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

A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Scott Meyer presiding.  After a salute to the Flag, the Chairman read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Scott Meyer, Larry Sweeney, Gary Behrens, Lisa Voyce, Richard Zoschak, Steven Alford, Joseph Schwab, Michael Shadiack, Jim Rilee, Teresa DeVincentis arrived at 7:35.

 

ABSENT:   Charles Bautz

 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Tom Germinario, Russell Stern, Tom Bodolsky.

 

Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary.

 

Mr. Meyer announced Application M-3-04, Mark Tucci will not be heard and is carried to 9/7/05 and Application S-7-05, Primax will not be heard and is carried to 9/7/05.

 

Minutes of 6/1/05

 

Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. Zoschak seconded.

 

Discussion.  Corrections noted and made.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

S-15-05 – FRANK NABATIAN – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON RT. 10/MAIN ST. BLOCK 1902, LOT 4 IN B-2 ZONE

 

                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

                                                                   RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION

 

Approved:  June 15, 2005

 Memorialized:  July 6, 2005

 

IN THE MATTER OF FRANK NABATIAN

FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL

BLOCK 1902, LOT 4

APPLICATION NO. S-15-05

 

WHEREAS, Frank Nabatian (hereinafter known as the "Applicant") applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the "Planning Board") for final site plan approval on  May 5, 2005; and

 

WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on 6/15/05; and

 

WHEREAS, public hearings were held on 6/15/05, no notice being required, at which time the Planning Board rendered its decision on the application; and

 

WHEREAS, it being determined that the Applicant has complied with all of the rules, regulations and requirements of the Roxbury Township Land Development Ordinance and that all of the required provisions of the compliance have been filed with the Planning Board; and

 

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following findings and conclusions based upon the testimony and documentary evidence produced by the Applicant and by the Planning Board staff:

 

1.  The subject property consists of two lots encompassing 27,161 square feet (0.623 acres) located in the B-2 Highway Business District.  By Resolution memorialized May 8, 2002, the Applicant obtained preliminary site plan approval with variances and design waivers for a one-story 4,200 square foot retail building.

 

2.  In support of its application, the Applicant submitted final site plans consisting of 7 sheets prepared by Donohue Engineering bearing a revision date of 5/3/05.  The Applicant also submitted an as-built survey prepared by Richard F. Smith, Jr. bearing a revision date of 5/3/05, and an architectural building plan prepared by Fox Architectural Design consisting of one sheet revised 5/2/05.  Reports concerning the application were submitted by the Township Planner, Russell Stern, dated 6/9/05 and by the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 6/10/05

 

3.  At the public hearing of 6/15/05, the Applicant was represented by Ira Levine, Esq. Kenneth Fox, Applicant’s Architect and Planner, testified regarding the professionals’ reports.  Addressing the first item in Mr. Bodolsky’s report, Mr. Fox stated that inlets were modified to eliminate ponding on the site.  He said that the Township Engineer reviewed and approved the field change.  Regarding item #3, he testified that the inlet was covered and now has been exposed.  Regarding item #4, Mr. Fox said the area will be regraded, and a revised as-built grading plan will be submitted within 30 days.  Concerning item #5, the witness stated that the site is served by public water, and the plan will be revised to so indicate.  Regarding item #6, Mr. Fox stated that, if unacceptable light spill-over is revealed by an inspection by the Township Engineer or by public complaints, the lighting will be modified to address this.  If needed, a design waiver in this regard is granted by the Board.  Regarding item #3 of Mr. Stern’s report, Mr. Fox stated that the floodlights over the entrance and rear doors are for emergency purposes only.  Applicant agreed to comply with the remaining recommendations of the professionals’ reports.

 

The Chairman then opened the hearing to public comments, and there being none closed the public portion of the meeting.  A motion was made to conditionally approve the application based on the recommendations contained in the reports of Messrs. Stern and Bodolsky, as modified and supplemented in the course of the hearings, which motion was duly seconded and favorably acted upon.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve the final site plan as described in the drawings referenced hereinabove.

 

This approval is subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:

 

1.  The trash enclosure shall be provided with additional cement/stucco finish to hide the mortar joints.  Color shall match building.  A cap block shall be provided on top of the enclosure.

 

2.  Exterior air conditioning ductwork shall be painted to match building.

 

3.  The wall light along the rear door shall be replaced with a concealed source or heavily diffused fixture acceptable to the Township Planner.

 

4.  Hairpin striping shall be provided per the approved plans (sheet 2k general notes).

 

5.  Wire fence and metal pipe (imbedded in trees) along the Suburban Furniture property line shall be cut out as required on sheet 2.

 

6.  Remove “Danger” and “No Trespassing” signs mounted on a shade tree along Main Street.

 

7.  The southwesterly portion of the northerly detention basin lawn shall be reseeded.

 

8.  Main Street shall be weeded and mulched.

 

9.  Dead wood from the easterly and westerly trees shall be removed (sheet 5).

 

10.  Tilting trees shall be straightened and re-staked.

 

11.  Additional seeding shall be provided along the westerly building elevation.

 

12.  Ten Viburnum Carlise (Fragrant Spice Viburnum) are required along the westerly side of the detention basin and twenty-two along the easterly parking area.  Instead, Arrowood Viburnum were installed.  The Fragrant Spice Viburnum shall be installed.  Arrowood Viburnum can be located between the rear parking area and Main Street hedgerow.

 

13.  Undersized and marginal Spruce shall be replaced.

 

14.  The Thundercloud Plum across from Suburban Furniture is in marginal condition and shall be replaced.

 

15.  Seven marginal/dead Forsythia shall be replaced.

 

16.  Liriope shall be installed along the front building elevation as specified on sheet 5.

 

17.  Marginal Butterfly Bush shall be replaced.

 

18.  This approval is subject to the following conditions from the preliminary site plan approval:

 

Condition C – A design waiver is granted from Ordinance Section 13-8.602 as a 36' wide Main Street cartway (18' half-width) is required.  The Main Street cartway is currently 30' wide (15' half-width) and the Applicant proposes no modifications.  The Board finds that expanding the cartway along this limited length of road frontage would create an incongruous appearance.  This waiver is conditioned upon the Applicant’s contributing an amount equivalent to the cost of the road improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.

 

Condition D – A design waiver is granted from Ordinance Section 13-8.608 as curbs are not provided along Main Street.  Curbs are not present on adjacent properties along Main Street.  The granting of this design waiver is conditioned upon the Applicant contributing an amount equivalent to the cost of the waived improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.

 

Condition E – A design waiver is granted from Ordinance Section 13-8.610A as sidewalks are not provided along Main Street and Route 10.  Adjoining properties do not have sidewalks.  The granting of this design waiver is conditioned upon the Applicant contributing an amount equivalent to the cost of the waived improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.

 

Condition 1 – There shall be no tractor-trailer deliveries and/or pickups on the site.

 

Condition 2 – The site shall have no access to or from Main Street.

 

Condition 10 – Revised plans shall note that, pursuant to Section 13-8.810, decorative trash receptacles and ash urns are required if the building contains a convenience store, delicatessen, fast food restaurant or similar use.

 

Condition 11 – Pursuant to Section 13-7.814, any noise-making instruments such as phonographs, loud speakers, amplifiers, radios, television sets or similar devices which are so situated as to be heard outside any building are prohibited.

 

Condition 13 – Pursuant to Sections 13-4.6 and 13-4.7, the Applicant shall pay their pro-rata share of off-tract and off-site improvements as determined by the Township Engineer and in accordance with the Township Engineer’s interoffice memo of February 26, 2002.

 

Condition 22 - Section 13-8.911.1F limits window signs to a period not to exceed 20 days and all such signs individually or collectively shall not exceed 30% of all available window space on which the signs are located.

 

                                19.  One “no parking, fire lane sign” is missing and shall be installed.

 

                                20.  The area on the west side of the building where a 2% swale was originally proposed shall be re-graded to establish an adequate pitch away from the building and to prevent ponding on adjoining properties to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer.  The lawn drain shown on the approved plans shall be installed or uncovered to accept drainage from the swale.  A revised as-built grading plan will be submitted within 30 days.

 

                                21.  Should inspection by the Township Engineer or public complaints reveal unacceptable light spillover from the site, the site illumination shall be modified to correct this.  To the extent necessary, the Board grants a design waiver in this regard.

 

                                22.  The area of the Route 10 pond shall be scarified, re-topsoiled and replanted to the satisfaction of the Township Planner.

 

23.  As a condition of this approval, pursuant to Sections 13-4.6 and 13-4.7, the Applicant shall request and obtain from the Township Engineer a determination of their pro-rata contribution for off-tract improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.  Said contribution shall be paid in full prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

 

24.  Pursuant to Section 13-7.829, the Applicant shall pay a mandatory development fee equal to two percent (2.0%) of the total equalized assessed valuation of the nonresidential development.  Fifty percent (50%) of the fee shall be posted prior to the issuance of any building permit and the remainder paid prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

 

25.  Applicant shall source separate and recycle all mandated material as required by the Municipal Recycling Ordinance and the Morris County Solid Waste Management Plan both during construction and for the duration of occupancy.

 

26.  Applicant shall submit annual recycling tonnage reports to the Municipal Recycling Coordinator.

 

27.  Applicant shall meet with the Municipal Recycling Coordinator to review all recycling requirements.

 

28.  In the event that future additional dumpster enclosures are needed for the site, then upon the approval of the Zoning Officer, they shall be constructed.

 

29.  This approval is subject to the issuance of a major soil moving permit.

 

30.  This approval is subject to all outside agency review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.

 

31.  If the Soil Conservation District, Morris County Planning Board, or any other governmental body from which approval is necessary causes, through their examination of the plans as recited in this resolution, any revisions to said plans then, in that event, same shall be submitted to the Planning Board Engineer.  If the Planning Board Engineer deems said revisions to be significant, the Applicant shall return to the Planning Board for further review and approval.

 

32.  This approval is subject to the payment of all appropriate fees and taxes.

 

 

33.  Revised plans shall be submitted within 60 days and must be deemed complete to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer within 6 months of the date of memorialization.  Failure on the part of the Applicant to satisfy this or any other condition of this resolution will result in referral of this matter back to the Planning Board for purposes of deeming the approval null and void.

 

The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting of June 15, 2005.

 

Mr. Zoschak made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Rilee seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.

 

S-16-05 – CENTER STREET HOLDINGS – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON CENTER ST. BLOCK 10901, LOT 3 IN I-5 ZONE

 

                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

                                                                   RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION

 

Approved:  June 15, 2005

 Memorialized:  July 6, 2005

 

IN THE MATTER OF CENTER STREET HOLDINGS, LLC

FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL

BLOCK 10901, LOT 3

APPLICATION NO. S-16-05

 

WHEREAS, Center Street Holdings, LLC (hereinafter known as the "Applicant") applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the "Planning Board") for final site plan approval on 5/26/05; and

 

WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on 6/15/05; and

 

WHEREAS, public hearings were held on 6/15/05, no notice being required, at which time the Planning Board rendered its decision on the application; and

 

WHEREAS, it being determined that the Applicant has complied with all of the rules, regulations and requirements of the Roxbury Township Land Development Ordinance and that all of the required provisions of the compliance have been filed with the Planning Board; and

 

WHEREAS, the Planning Board has made the following findings and conclusions based upon the testimony and documentary evidence produced by the Applicant and by the Planning Board staff:

 

1.  The subject property consists of 1,237 acres (53,887 square feet) located in the I-5 Limited Industrial District.  By Resolution memorialized May 19, 2004, the Applicant obtained major preliminary site plan approval with ‘c’ variances and design waivers to construct a one-story 3,945 square foot building for its contracting business, including a 7,917 square foot gravel outdoor storage area for the parking and storage of vehicles and equipment utilized in the Applicant’s business.

 

 

 

 

2.  In support of its application, the Applicant submitted final site plans consisting of 3 sheets prepared by Dykstra Walker Design Group bearing a revision date of 6/7/05.  Reports concerning the application were submitted by the Township Planner, Russell Stern, dated 6/10/05 and by the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 6/13/05.

 

3.  At the public hearing of 6/15/05, the Applicant was represented by Berndt Hefele, Esq. The Applicant’s Engineer Ken Dykstra, testified with respect to item #1 of Mr. Bodolsky’s report that plans had been resubmitted.  Regarding the other items of Mr. Bodolsky’s report, Applicant agreed to comply.  With respect to item #1 of Mr. Stern’s report, Mr. Hefele requested that the Applicant not be required to install a canopy over the front entrance and the Board concurred.  The Applicant agreed to install the upper louver on the front elevation, as requested in item #3.  Applicant agreed to the remaining recommendations of Mr. Stern’s report.

 

The Chairman then opened the hearing to public comments, and there being none closed the public portion of the meeting.  A motion was made to conditionally approve the application, effective immediately, based on the recommendations contained in the reports of Messrs. Stern and Bodolsky, as modified and supplemented in the course of the hearings, which motion was duly seconded and favorably acted upon.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve the final site plan as described in the drawings referenced hereinabove.

 

This approval is subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:

 

1.  The following deviations from the approved preliminary site plan are approved:

 

a.             Deletion of cement/stucco finish along

front elevation.

b.             Three upper level windows added along each side elevation.

c.             Soffit lights provided instead of wall-mounted “shoebox” to illuminate front entrance.

d.             Fuel tanks installed on concrete pad along easterly elevation.

                e.             Modified design of freestanding sign.

                f.              “Future” trash enclosure constructed.

g.             One extra wall light installed along rear and westerly elevation, and two additional wall lights along easterly elevation.

                h.             Hairpin striping of parking stalls deleted.

                i.              Deletion of canopy over front entry.

 

2.  The upper decorative circular louvered vent depicted on the front elevation on the architectural drawings shall be installed.

 

3.  Temporary electric meter, wires and pole shall be removed.

 

4.  Portable toilet and trash containers shall be removed.

 

5.  Temporary “Mills Contracting” sign shall be removed.

 

6.  Rolled silt fence at the rear property line shall be removed.

 

7.  Disturbed road frontage east of driveway shall be mulched.

 

8.  Leaning shade trees and evergreen trees shall be straightened and staked.

 

9.             This approval is subject to the following conditions from the preliminary site plan approval:

 

Condition 2 - All work on vehicles shall be done inside the building.  There shall be no hazardous material storage in the outdoor storage area and no road salts shall be stored in the outdoor storage area.

 

Condition 5 - There shall be no floor drains within the building draining to the drywell.

 

Condition 6 - Material and equipment within the storage yard shall not exceed a height of fourteen (14 feet).

 

Condition 7 - Outdoor storage is only permitted for the building tenants.  Use of the storage yard by non-building tenants is specifically prohibited.

 

Condition 25 - Future approvals by the Zoning Officer for changes of use should consider pollutant introduction via the drywell system.

 

10.  Condition #24 of the preliminary approval is deleted.

 

                                11.  Applicant shall maintain the drywells annually with reports submitted to the Township Engineer.  The Township shall have the right, but not the duty, to enter onto the property to conduct its own inspections of the drywells.

 

                                12.  A digital copy of this site plan shall be filed with the Township for inclusion in its GIS system.

 

                                13.  The Applicant shall revise the “Existing Conditions Plan” to depict the proper number of light units.  Manufacturer’s information shall be presented on the plans for each light type.  An As-Built lighting plan should be prepared to demonstrate that adequate lighting is still being provided and that spillover beyond the property lines does not exceed acceptable levels.

 

                                14.  The grading around the hydrant along Center Street, which appears to be partially buried, shall be cut down.

 

15.  As a condition of this approval, pursuant to Sections 13-4.6 and 13-4.7, the Applicant shall request and obtain from the Township Engineer a determination of their pro-rata contribution for off-tract improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.  Said contribution shall be paid in full prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

 

16.  Pursuant to Section 13-7.829, the Applicant shall pay a mandatory development fee equal to two percent (2.0%) of the total equalized assessed valuation of the nonresidential development.  Fifty percent (50%) of the fee shall be posted prior to the issuance of any building permit and the remainder paid prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

 

17.  Applicant shall source separate and recycle all mandated material as required by the Municipal Recycling Ordinance and the Morris County Solid Waste Management Plan both during construction and for the duration of occupancy.

 

 

18.  Applicant shall submit annual recycling tonnage reports to the Municipal Recycling Coordinator.

 

19.  Applicant shall meet with the Municipal Recycling Coordinator to review all recycling requirements.

 

20.  In the event that future additional dumpster enclosures are needed for the site, then upon the approval of the Zoning Officer, they shall be constructed.

 

21.  This approval is subject to all outside agency review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.

 

22.  This approval is subject to the payment of all appropriate fees and taxes.

 

23.  Revised plans shall be submitted within 60 days and must be deemed complete to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer within 6 months of the date of memorialization.  Failure on the part of the Applicant to satisfy this or any other condition of this resolution will result in referral of this matter back to the Planning Board for purposes of deeming the approval null and void.

 

The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting of June 15, 2005.

 

Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Sweeney seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.

 

AGENDA

 

LETTER FROM ATTORNEY LAWRENCE FOX FOR AN EXTENSION ON MORRISTOWN CORNERSTONE

 

Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the extension for one year.  Mr. Zoschak seconded.

 

Mr. Stern recommended at the time they request building permits they have to comply with the Mt. Laurel housing ordinance in effect at that time.

 

The Board members agreed.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.

 

 

 

 

LETTER FROM ATTORNEY JOSEPH VENA FOR AN EXTENSION ON RAINBOW MANAGEMENT

 

Mr. Germinario said this application was extended once before for 190 days.  Mr. Vena indicated it is still in litigation and the request is for another 190 days.

 

Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the extension for 190days, but if they come again for an extension, they should have a meeting.  Ms. Voyce seconded.

 

Mr. Stern said the Mt. Laurel housing ordinance in effect at the time will apply to this application as well.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.

 

S-16-05 – ETEL ASSOCIATES – SOIL RELOCATION APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON RT. 10/MARY LOUISE AVE. BLOCK 6303, LOTS 6 & 7 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Attorney John Testa represented the applicant.

 

Mr. Bodolsky went over his report and stated the total soil for export and import is 2,100 cubic yards.  He suggested the hours of operation be prohibited on weekends because of the proximity of the site to adjoining residences.

 

Mr. Testa said the applicant would agree not to work on Saturdays and Sundays. 

 

Grayson Murray, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He stated the route of travel will be to an approved Morris County Soil Conservation location, but we don’t have a specific location established yet.  We would agree to take Route 10 to the closest highway. 

 

Discussion.

 

Mr. Murray said the applicant would agree to an out-of-town site.

 

Mr. Bodolsky recommended the standard conditions, including posting of performance bond for $2,000, soil moving fee of $323, stakeout of interior improvement, stakeout of lot corners, addition of a note to the plans, permit plan of one year, unconditional site plan approval.

 

The conditions were acceptable to the applicant.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the application.  Mr. Sweeney seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.

 

S-18-05 – KIDDIE ACADEMY – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR DAYCARE LOCATED ON RT. 206, BLOCK 9201, LOT 3 IN B1/A ZONE

 

Attorney Joel Kobert represented the applicant.  He said we have received the reports from Mr. Bodolsky and Mr. Stern.

 

Mr. Rilee said he is very disheartened by what is in the reports.

 

Mr. Zoschak said a lot of things were done on final that were not approved on preliminary.  I would like to know why.

 

Mr. Kobert said regarding the Maple trees which were removed, they should not have been.  We have no excuse.  A lot of things were done that shouldn’t have been and we apologize.

 

The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report:

 

Items 1 & 2 – Applicant has submitted a supplemental plan to mitigate the damage that has been done.

 

Mr. Stern said there is a proposal for 3 Dogwoods and 3 Oaks.

 

Discussion.  Mr. Rilee said he would prefer to see mature trees.

 

Ms. Voyce asked if planting mature trees in that location on the highway is a good idea or if they should be planted elsewhere in town where they would have a better chance of survival.

 

Mr. Kobert said we would agree to that.

 

Mr. Stern said there is not a lot of room to put what is required in terms of replacement trees.  The applicant could give the town the money to plant mature trees elsewhere.

 

Mr. Kobert said the applicant will submit a landscaping plan subject to Mr. Stern’s approval, and if there is a cost associated with the other trees, we would meet that cost.

 

Mr. Stern said typically shade trees are placed 40 feet on center.  They have put up three shade trees and were talking about putting additional shade trees in.  They would add some vertical columnar material between the sidewalk and the building, and to put shrubs along the PVC fence where there is room.  That, plus a contribution to a tree fund sounds like a good conclusion.

 

Item 3 – done – subject to Mr. Stern’s approval

Item 4 – subject to Mr. Stern’s approval – agreed

Item 5 – fence has been relocated to where it is located on the plan.  (#)

 

Mr. Stern asked if the new fence is installed in the location that was approved by the Board.

 

Thomas McGrath, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He gave his educational and professional background and was accepted by the Board as a professional engineer.  He said the fence is not exactly where it is shown on the preliminary plan, but is slightly in front of it.  It is offset about 8 or 10 feet.  It will be put where it is depicted on the site plan.

 

William Hotz, builder of the project, was sworn in.  He said the dosing tank is very close to where it is shown on the plan.  We will put the fence outside the dosing tank.  There is a strong need for playground area for this use.  We thought we would pick up the front area because it is so flat.  We shouldn’t have done it.  We will move the fence back.

 

Mr. Rilee said there was a lot of discussion at the preliminary about keeping the playground area off the septic area.  The applicant should have asked if they needed more playground area.

 

Mr. Hotz said we will move it back.

 

Mr. Stern asked if the location of the fence will conflict with the retaining wall.

 

Mr. Hotz said no.

 

Mr. Stern said this was to be a black vinyl clad chain link fence.

 

Mr. Hotz said this is a highway location, and we thought the white PVC fence would provide more separation of the play area to Route 206, and would provide better isolation.

 

Mr. Zoschak said he understands that, but it needs more landscaping.

 

Mr. Hotz said we have discussed this with Mr. Stern, and agree to buffer the front of the fence and at the side of the doors, and will buffer around the electrical and gas meters. 

 

Mr. Schwab said the fence looks awful.  Will landscaping hide that?

 

Mr. Hotz said the front of the fence is down now.  We can go back to the black chain link fence.  That is what you would see from the road.  We would suggest the back of the fence would stay. 

 

Mr. Meyer asked about the height.

 

Mr. Hotz said the height of the fence is correct.

 

Mr. Stern said there is also the multi-colored play structures.  There is not a lot of opportunity to landscape along the fence because of the septic field, dosing tank, and other septic structures.

 

Mr. Meyer said the feeling is to put chain link fence.  If you are going to move it back, you would need to do plantings.

 

Haj Chadha of Kiddie Academy was sworn in.  He said they own 16 schools and there are 4 under construction.  I apologize for not complying with the preliminary approval.  Regarding the fence, we are trying to hide the playground with the fence.  I have personally testified that my preference at preliminary was the black chain link.  A lot has gone in since then, but I would prefer the white vinyl because it provides the privacy we need.  I would agree to move it back, but it would eat into the minimal playground area we have.  I would request we not move it back any farther than where it was approved, and that we cover and conceal it as well as we can.

 

Mr. Rilee said he still prefers black chain link fence.

 

Mr. Stern said he observed the fence and in some of the areas where there are septic  there is no room to put shrubs in. 

 

Ms. DeVincentis said she prefers black chain link.  It should be done according to the approved plan.  There were too many deviations from the plan.

 

It was determined the Board prefers chain link, with landscape buffering, along the front. 

 

Mr. Stern said he thinks it will look awkward.  I have no assurance that it will be sufficiently screened.

 

Ms. Voyce suggested we carry this issue to a later meeting to give Mr. Stern an opportunity to review it.

 

Mr. Rilee suggested we target some of the key items, and give the applicant some direction on what needs to be done for the next hearing.

 

Mr. Kobert agreed.  Item 6 in Mr. Stern’s report discusses the fact that the sign is internally illuminated.  That may be better than the original sign which had floodlights.

 

Mr. Stern said there is no regulation.  I would not object to the internal illumination.  Also, they had proposed a masonry sign with brick and stucco surface.  They put in a sign with metal base and metal box.  It would be desirable to obtain some masonry elements that match the building.

 

Ms. Voyce suggested this matter also be carried.

 

Mr. Meyer suggested the applicant go through the reports and address the ones the applicant agrees to.

 

Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Bodolsky what the substantial issues are in his report that should be discussed tonight.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said the biggest source of disagreement is the retaining wall on the northern side of the building.  It was not shown on the original plans.  The applicant has said they got agreement from the engineering department, but in examining that approval, even that deviated.  What was approved was a 1 – 2 foot high wall, and what was installed was a (4) foot high wall.  I would not have approved this because of the location of the septic system.  My interpretation of the septic code is that this doesn‘t meet the code.  I would suggest we defer this to the Health Department to comment on.  Or, it should be built according to the plan.  There are also related items, such as proper lighting, the second chain link fence, perhaps a handrail in this area.  I would suggest the applicant address those issues.  It should be put in according to the preliminary site plan. 

 

Mr. Hotz said the inspector came out today and measured it.  The plan was approved by the Township Engineer.   We created two fairly level planes.  We put a retaining wall in and the location was approved.

 

Mr. Bodolsky suggested if the applicant is not willing to put it back as it was designed, that the Board refer this to the Health Department for their comment.

 

Ms. Voyce agreed.  This Board takes this very seriously, and I don’t feel the applicant took us seriously.  We were ignored, and this is unacceptable.

 

Mr. Stern asked about the trash enclosure.

 

Mr. Kobert said it will be board-on-board.

 

The application was carried to 8/3/05.  The applicant granted an extension of time to that date.

 

 

 

 

S-19-05 – AUTO ZONE – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR AUTO PARTS STORE LOCATED IN LEDGEWOOD SHOPPING CENTER, BLOCK 6502, LOTS 1 & 2

 

Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant, Edward Dougherty.  He stated we have made it clear to Auto Zone what the process is in Roxbury.  The opening of the Auto Zone had nothing to do with Ed Dougherty.  That was done on their own.  The building and sidewalk and parapet were all constructed by Auto Zone.  Mr. Dougherty entered into a land lease with them.  Mr. Bennett will answer many of the questions in the report.

 

Steve Byszewski, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.

 

Dalton Bennett, Construction Project Manager for Auto Zone, was sworn in.

 

Edward Dougherty was sworn in.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said he expects there is consternation on the part of the Board regarding the fact Auto Zone opened without a Certificate of Occupancy.  That is Auto Zone’s issue.  Our issue is to get this construction job completed and get final approval and continue on with the redevelopment of the shopping center.

 

Mr. Rilee said we are not willing to hand out C.O.’s until there is completion on these projects.  What Auto Zone did was a slap in the face of us trying to get a good project out of this mall.  I am offended by that.  I will not support Certificate of Occupancy until I see completion of some of the items. . 

 

Mr. Nusbaum said the town will do what they will do with Auto Zone.  We are here to obtain final approval and are representing Mr. Dougherty.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said Item 1 in his report segregates the report into several categories:  safety related; cosmetic; and those that may affect the longevity of the project.

 

Mr. Zoschak asked Mr. Byszewski his opinion of the workmanship.

 

Mr. Byszewski said he does not disagree with the items mentioned in Mr. Bodolsky’s report.

 

Mr. Meyer said the applicant for the shopping center originally intended to repair the sidewalks only a half width.  That was not acceptable.  They agreed to replace them completely.  I can’t believe how awful the concrete work is on the sidewalks.

 

Mr. Bennett said today was his first time in Ledgewood.  I was not impressed with the workmanship.  That concrete is coming out.  It is unacceptable.

 

Mr. Zoschak asked if the sidewalk is being replaced, how will you conduct business?

 

Mr. Bennett said it will be done during off-hours.  It can be done in sections.  I believe the life safety issue is at the front of the store and along the west side.  I would leave the sidewalk along the side, but would replace the front sidewalk.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said we are seeking  final approval.  There is a large bond already with the township.

 

Mr. Meyer said, speaking for himself, he does not want this bonded.  He wants it fixed.

 

Mr. Zoschak said the sidewalks should be replaced prior to C.O.

 

Mr. Rilee said a lot of progress has been made, but we want the work done.  The only way we can hold up the Township’s responsibility is to keep after the owner.  The owners haven’t been proactive in getting the work done on time.   

 

Mr. Nusbaum said we would request final approval, with the condition that a certificate of occupancy won’t be granted until specific items are done.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said he recommends the applicant agree to an inspection by Mr. Stern and him before C.O. is granted.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said we would agree to a condition that the work be completed subject to approval from Mr. Stern and Mr. Bodolsky.

 

Mr. Zoschak said if they don’t have a C.O. until the work is done, what happens to Auto Zone?

 

Mr. Germinario said each day they remain open without the C.O. they remain in violation and would be fined accordingly by the construction official.  The township, in an extreme situation, could seek a court order to shut them down, if there were substantial risks to the public.

 

Mr. Meyer said regarding the sidewalk, he would like to see it replaced so that it is consistent, and is done right.   

 

The Board agreed the entire sidewalk is to be replaced.

 

Mr. Alford said he would caution the Board.  Going back to Commerce Bank and Kiddie Academy and now this application, the Planning Board must be picking up some reputation.  What is the sense of coming here and spending all this time, and things are being done arbitrarily.  I don’t understand why Auto Zone is allowed to remain open.

 

Mr. Germinario said it is in violation of the law, and there is recourse through the Municipal Court to bring violations and penalties.  To go beyond monetary penalties would require an action for injunctive relief.  If it was a matter of public safety, this Board could make that recommendation to the Township Council and Township Attorney.

 

Mr. Bodolsky said it is implied in what Auto Zone is planning to do, with ripping up the sidewalk and perhaps effecting the columns, I think it is a safety issue, and I am surprised they would be willing to stay in operation while this is being replaced.  I would not recommend a C.O. be granted when heavy construction work is ongoing in the immediate proximity of the building. 

 

Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Bennett what they agree to do with the sidewalk.

 

Mr. Bennett said he would agree to rip out all the concrete in the front and side and replace it.  By no means do I like doing what I had to do, and I apologize to the Board.  We opened for the employees.  Their paychecks were at stake.

 

The applicant addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report:

 

Mr. Nusbaum said for all of the items relocating to construction requirements of Auto Zone, they will signify how they will respond.  For issues dealing with the shopping center, Mr. Byszewski will address them.

 

Items A-G – refer to the sidewalk – will be replaced

Item K – sidewalk – addressed

Items M, N, O, P – sidewalk – addressed

Item H – has been repaired

Item I – done – Mr. Bodolsky said maybe on future applications, the Board should look at the columns differently.  Mr. Stern suggested concrete tire stops. 

 

Discussion.  It was determined bollards or wheel stops will be installed, subject to agreement with the staff.

 

Item J – will wear off in 6 to 8 months – marks can’t easily be removed as it would make the problem worse

Item L – top layer put down

Item 2 – agreed, if possible

Item 3 – Discussion.  Wallpacks in rear have been changed to concealed source.  Recessed soffit lighting is under the canopy.  Emergency lights are required by the fire code and only come on in an emergency. Two additional wall lights were added to the rear.  If in compliance with the ordinance, there will be no objection.  Applicant will change the fixture to a more low profile fixture if permitted.

Item 4 – agreed

Item 5 – will be substituting 5-foot high dumpsters next week

Item 6 – agreed (by Mr. Bennett)

 

Mr. Zoschak said there should be Keep Roxbury Clean, Don’t Litter signs at the exits to White Castle and the mall exit and the wall at the side of Auto Zone.  Also, the manager of White Castle agreed to help with that.

 

The applicant agreed.

 

Item  8 – Title 39 is requested, but won’t be done until the whole project is complete

 

Mr. Bodolsky said the Board may want to reconsider the fact that we did delete parking spaces in the far westerly side.  There is a parking deficiency.  We probably didn’t anticipate the traffic that would be generated by White Castle.  Auto Zone also has the potential of generating a fair amount of parking need.  The Board may want to consider putting those stalls back.

 

Item 7 – Mr. Stern said the logo is not permitted.  They should be painted out.  Mr. Dougherty said he will discuss that with White Castle.

 

Item 9 – done

 

Mr. Shadiack stated he was there this Sunday, and there was an employee in the parking lot replacing windshield wipers.  Is that permitted?

 

Mr. Stern said it is not permitted by ordinance.

 

Mr. Bennett said it is his understanding they would be in violation if they replace batteries.  In other municipalities we have signs we can post stating no repairs on the premises.

 

Ms. DeVincentis said she does not object to replacing the windshield wipers and that she doesn’t think a sign is necessary.

 

Mr. Zoschak said it is a violation of the ordinance.

 

Mr. Zoschak said there are also 3 electrical outlets there. 

 

Mr. Bennett said they have been removed.

 

Mr. Meyer said we are out of time for tonight. He asked that Mr. Byszewski address only the items in Mr. Stern’s report that need further discussion.

 

Mr. Byszewski brought the following items to the Board’s attention.

 

Mr. Byszewski said one of the two dumpsters closer to the building was scheduled to be constructed.

 

Mr. Stern said this was part of the CVS application.  There is a fundamental problem with the dumpsters along the property line.  They are not deep enough.  All the pickups are with front-loaded garbage trucks.  There are dumpsters all over the place except in the enclosure.  If the future additional dumpster is constructed, it can be constructed with enough depth, and the garbage trucks could swing in and pick them up.  The recommendation is to construct the “future” one.

 

Mr. Byszewski said he will bring that up with the other owner of the shopping center and hope to have it resolved by the time CVS returns to the Board.

 

Item 15 – Mr. Stern will review.

Item 16 – will do

Item 17 – done

Item 18 – will determine which plants need to be replaced, with Mr. Stern.  CVS is anticipated to be completed towards the end of August.

Item 19 – addressed

Item 20 – removed

Items 21, 22 – agreed

 

The application was carried to 7/20/05.  If revisions cannot be made in time for that meeting, the applicant will let Dolores know, and it will be carried to 8/3/05.

 

Mr. Bennett said they will not be doing the work while the store is open.

 

There was a 5 minute recess at 9:30 p.m.

 

M-5-05 – RALZONE – SUBDIVISION FOR 5 LOTS LOCATED ON S. HILLSIDE AVE. BLOCK 4305, LOT 12 IN R-1 ZONE

 

Attorney Michael Roland represented the applicant.

 

Mr. Germinario asked Mr. Roland to address a notice issue.  Mr. Stern’s report dated 6/30/05, indicates there would be a front yard accessory structure variance required.  Is that addressed in the public notice?

 

Mr. Roland said not specifically, but it does indicate all necessary variances, exceptions and waivers.  However, specifically a variance for an adjoining property is not noticed.

 

Mr. Germinario said we can proceed on the basis of the general language of the notice, but members of the public here should be advised that there is a specific variance involved that would have to be addressed.

 

Mr. Stern asked if the consent of the owner of Lot 13 is required.

 

Mr. Germinario stated the best procedure would be to have the owner of Lot 13 join in the application.  My conversation with Mr. Roland indicated the participation of the owner of Lot 13 might be problematic.  Is that owner present?

 

Mr. Roland said he is not.

 

Mr. Germinario said he will allow it to go forward on the basis of the representation from Mr. Roland that the owner of Lot 13 is not willing to participate in this application, and we could grant the relief as part of this application. However, if the owner of Lot 13 appears at a future hearing and indicates his willingness to be a part of this, the posture may change.  I don’t think that owner should be able to block this application by refusing to participate and thereby precluding a subdivision approval.   I’ll allow it to go forward on that basis.

 

Mr. Rilee said Item 1.7 in Mr. Stern’s report talked about the sewer line being extended 1,000 feet up the road.  Those homes would be forced to hookup to that sewer line.  Should those people be noticed?

 

Mr. Germinario said that would make sense as a practical matter.  From the literal requirements of the Municipal Land Use Law, if they are not within 200 feet of this property, they are not required to receive individual notice.  However, if the Board feels that is an important item of public input, we could ask that the applicant send notice to those property owners before the next hearing.

 

Mr. Rilee suggested they be notified.

 

Mr. Roland said he would agree, provided he be given the block and lot information for those owners.

 

Ms. DeMasi said the planning office will provide a list.

 

Mr. Zoschak said those notices should indicate the reason why they are being requested to be noticed.

 

Mr. Roland agreed and said he would provide Mr. Germinario a copy of the notice.

 

A. Thomas Murphy, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.

 

John Harter, was sworn in

 

Mark Rallo was sworn in.

 

Paul Rallo was sworn in.

 

Mr. Murphy gave his educational and professional background, and was accepted by the Board as a licensed professional engineer and planner.

 

Mr. Murphy said he prepared an environmental impact statement and hydro geological study.

 

Mr. Roland asked that Mr. Murphy give an overview of the plan.

 

Ms. Voyce asked what Mr. Murphy’s qualifications are to write the EIS.  She requested a copy of Mr. Murphy’s resume.

 

Mr. Murphy agreed to provide the resume.

 

Mr. Murphy referred to a colorized version of the subdivision plan (marked A-1).  He said this is a 6.6 acre parcel with a single residential development on it.  We have designed a subdivision in conformance with township ordinance.  There is an 800-foot long subdivision off of Carey Road and we propose 5 new dwelling lots.  We propose to extend the sanitary sewer to service the properties.  Water is located on Carey Road and will be extended into our property. We have complied with RSIS regarding road width, provided a stormwater detention system in accordance with the latest New Jersey rules and regulations.  There is a detention basin provided on Lot 12.01.  Also, all the homes will have drywells, and roof leader drains.  The existing structure will be razed as part of this development.  The new roadway will go through that location.  All the ancillary structures will be removed as well.  We propose to dedicate right-of-way of 60 feet of Carey Road that would extend to the front of our property. Carey Road will be improved, curbing and sidewalk provided.  The subdivision provides curbing and sidewalks throughout.  We terminated the sidewalk at the beginning of Lot 12.05 as the residents of the lot would have access to go out to Carey Road.  The properties to the south on Carey Road don’t have sidewalk.  To the north there is currently a sidewalk.   Regarding the installation of sanitary sewer and the extension of the sanitary sewer, the disturbance would start at the manhole about 1,000 feet down Carey Road.  That will be backfilled and repaved.   The applicant is in agreement that portions of the road will be repaved and brought back to a suitable condition.

 

Mr. Zoschak said the reports from the professionals suggest repaving the whole road.

 

Mr. Murphy suggested this can be coordinated with the Township Engineer.  

 

The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report:

 

Item 1.1 – done

Item 1.2 – agreed – 4 bedroom, 2 ½ bath homes, approximately 4,000 – 4,500 sq. ft.

Item 1.3 -  the plans show typical dwellings – on Lot 12.03, the driveway comes in on the right of the house – we can flip the driveway and use a different style house.

 

Ms. Voyce said she has several questions on the EIS.  She will forward them to Dolores to have them sent to the applicant.

 

Item1.5 – can be corrected through dedication or connect that strip of land with the last lot on the cul-de-sac, which we don’t recommend

 

Mr. Germinario said the preferred option would be to take that strip and consolidate it with Lot 13.  However, in conversations with the applicant’s attorney, they have contacted the owner of Lot 13 and the offer was rebuffed.

 

Mr. Roland said early on it became clear good planning meant the strip should be granted to the owner of Lot 13.  We contacted Mr. Tourney, and initially it was favorable.  There was a perceived need for a sight line easement of about 825 square feet.  We anticipated an agreement.  Mr. Tourney then got representation of counsel and that attorney said his applicant would allow us to buy his property for $250,000.  Because we had been working on the agreement for many months, and because we have a contract with Mr. Sutton, we would have to re-plan the entire subdivision.  We weren’t in a position to agree to that.  We still believe the reserved strip doesn’t belong in a conservation easement.  We believe it should be donated to Mr. Tourney.  He has not indicated a willingness to join this application. The corner lot issue just came to light last Wednesday.

 

Mr. Germinario suggested Mr. Tourney be given specific notice prior to the next hearing.

 

Mr. Germinario said a second option would require an agreement to exceed under RSIS and the consent of the Governing Body.  There is a potential Mr. Tourney won’t cooperate, and then the Township would have the decision as to whether they want the maintenance.  They may not want that. 

 

Mr. Bodolsky asked, why not make the road straight?

 

Mr. Murphy said to the south there is a little bit of a curve to the road.  Originally, I though it would be donated to Lot 13 and would not be an issue.

 

Mr. Roland said we contacted Mr. Tourney in February and it wasn’t until late April that we were told he wasn’t interested in joining the application.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

Anthony Leoni, 20 Alexandria Drive, was sworn in.  He said a concern is that our lots get water in the basements in heavy rains.  The way the drainage was proposed with drywells in the back would be adding to the ground water.  It can cause us more problems because we are on a downhill slide.

 

Mr. Murphy said the reason there are drywells is to maintain the ground water.  Right now, we have a drainage swale that goes along the northerly property line. 

 

Mr. Leoni said if you are having all the water being diverted to a detention basin, why can’t all the water go there.  Why does it have to go to drywells?

 

Mr. Murphy said the way it is set up you take that water and can enter it directly into drywells. It is part of the regulations.

 

Mr. Leoni said during heavy, heavy rains the sump pumps are running constantly.  

 

Mr. Meyer said there will be a lot of testimony on stormwater management.

 

Mr. Murphy said the soil logs are in the report and it sounds like more of a surface water problem.

 

Vincent Termini, was sworn in.  He said we have been here 19 years, and the last three lots on Alexandria Drive were required to put in drywells.  I think that is what caused our problems.  I don’t think they were put in correctly.  We have had unbelievable amounts of water problems.  The pump works all the time.  We want to be guaranteed that when the development goes in, it won’t cause us more problems. 

 

Mr. Meyer said they cannot exacerbate existing conditions, and there will be testimony.

 

Ms. Voyce said another issue is that there seems to be a question about whether you will be able to get a sewer connection permit.  Also, the Highlands Preservation area is something to be considered.

 

Carol Reed, 20 Alexandria Drive, was sworn in.  She said she is very concerned about the detention pond and mosquitoes, rodents, fencing, security, etc.

 

Mr. Murphy said the design is a dry basin and will only have water in it when it is raining or for a short period after rain.  We don’t show fencing around the basin.  That would be determined by the township.  It will be a grassed area.

 

Mr. Reed asked who would be responsible for maintaining it?

 

Mr. Murphy said a Homeowner’s Association would be responsible.

 

Mr. Reed stated the concern is that if it isn’t maintained it would come over onto our property.

 

Mr. Murphy said all these structures have an emergency easement that would allow the township to go in and do the maintenance in the event of an emergency

 

Ms. Reed said she disagrees with the drywells. It is extremely expensive and is not sufficient.  We would like the town to give us the opportunity to hook up.

 

Mr. Rilee said at least 2/3 of the homes need to agree to hook up and then there is a process.

 

Ms. Voyce said the applicant still needs to get the DEP  permits.

 

Mr. Roland said she doesn’t believe the cost of running a line down Alexandria would be cost-prohibitive.

 

Ms. Reed asked if there would be restrictions on the hours of construction activity.

 

Mr. Meyer said the township has normal standards, and the Board has the right to restrict it farther.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

The application was carried to 7/20/05.  An extension of time was granted through 8/3/05.  Noticing is required as agreed to.

 

New Business

 

Mr. Stern said there will be a Master Plan meeting on 7/13/05 at 9 a.m. and we will go over the Housing Element Fair Share Plan.

 

Resolution for closed session

 

 

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY PLANNING BOARD

RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CLOSED SESSION

DISCUSSION

OF POTENTIAL LITIGATION

 

                                                                                                      Approved:  July 6, 2005

 

                WHEREAS, the Planning Board seeks to discuss in closed session issues pertaining to potential litigation relating to the Tucci/DeRock minor subdivision application (application #M-3-04); and

 

                WHEREAS, the Open Public Meetings Act N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et. seq. provides that a public body may conduct closed session discussion pending or anticipated litigation in which the public body is or maybe a party.

 

                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby enter into a closed session for the purpose of discussing issues of the aforesaid potential litigation.  The issues to be discussed in closed session will be disclosed to the public upon the resolution of all matters related to the potential litigation.

 

                The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its meeting of July 6, 2005.

 

 

Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Sweeney seconded.

 

A voice vote approved.

 

Executive session commenced at 10:35 p.m. and ended at 10:50 p.m.

 

The regular meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:50 p.m.

 

                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/