for Lot 15 were approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment in 1988.
  4. The front portion of Lot 14, for a depth of 200 feet, is zoned B2 Highway Business.  Lots 2,3,4,5, 14 are all unimproved wooded parcels encumbered with steep slopes and consisting of approximately 6.29 acres.
  5. Commercial and industrial zoning surrounds the track itself with the B2 district located along Route 46 and the LI/OR district to the northeast and west.  The rear of Lot 5 and a small portion of Lot 4 adjoin a PO/R professional office/residential district.  Located across Orben Drive to the west is Public Storage and by the Route 46/Orben Drive intersection is a gasoline service station.  To the north is Adam Metal, east of the property is Towne Toyota, and to the southeast is a BMW motorcycle dealership.   
  6. The applicant is presently seeking approval for a minor subdivision, “D” variance, and major preliminary site plan with “C” variances.  If approved, the applicant was proposing development of a newly created 6.5-acre parcel for a 31,200 square foot mixed office/warehouse building.  The office portion would encompass 20% and the warehouse portion 80% of the building.  The site would contain 94 parking spaces and be serviced by private well/public sewer.
  7. The application also involves a minor subdivision of the improved Lot 15 parcel to square off the lot by subdividing the “panhandle”.  This portion as well as Smith Avenue (a paper street) would be merged with Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 & 14 to create one parcel encompassing just over 6.5 acres.
  8. Prior to the initial public hearing, the Board received the following reports:
    1. 4/9/04 Thomas Bodolsky, Engineering Consultant
    2. 4/8/04 Michael Kobylarz, Municipal Engineer
    3. 3/31/04 Roxbury Township Police Department, Patrolman Gregg Prendergast of the Traffic Safety Bureau
    4. 4/8/04 Russell Stern, Township Planner
    5. 3/11/04 Penni Corica, Tax Assessor

 

  1. The applicant’s initial site plans consisted of the following documents:

Prepared by G. Gloede and Associates:  Revised Sheet 2 submitted with a 12/13/04 revision date (downsized the building and increased some of the setbacks.)

 

Sheet 1, Key Map and General Notes, revised 12/4/03

Sheet 2, Preliminary Site Plan Minor Subdivision, revised 12/4/03

Sheet 3, Lighting and Landscape Plan, revised 12/4/03

Sheet 4, Preliminary Profiles, revised 12/4/03

Sheet 5, Preliminary Profiles, revised 12/4/03

Sheet 6, Preliminary Profiles, revised 12/4/03

Sheet 7, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, revised 12/4/03

Sheet 8, Soil Erosion and Sediment Control, Notes and Details, revised 12/4/03

Sheet 9, Hillcrest Avenue Proposed Cross Sections, revised 12/4/03

Sheet 10, Construction Details, revised 12/4/03

Sheet 11, Construction Details, revised 2/9/04

 

Prepared by Charles Schaffer Associates:

Sheet A-1, Building Elevations, dated 11/25/03

Sheet A-2, Floor Plan, dated 11/25/03

 

Prepared by Edward F. Secco:

 

Sheet 1 of 1, Boundary and Topographic Survey, dated 11/4/02

 

Prepared by Robert J. Tessier, PP, AICP:

 

Environmental Impact Statement, dated April 2003

 

  1.   The matter was heard at a first public hearing on 9/13/04.
  2. Kenneth Hyman, one of the principals of the applicant, gave an overview of the application.
  3. Mr. Hyman noted the proposed subdivision and desire to create a flex office/warehouse use.
  4. George Gloede, the applicant’s professional engineer and author of the site plan/subdivision exhibits gave an overview of the engineering aspects of the application.  He presented exhibit A-1 which was sheet 1 of the engineering plans.  He used that to demonstrate and describe to the Board the various highlights of the site.  In addition, he used sheet 2, which was marked A-2 to describe the proposed subdivision and the 150’ wetlands and buffers as well as the proposed 94 parking spaces.
  5. The matter was continued to the 10/14/04 public hearing.  Eric Snyder, the applicant’s professional planner, was called and presented planning testimony.
  6. Mr. Snyder reviewed the 4/8/04 report of Russell Stern and opined that the special reasons and enhanced burden of proof [Medici v. BPR Co. 107 NJ1 (1987)] would be met.  Mr. Snyder noted the proximity of the site to major roadways and the lack of conflict with residential zones make the site uniquely suited for small entrepreneurial enterprises.  He noted the proximity of warehouse and commercial uses.  The use itself is permitted – the blend of use (proportions) was the deviation.  Mr. Snyder reiterated the points made in his 3/26/04 report submitted to the Board; to wit:
    1. The proposed development provides sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of commercial and industrial uses.
    2. To encourage the location and design of transportation routes, which will promote the free flow of traffic.
    3. Promote a desirable visual environment.
    4. Promote the conservation of open space, energy resources and valuable natural resources.
  7. Mr. Snyder reviewed exhibit A-3 (elevation) and stated same indicated a building and structure esthetically suited for the site.
  8. Mr. Snyder further reconciled the Master Plan and Zoning Code noting that the proposed use was a permitted use just not in the proportion proposed by the applicant.
  9. At the conclusion of the 10/14/04 public hearing, the applicant asked to bifurcate the application pursuant to NJSA 40:55D-76b.  The Board voted to approve the “d” variance.
  10. The matter was continued to the 11/8/04 public hearing.  Mr. Gloede was recalled as a witness and reviewed the 4/9/04 report of the Board’s engineer, Thomas Bodolsky.  There was some discussion of recent NJDEP stormwater management technique revisions as well as location wetlands and transition areas and waivers.
  11. The applicant then went through the various portions of the engineer’s 4/9/04 report and the Board discussed and approved the following waivers:
    1. There will be no curbing on the north side of Hillcrest Avenue.  (The Board’s engineer said eliminating the curbing would actually comply with present NJDEP recommendations for stormwater management.)
    2.  It was agreed sidewalks will be eliminated on Orben Drive and Hillcrest Avenue as same would serve no discernable purpose.  It is the Board’s desire that the applicant install sidewalks along Route 46 noting the ultimate approval of the sidewalks would rest with NJDOT.  Should the installation of sidewalks along Route 46 become impractical or impossible, the applicant may ask the Board for this condition to be waived.
    3. After a lengthy colloquy both at the 11/8/04 public hearing as well as the 1/10/05 public hearing, it was decided that the issue and design of the lighting along the new public street would be left to the sound discretion of the municipal engineer, Michael Kobylarz.
  12.  As noted the matter was continued to 1/10/05 public hearing.  The applicant’s counsel submitted a memorandum to the Board’s attorney clarifying the status that Smith Avenue is a public right-of-way.  The Board also received a report from Russell Stern, township planner, dated 1/10/05 and an updated report from Thomas J. Bodolsky, the Board’s engineering consultant, dated 1/4/05.
  13. The applicant’s engineer, George Gloede, testified at the public hearing.  He submitted new architectural plans (although there were come confusion because the plans still had the prior revision date), which depicted inter alia signage plans and more detailed elevations.  The plans were marked A-4 and it was noted the elevations were reversed and the revision date was incorrect.  The applicant was to submit to the Board’s planner correct revised plans after the meeting.  Among other features, the proposed freestanding sign no longer required a variance.  Mr. Gloede also testified and showed a revision of the site plan he had previously authored.
  14. Mr. Gloede submitted 2 photos marked A-5 and A-6 depicting the area in which sidewalks might be located along Route 46.  Apparently, the applicant wanted to re-visit this issue.  After much discussion, the Board reiterated its position that it would prefer locating sidewalks and that the applicant was to make a bonifide effort to secure and locate sidewalks.  Applicant would have to report back to the Board its efforts to obtain NJDOT approvals.
  15. The applicant’s next witness, Eric Snyder, its professional planner, was recalled to the stand.  Mr. Snyder again reviewed all of the variances and waivers which will be noted below that the applicant was seeking in conjunction with the within application.  Mr. Snyder reiterated the conclusions reached in his planning report noting that overall the applicant’s proposal had less of an impact than a conforming use.  He further noted the irregular shape of the lot that somewhat isolated the position and the other unusual characteristics including topography and wetlands and noted the proposed use was uniquely suited to the site.  He further opined the proposed use was really a slightly modified version of a use permitted by the Ordinance.
  16. Mr. Gloede was recalled and gave a brief and cursory review of the institute of traffic engineering and trip generation for the site.
  17. The following variances are noted:

a.  A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.818 as the application exceeds the      maximum area of steep slope disturbance for the overall tract.  ymHym

 

Steep

Slope

Category

Existing

Area of

Steep

Slopes

 

Allowable Area

Of Disturbance

 

 

Proposed Area

Of Disturbance

 

Allowable

Percentage

Of Disturbance

 

Proposed

Percentage

Of Disturbance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

15-19.99%

31,251 s.f.

10,938 s.f.

13,760 s.f.*

35%

44%*

20-24.99%

22,799 s.f.

  3,420 s.f.

  4,675 s.f.*

15%

21%*

25% +/-

80,309 s.f.

  2,409 s.f.

  9,350 s.f.*

  3%

11%*

*Based on revised Sheet 2 bearing a 12/13/04 revision date.

b.       A variance is necessary from Section 1307.3402E1 (13-7.3102D4) as a 150 foot front yard setback is required while the applicant proposes a 53.66 foot setback to a northeasterly building canopy (60.1 feet to the building corner).

c.        A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.3402E1 (13-7.3102D5) as a 75-foot rear yard setback is required while the applicant proposes a 40 foot setback from the southeasterly building corner.

d.       A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.3402E1 (13-7.3102D6) as a 75 foot side yard setback is required while the applicant proposes a 50.17 foot setback (50.48’ per revised Sheet 2 bearing a 12/13/04 revision date) from the northwesterly building corner to Lot 15 (58 +/- feet to building corner).

e.          A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.3402E1 (13-7.3102D10b) as a minimum parking setback of 60 feet is required from the Hillcrest Avenue right-of-way while the applicant proposes a 19.27 foot setback (23.75’ per revised Sheet 2 bearing a 12/13/04 revision date).  Approximately 10 constructed parking spaces, 14 banked spaces and the easterly access aisles re located within the setback.

f.         A variance is necessary from Section 13-7.3402E1 (1307.3102D1) as a 5-acre minimum lot size is required.  (Lot 15 is already nonconforming with a 0.67 acre lot area and will now be reduced to 0.62 acres.)

27.     The applicant also sought the following design waivers:

a.        A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.608 as curbs are required on both sides of all streets while the applicant only proposes curb for a portion of their road frontage.  A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.700D which requires curbed parking while the applicant proposes to delete curb on the northerly side of the lot adjoining the detention pond. (The applicant agreed to install a wood guiderail – the design and location of the guiderail and landscaping for same to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s Planner and Engineering Consultant).

b.       A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.610A as sidewalks are required along Hillcrest Avenue and Orben Drive while none are proposed.

c.        A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.702O and 13-8.702F which requires 9 foot wide curbed planting island with shade trees to separate any parking bay exceeding 20 spaces in a row.

d.       A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.703A as an individual 15’x60’ loading/unloading space is not provided. 

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township

of Roxbury for the following reasons:

                1.  The Board finds the testimony of the applicant’s planner, Eric Snyder, to be credible and probative.  As noted above, the use variances were the primary relief being sought by the applicant.  This is a somewhat unusual position in that the uses are permitted uses in the zone.  It is the percentage and the weighting of the uses that violate the Zoning Ordinance.  The Board finds several purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law would be advanced by the applicant’s proposal:

a.        To provide sufficient space in appropriate locations for a variety of agricultural, residential, recreational, commercial and industrial uses and open space, both public and private, according to their respective environmental requirements in order to meet the needs of all New Jersey citizens.

b.       To encourage the location and design of transportation routes, which will promote the free, flow of traffic while discouraging location of such facilities and routes, which result in congestion or blight.

c.        To promote a desirable visual environment through creative development techniques and good civic design and arrangements.

d.       To promote the conservation of historic sites and districts, open space, energy resources, and valuable natural resources in the State and to prevent urban sprawl and degradation of the environment through improper use of land.  

e.        It is clear that the Township Master Plan and Zoning Code approve a flexible office warehouse use.  The Board finds under the unique set of facts, in this case, the nature of the property and the nature of the use that the deviation from the standards of the Zoning Ordinance do not rise to the level of impairing the intent and the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance nor the Master Plan.

2.   As to the negative criteria, the Board finds that the facility, once constructed as designed, will be substantial in character with the surrounding uses.  The impact on the nearby adjacent residential unit (Lot 11) from the change and the use of the property will be negligible.  It would appear that the level of traffic generated by the mix at this facility would be less than the level of traffic that would be expected if the facility would be primarily office rather than primarily warehouse.  Since traffic and intensity would be greater with a conforming use, it would be fair to say this proposal actually has less of an impact than a conforming proposal.

3.  As to the design waivers in related bulk variances, the Board finds the applicant has demonstrated that the within proposal is clearly a better planning alternative than strict compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.  The ancillary relief (see variances/design waivers) is clearly subsumed by the grant of use variance relief.  The same reasoning applying to the use variance applies to the ancillary relief.  Clearly, the development of the site, as proposed, is in keeping with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.

               

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 10th day of January, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Consolidation of all lots as recommended in the tax assessor’s memorandum dated 3/11/04.  Same shall be a condition prior to the issuance of any permits for any construction on-site.
  2. Applicant shall comply with the recommendations of the Township Fire Official as set forth in the Township Fire Official’s memorandum dated 3/15/04.
  3. Applicant shall locate stop signs and other traffic signs as recommended by the Township Police Department in its report dated 3/31/04.
  4. All three of the above officials - tax assessor/fire official/police traffic safety officer shall sign a memorandum indicating compliance with the above conditions.
  5. The applicant shall comply with the recommendations of Michael Kobylarz, municipal engineer, set forth in his memorandum dated 4/8/04:
    1. Orben Drive including curb and minor storm inlet as noted
    2. Improve Orben Drive to the correct level of bituminous surface course
    3. The existing portion of Hillcrest Avenue shall also receive a 2” overlay of bituminous surface course
    4. Hillcrest Avenue to be curbed in all areas except where specifically relieved by the Board
  6. Applicant to provide Township Planner with revised correct architectural drawings (as testified to at the 1/10/05 public hearing) with the review and approval of the Township Planner.
  7. Approval is subject to the vacation of Smith Avenue by the Township (it is noted the applicant has provided the Board’s attorney with prima facie evidence that the road can be vacated.  The ultimate decision is, of course, with the governing body and the municipal attorney).  Should the applicant be unable to secure vacation of Smith Avenue, the site plan and application must be come back to the Board for further review.
  8. The water main and sewer extension should be subject to the review and approval of the Department of Public Works.
  9. Applicant shall provide updated stormwater calculations to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s engineering consultant.
  10. Final review and approval from the Morris County Planning Board.  It is noted the Board approved the subdivision but withheld approval of the site plan pending further drainage calculation resolution.
  11. Applicant must field verify the tree inventory.  It appears that 248 replacement trees will be required.  The Township Planner shall review the tree replacement plan and to the extent that the site cannot accommodate the appropriate number of replacement trees, the applicant shall be allowed to make a contribution to the Township tree fund, if replacement trees cannot be appropriately accommodated on-site.
  12. Applicant shall provide one shade tree for every four parking spaces.
  13. End islands shall be provided with a 2 ½” -3” caliper shade tree.
  14. Parking lot hedge shall be provided. 
  15. Heavy evergreen landscaping (Norway Spruces) shall be provided across the westerly and rear building elevation for screening purposes.  Evergreen trees must be specified at the minimum 7 to 8 foot height.
  16. Applicant shall provide landscaping along all trash enclosures.
  17. Landscaping shall be provided to accent entrance driveway openings
  18. Detention basin landscaping shall be provided as specified per Section 13-8.808.
  19. All headwall and outlet structures shall be provided with a stone veneer.
  20. Landscaping shall be provided along all front building elevations.
  21. Shade trees shall be specified by height.  All plants shall also be specified by root conditions (container or ball and burlapped).
  22. Any exterior mechanical equipment, including transformers, shall be located and screened.
  23. All plant materials shall be guaranteed by the landscape contractor for a minimum of 1 year to replace dead or dying plants.
  24. Applicant shall provide a plan and detail for watering of all landscaping.
  25. Applicant shall comply with all the landscaping comments and recommendations of the Township Planner.  All plans shall be revised to satisfaction and review of the Township Planner.
  26. Applicant shall provide snow fencing for tree preservation as recommended by the Township Engineer.  The plans shall be revised to include the comments noted by the Township Planner. 
  27. Applicant shall also obtain a tree removal permit prior to any tree removal. 
  28. Applicant shall also provide a performance guarantee in an amount not to exceed 120% of the cost of replacement trees prior to the issuance of said tree removal permit.
  29. During the course of the public hearing, applicant stated the precise location of the condensers for HVAC systems for the individual units could not be identified at the present time.  The applicant shall provide a typical location detail and cuts with landscaping to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.   Window units are encouraged.  Otherwise ground units shall be located along the           side building elevation where feasible.
  30. Applicant shall comply with the banked parking standards set forth under Section 13-8.201G of the Zoning Ordinance.  The details to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
  31. Any tenants upon site must not fall under the criteria of prohibited uses as specified under Section 13-7.3402S of the Zoning Ordinance.
  32. Applicant shall provide a conservation easement covering some of the undisturbed areas of the site.  The details and location of the conservation easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner and Board’s Engineer.  The metes and bounds description of the easement shall be reviewed and approved by the Board’s engineering consultant.   The form of easement to be reviewed and approved by the Board’s attorney.
  33. Applicant shall revise the bulk requirement table and the set of plans to depict setbacks from the building canopy and verify all setbacks from the building wall.
  34. Applicant shall comply with Section 13-7.3402E1 to confirm that no more than 25% of the front yard area to be utilized for off-street parking.
  35. The drawings should note and it shall be a condition of approval that all debris shall be removed from the property prior to the issuance of any Certificate of Occupancy.
  36. Applicant shall pay the Mandatory Development Fee in accordance with Section 13-7.829C of the Ordinance.
  37. Applicant shall provide a new location for temporary structures and the area for storage of building materials, supplies, and machinery to be utilized during the construction phase of the application.  Same shall be depicted on the drawing in accordance with Municipal Ordinance or provide note on drawing that no temporary structures or outdoor storage are proposed.
  38. Applicant shall provide Letter of Interpretation showing the status of all wetland permits and confirming that same will not interfere with the sewer line installation.     
  39. All drawings shall note that all electric, telephone, and cable television lines shall be installed underground in conformance with Township Ordinance.
  40. Applicant shall secure capacity allocation of the Township Engineer/Director of Public Works and authorization of the Governing Body.
  41. Drawings shall note that hairpin striping will be provided for parking spaces.
  42. All lots including the portion of Smith Avenue vacated and the subdivided portion of Lot 15 shall be merged into one parcel in accordance with the lot numbering recommendation of the Municipal Tax Assessor.  The remainder of Lot 15 shall remain a separate tax lot.
  43. All off-street parking areas on-site shall be utilized exclusively for the parking of automobiles.  There shall be no commercial repair work or sales of any kind conducted in any parking area.  No fleet vehicles storage/parking is permitted.
  44. Applicant shall depict bollards on both sides of each garage bay and the trash/recycling enclosure in accordance with the recommendations of the Township Planner.  Details for same shall be shown on the plans and reviewed and approved by the Township Planner. 
  45. Applicant’s plans shall identify the method of handling trash and recyclable pickup.  Same shall note that dumpsters will be picked up at by front end garbage trucks.  Plans shall be amended accordingly and reviewed and approved by the Township Planner. 
  46. Applicant shall also provide grading detail around the dumpster pads and whether or not any minor retaining walls are needed.  Decorative block retaining walls shall be provided to minimize tree removal.  Same to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner and Board Engineer.
  47. Applicant shall also provide a decorative block trash enclosure detail for the dumpster/recycling areas to match the building.  Applicant indicated it would comply with all of the design standards of the Zoning Ordinance relative to same.  The structure shall be gated with a solid wood fence mounted on a steel frame.
  48. Applicant shall provide dimensional freestanding lights a minimum of 2.5 feet from the edge of curbing in accordance with Municipal Regulations.  The color finish of wall lights and freestanding lights shall be specified and reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.  Sheet 3 and the light details shall note that concrete light foundations shall not exceed 2” above grade on paved surface and 6” above grade when located within a lawn or landscaped area. 
  49. Applicant shall provide stair detail including the location of handrails.
  50. Applicant to pay pro-rata share of off-tract and off-site improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.
  51. Board notes it has not received any further comments from the Environmental Commission regarding the applicant’s Environmental Impact Statement.
  52. Applicant presented a colorized architectural rendering at the 1/10/05 public hearing.  Applicant shall provide a color palate for the review of the Township Planner to ensure material compliance with the architectural detail and design presented to the Board.  The applicant testified same would be in a neutral beige type color scheme.      
  53. Split-faced block shall be extended along side and rear elevations at roughly the same height as the block on the front elevations.
  54. Engineering and architectural drawings shall be amended to show that all rooftop mechanical equipment shall be architecturally screened in a manner compatible with the building’s architecture.  Building elevation labeling and revision date will be carried.
  55. All wall signs shall be dimensioned on the plan to show compliance with Municipal Ordinance.  “Kenbar” wall sign to be removed.
  56. Sign detail for the freestanding sign shall be in conformance with Municipal Ordinance.  All landscaping for freestanding sign and driveway entrance shall be in accordance with Municipal Ordinance and reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
  57. As noted above and reiterated here, it is the intent of the Board that this site be esthetically enhanced to appropriate landscaping.  The details of same to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
  58. Applicant shall provide a drainage easement in favor of the Township for stormwater discharge from Hillcrest Avenue to the detention pond.  The maintenance of the pond should be established by Developer’s agreement between the applicant and the municipality.   Primary responsibility will rest with the applicant (or future owners of the property) and secondary responsibility with the Township.
  59. Applicant shall dimension (40 feet) to cul-de-sac radius.
  60. Applicant shall provide a confirming survey dimensioning Hillcrest Avenue right-of-way consistent with the width depicted for the length of the proposed improvements.
  61. The entire bulb of the cul-de-sac outside the 50-foot Hillcrest right-of-way shall be contained within a roadway easement in favor of the Township.  Said easement may be extinguished upon the extension of Hillcrest Avenue at some undetermined time in the future.  All easements subject to approval shall be reviewed and approved by the appropriate municipal professional (attorney and/or engineer) and filed as a condition of approval.
  62. The Hillcrest Avenue pavement cross-section shall be increased to include 4 inches of stabilized base per municipal Ordinance.
  63. The two banks of handicap stalls along the building shall be separated and spaced along the front for better distribution.  The location of the handicap stalls shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.  At least one of the stalls shall be van accessible.
  64. Applicant shall submit a formal traffic report regarding a projected traffic generation compared to existing traffic volume on Orben Drive to assist the Township Engineer in assessing off-tract contributions.
  65. Township Engineer shall review the need for off-tract improvements to Orben Drive/Route 46 in light of increased truck volume.
  66. Application shall provide a right-of-way dedication for the irregularly shaped area from Lot 15 along Orben Drive.  Same to be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer.
  67. Rubble rock retaining walls are prohibited by the Township’s Design Standards.  Applicant shall modify same consistent with municipal standards.  Same to be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer.
  68. Applicant shall provide the new water main within Hillcrest Avenue regardless of whether the alternative well is temporarily needed. 
  69. Applicant shall remove the concrete low flow channel detail.
  70. Applicant shall provide a full set of plans consistent with the exhibit at the last public hearing.  Said plans depicted a downsized building and slightly reconfigured internal driveway.  Board Engineer and Township Planner shall have the opportunity to provide additional comments since the set of plans was not available at the time of the final hearing.
  71. The new plans shall also depict retaining walls along the Westerly portion of the internal driveway to minimize any disturbance.
  72. Retaining walls and heavy evergreen landscaping shall be provided along the westerly driveway to reduce steep slope disturbance.
  73. Applicant is granted a design waiver (partial interior curbing.)  Applicant shall provide guiderail and shrubs in lieu of curb along northerly parking bay.  Wood guiderail details shall be provided.
  74. Front building sidewalk details shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the Township Planner.  Six-foot wide sidewalks will be provided along the building and landscaping between the sidewalk and building.
  75. 2 ½” – 3” caliper shade trees shall be provided within the parking lot and islands.
  76. The engineering and architectural drawings shall note that rooftop mechanical equipment be architecturally screened in a manner compatible with building architecture.
  77. Freestanding sign shall have a border pursuant to Section 13-8.903N.
  78. Freestanding sign and driveway entrances shall be landscaped as set forth by Ordinance.
  79. Street trees cannot be classified as replacement trees as set forth by Ordinance.
  80. Square feet of disturbance shall be identified.
  81. “Ea” plantings shall be spaced no greater than 4’ on center.
  82. A lower growing evergreen shall replace “Jc” as the proposed plant can obstruct sight lines.
  83. Applicant is granted a design waiver (street trees not provided along Orben Drive and Route 46).  Applicant shall continue street trees along Hillcrest Avenue, which shall be located no greater than 40’ on center within the right of way.
  84. Applicant is granted a design waiver (exceeding 20 parking spaces in a row without a planting end island).  Applicant will have 27 spaces in a row in one of the parking areas as shown on the plans.
  85. Applicant shall amend the plan to add all final landscaping notes and details as approved by the Township Planner.

 

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Discussion.  Changes noted and made.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-1-05 – ROBERT MAC EWEN – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION/PORCH/GARAGE LOCATED ON MORGAN DR. BLOCK 1604, LOT 31 IN R-3 ZONE

 

 

 

In the matter of Patricia & Robert MacEwen

Case No. BA-1-05

 

                                                                                    Approved:   February 14, 2005

Memorialized:       March 14, 2005

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

 

 

            WHEREAS, Patricia & Robert MacEwen have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition requiring dimensional variance(s) for premises located at 11 Morgan Drive and known as Block 1604, Lot 31 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D4, 13-7.1301D6a, 13-7.1301D8, 13-7.905a, 13-7.905B, 13-7.905C of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

            WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. The applicants are the owners and occupants of the single-family home on site.
  2. The applicants were proposing a significant renovation of the existing home.
  3. The proposed addition was depicted on a plot plan and applicant drawn elevations submitted with the application.
  4. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 10/5/04 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  5. The addition would include the following:
    1. Add-a-level
    2. Construct a two-car detached garage
  1. The proposal results in the need for the following variance(s):
    1. Front Yard – required 35’, existing 30’, proposed 22.5’
    2. Left Side Yard – required 10’, existing 8.59’, proposed 8.59’
    3. Impervious Coverage – maximum 25%, existing 23.4%, proposed 32.8%
    4. Accessory Setback – required 10’, existing N/A, proposed 2.5’
    5. Building Coverage – maximum 15%, existing 13.07%, proposed 22%
    6. Number of Accessory Structures – maximum 2, proposed 2
    7. Accessory building cannot exceed 50% of size of principle structure
  1. The applicant submitted a seven-page digital photo exhibit (A-1) depicting various area houses.
  2. The applicant stated that the proposed addition was in keeping with present pattern of development in the neighborhood.
  3. At the conclusion of the 1/10/05 public hearing, the Board asked the applicant to go back to the drawing board and modify the proposal to attempt to minimize the relief needed.  The applicants acceded to the Board’s request.
  4. The applicants modified their proposal to include an add-a-level and the addition of a front porch and an attached garage.  A public hearing was conducted on 2/14/05.
  5. Mr. Potere revised his analysis of 10/5/04 through 2/2/05 and noted the following variances are need:
    1. Front yard setback – 22.5’ (covered porch), 30’ (house) proposed, 35’ required
    2. Right side yard – 8.59’ existing and proposed, 10’ required
    3. Impervious coverage – 23.38% existing, 29% proposed, 25% maximum permitted
    4. Building coverage – 13.07% existing, 19.6% proposed, 15% maximum permitted  

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The Board finds the modified submission of the applicant to be a reasonable upgrade of the existing home.  Given the constraints of the site, applicant’s proposal is reasonable under the circumstances. 
  2. The applicant’s use of the existing structure to enlarge and re-develop the subject premises is an adaptive re-use of the existing premises.  Same comports with the intent and purpose of the Municipal Land Use Law.  The modified proposal has a limited and minor negative impact but not of a sufficient nature to deny the relief requested by the applicant.
  3. The re-development of the property will have a positive impact and re-enforce a continuing trend in this neighborhood.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the  14th day of  February, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Addition to be sized and located as depicted on the exhibits attached to the application and as testified to at the 2/14/05 public hearing.
  2. The variance relief to be as noted in the 2/2/05 Potere analysis; to wit:
    1. Front Yard – 22.5’
    2. Left Side – 8.59’
    3. Impervious Coverage – 29% maximum
    4. Building Coverage – 19.6% maximum\

3.  The proposal will include an add-a-level and the addition of a front porch and an attached garage.

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. DeFillippo seconded.

Discussion.  Changes noted and made.

Roll as follows:  Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-7-05 – RTM HOLDINGS – USE VARIANCE FOR TWO USES IN BUILDING LOCATED ON WEST DEWEY AVE. BLOCK 12702, LOT 2 IN LI/OR ZONE

 

In the matter of RTM Holdings, Inc.

Case No. BA-7-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: February 14, 2005

Memorialized: March 14, 2005

 

 

                WHEREAS, RTM Holdings Inc. have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to reconfigure an existing structure and add a second use requiring a “d” variance for premises located at 355 West Dewey Avenue and known as Block 12702, Lot 2 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “LI/OR” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.3402A of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

               

WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

 

  1. Bernd Hefele, Esquire represented the applicant, a corporation.
  2. The applicant is a contract purchaser of the subject premises.
  3. The existing building on the site is 15,000 square feet and is utilized as a manufacturing facility and has been since 1965.
  4. The proposed use is to reduce the existing 15,000 square foot manufacturing to 6,000 square feet.  The remaining 9,000 square feet would be used as warehouse space.  The site is about 2.41 acres.
  5. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 12/17/04 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.  He noted a “d” use variance was required.
  6. The existing use is a non-conforming use.  The property was formerly zoned I-10.
  7. The new use would be for the storage of office furniture.  There would be a small office (1,500 sq. ft.) and the rest of the space would be used for warehouse (office furniture).  The operation would not be a retail use although customers may come to inspect specific items.
  8. Between both uses, there would be less than 10 employees on-site.
  9. No changes to any of the existing on-site infrastructure were proposed. 
  10. As noted, the existing use is a non-conforming use in the LI/OR Zone.  The applicant’s proposal brings the project into closer conformity with the zoning requirements for the LI/OR Zone. 

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The net result of the grant of this variance is to bring the property into closer conformance with the Zoning Ordinance.
  2. It is hard to imagine a use, or in this case uses, with less of an impact.  The two uses together would result in no more than 10 employees on-site.  This is a very low impact use and will have no impact on any adjoining property. 

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 14th day of February, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. No retail use.  Office furniture storage only on-site.  Any change in use requires Board approval.
  2. Payment of all fees, sureties, and escrows required by Ordinance.
  3. Subject to the review and approval of all other governmental agencies with joint and/or concurrent jurisdiction over the within application.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-9-05 - AMERADA HESS – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR SERVICE STATION AND FOOD MART LOCATED ON RT. 10 BLOCK 5003, LOT 1 IN B-2 ZONE

 

In the matter of Amerada Hess Corporation

Case No. BA-9-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: February 14, 2005

Memorialized: March 14, 2005

 

                                                                                               

 

 

                WHEREAS, Amerada Hess Corporation has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for final site plan approval for premises located at Commerce Boulevard & Route 10 and known as Block 5003, Lot 1 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.25, 13-8.9, 13-7.3507 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. Donna Jennings, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicants are seeking final site plan approval pursuant to a use variance and preliminary site plan previously granted by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. 
  3. The applicants submitted a site plan prepared by Bohler Engineering consisting of four sheets:
    1. Sheet 1 – Cover Sheet, revised 2/10/05
    2. Sheet 2 – Final Site Plan, revised 2/10/05
    3. Sheet 3 – Final Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plan, revised 2/10/05
    4. Sheet 4 – Final Landscaping Plan, revised 2/10/05

 

  1. The applicant also submitted as “As-Built Survey” – one sheet prepared by Control Point Associates, Inc., dated 2/1/05.
  2. The applicant’s engineer, Thomas Pugsley, testified at the public hearing.  Mr. Pugsley gave the Board a brief overview of the site plan and analyzed and addressed the comments of the professional staff.  Also testifying at the public hearing was H.A. Lautenbacher, the applicant’s northern permit manager.  Mr. Lautenbacher was in charge of the subject property for Amerada Hess Corporation.
  3. The Board received a report dated 2/10/05 from Thomas J. Bodolksy, the Board’s Engineering Consultant and a report dated 2/11/05 from Russell Stern, the Township Planner.

After hearing the testimony of the applicant’s witnesses and a colloquy with the Board’s professionals and members of the Board, the within request for final site plan approval was granted subject to the following:

1.                  Applicant shall install the ash urn near the handicap stall and the “Do Not Enter” sign near the trash enclosure as noted by the Board’s Engineering Consultant.

2.                  Applicant shall replace all of the curb ramps in the public right-of-way that have spalled concrete.

3.                  Applicant shall replace the “cold patch” at the inlet in the jughandle near Route 10 with hot mix when same can be reasonably done.

4.                  Grass strip along the jughandle shall be reseeded and sodded.

5.                  The applicant shall replace the two concrete approach pads that were not replaced at the time of the public hearing.

6.                  Applicant shall remove the outdoor ice vending machine on the left side of the building.  Applicant shall also remove the wallpack type light located on the rear face of the building.

7.                  All conditions of the prior approvals, not specifically modified or changed by this approval, remain in full force and effect.  The Board particularly reiterates and notes the following:

a.        Condition 1 limiting uses;

b.       Condition 2 prohibiting outdoor speakers;

c.        Condition 6 prohibiting noise making instruments;

d.       Condition 7 regulating display of automotive products;

e.        Condition 9 regulating duration of window signs;

f.         Condition 11 requiring payment of developer’s fee.

8.                  Applicant shall provide verification that the deed of easement for the public sidewalk has in fact been recorded.

9.                  Applicant shall reconfigure the front façade in accordance with the approved drawings.  (Mr. Lautenbacher testified that the front façade was constructed as a window wall and was done inadvertently – same will be reconstructed so as to comply with the plans.)

10.               The applicant modified the rear tile elevation (all white tile to a white and green linear pattern) – the Board has no objection to same.

11.               Applicant shall remove the fixed interior neon “Hess Express” sign located on the front foyer.

12.               At the time of the public hearing, it was unclear if there was a third façade sign facing east.  Any such sign, if existing, will be removed.

13.               All hanging “Hess” signs on the gas dispensers shall be removed.

14.               Applicant shall remove the installed fueling station numbers.

15.               All parking stall stripes shall be painted white except those affiliated with handicap stalls.

16.               Piping attached to the rear of the trash enclosure shall be removed.

17.               The trash receptacle shall be located to the north of the building within the interior planted end island so as to be consistent with the approved drawings.

18.               All spalled handicap ramps shall be replaced.

19.               Applicant shall landscape the rear of the site in accordance with the approved landscape plan.

20.               Any undersized and marginal plants shall be replaced.  All bare lawn areas shall be sodded, re-laid, and rolled as necessary.

21.               The fallen “Do Not Enter” sign at Route 10 shall be reinstalled.

22.               The applicant shall present evidence of an installed irrigation system as depicted on the plans.

23.               Applicant shall drill holes for the trash enclosure gate pavement pins.

24.               All debris shall be removed from the site and in particular from along Ramp “C”. 

25.               Any tire ruts along Ramp “C” shall be filled as noted on sheet 6 of the plans.

26.               All damaged branches on existing trees shall be pruned.

27.               In accordance with prior approval, there shall be no signs on the kiosk and there shall be no sales from the kiosk and no storage in the kiosk.

28.               If the applicant is to install a pay phone, same is to be done in accordance with the plans.

29.               The payment of all fees, sureties, and escrows is required by Municipal Ordinance including a mandatory development fee.

30.               Subject to the review and approval of all other governmental agencies with joint and/or concurrent jurisdiction over the within application.

31.            Given the limited nature of open items, the Board did not require bonding with the stipulation that a violation of any condition of approval shall be deemed a violation of the Zoning Ordinance and subject to all enforcement action as set forth in the Municipal Ordinances relative to violations of Township Ordinances.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-6-05 - KIMBER PETROLEUM – USE VARIANCE FOR CONVENIENCE STORE LOCATED ON RT. 10, BLOCK 1905, LOT 21 IN B-2 ZONE

 

In the matter of Kimber Petroleum Corporation

Case No. BA-6-05

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: February 14, 2005

Memorialized: March 14, 2005

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, Kimber Petroleum Corporation has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for conditional use variance, minor site plan to construct a convenience store in conjunction with a gasoline service station for premises located at 11 Route 10 and known as Block 1905, Lot 21 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.3507, 13-7.2501D.4.5(a), 13-8.916D.1, 13-8.916D.3 of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. Thomas T. Hirsch, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. Subject property is the location of a gasoline service station with a three bay automotive service and two pump islands covered by a canopy.  The site in question is approximately is just under 22,000 square feet and is located in the B2 Highway Business District.  The site previously received “d” variance and preliminary site plan approvals in 1994 and final site plan approval on 6/9/97.  The site adjoins the Black River to the east, a strip retail center to the west, and a commercial/industrial complex to the south.
  3. The premises in question deviate from the conditional use standards (Section 13-7.3507 of the Zoning Ordinance) for gasoline service station.  The Board took these non-conformities into account when granting the variances noted in the 1994 resolution to wit:

Required/Permitted              Existing

Min. lot area                                                          25,000 sq. ft.                          21,970 sq. ft.

Average lot depth                                                                150 ft.                                     122 ft.

Min. front yard setback                                      40 ft.                                       13 ft. to canopy

Min. rear yard setback                                        25 ft.                                       10 ft.

Min. side yard setback                                        25 ft.                                       10 ft. to underground                                                                                                                                                          storage tank

Min. setback to adjacent property line             25 ft.                                       6 ft.

Min. depth of landscaped strip across             20 ft.                                       15 ft.

Frontage

Canopy signs                                                       1                                              2

Freestanding sign setback                                 20 ft.                                       4 ft.

 

  1. The applicant now seeks “d” variance and minor site plan approval to construct the 414 square foot convenience store within the existing building.  210 square feet from the existing garage and 54 square feet of an existing bathroom would be converted to retail and added to an existing 150 square foot sales area. 
  2. The application remains under the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board as the site previously obtained “d” variance approval without satisfying the conditional use standards.  A “d” variance is again required for modifying the site while not being in conformance with the aforementioned conditional use standards.
  3. The applicants submitted the following exhibits:

Prepared by Kenderian Zilinski Associates

        Sheet 1, Title Sheet, revised 9/2/04

        Sheet 2, Existing Conditions and Proposed Sales Area, revised 9/2/04

        Sheet 3, Building Elevations, dated 6/10/04 

 

Prepared by Roger M. Carroll, P.A.

 

        Sheet 1 of 1, As-Built Survey, dated 8/27/96

 

Prepared by Metsky – Zuckerman

 

        Sheet 1 to 9, Preliminary Site Plan Drawings, revised 4/3/96

 

Prepared by ISI Lighting Systems

 

        Sheet 1 of 1, Preliminary Site Plan – Lighting, dated 8/31/94

 

7.        The applicant’s first witness was its engineer, Stephen P. Atkins, P.E.  Mr. Atkins reviewed exhibit A-1 (composite colorized rendering of sheets 1 and 2 of the site plan) and exhibit A-2 (building elevations).

8.        It is noted that the present number of employees was three and same would be increased to four.  Same hours of operation (5AM to 11PM).

9.        Mr. Atkins opined there was sufficient on-site parking for both the service station and convenience store use.

10.     The Board had the benefit of a report dated 1/6/05 from Russell Stern, the Township Planner as well as a report dated 1/5/05 from Thomas J. Bodolsky, the Board’s Engineering Consultant.

11.     During the course of the public hearing, the applicant agreed to incorporate the outstanding comments and conditions as set forth in the reports of the professional staff.

12.     As noted at the public hearing, a design waiver is necessary as the existing trash enclosure is no longer accessible.  The applicant has designated two spots in front of the trash enclosure as employee parking spaces.  Applicant will provide proper signage so that there is no interference with trash collection.

13.     Another design waiver is needed, as the applicant has not provided a designated loading and unloading area.  Applicant testified that same was not necessary, as all deliveries would be via a panel van type vehicles, which would occupy a normal automobile parking space.

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The applicant’s proposal constitutes a “d” variance pursuant to NJSA 40:55D-70d(3) – a deviation from a conditional use standard.  As such, the applicant must show that deviations do not make the site unsuitable or unworkable for the proposed use.  In the instant case, it is clear that the applicant’s proposal would be a much needed esthetic enhancement of the subject site and given the fact that the site has been a service station for many years, it is particularly well suited for the proposed use.  The proposed convenience store is actually smaller than permitted by Ordinance.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 14th day of March,  2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Subject to all conditions of the prior “d” variance and site plan resolutions including but not limited to hours of operation (no loud speakers) not specifically amended or modified by this approval.
  2. No prepared foods.  Only pre-packaged foods to be sold.
  3. No ATM machine.
  4. It is noted that the subject premises are not serviced by a public water utility.  The applicant’s testimony was that the premises are serviced by a well on-site.  Applicant shall provide such documentation and analysis as required by the Board of Health or any other governmental agency with jurisdiction over same.  The Board notes the introduction of food service may require a heightened review by the Board of Health.
  5. The westerly-most parking stalls shall be designated “employee only”.  An appropriate signage shall be installed to discourage regular use by the public.
  6. Any on-site parking stripping that is no longer consistent with the plans or obsolete shall be removed.
  7. Applicant shall not store inutile or junk vehicles on-site.  Only vehicles waiting for repair shall be stored.
  8. Broken boards on the trash enclosure shall be repaired. 
  9. The remaining rest room will be converted to a unisex bathroom.
  10. All outdoor vending machines shall be removed (same are not permitted when the property is developed with a convenience store).
  11. All signage on-site shall be consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.
  12. Applicant shall remove all 55-gallon drums, tires, and other material stored to the rear and side of the building.
  13. Applicant shall increase the size of the proposed Monarch Birch to a 10-foot height.
  14. Applicant shall provide 9 “AP” to the north along the westerly property line to fill a gap in the plantings.
  15. The installation of all improvements shall be verified by the Township/Zoning Board Engineer and Township Planner prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and/or approval for the convenience store.
  16. All outstanding fees, assessments, and taxes shall be current.
  17. As specifically noted, the following activities are prohibited on site:
    1. Vehicular bodywork and painting are prohibited as are truck repairs on vehicles over 10,000 pounds.
    2.  No more than three vehicles per pay shall be permitted overnight outdoor storage (reiterating that only vehicles waiting for repair may be kept on-site – no junk vehicles).
    3. Any repairs on motor vehicles shall be performed in a fully enclosed building.  No parts or partially dismantled vehicles may be stored outdoors.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Ms. DeFillippo seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-76-04 – A T & T – VARIANCE FOR ANTENNA LOCATED ON LANDING RD. BLOCK 10604, LOT 4 IN LI/OR ZONE

 

In the matter of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc.

Case No. BA-76-04

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

Approved: February 14, 2005

Memorialized: March 14, 2005

 

 

                WHEREAS, AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to co-locate wireless telecommunication equipment requiring a conditional use variance and site plan approval

for premises located at 206B Landing Road and known as Block 10604, Lot 4 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “LI/OR” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.3402(A) of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and

                WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:

  1. Michael Levine, Esquire represented the applicant, a provider of wireless telecommunication services.
  2. The subject property is located off Lenel Road on the McNear tract.   Same is located in the Light Industrial/Office Research Zone.  The subject property comprises of a little over 18 acres and is presently developed with a 150 foot tall wireless telecommunication monopole tower.  There are presently three other wireless providers co-located on this facility.  The uppermost array of antennae is located at a height of 156 feet.
  3. This facility received an approval in 1991 and again in 1998 from the Zoning Board.
  4. The site is also a storage area for “Tree King” which apparently has been utilizing the site for various timber, logging, and firewood activities.  Notwithstanding such activity, approval for same was never properly obtained and an application legitimizing this use is being processed in the planning department.
  5. The within application is seeking to provide an additional array of antennae at a height of 140 feet.  The applicant would be constructing a new equipment cabinet within the existing fenced compound.
  6. As with all wireless communication providers, the site will be unmanned, would have no utilities, signs, trash, or lighting.
  7. Prior to the public hearing, the applicant submitted the following exhibits prepared by Clough, Harbour & Associates, LLP:
    1.  Sheet T01, Title Sheet, revised 2/2/05
    2. Sheet S01, Existing Conditions Site Plan, revised 2/2/05
    3. Sheet S02, Radius and Zoning Map, revised 2/2/05
    4. Sheet C01, Site Plan, revised 2/2/05
    5. Sheet C02, Tower Elevation and Details, revised 2/2/05
    6. Sheet C03, Structural Details, revised 2/2/05
    7. Sheet C04, Tower Elevations and Retro-Fit Details, revised 2/2/05
    8. Sheet C05, Tower Retro-Fit Details, revised 2/2/04
    9. Structural Analysis, dated 11/13/03
  1. The applicant called Vishal Kataria, a radio frequency engineer, as its first witness.  Mr. Kataria presented three exhibits to the Board:
    1. A-1 - a coverage map of existing AT&T wireless service
    2. A-2 – a coverage map showing projected post construction coverage
    3. A-3 – a 12/10/04 EMF report from Bechtel
  1. Mr. Kataria’s testimony established that there is presently a significant gap in the coverage provided by AT&T wireless.  The gap was located along major highways and arterial roads.  Within the gap area, there would be no signal or calls would be dropped.  Mr. Kataria established that if the proposed site were constructed that there would be a significant improvement in the coverage.  Mr. Kataria also provided a report from Bechtel (A-3), which indicated that the site would comply with all federal and state standards for radio frequency emission.  The report indicated that even in the worse case scenario with maximal transmission by all carriers, it would be a significant safety margin.
  2. The applicant’s next witness was Peter McTygue, its professional engineer.  Mr. McTygue described himself as an engineer specializing in telecommunication facilities.  He noted the locations of the present carriers:  Verizon at 156 feet, Nextel at 125 feet, T-Mobile at 115 feet.  He reiterated that AT&T would be at 140 feet.  There would be 12 antennae; the cable running from the equipment cabinet (4 cabinets on a 6’x18’ pad) would be run inside the monopole.  He produced exhibit A-4, one of the enhanced version of one of the site plan sheets which showed access to the site from the Lenel Road cul de sac.  In addition, Mr. McTygue presented Exhibit A-5, which was an analysis of the tower’s ability to accommodate extra loading of additional carriers.  During questioning, the Board expressed some concerns over obtaining accurate information on the strength of the tower and its ability to accommodate additional antennae.
  3. The matter was continued at the 2/14/05 public hearing. 
  4. The Board’s professional staff submitted revised reports:
    1. Russell Stern, the Board’s Professional Planner, dated 2/10/05
    2. Thomas Bodolsky, the Board’s Engineer, dated 2/11/05
  1. Peter McTygue was recalled at the 2/14/05 public hearing.  He stated he had reviewed work done on other parts of the site by another engineering firm working on the “Tree King” approval.
  2. Mr. McTygue reviewed the quarry operations and other uses on-site.  He stated the proposed use would have little or no conflict or interaction with the other uses on-site.
  3. Mr. McTygue also noted that the existing unimproved “roadway” provided adequate access to the site.
  4. Mr. McTygue also presented a Structural Analysis Report by Crown Castle International, Binh Vo, Project Engineer and William A. Griswold, Jr., P.E., Chief Engineer, dated 8/23/04, indicating that the existing tower with internal coaxial cables would not be compromised by the additional antennae and equipment proposed by AT&T.  Therefore, no structural or retrofit would be necessary.
  5. Anthony J. Scolaro, the applicant’s professional planner, presented Exhibit A-5.  Same was 11 photographs showing the visual impact and photo simulation of the AT&T antennae.  Mr. Scolaro opined that the proposed site was particularly suited for the wireless facility and would have little visual impact.  Same was consistent with the intent, purpose, and philosophy behind the Township’s Wireless Communication Ordinance.
  6. The application requires the following design waivers:
    1. A design waiver as part of the electric service on-site (equipment compound to the tower) is above ground.
    2. A design waiver is required for the driveway.  Non-residential driveways are required to be paved and any cul de sac driveways are not to exceed 12 feet.
  1. In addition to the use variance, the following variances are noted:
    1. Applicant requires a variance, as a maximum height of telecommunication towers is 125 feet.  The existing antennae and monopole is 156 feet and the applicant’s antennae would be at 140 feet.
    2. A variance is necessary, as the wireless telecommunication equipment does not satisfy 300-foot setback from the adjoining LI/OR District.  It is noted this is an existing condition.
    3. A variance is necessary as the existing tower does not satisfy the setback from the easterly property line equal to 1 ½ times the height of the tower.  This is also an existing condition.

                WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:

  1. The site, with its existing monopole, is particularly suited for the proposed site.  It is a permitted conditional use and meets the standards of Coventry Square.
  2. Co-location is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan.  The grant will tend to eliminate the need to construct an additional monopole.
  3. The Board finds the testimony of the applicant’s experts to be credible. 
  4. While the Board is troubled by the existence of an unimproved use taking place on the premises, the Board finds that the unimproved use does not interfere with the low grade impact of the applicant’s wireless telecommunication facility.  The benefit to “closing the gap” in coverage to AT&T customers clearly outweighs any detriment associated with the unimproved use on-site.  The existence of this unimproved use is something that is subject to the appropriate zoning enforcement within the municipality.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 14th day of February, 2005 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. The painting on the tower (antennae & supports) shall be such as to match the existing painting scheme.  The proposed painting palate as well as the color and treatment of all the wireless telecommunication equipment shall be provided to the Township Planner for his review and approval.  (This shall include all antennas, forts, and equipment so that same is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Municipal Ordinance.)
  2. Tower shall remain unlighted unless same is required by State or Federal Law.
  3. In the event any of the wireless telecommunication technology or the site becomes obsolete, un-repaired, or inutile, or ceases to be used for a period of 12 months, the applicant shall decommission the site and remove all equipment.
  4. Applicant shall provide an “as built” site plan.
  5. All submitted documents shall be signed and properly dated.
  6. Applicant shall pay a Mt. Laurel impact fee in accordance with Municipal Ordinance.
  7. Applicant shall submit final earthwork quantities so as a determination can be made as to whether or not a soil moving permit is required.  Shall a soil moving permit be required, approval is conditioned upon same.
  8. Subject to the review and approval of all other governmental agencies with joint and/or concurrent jurisdiction over the within application.

 

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

AGENDA

 

BA-8-05 - MICHAEL SPITZER - VARIANCE  FOR ADDITION TO HOME AND GARAGE LOCATED ON CAROL DR. BLOCK 1609, LOT 17 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Ms. Spitzer said she and her husband would like to add a dining room off the back of the house and expand the garage with a loft above it.  The original application was done on an old survey.  We have submitted new plans, and we have updated the size of the driveway, added the shed and shown the new walkway. That changed the impervious coverage, and we adjusted the original plan to decrease the amount of coverage.  We have made the dining room and garage smaller.  We would remove the shed if the garage is approved.

 

Ms. Dargel said we have received a report revised 2/28/05 from Mr. Potere.  Are the coverage numbers on the report the ones that are being proposed now?

 

Ms. Spitzer said we submitted a worksheet showing the proposed impervious coverage is now 36%. 

 

Ms. Dargel said the dining room is still only 4 feet from the garage.  Where was it reduced?

 

Ms. Spitzer said it had gone out from the side of the house an additional 4 ½ feet.   

 

Ms. Spitzer said we had originally asked for the dining room to go out 4 ½ feet from the side of the house toward the driveway and we cut it down so it would go flush with the side of the house.

 

Ms. Dargel asked how much the impervious coverage would be reduced if the shed were removed?

 

Ms. Spitzer said the numbers on the worksheet are with the shed removed.  The shed is 64 square feet. 

 

Ms. DeFillippo said the worksheet says you are reducing the impervious coverage for the walkways and sidewalks.  Please explain that.

 

Mr. Spitzer said the sidewalk currently in the back of the house goes to the wooden deck, and that would be removed when the addition is built.  A new sidewalk would be put along the driveway.  There would be a difference of about 8 sq. ft.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the peak of the garage will remain at 18 ½ feet.

 

Mr. Spitzer said it will stay at 18 ½ feet.  It will still be in line aesthetically with the dining room.  The garage will be 2 feet higher.  It will conform to the ordinance.  There will be no plumbing in the loft area.  There will be electricity.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. DeFillippo made a motion to approve the application.  The applicant has reduced the impervious and building coverage.  The garage will also be reduced in size.  The shed will be removed.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Dargel, no; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Ms. Robortaccio announced that Application BA-39-04, Viacom, will not be heard and is carried to 5/9/05.  Application BA-66-04, John Selby, will not be heard and is carried to 4/11/05.  BA-12-05, Fred Berger, will not be heard and there will be renotification.

 

BA-25–04 - KINGTOWN DIESEL – AMENDED SITE PLAN AND USE VARIANCE FOR SERVICE STATION ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9302, LOT 3 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Attorney Ronald Heymann represented the applicant.

 

Mr. Hashemi, engineer for the applicant referred to site plan sheet 5/8 dated 2/25/03, revised 11/29/04 (marked A-20).  He stated previously there were comments regarding the curbing and striping.  They are shown on the plans, along with directional signs, and the width of the ingress and egress.

 

Elizabeth Dolan, traffic expert for the applicant, was present and stated her educational and professional background for the Board.  She said she was retained by the applicant to prepare a traffic analysis.  She stated the site is on Route 46 and is an existing gas station and truck diesel fueling operation.  Currently there are 4 driveways, 3 of which are operational.  Traffic can make a left or right out of any of the driveways.  On the new plan, it shows a formalization of the activities and a proposal to enhance the operation of the driveways.  We propose the westernmost driveway will be the inbound driveway and the middle and eastern driveways would be outbound driveways and would be posted with “Do Not Enter” signs.  The eastern driveway is separated from the balance of the site so that it can be used for truck exiting movements.  Passenger vehicles would enter the western driveway, go to the fuel pump areas or park, and would then exit the center driveway.  There is a physical separation proposed to keep trucks and passenger vehicles separate.  The current speed limit on Route 46 is 50 m.p.h.  The new proposed driveway will improve the ability for vehicles to orient themselves in a one-way pattern.  The driveway locations won’t change but there will be a separation of the movements and , therefore, an improved traffic safety conditions.

 

Ms. Dolan said regarding sight distance, for the westernmost driveway the passenger vehicles site distance is 340 feet to the west and 471 feet to the east.  The center driveway  has 500 feet to the west and 340 feet to the east.  For the eastern driveway, the distance is  610 feet to the west and 428 feet to the east.  Those numbers were supplemented to simulate a truck driver eye height of about 8 feet.  For the westernmost driveway the distance is 555 feet the west and 556 feet to the east.  At the center driveway it is 580 feet to the west and 456 feet to the east.  Where the trucks will be exiting at the easternmost driveway, the distance is 680 feet to the west and 912  feet to the east.  The difference is because the driver eye height is lower, vs. truck driver eye height of 7 or 8 feet.   The trucks will only be exiting the easternmost driveway. 

 

Ms. Dolan explained the sight distance requirements from the DOT.  The limiting sight distance for safety is called the stopping sight distance.  For a 50 m.p.h. posted speed we use a 55 m.p.h., a 55 m.p.h. design speed, and the stopping sight distance is 495 feet.  The ASHTO criteria states there is somewhat of a tradeoff for trucks.  They should require a greater sight distance because of their size, but they also have increased visibility due to the higher eye height.  The ASHTO sight distance does not differentiate between truck and passenger vehicle sight distance because of that tradeoff.  In terms of the minimum required for stopping, in this case, 495 feet is associated with the 55 m.p.h. design speed.    We recognize we are deficient.  It is an existing condition associated with the site.  We can’t do anything about that unless we were to re-grade Route 46.   The truck activity here insures they will have the maximum sight distance.  We certainly would exceed the stopping sight distance.  But, for a passenger vehicle with the lower height, we are only at 428 feet and that does not meet the stopping sight distance.  It is a function of the existing site layout and the existing alignment of Route 46, but it is worth noting that the Police Department has made an official application to N.J. DOT to reduce the speed limit on Route 46.  DOT has not taken any action on that.

 

Mr. Stern said the Governing Body has supported that correspondence.

 

Mr. Wiener asked what the recommended speed is.

 

Ms. Dolan said she believes it is 40 m.p.h.

 

Mr. Heymann asked if there have been any accidents over a period of 4 years.

 

Ms. Dolan said she did receive a letter dated November 19th from the Police Department, summarizing the accident history for 4 years as follows: 

 

-        Accidents involving vehicles entering or exiting Kingtown – 7 – 4 by driver inattention, 3 failure to yield right of way

 

-        Accidents involving vehicles within the Kingtown Diesel lot – 3 – driver inattention/no contributing circumstance 

 

Mr. Heymann asked if Ms. Dolan looked into the sight distances for the new Harley Davidson facility across the highway. 

 

Ms. Dolan said she did, and found there is about 430 feet of sight distance along Route 46.  They have a little more than Kingtown in the westbound direction, a little less in the eastbound direction.  They would also be below the 495 feet stopping sight distance criteria for a  55 m.p.h. design speed.

 

Mr. Heymann asked if the new proposal for the driveway will make this a safer sight.

 

Ms. Dolan said in the sense trucks won’t be interacting with the passenger vehicles. The trucks will be separated by a grass island, and will have the maximum visibility upon exiting the site at the eastern driveway.  The fact there is a separation, and the signage to precludes inbound movements to the eastern driveway allows for a better on-site operation.  Clearly delineating the parking spaces and enhancing the circulation around the building are improvements in traffic safety.

 

Mr. Heymann asked what the police report indicates as far as sight distance is concerned.

 

Ms. Dolan said the sight has been functioning for many years.  The police report indicates there is no accident history attributable to the sight distance concerns.  I believe the site is operating acceptably and there is problem under existing conditions with the sight distance being less than the minimum sight distance.  The site can continue to operate safely even with our recognition that we can’t meet the minimum stopping sight distances.  If the speed limit is reduced, the sight distance requirements will be reduced.

 

Mr. Wiener said you have reviewed the datum from the police department.  Can you put that in a frame of reference in your perspective as a traffic engineer?

 

Ms. Dolan stated there is no accident pattern attributed to limited sight distance.  There is no accident patter per se.   If you have 3 accidents per year of the same type, that starts to become a pattern that needs to be evaluated in terms of traffic safety.  We don’t have that here.   There was one attributed to a car coming out of Gemini; one was a vehicle coming out of the site turning left; one was associated with an animal.  There is no pattern.  There is nothing to suggest there is an accident history attributable to driveway location, sight distance or any other factors in the area.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if the speed limit changed, what would the sight distance required be?

 

Ms. Dolan said 360 feet.

 

Mr. Crowley said the fact that the Council has requested a decrease in the speed limit would indicate there is a problem there.

 

Ms. Dole said she doesn’t know the reason the Council asked for the change.  There is no accident history.

 

Mr. Wiener said what you have to look at is what the conditions are now with the speed limit as it is now, and with the existing site.  It all has to be put into perspective.

 

Ms. Dargel said there was discussion about putting a sign at the crest of the hill indicating trucks entering the road.  What effect would that have on accidents?

 

Ms. Dolan said she does not know and doesn’t recall discussion on that with reference to this project.  Sometime signage ends up being ignored.

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked what the difference is between stopping sight distance and intersection sight distance.

 

Ms. Dolan said stopping sight distance is the minimum distance a driver needs to safely stop their vehicle before hitting an object in the road.  Intersection sight distance is greater than stopping sight distance. The intersection sight distance is 610 feet for a passenger vehicle and 930 feet for a truck.

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked if it is fair to say the 930 feet for a truck is what is required for a passenger vehicle traveling eastbound to have in order to avoid the truck crossing into the highway without deceleration.

 

Ms. Dolan said it is more of a convenience factor.  Part of the idea behind the intersection sight distances is so that the exiting vehicle, in this instance, would not have an impact on moving vehicles on Route 46.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said the testimony is that if you are coming westbound approaching the site, and a truck is exiting the site, you will have to stop to avoid the truck by the time you see it.  What is really required to avoid inconvenience is 930 feet.  Regarding the police report, the first one cited was a vehicle traveling west, and that vehicle being struck from behind.  I believe of the 7 instances, there were 3 or 4 rear end collisions that are attributed to driver inattention.  Could that just as readily be attributed to lack of sight distance?

 

Ms. Dolan said 3 accidents per year would be a criteria to establish an accident pattern.  There were two accidents where someone was waiting to turn left into the site, and driver inattentiveness by a second driver was the alleged cause of the accident.   Do we know whether that is attributable to sight distance?  If the person who hit the vehicle had said they didn’t see the person, it would probably be attributed to something different than driver inattentiveness.  There is no discernable pattern associated with the accidents.  If there were a substantial number, or if there were 3 per year, and if all the patterns were the same, you would want to look at sight distance.  I am not seeing that here. 

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked if the traffic pattern will increase if the store is opened?

 

Ms. Dolan said it will increase somewhat. The site operates currently as a fueling operation for diesel and regular fuel.  When an ancillary mart is opened it does not change the traffic to any significant degree.  The primary function of the site will continue to be fueling.

 

Mr. Stern asked if the proposal represents a safer condition than the current conditions on site.

 

Ms. Dolan said yes, because the trucks will be separated from the passenger vehicles, and trucks will all be exiting where the sight distance is at a maximum.

 

Mr. Stern said regarding the relativeness of the stopping distances, is the failure to meet that standard a substantial deviation or detriment?  How do you address that deficiency?

 

Ms. Dolan said if this were a brand new site and had no existing driveways and no history, the Board would need to evaluate this to a much more serious degree.  But the fact the site has been operational and does not have an accident history should give the Board the support they need to allow the improvement, recognizing the improvement  will improve safety.  It will not totally correct the situation.

 

Mr. Stern asked if this is an acceptable condition to Ms. Dolan, as a traffic engineer?

 

Ms. Dolan said if it were a new site, I would want to see more sight distance at the westernmost driveway to the west.  For the eastern driveway, yes.  For the center driveway, it is not quite meeting the stopping sight distance to the east, but is very close, and since there would be no trucks there, it is marginal.  Again, there has been no accident history.

 

Mr. Stern said his main concern was the fully fueled tractor trailers exiting the site.  How is that sight distance?

 

Ms. Dole said that is where we have the maximum sight distance.  It far exceeds the minimum stopping sight distance criteria.

 

Mr. Crowley said on the west side, the trucks and cars are coming in at the same location.  I don’t understand where you say it would be better for the westbound side.

 

Ms. Dolan said that is an existing condition.  The improvement happens on the eastern side of the site where the vehicles can be separated.  

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if a “No Left Turn” sign, going westbound, would help. 

 

Ms. Dolan said to put a left turn preclusion would mean a car would have to turn around somewhere else. What you find is that the number of left turns doesn’t get very high because it is somewhat self-policing.  Predominantly what you see is right-in/right-out movements. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Ms. Dole

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Kurtz said at a recent Council meeting there was testimony that the people across the street have polluted wells and that they have noticed people checking to see if there is fuel or other chemicals going into the drains.  What precautionary measures will there be to prevent spillage from going into the ecosystem?  Are there oil and water separators?

 

Mr. Bodolsky said he believes this site is an identified polluted site.  The applicant has testified that their own well is non-potable because of groundwater contamination.  At my visual inspection of the site in the past there were some questionable occurrences going on relative to waste oil disposal.  I did address that we not promote recharge on the site because of the possibility of driving the plume downgrade.  There was discussion on the well and potable water issue on the site.  I think it is worth exploring further with the applicant.

 

Mr. Hashemi said he contacted the Health Department and was told we would need to find a location to drill a new well.  Our plan is to drill a new well and check the water to assure it is not contaminated.  The motel site across the street drilled a new well, and the Health Department said that well is contaminated now.

 

Mr. Kurtz asked what will be done to prevent spillage at the fueling facility.

 

Mr. Hashemi said if there is any leakage, it would be at the paved area, and that should help to take care of that problem.  In the other locations, that would be addressed by the Zoning Officer and the Health Department.

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked if there has ever been a DEP evaluation on the site, and if any enforcement action has taken place.

 

Mr. Hashemi said we had an expert there and there are monitoring wells on site.  The site is contaminated.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said you cannot open a convenience store without a potable water source.  What if you drill a new well and that water is contaminated?

 

Mr. Hashemi said we will not be able to open the convenience store.

 

Mr. Stern said it would be a condition of this approval that the existing temporary water tank will be removed.

 

Mr. Heymann stated part of our agreement is that we will drill a new well or do a water remediation system. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said there are tenants there that need potable water.  How do they remain there if they can’t use the water?

 

Mr. Stern said the temporary tank is not a device that the Planning Board or Zoning Board approves.  That has been there for a number of years, and all the tenants should be on potable water through a well or a remediation system.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said the Board is focusing on the issue of the improvements that will be made to the site plan to prevent the reoccurrence of a problem from new pollutants entering the ground.   I am curious as to the site remediation that DEP is requesting.  Is there any concrete program that is going on that will reclaim this groundwater?

 

Mr. Hashemi said the contamination is not just from our site, but from the motel site as well.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if there is documentation from the DEP regarding what interaction there has been between the owner of the property and the DEP, and if there is a suggested protocol in place to remediate the condition, and what the proposal is as far as potable water until the situation is resolved.

 

Mr. Heymann said the applicant will provide the Board with that information for the next hearing.

 

The application was carried to 4/11/05.  An extension was granted to 6/30/05.

 

There was a 5 minute recess.

 

BA-75-04 – DAKOR/ROXBURY MOTEL – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION FOR SECOND FLOOR LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 6501, LOT 17 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Attorney Alexander Rinaldi represented the applicant. 

 

Mr. Wiener said there are 5 eligible Board members present tonight to hear this application. 

 

Mr. Rinaldi stated we would prefer having a full Board to vote, and would request if we conclude tonight that a vote be deferred.

 

Mr. Rinaldi said we received reports from Mr. Bodolsky and Mr. Stern.  Our engineer will address the reports.

 

Alfred A. Stewart, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He gave his educational and professional background for the Board.

 

He addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report dated 12/7/04, updated  3/10/05:

 

New comments:

 

Item 2A – agreed

Item 2B – agreed – would prefer to keep light fixtures above doorways.  Floodlights and wallpack lights will be removed.

Item 3A – will address with Mr. Stern’s report

Item 8A – will address with Mr. Stern’s report

 

Item 1 – We will reconstruct and clean out existing inlets located in the bottom of the “U”.

 

Mr. Stewart said there are two inlets on the low point of the site.  The inlets are filled with sediment and do not function properly.  We will reconstruct them, clean them out, and find the location where they drain.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said when he was on the site he saw a severe ponding problem over the sanitary manhole to the left of the two inlets.  That contributes to infiltration into the sanitary system.  Behind the system are also two sanitary manholes.  Do we know anything about where this system goes?

 

Mr. Stewart said the applicant states it doesn’t go to a sanitary sewer system.  I believe it flows toward the Old Morris Canal.  I have opened the inlets up, and did find the top side  of pipe that appears to go underneath the motel towards the old canal.  We searched for the outlets, but there is a lot of sediment and debris there.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said he wants the applicant to demonstrate that the proposal works. If they don’t find that there is an outlet to this system, it doesn’t work.

 

Mr. Stewart said the applicant agrees.

 

Item 6 – Mr. Bodolsky sketched on sheet 2/4 where he would suggest breaking up the pavement and enlarge the planting island.  The marked up plan sheet was marked A-5.  He said it would bring them closer to meeting the impervious coverage.  The applicant agreed and agreed to work out the plantings with Mr. Stern.

 

Item 9 -  Mr. Stewart stated the well is utilized for the site.  It is the potable water for the site.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions on the engineering aspects

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report dated 12/8/04 revised 3/7/05:

 

Item 3 – Variance required for increase of floor area ratio.  Sideyard setback variance required for kitchen addition.

Item 4 - agreed

Item 5 - agreed

Item 6 – agreed

Item 7 – The applicant is providing a fenced trash enclosure within the front yard area and will provide some landscaping alongside of it.  It does require a 10 foot sideyard setback and it is proposed at about 3 feet.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said there is a paved area next to the dumpster.  What is the purpose of that?

 

Mr. Stewart said the paving between the kitchen addition and the two story section can be removed.  The area located from the kitchen addition forward toward Route 46 we would like to have remain as we do get some deliveries there once in awhile. 

 

Ms. DeFillippo said presently there is a vacant property next to this.  What is proposed for that property?

 

Mr. Stern said presently there is a proposal for an auto parts store for that property.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked if the odors from the dumpster would affect that property.

 

Mr. Stern stated in that site plan, the building is substantially set back in relation to the dumpster enclosure.  The proposed setback for the building is at least 80 feet. 

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked if the dumpster could be moved to the west.

 

Mr. Stewart said that is a highly visible section of the property from the Route 46/Route 10 intersection.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked where the plantings will be around the dumpster.

 

Mr. Stewart said plantings are proposed across the Rt. 46 side and the back side of it.  There will also be plantings along the island.  There will be a gate that will face westerly, not towards Rt. 46.

 

Item 8 – agreed –applicant agrees to Mr. Stern suggestion to relocate the lights to align with parking stall striping. 

 

Mr. Bodolsky said the lighting plan shows two freestanding lights in the existing landscape island.  With the provision of the extension of the landscape island, could those two be moved to the middle?

 

Mr. Stewart said yes.  We will do it if feasible.  It would eliminate the design waiver.

 

Item 9 – no rooftop units

Items 10, 11, 12 – agreed

Item 13 – freestanding signs related to the restaurant will be relocated to just within the property line – variance will be required for setback and number of signs

14, 15, 16 – agreed

17 – agreed

18 – agreed

19 – agreed

20 – agreed

 

Ms. Dargel asked how many signs there will be.

 

Mr. Stern said sheet 2 has a sign table.

 

Ms. Dargel said she doesn’t believe three signs are needed for the restaurant.

 

The applicant agreed to consolidated sign #5 and #6 to one sign.  It will be the same size as sign #5, and they will place the one sign approximately in the middle of the island.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked for a poll of the Board as to whether or not they were generally in favor of the application.

 

The outcome of the poll was unanimously in favor.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the application based on compliance with the issues raised by the staff as discussed; pending Board Engineer approval of satisfactory operation of outlet drainage system; addition of center island; combined signs 5 & 6 and relocated to center of island; fully enclosed dumpster with gate on pad in designated area; lighting parameters; landscaping subject to planner review and all other stipulations as stated on the record.  Ms. DeFillippo seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Application approved.

 

BA-13-05 - KENBAR INVESTMENTS – SOIL APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON ORBEN DR. BLOCK 8602, LOTS 2, 3, 4, 5, 14, 15 IN LI/OR ZONE

 

Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant. 

 

George Gloede, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report:

 

Item 1 A-H – agreed

2 – Mr. Gloede stated no contractor has been chosen and we are not sure of the borrow site or (destination site). 

 

Discussion.

 

Ken Hyman was sworn in.  He said the site is very challenging.  We are trying to make it so that there will be no soil removed.  There will have to be building materials brought in.  We have selected a site contractor.  We would not be taking any side roads.  They would be all main roads.  I would prefer to go to the McNear site rather than go down Route 80 to Denville or Rockaway, however that has not been determined.

 

Ms. Dargel indicated she finds it difficult to act on this application with such of lack of information on the amount of soil and the source for the soil.

 

After discussion, it was determined the soil will go either to the McNear site via Landing Road or out of town.  The route of travel will be either to McNear or Route 46 or Route 80 to out of town.

 

Ms. Dargel asked how many trucks there will be.

 

Mr. Gloede said in the worse case scenario it would be about 2,100 cubic yards, which would be about 375 truckloads over a period of 6 months, going to McNear or onto Route 80. 

 

After further discussion, it was determined the hours of operation will be 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Kurtz made a motion to approve the application subject to hours of operation to be 8:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.; quantity will be a maximum of 2,100 c.y.; no crushing on site.  Mr. Crowley seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes.  She said she felt the applicant came unprepared. ; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Mr. Kron asked for discussion on the Kenbar site plan resolution.  He said Item 20B involved the sidewalks.  We are asking that the condition be waived.  Mr. Nusbaum did submit the plans to DOT, and Mr. Gloede received a letter from them dated 1/2/05 indicating they received the request and said sidewalks will not be permitted in the area, based on a preliminary review.  

 

Mr. Kron said we are aware Mr. Bodolsky wrote to the State, and he indicated to them that a pedestrian bridge adjoining the culvert headwall would be considered and that guide rail relocation was contemplated.  He indicated the issue is not closed.  Our feeling is the State DOT has denied the application based on the plans the Board approved.  Those plans did not contain a pedestrian bridge or a guide rail relocation.  The suggestion to the DOT by Mr. Bodolsky that the issue is still open is not correct.  It is not really fair.  There is a high level of improbability that we would ever be able to do that.  The letter indicating it might be changed is not based on the plans that were approved.  The plans that were approved were submitted and denied.  Wherein the courts of New Jersey say that once you get a denial from an administrative agency, generally you are not entitled to a hearing or fact finding.  It is our position we complied with what the Board requested, and the DOT decided it is not permitted.  Therefore, that condition should be waived.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said his recollection was that the Board considered this matter twice.  The last time the applicant suggested that to continue with a sidewalk would required a stream crossing and the guide rail would need to be modified.  As a consequence of that the Board still required the sidewalk.  I don’t know what plans were sent to the State.  The comment I got from the State agent was that if they knew someone wouldn’t be required to walk into the stream or that you were planning on moving the guide rail, maybe they would have viewed it differently. 

 

Ms. DeFillippo said her recollection was that we wanted to have the applicant approach DOT to see if it was feasible to put a sidewalk.  We wanted the DOT to tell us whether it was going to be very complicated or not.  My intention was not for the applicant to have a hardship.  Considering there are no sidewalks to the left or right, to insist the applicant go further with the DOT, I don’t agree with.

 

Ms. Kinback agreed.

 

Mr. Crowley said he agreed.

 

Ms. Robortaccio agreed.

 

Ms. Kinback made a motion to waive the sidewalks.  Ms. DeFillippo seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-10-05 – ROBERT KOZIK – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON EMMANS RD. BLOCK 4103, LOT 11 IN R-1 ZONE

 

Attorney Bernd Hefele represented the applicant.  He said this application is for a front yard setback variance for the renovation of a home on Emmans Road.  The applicant proposes an addition of a garage which necessitates a front yard setback variance.

 

Robert Kozik was sworn in.  In answer to questions from Mr. Hefele, he stated the property is 220 feet x 150 feet.  The house was built around 1940 and is pretty well outdated.   It has small rooms.

 

Mr. Kokzik submitted 5 photos of homes in the neighborhood taken by him (marked A-1 through A-5) and described them.

 

Mr. Kurtz asked if the front porch will remain the same.

 

Mr. Kozik said we will be putting on a roof covering over the stoop that is there.  We will use the same steps if we can.  The porch will not be enclosed.

 

Mr. Stern said right now the setback goes to the face of the building because there is no covering. 

 

Mr. Kozik said the second floor addition follows the first floor foundation.  We are putting the garage in also.  We are promoting the character of the area by doing the addition.

 

Mr. Hefele asked if Mr. Kozik analyzed the property to determine where to locate the addition.

 

Mr. Kozik said since the lot is 225 feet long, and the east side is just woods, that is where we determined was the most feasible location to add the garage.

 

Mr. Stern said the ordinance requires at least one garage for each single family dwelling. 

 

Mr. Stern said technically more mass is being adding within the front setback area.  There is a provision in the ordinance that if homes on either side of the applicant within 200 feet have a setback of 40 feet, the applicant can have a similar setback.  Are the homes on either side setback at about 40 feet?

 

Mr. Kozik said pretty close to that.

 

Mr. Stern said the garage will be set back 13 feet from the face of the existing home.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the existing driveway will be removed.

 

Mr. Kozik said yes, and it will be planted with landscaping and will be grass.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked how many trees will be removed.

 

Mr. Kozik said about 3 trees.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

Joseph Czuprina, 297 Emmans Rd., was sworn in.  He asked how big the garage is.

 

Mr. Kozik said it is 24’ x 24’.

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Ms. DeFillippo made a motion to approve the application, stating it is a big improvement for the neighborhood; garage to be pushed back 13 feet; awning over front will look attractive.  Ms. Kinback seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Darling, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-11-05 – ROBERT KOCOSKI – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON FERROMONTE AVE. BLOCK 2604, LOT 8 IN R-4 ZONE

 

Robert Kocoski was sworn in.  He stated his application is for an addition.  We want to keep in line with the existing house.  The reason he is adding on to the house is to help his parents.  The house now is very small.  We are trying to build an addition so that either my brother or I can stay with our parents.  The property is on a corner lot.  The coverage of the lot complies. 

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked who lives in the home now.

 

Mr. Kocoski said his parents and him and his brother.  We don’t know which one of us will live there.  I had a new house built on a lot behind this one that is not related to this house at all.

 

Ms. Dargel said there are 3 entrance/exits. 

 

Mr. Kocoski said the front will be the main entrance.  The side entrance will be from the garage.  The one on the left side will be for a wheelchair ramp if needed, or not.

 

Ms. Dargel said the floor plan shows stairs going up from the kitchen to two bedrooms, but on the second floor there is no doorway connecting those bedrooms to the rest of the second floor.

 

Mr. Kocoski said that is correct.  They want to give them some privacy.

 

There was discussion on the layout of the rooms in the house and whether it constitutes a single family house.

 

Mr. Stern said there is one kitchen which is a communal area.  This is a single family home.

 

Ms. DeFillippo asked why there are two mailboxes.

 

Mr. Kocoski said one is for this house, and one is for the house in the back.

 

Mr. Stern said in reviewing the drawings, it shows there is a 17.7 foot existing setback.  That setback is to the face of the main building.  The setback is actually 11.5 feet to the front porch.  To the face of the proposed porch, the setback scales out to 15.5 feet and to the new building face is 17.5 feet.

 

Mr. Stern said there was an approval for a subdivision where he created another dwelling on the lot.  There is still the outstanding issue of the paving of DeHart Street.

 

Mr. Kocoski said that is bonded.

 

Mr. Stern recommended there be no certificate of occupancy for this home until that is done.

 

Mr. Crowley said with the basement design, this still looks like a two-family house.  I would be more comfortable with the plan if you were to remove the side door, and put it in if it becomes necessary.  The side deck will also be removed.

 

There was discussion on the layout of the house, location of the doors and the location of the proposed second floor bedroom addition

 

The Board suggested the two new bedrooms upstairs should be open and accessible from the existing second floor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the Board has some concerns with the plans as submitted and suggested the applicant revise the plans and return to the Board.

 

The application was carried to 4/11/05.

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 11:00 p.m.

 

                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/