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 7:30 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, Joyce Dargel, Robert Kurtz, Mark Crowley, Peter Giardina, Sebastian D’Amato, Barbara Kinback.  Mr. Data arrived at 7:40 p.m.

 

ABSENT:  John Wetzel

 

Minutes of 1/8/07

 

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Discussion.  Changes noted and made. 

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, abstain; Mr. Kurtz, abstain; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

Minutes of 2/12/07

 

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

 

Discussion.  Changes noted and made.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Kinback,  abstain; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

BA-58-06 – RON & DONNA CARAS – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON KINGSLAND RD. BLOCK 11001, LOT 30 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Donna & Ron Caras

Case No. BA-58-06

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: February 12, 2007

Memorialized: March 12, 2007

 

 

 

                WHEREAS, Donna & Ron Caras have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct an addition(s) requiring dimensional variances for premises located at 219 Kingsland Road and known as Block 1102, Lot 30 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301D5a, 13-7.1301D6c, 13-7.1301D8, 13-7.819 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 substantial renovation of the existing home.
  3. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 7/14/06, revised 9/8/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.  Same was ultimately revised to 2/8/07.
  4. There were four facets to the application:
    1. Construct a two car garage
    2. Add a bedroom to the first floor
    3. Add a room to the rear of the home
    4. Add a deck over the existing deck
  5. The applicants described their proposal in the application as set forth on

Exhibit A (attached).

  1. The applicants also listed a summary of the variances and reasons for the grant of the variances and same is attached as Exhibit B.
  2. The applicants noted some of their difficulties in adding this addition were triggered by the fact that the subject premises are half the size of the contemplated size of an R-3 lot (1/6 of an acre versus 1/3 of an acre).  The applicant also noted one of the primary reasons for the upgrade of the existing home was to provide a garage to promote off-street and on-site indoor parking consistent with the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance.  They noted this was especially critical in the Kingsland area as the roads were very narrow and off-street parking was always problematical and unorganized.
  3. During the course of the 11/9/06 public hearing, it was obvious that Board members were struggling with understanding the “entire package” of the applicant’s proposal.  The applicant’s agreed to come back at a future meeting with a more focused and organized proposal.
  4. The matter was continued to the 1/8/07 public hearing.   The applicant submitted revised plans and noted the following:
    1. Impervious coverage would be 66.94%, building coverage would be 24.95%, lake buffer would be 28’9” – all of those conditions required relief.
  5. The applicant stated that based upon the prior hearing, they had worked hard to improve the impervious coverage issue.  The applicant indicated they would construct a drywell to mitigate and reduce stormwater runoff and encourage ground water recharge.
  6. During the public hearing, there was a colloquy with the applicant, and the applicant indicated they could reduce the impervious coverage further by the elimination of a significant portion of the asphalt driveway.  The Board has requested and the applicant has agreed to re-visit the plans and provide details as to the extent of the reduction.
  7. As previously noted, this matter had several stops and starts.  The matter was continued at the 2/12/07 public hearing.  The applicant submitted an exhibit showing two alternative proposals to attenuate the relief requested in the prior iteration of this project.  The applicant’s proposals were set forth in a 1/30/07 memo and included Submittal 1 or alternative Submittal 2.  The Board clearly felt Submittal 1 was a superior submission and the applicant proceeded with same.
  8. After a lengthy discussion of the relief requested, it was determined that the proposed front yard setback was 14’7” versus the existing 29’ and the maximum permitted 35’.  The right side yard relief in the area of the new addition would be 8’11” whereas the existing was 8’6” and the maximum permitted 10’.  The left side yard would be 6’6” versus the existing 6’ and the maximums permitted 10’.  The total impervious coverage would be at 63.15% versus the 56.39% presently existing and the 25% maximum permitted.  The total building coverage would be at 24.95% whereas the maximum permitted 15%.  The lake buffer would be reduced to 28’9” in the area of the new deck.
  9. The applicant pointed out that he was replacing the existing concrete in the area on the lake side 1,050 square feet with semi-permeable pavers of 787 square feet.  The applicant testified that he had made great strides in reducing impervious coverage and was amenable to the installation of drywells or other site-specific stormwater management techniques.  The applicant further testified that, if and when the macadam surface on the side of the house was replaced, it would not be repaved with hard surface but would use semi-permeable pavers.

                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.  This particular property has a number of practical problems.  It is undersized for the zone and is clearly a somewhat outmoded structure with difficult

topography.  The applicant’s proposal represents a better planning alternative and technique for the subject premises and will have a positive and beneficial impact on the area.

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of February12, 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall present a detailed grading and drainage plan, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer.
  2. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall implement the detailed grading and drainage plan.
  3. It is further agreed and stipulated, as a condition of approval, if the existing macadam driveway on the northerly side of the house is replaced, it shall not be repaved, but shall be replaced with a paver system providing additional permeable surface.
  4. The applicant has agreed and stipulated that drywells or other type of site specific stormwater management techniques would be installed by the applicant should same be recommended by the Township Engineer.  All roof runoff shall be captured by drywells as directed by the Township Engineer.
  5. Revised drawings addressing the variances herein shall be submitted to the Zoning Officer.

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes.

 

BA-3-07 – CHRISTIAN PINSONAULT – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON SUNSET LANE, BLOCK 11904, LOT 7 IN R-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Eileen & Christian Pinsonault

Case No. BA-3-07

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: February 12, 2007

Memorialized: March 12, 2007

 

 

                WHEREAS, Eileen & Christian Pinsonault has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to redevelop an improved property requiring bulk variances and a building coverage variance for premises located at 33 Sunset Lane and known as Block 11904, Lot 7 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.1301 et seq 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 of the premises-in-question.
  2. There is a house on the site, but it is not being utilized.
  3. Applicant received a letter of denial dated 12/13/06 from Tom Potere, the Zoning Officer.
  4. The applicants previously applied for variance relief, which was denied.  The prior application involved greater relief and thus, res judicata does not apply to the instant application.
  5. The present proposal was depicted on a four sheet architectural submission prepared by Stephen Bias, architect, dated 8/5/05 with revisions to 11/15/06.   In addition, the applicant submitted a two-sheet plot and grading plan prepared by Stewart Surveying & Engineering, dated 10/28/05 with revisions to 11/10/06.
  6. During the course of the public hearing, the applicant presented the following exhibits:
    1. Exhibit A1 – Sheet 1-02 a colorized of the site plan set
    2. Exhibit A2 – 10/28/05 Stewart submission (prior submission)
    3. Exhibit A3 – colorized front elevation
  1. The applicant, Eileen Pinsonault, testified as to the differences between the original home and the need to develop this property with the appropriate sized house for the lakefront neighborhood while respecting the viewscape of the majority of the community.
  2. Both the applicant and the applicant’s architect (Stephen Bias) conceded that there would be some impact on the adjoining property to the south, but opined that what was proposed far exceeded any negative impact.  The Board notes no one appeared in opposition to the within application.
  3. As noted by Mr. Potere, the following relief is requested:

Required                                Existing                  Proposed

Front Yard                                     35’                                           45’2”                       27’32” (garage)

Left Side Yard                               10’                                           2.83’                        2.83’

Impervious Coverage                  25%                                        30.93%                   30.68%

Building Coverage                       15%                                        17.45%                   23.18%

Building Height                            35’/2 ½ stories max.             3 ½ stories             3 ½ stories

Other                                              50’ from lake                          43’                           34’

 

 

                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 architect Stephen Bias to be credible.  This is a somewhat unusual and unique piece of property and that it is a “corner” on Lake Hopatcong.  Both the rear and southerly side yard border the lake.  The location of the existing infrastructure and the need to respect the setback to the lake constitute unique hardships peculiar to the site.  In addition, what is proposed could be justified on the basis of a flexible “C” variance.  The applicant’s proposal clearly is a better planning alternative than attempting to locate a conforming structure on the subject premises.
  2. Given the aesthetic upgrade of the site, the improved on-site parking, and the respect for the lakefront viewscape to the south all constitute reasons to grant the within variance.
  3. While there will be some impact to the neighbor to the north, there will not be a substantial impact over what could be done without the need for a variance. 

                                NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 12th day of February, 2007 that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the following conditions:

  1. Prior to construction, the applicant shall present to the Township Engineer a detailed lot grading and stormwater plan.  Same shall be reviewed and approved by the Township Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.
  2. House to be designed and located as depicted on the Stewart Engineering plans and Bias architectural plans.  Same shall comply with the requested variances noted above.
  3. Payment of all fees, sureties, and escrows required by Ordinance.

 

Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Kurtz seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-4-07 – TOWNE TOYOTA – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR CAR DEALERSHIP LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 8602, LOTS 12, 49, 50 IN B-2/LI-OR ZONE

 

In the matter of Towne Toyota

Case No. BA-4-07

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: February 12, 2007

Memorialized: March 12, 2007

 

 

                WHEREAS, Towne Toyota has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for final site plan approval for premises located at Route 46 and known as Block 8602, Lot12, 49, 50 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-2/LI/OR” Zone; 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. Richard Sweeney, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is the owner and operator of the Toyota motor vehicle dealership located on the site.
  3. The applicant is now before the Board seeking final site plan approval.
  4. The Board received reports from Russell Stern, Township Planner, dated 12/29/06, 2/8/07 and John Hansen, Township Engineer, dated 1/4/07.
  5. During the course of the public hearing, the applicant (as noted below) agreed with the recommendations of the professional staff.

                WHEREAS, the Board finds the proposed site plan as conditioned below meets with the intent and approval of the variances previously granted to the applicant as well as preliminary site plan approval.  Same is hereby approved as a final site plan subject to the following:

  1. Payment of all fees, sureties, and escrows required by Ordinance.
  2. Applicant shall post an appropriate cash bond for all incomplete items as determined by the Board’s Engineer.
  3. Applicant shall make application to the governing body to authorize Title 39 Motor Vehicle Enforcement on-site.
  4. The land adjacent to the northeastern most parking lot shall be converted back to a lawn area.  Gravel shall be removed and topsoil & grass provided.  Any motor vehicles presently parked there shall no longer be parked there.  The applicant shall install evergreen trees or similar type landscaping.  Same to be reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
  5. The applicant shall reinstall the existing granite block curb along the eastern parking lot.
  6. The Board grants a design waiver to the applicant so as to eliminate the need to screen the rooftop mechanical equipment.  The Board finds that it is all but impossible to see this equipment.
  7. There shall be no auto body painting or auto bodywork taking place in the parking lot and all such activities shall be conducted indoors.
  8. All illegal parking currently occurring within and along Kings Highway shall be eliminated.  Any areas of gravel or hard pack outside the traveled lane shall be removed , the area topsoiled and the lawn area shall be reestablished.
  9. Applicant shall install a “Do Not Enter” sign by the southwest building corner.
  10. Applicant shall replace grass pavers with concrete pavers.
  11. Applicant shall replace the adjustable floodlight on the northerly building elevation with a fixed position light as per the approved drawings.  Applicant shall document the existing two wallpack lights were approved as a field change by the prior Board Engineering consultant.
  12. Applicant shall install 20 Lily Turf across the southwest building corner.
  13. As previously noted, the applicant shall verify payment of all fees and escrows.
  14.  It is reiterated that in accordance with the 8/9/04 resolution non-security lighting shall be shut off no later than midnight on the main lot and 11:00 PM on the satellite lots.  Security lighting for Lot 6 shall be limited to one unit.
  15. As noted in the 8/9/04 resolution, advertising signage is prohibited on the Arlington Avenue building elevation.
  16. As noted in condition 18 of the 8/9/04 resolution, the 13-foot aisle affiliated with the display area in front of the showroom shall not be reduced at anytime by stored vehicles.
  17. All on-site lighting shall be field inspected by the Board’s Engineer to ensure compliance with municipal standards and to ascertain that same does not pose a nuisance or hazard to pedestrians, vehicles, or occupants of nearby buildings.
  18. This approval is subject to the terms and conditions of all prior approvals not specifically modified herein.  The reiteration of certain items of approval is not to mean that items not mentioned are not carried forward but merely as points of emphasis.
  19. This approval is subject to the review and/or approval of all other governmental agencies with joint and/or concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter of the within application.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-11-07 – CHARLES NAPOLI – CERTIFICATION OF NONCONFORMING USE AT PROPERTY LOCATED ON 848 RT. 46, KENVIL, BLOCK 5301, LOT 22 IN B-2 ZONE

 

In the matter of Charles Napoli

Case No. BA-11-07

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION

 

Approved: February 12, 2007

Memorialized: March 12, 2007

 

                WHEREAS, Charles Napoli has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to confirm a pre-existing use for premises located at 848 Route 46 Kenvil and known as Block 5301, Lots 11, 12, 13 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-2” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-7.705 (NJSA 40:55D-68) 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. Larry I. Kron, Esquire represented the applicant.
  2. The applicant is the owner of the subject premises, which are in fact Lots 11, 12, and 13 (formerly 22.1, 22, and 22.2 respectively).
  3. The applicant presented several exhibits most of which came from the records of the municipality dealing with the historical use of the subject premises.  Same included a 12/6/66 letter to the Mayor and Counsel, a 4/4/85 letter directed to the construction official, a 9/25/84 letter to the construction department, a 10/1/84 letter from the zoning officer to a former owner, a 10/28/87 letter from the zoning officer to Martin Liberman, Esquire (said letter describes the historical use of the premises), a 10/4/84 letter from the zoning officer, and a 2/15/91 agreement as to the limited motor vehicle dealer authorization.
  4. The Board finds all of the materials presented by the applicant to be credible. 
  5. The applicant indicated that the premises were under contract of sale and that eventually there might be an application for a site plan approval.  The purpose of the within application is to reaffirm the presently permitted non-conforming uses on-site.

                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. As noted above, the applicant’s proofs are compelling, credible, and convincing.  The Board, therefore, finds the following are the permitted uses on site:
    1. Permitted use on Lot 11 is two single family dwellings
    2. Permitted use on Lot 12 is unimproved property and may not be use for any use without an approved site plan (testimony was that this was formerly the site of a single family dwelling which appears to have been razed)
    3. Lot 13 may be used for auto repair, maintenance/body shop with storage area in a frame garage.  In addition, the vehicles are to remain in the fenced area depicted on the drawing.  The applicant may also continue to be a licensed motor vehicle dealer in strict accordance with the 1991 memorandum of agreement presented with the application.
  2. The Board makes no findings as to the legality of any signage on property, the location of any infrastructure on the property, the quality of construction on any of the properties, or whether any of the present uses may exceed the strict parameters noted above.
  3. It is the Board’s hope that the applicant will, in fact, move forward with a site plan application at the applicant’s earliest opportunity.

 

Ms. Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-47-06 – ALTO SIGN/PETCO – VARIANCE FOR SIGN LOCATED IN ROXBURY MALL, BLOCK 5004, LOT 7 IN B-3 ZONE

 

In the matter of Alto Sign, Inc.

Case No. BA-47-06

 

RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT

TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY

RESOLUTION OF DENIAL

 

Denied: February 12, 2007

Memorialized: March 12, 2007

 

                WHEREAS, Alto Sign, Inc. has applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a sign in violation of the Sign Ordinance requiring a variance for premises located at 275 Route 10 and known as Block 5004, Lot 7 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “B-3” Zone; said proposal required relief from Section 13-8.916E(1) 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 within application was filed in August 2006.  Several dates were set for a public hearing and

 the applicant never brought the application forward.

WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the applicant has failed to pursue the

matter in a timely manner.  The Board hereby denies the application without prejudice noting it makes no findings as to the merits of the application other than to note the applicant has a duty to prosecute an application in a timely manner.                                                                           

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

AGENDA

 

BA-7-09 – KEVIN & JACQUELINE YOUNG – REARYARD SETBACK TO CONVERT DECK TO SUNROOM LOCATED ON HEMINGWAY DR. BLOCK 8306, LOT 25 IN R1.8 ZONE

 

Kevin and Jacqueline Young were sworn in.

 

Mr. Data arrived at 7:40 p.m.

 

Mr. Young said they want to put on a 3 season room half the size of the existing deck.  The current deck is about 28’w x 16’d.  The room we plan is 14’w x 16’d.  The room will go on the existing deck.

 

Mr. Stern said a zoning permit was granted by the prior zoning officer for the deck in error as that is considered a front yard area.  It is located only 10 feet from the property line. 

 

Ms. Dargel said the deck is quite a bit off the ground.  How high is the corner of the deck?

 

Mr. Young said it is about 6 feet.  The height of the sunroom would be one story.  The sunroom will be below the existing window. The room will be in between the two windows.  The room will be mounted on the far side of the deck. 

 

Mr. Data asked about the support.

 

Mr. Young said it will be re-supported.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the application as it is not going beyond the existing setback.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes - because there is a question of it being a de facto side yard vs. a rear yard.  The house next door is 11.1 feet off the lot line.  Because this deck borders the side of that house, it only seems fair they would have the same setback.  Mr. Giardina, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

BA-07-10 -CHRISTINE & TROY BEERS – SETBACK VARIANCE FOR INGROUND POOL, LOCATED ON MULBERRY CT. BLOCK 4401, LOT 56 IN R2.5 ZONE

 

Mr. D’Amato stepped down as he was notified because he is a homeowner within 200 feet of this property.

 

Troy Beers and Christine Beers were sworn in.

 

Ms. Beers stated they are looking for a side yard setback variance to put in an inground pool. 

 

Ms. Dargel asked why they can’t make it conforming.

 

Ms. Beers said it is very tight back there due to the odd shape of the lot and the slopes on the property.  The pool would look best in the location shown.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the pavers were calculated in with the coverage calculations.

 

Mr. Wiener said the applicant is only here for the setback variance.

 

Ms. Beers stated on the side of the pool where the variance is required, there won’t be a walkway. 

 

Mr. Stern said if the Board were to approve this, the applicant would have to submit a zoning permit before installing the pool, and it would be reviewed again by the zoning officer. 

 

Ms. Young stated she has the calculations that were approved by Mr. Potere.  She distributed a copy of the permit to the Board members.

 

Ms. Dargel asked what size pool is being applied for.

 

Ms. Young said 18’ x 36’.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if the pool could be brought closer to the paver patio

 

Ms. Young said it could be, but if it moves closer, the whole plan would have to be redone.   It is very tight.  We have a small child and we have a swing set, and we have a dog.

 

Mr. Wiener stated that is a personal hardship.  The Board cannot address that.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said we have ordinances and rules for a reason – so that we are not on top of our neighbors.  We take this very seriously.  If it can be moved, normally, we would ask that it be moved.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

Mr. Data made a motion to approve the application.  Ms. Kinback seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Data, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Dargel, no; Mr. Crowley, no; Ms. Robortaccio, no.

 

Application approved by a vote of  4-3.

 

BA-07-08 – DAVID DOYLE – VARIANCE FOR GARAGE LOCATED ON YELLOW BARN RD. BLOCK 11601, LOT 51 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Mr. D’Amato returned to the Board.

 

Attorney William Lovas represented the applicant.  He said this application is for 4 variances to put up a garage on Yellow Barn.  Variances are required for impervious coverage, building coverage, location of accessory building, and accessory building size.

 

David Doyle was sworn in.  He said he is in the construction business and primarily does new homes.  I have been before about 20 different Boards in the last several  years.  I live in the residence and will continue to live there after the work is done.  We built the house in 2004, and we now want to put in a detached garage across the right-of-way from the home.   It will be a 30’ x 37’ garage. 

 

Mr. Doyle entered photos of the house and surrounding area into evidence:  three pages, marked A—1, A-2, A-3 of photos taken about 3 weeks ago by Mr. Doyle.  He described the photos while referring to the survey of the property which was submitted with his application.

 

Mr. Doyle said the first variance we are requesting is for impervious coverage.  I have made one change.  The proposed impervious coverage is 29.5%.  I am actually increasing that 1.1%, so it will be 30.6 %.  The reason for that is to extend the bottom throat of the driveway by about 5 feet, so that it will accommodate an additional parking space.  30.6% is 5.6% more than the maximum.  That is not a huge overage.  It is a private right-of-way that is paved as part of my property, so that pavement is included in the calculations.  The portion of the road on my property is about 3.5%.  If I deducted that from the 30.6%, it gives me 27.1%.  The hardship exists because of the road right-of-way.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said you would still need that to get into the property.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked, if that portion of the right-of-way weren’t paved, could you access your property?

 

Mr. Doyle said yes.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if part of the pavement extends to the mansion next door.

 

Mr. Doyle said no, it ends at my driveway.  There is gravel along the right side towards the lake.  The mansion is separated by a fence, and their access is through Auriemma Court.

 

Mr. Doyle said my property is comparable to others in the neighborhood.  7 of the 14 properties have impervious coverage greater than what I propose.   11 Yellow Barn Avenue received approval in 2006 and he has impervious coverage of 33%.  This garage is smaller than that garage. 

 

Mr. Doyle showed 5 pictures of other garages in the neighborhood ( marked A-4 thru A-8) and described them for the Board.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if Mr. Doyle has any knowledge if any of these garages are there legally or not.

 

Mr. Doyle said he does not know.

 

Mr. Lovas asked Mr. Doyle if the houses and garages on Yellow Barn are mostly situated similarly.

 

Mr. Doyle said yes.  Regarding impervious coverage, I initially tried to reduce the driveway, but I added the 5 feet to allow for an additional parking space.  Yellow Barn is unique as it is a recreational type neighborhood because of the lake.  There is concern about parking to accommodate any guests you may have.  The deed states each property owner is giving the next property the right to pass on the traveled way.  I don’t have the right to park in front of those houses.   When I built the house in 2006, I actually reduced the size of the house by 3.4% to try to push some of that into the garage I was anticipating.   I also propose to use a drywell for the garage.  I would guess that a lot of the neighbors don’t have drywells.  In summary, the lot is unique – it is not out of character with the neighborhood, the need for adequate on-property parking is a hardship, the reduction of impervious coverage, and the use of drywells.

 

Mr. Lovas asked about building coverage.

 

Mr. Doyle said it is only over by 2.2% percent.  Compared to the neighbors, two of the garages are larger than what I propose.  Also, when I designed the final plans for the house I reduced the size of the house by   3.4 %.

 

Mr. Doyle said the third variance is for an accessory building in the front yard.  The ordinance does not allow it, however, the house is unique as Yellow Barn separates the property and this is the only place where you could put a detached garage.  11 of 14 of the properties on Yellow Barn have garages across the road.

 

Mr. Doyle said regarding the size, 50% the size of the principal structure is permitted and I am proposing 52% the size of the house.   Other houses have similar size garages and in this area we have recreational equipment such as boats and jet skis to put in the garage.  The construction of the garage and driveway would fit in with the character of the neighborhood and impervious coverage, building coverage and the size of the garage are in line with the neighborhood.  The garage will enable me to cut down on clutter and will allow me to put my equipment and cars in the garage and out of site.  It will provide me with on site  parking there.  I am the last house on the street and am surrounded by woods in the back.  I believe relief can be granted without substantial detriment.

 

Ms. Dargel asked how many parking spaces there will be.

 

Mr. Doyle said 1 on the house side, and 7 on the garage side

 

Ms. Dargel asked why the garage is moved so far back

 

Mr. Doyle said because of the location of the propane tank , and the neighbor has a French door that would look out at the garage if it were closer.

 

Mr. Crowley asked if this garage would line up with his garage.

 

Mr. Doyle said his proposed garage is about 5 feet farther back.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked what the upper level of the garage will be used for.

 

Mr. Doyle said storage – and it will absolutely not be used for human habitation.  I would agree to have a condition that any utilities that go into the garage need to be approved by the construction department.  I would like to have a toilet and a hand sink if the Board would approve it.  I would also like to heat the garage.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. D’Amato made a motion to approve the application subject to there being no toilet permitted; hand sink is permitted; electricity and heat are permitted; no habitation.  Ms. Dargel seconded.

 

Discussion.

 

Mr. Crowley said he is concerned about putting water there, as we denied the water on the Gallo application.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Giardina, yes; Mr. Crowley, no – because of the water; Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, no.

 

Application approved.

 

BA-07-13 – CHARLES & MARTHA CUOMO – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING HOME LOCATED ON REGER RD. BLOCK 301, LOT 30 IN R-1 ZONE

 

Charles Cuomo was sworn in. 

 

Martha Cuomo was sworn in.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said there are a lot of things on this site that are not listed on the impervious coverage and are not depicted on the drawings.  Mr. Potere said he based his calculations on the drawings that were submitted.

 

J. R. Frank, architect for the applicant, was sworn in.  He said he is a licensed architect in New Jersey and gave his qualifications for the Board. 

 

Mr. Wiener said there is a concern that the coverage calculations do not depict what is actually on the site.

 

Mr. Frank stated the calculations were done by the zoning inspector, so I don’t know if the numbers on the application are accurate.

 

Ms. Robortaccio stated there are sidewalks, a pool, a patio -  none of which is depicted on the drawings.  The shed is actually located on the property line.

 

Mr. Frank suggested the applicant return to the Board with the proper calculations. I can provide the information on the drawings.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the calculations will have to be resubmitted to Mr. Potere.

 

Mr. D’Amato said he noticed that the proposed area of the addition will be directly over the deck that was recently taken down.

 

The application was carried to 4/9/07.  Ms. DeMasi stated plans have to be submitted at least two weeks before that date.

 

 

BA-07-26 – DAVE BROWN/ADF COMPANIES – VARIANCE FOR SIGN FOR PIZZA HUT LOCATED ON RT. 10, BLOCK 6304, LOT 2 IN B-3 ZONE

 

Mr. Giardina stepped down.

 

Attorney Martin Lieberman represented the applicant.

 

David Brown, Facility Director for Pizza Hut, was sworn in.  He stated the existing building has been there for several years.  The upper portion of the cupola did have letter signage that was not illuminated.  We submitted photos of the building as viewed from Route 10 from the east and from the west.  The photo was marked A-1.  Originally there was signage on both sides of the upper cupola.  We are now requesting 4 signs.  We had elected not to have the letters put back up as we knew there was a directive coming to re-image the exterior of the building.  That directive has come, and it shows what the building used to look like, and what the new look is.  The new look doesn’t change the height or square footage, but does affect the signs.  We want to put two illuminated signs at the upper cupola, and at the front on exhibit A-3, it shows the front facing Route 10 where we are proposing a logo sign.

 

Mr. Lieberman said what is depicted on sheet A-3, that is facing Route 10.  Sheet A-2 is the side of the building that you would see if you were driving eastbound on Route 10.  The application as written does indicate what we are asking to do.  The architect did not draw the view from the westbound side. 

 

Mr. Crowley asked if the freestanding sign will be changed.

 

Mr. Brown said it will stay as it is.

 

Mr. Brown said the guideline asks for a larger sign on the front of the building.  We show it as 24 square feet.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked what the size is of the one that is not shown by the railroad tracks.

 

Mr. Brown stated each side of the roof would get the same 39 square foot sign.

 

Mr. Stern asked what the size of the sign is that faces Route 10.

 

Mr. Brown said it is 24 square feet facing Route 10 as shown on A-3.  The 6 sq. ft. sign is shown on Exhibit A-2. 

 

Mr. Stern said Mr. Potere did submit a report and you are allowed one freestanding sign and one wall sign.

 

Mr. Lieberman said there were two signs on the building previously  that were probably larger than the ones we propose.  They were not illuminated.  These will be illuminated.

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked what is the reason for the one on the side by the railroad tracks.

 

Mr. Lieberman said you can clearly see it driving westbound. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio stated  you can also see the freestanding sign from westbound Route 10.

 

Mr. Lieberman said the new proposed signs have a very clean look.

 

Ms. Dargel said she would be inclined to allow only two signs.  It is unnecessary to have 3 or 4 signs.  We are trying to avoid a proliferation of signs in Roxbury.

 

Mr. Data said he would be open to two signs, one on the eastbound side and one on Route 10.

 

Mr. D’Amato agreed to the two signs and the freestanding sign.

 

Ms. Dargel asked what size sign is permitted on buildings in this zone.

 

Mr. Stern said they can’t exceed 65% of the building side.

 

Mr. D’Amato asked if it would be more appealing to have both signs 24 square feet.

 

Mr. Brown said the upper façade is a larger façade, and we would want a larger sign.

 

Discussion.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

Mr. Data made a motion to approve two signs, one at 39 sq ft and one at 24 sq ft on the Route 10 side – freestanding sign to remain as it exists.  Mr. D’Amato seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Data, yes; Mr. D’Amato, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes;  Mr. Kurtz, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.

 

There was a 5 minute recess at 8:40 p.m.

 

Mr. Giardina returned to the Board.

 

BA-07-15 – TERRY & LISA CAVANAGH – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION ON SILVER SPRING DR. BLOCK 11601, LOT 15 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Lisa Cavanagh was sworn in.

 

Jacqueline Nemeth was sworn in.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said several Board members went to the house and there is a question as to whether this property is a legal or illegal two family house.  We need for our Zoning Officer to go to the house and make a ruling.  We can’t hear the application tonight and would like to carry it.

 

Mr. Wiener said we would like the applicant to give the Zoning Officer permission to go to the house to make the determination. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said if it is ruled a two family, you would have the right to return to the Board to request it to be a two family, or make modifications.

 

Ms. Nemeth said for the first addition we had, we had all building permits.

 

Mr. Wiener said the chair has made a ruling that it is critical to have the Zoning Officer make a determination as to whether or not it is a legal two-family.

 

Discussion

 

The application was carried to 4/9/07 at 7:30 p.m. with no further notice required.

 

The Zoning Officer will call the applicant  to make an appointment to visit the house to make a determination.

 

BA-7-07 – WOODMONT REALTY – SITE PLAN FOR WAREHOUSE/OFFICE LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9603, LOTS 3 & 4 IN OB ZONE

 

Attorney Peter Wolfson represented the applicant.  He stated we are here for site plan approval for a 37,454 square foot flex building comprised of office and warehouse uses.  The project received approval from the Board on 3/24/03 that allowed for the utilization of  the building for warehouse and office.  We are now before the Board to fix the size of the building and site characteristics.  At the time the use variance was approved, it was a concept that the building would be about 40,000 sq. ft.  The building proposed is smaller than that, at under 38,000 sq. ft.  In addition to reducing the size of the building, other improvements to the site have been designed by our engineer.

 

George Ritter, architect and planner for the applicant, was sworn in and gave the Board his educational and professional background, and was accepted by the Board.

 

Mr. Ritter referred to sheet 1 of 13, last revised 8/11/06, and described the site for the Board, stating there is a pond located on the site and an old foundation and remnants of an old swimming pool.  There is an auto repair facility to the west of the site and the municipal building to the east.  The site is in the OB zone as is the surrounding area.  There is an open space zone directly across the street.  Route 80 runs along the top of the site.  The plan is for a mix of office and warehouse use – 35,581 sq. ft. of office and about 1,873 sq. ft.  of warehouse space.  That is based on a parking ratio that would allow for 161 vehicles on the site.  The intent is to allow flexibility to allow a mix of office/warehouse where there would never be more than 95% office space in the building, but there may be higher portions of warehouse.  The intent would be to fix the building size at 37,454 sq. ft., and then vary the tenant space depending on need.  The plan before the Board provides for 95% office and 5% warehouse, and meets the Township regulations for parking.  The conforming use of the tract would be exclusively for office, but a use variance was approved on 3/24/03.  The use variance did not fix an absolute mix.  I think we are consistent with the resolution of approval.

 

Mr. Ritter referred to sheet 2 of the plans, a colorized version of the existing features plan dated 2/12/07 (marked A-1).  He stated the site is a little over 7.15 acres.  We show the principal tree stand, and the two main wooded areas are mostly against the border of the municipal building, and some at the border with the auto repair facility.  There is an existing pond on the tract and a swale leading out of the pond.  There was a road that accessed the site at one time, and there is a culvert.  The site is generally flat, but there are rolling topography areas where it runs along Route 80.   There are some sloping areas around the pond as well, and abutting the auto repair facility.  The main environmental issue on the site is wetlands.  Freshwater wetlands have been defined around the pond extending down the stream corridor. There is a small piece at the edge of the site, and two pockets of isolated wetlands on the site itself.   There is also an unnamed tributary of Drakes Brook which is tributary to a C-1 stream that would normally have a 300-foot buffer.  The site has been part of a Settlement Agreement with NJDEP and the agreement is that the isolated wetlands pockets may be filled under the normal permitting procedure and the buffers may be averaged from 150 feet to 75 feet.  There was also an agreement that the 300-foot buffer would not apply provided the mediation of the stormwater would be cleaned to 95% of the suspended solids.   For the purposes of developable area on the site, it is essentially the area to the west of that line.  That amounts to about 3.2 acres, or about 45% of the property, that would be set aside as permanent open space.  In addition to the old remnants of the buildings and swimming pool, there are two billboards that are currently on the site and are leased.  As part of this application, if approved by the Board, at the time occupancy permits are granted, the leases on the billboards will be terminated and they will be removed. 

 

Mr. Ritter said there is a great deal of elevation change between Route 46 and Route 80, and I think that is an important issue as to some of the waivers we are requesting as it acts as a type of buffer.   

 

Mr. Ritter referred to a colorized rendering of sheet 4 of the site plan (marked A-2).  He said we are hoping to bring in two access points – right-in and right-out off Route 46, and a second access at the western edge of the property where there would be both an in and an out onto Route 46, and there would be created a left hand turn into the site as part of an access approval from NJDOT which has been secured.    The site is laid out with parking along the front and loop circulation going to the back, and two way circulation around, and exiting.  There are provisions for drive-in doors in the rear of the building if needed by a tenant.    The applicant is more than willing to agree that the parking will be reviewed as the tenants come in.  In addition to the drive-in doors, an excess pavement area has been provided to give us the ability to accommodate additional truck movements if need be.  It is a straightforward parking layout, except that we have laid out reserve parking area in the rear.  Depending on the tenants, it would be able to be striped or used for truck circulation.

 

Mr. Ritter said stormwater regulations will be met.  It is proposed not be collected.  There are some recharge areas proposed.  The engineer will address that at the next hearing.  The pond itself will remain as is, as will the outfall.    All the wooded area around the pond will be preserved as part of the protection of the wetlands, and there will be an area near the auto body that will be retained.  There is a wall proposed along the back of the property.  The height is varied up to a maximum of 10 feet.  It is used to retain the toe of the slope which will allow access to the rear of the building. 

 

Mr. D’Amato asked what kind of buffer is between the pond and the white area on the plan.

 

Mr. Ritter said 75 feet.  It will be retained in its natural state.  Along the wall we are proposing some landscaping and trees.

 

Ms. Dargel asked why the State granted the exemption from the 300 foot buffer.

 

Mr. Ritter stated they determined it was a true hardship because with the buffers, it would reduce the site to be unbuildable, and they granted relief.  One of the conditions was that we meet the same water quality standards as part of the design criteria. 

 

Mr. Hansen said we have a copy of the Settlement Agreement.  The applicant had applied for a transition area averaging plan in 2000, and as they were litigating with DEP, the new stormwater regulations came in that required the 300-foot buffer.  They compensated for some of it by asking for the water quality.  The settlement is clear that any modifications to the plan will have to go back to the DEP for their approval.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if this is in the Highlands Planning Area.

 

Mr. Hansen said yes.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if there will be something to delineate between the lawn area and the parking area.

 

Mr. Ritter said the runoff is being picked up.  There isn’t anything specific along the edge other than picking the drainage up.

 

Mr. Crowley asked how far they will dig into the hill.

 

Mr. Ritter said he doesn’t know.  Between the wall and the property line is about 10 feet. 

 

Mr. Ritter addressed the variances.  The ‘d’ variance to allow warehouse was granted by the Board previously, and this application is for site plan.    Part of the Board’s review is to determine whether the site can handle the mix of use.   We do need a variance for steep slopes.  There is a wall along Route 80. The steep slope ordinance establishes the maximum area of disturbance as to allow 35% in 15 to 19% slopes ;  in 20 – 24% a maximum of 15% disturbance is allowed, and 25+%, you can disturb 3% of the area.    The majority of steep slopes on the site run along that band.  We propose a retaining wall that runs right through there to within about 10 feet of the property line.   There has also been some slight regrading along the corner of the building.   The 15 – 29% slopes is a little over 15,000 sq. ft. on the site.  The 20-24% area is about 8,800 sq. ft., and about 25,000 sq. ft. at 25+%.  Everything around the pond will all be preserved in a preservation area.  We would be allowed to disturb about 5,400 sq. ft. of the 15 – 19% slopes, and we are proposing about 6,600 square feet.   In the 20 to 25 % category we can disturb about 1,326 and we are proposing to disturb abut 3,500 sq. ft.   In the 25%+ category, we are allowed 750 sq. ft and we proposed about 11, 277 sq. ft.  Some of the slopes are man-made and some are the continuation of the slope coming down from Route 80.  It is my opinion that disturbing the slopes causes little damage to the site and doesn’t change the character of the site.  They have minimal impact on the surrounding areas.  I think the variance is justified as a large percentage of the site is restricted.   45% of the site will be permanently preserved.  There are minor encroachments and won’t have any adverse impacts on the environment and the surrounding properties.

 

Mr. Wolfson said it is not like we are seeking a long list of variances.  We are not over-parked, the building is not too big.  The disturbance of the slopes doesn’t maximize the use of the site, does it?

 

Mr. Ritter said no.  The maximum FAR is .25, and the building on this tract is at .12.  The impervious coverage is 33.4% where 55% is permitted.   The purpose of our encroachment is to provide appropriate circulation around the building and appropriate access to the rear of the site. 

 

Mr. Stern asked about the conservation easement.

 

Mr. Ritter said the previous resolution stated for the area that includes the pond and within the wetlands buffer area, in addition to being restricted by DEP, we have also agreed to establish a conservation easement there to assure they remain permanently undeveloped.


Mr. Ritter stated a variance is also required for parking setback.  The regulations say parking has to be set back 10 feet on the side and rear and 20 feet in front.  This proposal sets the parking in front at 10 feet from the face of the building.  We are limited in area on the site.  We have provided the appropriate buffers in front and along the parking and we have also provided landscaping.  A 10 foot setback will allow for landscaping along the building.   We are also limited by the  type and shape of the property.  The remaining relief we need are several design waivers:

 

Regarding sidewalks, Mr. Ritter said there are sidewalks along the municipal complex and the flex space to the east.  We are willing to put in the sidewalks, but as part of the negotiated settlement with DEP, the sidewalks would fall within what would have been the 300 foot buffer.  We will go back to DEP to request permission to put the sidewalks in.  We would prefer that it not be a condition of approval, but we will apply to DEP.

 

Mr. Stern suggested Mr. Hansen be involved in that process if the Board does want the sidewalks.

 

John Kieser , Vice President of Woodmont Properties, was sworn in.    He stated we will ask the DEP to allow us to do sidewalks.  There is no assurance that they will approve them going the full length. 

 

Mr. Wolfson said in the event the DEP does not approve the sidewalks, we would ask for the waiver.

 

Mr. Ritter said there is a requirement that parking areas and access drives must be enclosed with Belgian block curbing.  We show some extra parking in the back that would be striped if the full complement of offices were developed, and they are not proposed to be curbed.  Our intent was that if they were required if this stayed office, was to stripe them and put wheel stops in, with the idea we would curb to the back of the area.  If there are more warehouse uses proposed and the drive-in doors are developed we wanted the extra area for truck maneuvering.  We would like to maintain the flexibility to leave the extra pavement and allow us to just stripe the parking in that area and not curb it.

 

Mr. Stern said at a staff meeting, we were talking about having a minimum/maximum plan for the warehouse/office space as it relates to the parking area that could be approved by the Zoning Officer when the tenants are determined.  It is not our desire to have that area paved.  We had a concern that area might turn into a storage space.

 

Mr. D’Amato suggested possibly making the parking perpendicular to the line with Route 80 and have an open area where the trucks can go around.  It won’t be two parallel lines of parking.

 

Discussion.

 

Mr. Kieser said the applicant will look at that alternative.  We would rather not have to come back in to the Zoning Officer every time there is a new tenant.

 

Mr. Ritter continued to address the waivers:  He said a waiver is required from the requirement for 9 foot wide planting islands.  We will look at that further, and some of that might be resolved.

 

-A waiver is requested from the requirement for a loading space.  We have provided an area for unloading, but not a formal loading area.  If the building progresses to a higher percentage of warehouse uses, there would be areas for parking with the drive-in doors, rather than having a single space at the edge.  Since this will be primarily office, we thought this would be sufficient.

 

Discussion.  The applicant will look at the loading area and will look at whether a staircase can be provided at the most westerly planting island.

 

- A waiver is requested for the trash enclosure.  The trash enclosures are set 9.1 feet from the property line rather than 10’ required by ordinance.  We thought that was the best location and there will be no impact on Rt. 80.

 

- A waiver is requested for the lighting intensity.  Our lighting level along the very edge exceeds .3 footcandles.  We think there is no impact on Rt. 80.

 

-A waiver is required for the height of the walls.  The maximum height permitted in the rear yard is 6’.  The proposed wall along the back varies to a maximum height of 10’.  It would have no impact on anyone. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said the applicant needs to work with the staff to reduce the variances and waivers.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Gary Dean, traffic expert for the applicant, was sworn in. 

 

Ms. Dargel stated she has just received the traffic report and hasn’t had an opportunity to review it.

 

Mr. Dean stated he prepared a supplemental traffic report dated 3/12/07.  The traffic study submitted today is taken from the original traffic study done by Harlin Associates in 2002, and as a result of this most recent work, it demonstrates that traffic has not materially changed along this section of Route 46 since the report was originally done.  In our opinion safe and efficient access and egress can be provided and that the new date verifies the original findings.  Mr. Ritter has indicated that the NJDOT issued an access permit for the site dated 12/14/05.  We will see to it that the Board and the professionals get a copy.  They approved the original application for the site that featured only the westerly driveway.  Since then, the applicant has appealed to DOT to also allow the central driveway that leads to the building entrance.  We do not have that permit yet.

 

Mr. Dean stated the only means of site access is to Route 46.  We have looked at the internal circulation, and we have provided as conforming a design as appropriate with parking directly up to the building, a double loaded parking isle along the easterly, southerly and westerly sides, a  single loaded row of parking on the northwest side and a double loaded parking in the back, fully complying with all the provisions of the ordinance. The original study assumed the entire building would be used as office.  That total trip generation was about 90 traffic movements in an hour.  If there is a greater percentage of warehouse use, the traffic impacts go down. 

 

Mr. Data asked if there will be enough room that the queue into the site, with one tractor trailer, won’t end up in one of the highway lanes.

 

Mr. Dean said this isn’t a truck distribution facility or supermarket.  Those are the kinds of uses where you would have heavy duty truck traffic.  These flex type buildings generally generate smaller box trucks, vans, etc.  It is not the kind of situation where you would likely have a tractor trailer and two other cars behind it at the a.m. peak hour.  Part of the proposal is to cut back the median so that there is a safe refuge area for cars to sit out of the eastbound lanes to turn into the site.  It is a fairly low turnover of traffic. 

 

Mr. D’Amato asked if it would be an option to keep the westerly entrance as a delivery entrance only.

 

Mr. Dean said there is no median break for anyone to turn left at the central driveway. The westerly driveway has to accommodate that movement.

 

Mr. Dean referred to the site location plan and stated as one comes under Route 80, and before Mooney Road, the highway starts to curve to the left.  We walked the property to ensure that there is necessary right of way to provide clearing of vegetation.  That driveway is safe, and that has been approved by DOT.

 

Mr. Data asked if the police department has looked at the plans.

 

Mr. Stern said my report indicates the police had a concern about the westernmost gap that seems to go into the office building across the street on Route 46.  They see that as a potential conflict.  Ptl. Prendergast’s recommendation is to close the westerly portion of that gap.

 

Mr. Dean stated it serves as an ingress to a fairly small office building and an auto body repair facility.  Closing it has ramifications.  The State did not close it.  We have elected to maintain it.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said it will be a problem.

 

Mr. Dean said DOT has jurisdiction over the highway and they don’t share the concern.

 

Discussion. 

 

Ms. Robortaccio said we will revisit this.

 

 

Ms. Robortaccio asked if the trade zone has created any changes in the traffic here.

 

Mr. Dean said no.  The only difference is that in the morning peak hour there is more eastbound traffic.  During the evening peak hour the traffic is virtually the same.

 

Ms. Dargel asked if the Phillips building was taken into consideration.

 

Mr. Stern said they have now occupied a couple hundred thousand square feet of that out of over 318,000 sq. ft.  A lot of it is warehousing and assembly.  Also, by the way, those tractor trailers come from the Route 206 area.

 

Ms. Robortaccio reminded the Board that they can hire a traffic consultant if they are not satisfied and want another opinion.

 

Mr. Dean said any traffic consultant is limited to the same DOT decisions that we are.  It is ultimately DOT’s decision.  If the Board has certain thoughts on the access schemes or closing up the median cuts, the only thing that can be done is for the Board to petition DOT to correct that.  If that happens, Mr. Keiser has the right, by virtue of the existing approval, to build this building, occupy it up to 85% for an office use, with the median cut exactly as it is shown on the plans without the central driveway.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said he doesn’t have a site plan approval, he has a use variance.

 

Ms. Robortaccio said on the median cut, if we closed off the westerly opening no one would be encouraged to cut across the highway.

 

Mr. Wolfson said we have heard the concerns of the Board, and we will look at it further with the Board’s experts. 

 

Mr. Crowley said he would urge that the applicant ask to move the cut in the median to the center. 

 

Mr. Hansen said if they get that modification, it would require a major change in the layout of the site.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Wiener stated the Board will request that the Police Department give their input to the DEP as well.

 

Mr. Wolfson submitted a copy of the DOT permit (marked A-3).

 

The application was carried to 4/9/07 at which time the Board will determine whether a traffic consultant for the Board will be requested.

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:40 p.m.

 

                                                            Dolores DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/