Create an Account - Increase your productivity, customize your experience, and engage in information you care about.
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
A regular meeting of the Planning
Board of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Vice Chairman Larry Sweeney presiding. After a salute to the Flag, the
Vice Chairman read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Larry
Sweeney, Gary Behrens, Charles Bautz, Richard Zoschak, Michael Shadiack, Joseph
Schwab, Jim Rilee. Lisa Voyce arrived at 7:40 p.m. Teresa DeVincentis arrived
at 8:00 p.m.
ABSENT: Scott Meyer, Steven
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Tom
Germinario, Russell Stern, Tom Bodolsky.
Mr. Sweeney announced Application
S-24-05 – Jacobsen has been withdrawn
M-3-05 - BUILT RITE HOMES – SOIL APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON BERKSHIRE VALLEY RD. BLOCK 7001, LOT 2 IN R-2 ZONE
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
SOIL REMOVAL/RELOCATION PERMIT
Pursuant to Chapter XVII of the General Ordinances of
the Township of Roxbury, Article 17-1 et seq. (the
"Ordinance), the Roxbury Township Planning Board (the "Board"),
having conducted a public hearing with public notice pursuant to the Ordinance,
does hereby grant to the Applicant identified herein a Major Soil Permit,
subject to the terms and conditions enumerated herein below.
Applicant/Permittee: Built-Right Homes, LLC
2. Application Number: M-3-05
Property Identification: Block 7001, Lot 2
Subdivision/Site Plan Approval Date(s): Minor Subdivision
Major Soil Permit Approval Date: 4/20/05
Effective Date: 4/20/05
Findings of Fact:
A. The Board has received an
Application consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-6, and the
Applicant has paid the application fee pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-7.1.
B. Proof of adequate notice of
this Application, pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-6.5, has been furnished to
C. A public hearing was
conducted, in accordance with the Ordinance, and with opportunity for comment
by interested members of the public, on the following date(s): 4/20/05
D. In granting this Permit,
the Board has considered the factors enumerated in Section 17-6.6 of the
Ordinance. The Board has received and considered the following documents in
connection with this Application: (1) soil moving application dated 3/15/05;
(2) soil movements stockpile plan by Frederick C. Meola, P.E. revised to
1/13/05; (3) earthwork calculations by Frederick C. Meola dated 4/6/05; and (4)
reports of the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 4/12/05.
E. The Board has made the
following additional findings of fact:
1. The Applicant intends to
export 954 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil.
2. The Applicant proposes to
relocate within the site 5,424 c.y. of soil.
3. The Applicant intends to
export fill to outside the Township.
4. The route of truck travel
from Applicant's site to the disposal site will be: Berkshire Valley Road to Route 46 West to Route 80 West.
5. The Applicant has agreed
to comply with the recommendations contained in the report of the Planning
Board Engineer dated 4/12/05.
6. Pursuant to Section 17-9d
of the Ordinance, the Board finds that circumstances warrant the restriction of
the hours of soil moving operations to 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays (with such operations prohibited on
Sundays and legal holidays).
7. Pursuant to Section 17-17
of the Ordinance, the Board finds that strict application of the following
Ordinance provisions would impose hardship and hereby grants waivers with
8. Conditions of Approval: This
Permit is granted subject to the following terms and conditions:
A. Applicant shall post a
performance guarantee, consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section
17-8, in an amount indicated in Subparagraph H.5 below, as determined by the
B. This Permit shall remain
valid for a term of one year from the Effective Date specified in Paragraph 6
hereinabove, subject to extension thereafter in accordance with Ordinance
C. The Applicant shall pay the
engineering review and inspection fees as required in Ordinance Section 17-7.3.
D. This approval shall not
become effective until: (i) Applicant has paid all outstanding property taxes
and assessments due or delinquent as of the date hereof; and (ii) all
conditions of the minor subdivision approval have been fulfilled to the
satisfaction of the Board Engineer.
E. Applicant shall comply
with: (i) "Hours of Operation" established pursuant to Ordinance
Section 17-9d, as modified pursuant to paragraph 7.E.6 hereinabove; (ii)
"General Terms and Conditions of Operation" stipulated in Section
17-10; (iii) "Topsoil Restrictions", pursuant to Section 17-11; (iv)
"Depth of Excavation", pursuant to Section 17-12; and (v) "Final
Grades", pursuant to Section 17-13.
F. Applicant grants to the
Township Engineer, and/or his duly authorized agents, the right of entry to the
property to conduct inspections to determine compliance with this Permit.
G. This approval is subject to
all outside agency review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.
H. This Permit is subject to
the following additional terms and conditions:
1. All fill will be exported
from Applicant's site to outside the Township.
2. The route of truck travel
from Applicant's site to the disposal site shall be: Berkshire Valley Road to Route 46 West to Route 80 West.
3. The Erosion Control Plan
shall be modified to indicate the following note:
"Notwithstanding the approved Erosion and
Sediment Control Plan, the Applicant shall implement all measures needed to
satisfactorily control erosion, dust, and sediment transport as may be
reasonably determined by the Township Engineer during construction."
4. Applicant shall post fees
Section 17-7.1 Application Fee - $250.00
Section 17-7.2 Soil Moving Fee - $143.00 ($0.15/cy
times 954 cy)
Section 17-7.3 Engineering Inspection Fees pursuant
to Section 13-2.404 of the
5. Per Section 17-8 of the
Ordinance, Applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount of $2,000.
6. Applicant shall place hay
bales on the site to supplement planned silt fencing for erosion control to the
satisfaction of the Planning Board Engineer.
7. In accordance with
Ordinance Sections 17-6.1(t) and 17-6.4, the Applicant shall stake out interior
improvements with appropriate cut sheets to the satisfaction of the Township
Engineer, and a professional land surveyor shall stake out lot corners and
appropriate points on line.
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is an accurate recitation of the action taken by the Planning Board on the
approval date designated hereinabove.
Mr. 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; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr.
Mr. Stern said this is a major
subdivision application for a 5 lot subdivision on Carey Road. The applicant
has met all items of completeness.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to deem
the application complete. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr.
Bautz, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes.
The application is scheduled for 6/15/05.
M-2-05 – MARK LISA –
SUBDIVISION FOR TWO LOTS LOCATED ON EMMANS RD. BLOCK 4101, LOT 9 IN R-2 ZONE
Ms. DeMasi said there was a
problem with the sale of the property, and the Board has to take action on the
Mr. Rilee made a motion to deny
the application without prejudice. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
S-21-04 – GLENN BOTT –
STEEP SLOPE VARIANCE FOR HOME LOCATED ON CENTER ST. BLOCK 10501, LOT
21 IN R-3 ZONE
Mr. Sweeney said this has been
scheduled many times, and suggested it be denied without prejudice
Mr. Rilee made a motion to deny
the application without prejudice. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
S-24-05 – JAMES MC ARDLE –
SOIL RELOCATION ON WEST DEWEY AVE. BLOCK 7101, LOT
James McArdle was sworn in.
Ilmar Aasmaa was sworn in.
Mr. Bodolsky said his report date
5/11/05 indicates the applicant is going to export 3,253 cubic yards of
earth. The subdivision was approved last year. There should be discussion on
hours of operation. Will the entire lot be developed at once?
Mr. McArdle said probably one or
two homes at a time.
Ms. Voyce arrived at 7:40 p.m.
Mr. Bodolsky said he doesn’t see
any reason to deviate from the standard hours of operation.
The applicant agreed.
Mr. McArdle said the soil will go
out of town and the route of travel will be either Main Street to Route 80 or Berkshire
Valley Road to Route 80.
Discussion. It was determined
the route of travel will be West Dewey Avenue to Main Street to Route 15 to
Route 80. The trucks will stay off of Berkshire Valley Rd. and Dell Avenue.
Mr. Bodolsky said the conservation
easement should be demarcated as a condition of any earthwork moving.
The applicant agreed to the
remaining conditions in the report.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the application. Mr. Bautz seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr.
Zoschak, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes.
M-3-04 – MARK TUCCI –
SUBDIVISION FOR TWO LOTS LOCATED ON SECOND ST. BLOCK 2611, LOT 12 IN R-2/R-4
Attorney Richard Sweeney
represented the applicant.
Mr. Bodolsky said we issued a
review letter dated 5/13/05, and reissued a review today as well.
Michael Spillane was present.
Keith Appelbaum was sworn in. He
gave his educational and professional background as a professional engineer.
Mr. Appelbaum said he prepared
drainage calculations for the property and designed a stormwater management
facility. The facility is an infiltration basin with drywells. It is designed
to address a 100 year storm. The basin will address the water that flows from
the street and will allow it to infiltrate so as to not affect the existing
residences in the event of a 100-year storm and a lesser storm.
Ms. DeMasi said everyone on the
Board is qualified to hear the application.
Mr. Richard Sweeney asked Mr.
Appelbaum to describe the drainage.
Mr. Appelbaum said the water is
burdened by water that flows from the street onto it. He said there is a water
problem on Second Street in front of the existing dwelling. There is a catch
basin in the road which is not working well, as it was designed for a drywell
and either wasn’t sized correctly or has silted up. The water flows to the
south and flows into the back yard. There is a curbline there existing. We
have designed two portions in the existing property. The whole back yard has
been lowered to accommodate the water coming onto the property.
Mr. Appelbaum was referring to
the minor subdivision dated 2/3/05 prepared by Spillane Engineering, last
revised 5/12/05 (marked A-1).
Mr. Appelbaum said the most outer
line of the contours is the 100-year flood line at post development. The
property would be graded, and when that is done, a bowl will be excavated.
That is the elevation at which the 100-year flood will go up to in the back
yard. The lesser lines indicate the contours – the first one being elevation
99 ½, then 98, etc.
Ms. DeVincentis arrived at 8:00.
Mr. Appelbaum said a 100-year
storm is the largest storm that will occur, given a probability, in 100 years.
There is a design standard by which detention basins are designed. It is the
100-year storm. On the interior of the basin there are drywells which will
contain some of the volume of the water and will allow infiltration into the
Mr. Zoschak asked if perk tests
Mr. Appelbaum said no. We can
predict the water from a 100-year storm will drain into the ground in 27.1
hours. The water would most likely leave the basin in less time than that. It
would be probably half that time. 27.1 hours is the worst-case scenario.
Mr. Richard Sweeney said the
plans Mr. Appelbaum is referring to were submitted to Mr. Bodolsky. The only change
from the plans submitted to the Board were elevations in the front, including
the 100 year elevation.
Mr. Bodolsky asked about the
second detention facility.
Mr. Appelbaum said it is in the
front yard of the proposed dwelling adjacent to Second Street. That will take
water from the front yard of Block 2611, Lots 13 & 14. The design
parameter is a 100-year storm, and the basin will collect the water from Lots
13 and 14 and will flow into the basin and discharge into the ground. There
are 3 drywells in that basin as well.
Mr. Germinario asked the time
period for that one.
Mr. Appelbaum said it would be
35.5 hours, worst-case scenario.
Mr. Germinario said there is a
provision in the zoning ordinance (Section 13-7.906) that states the basin
shall maintain a minimum 20-foot setback from adjoining street right-of-ways
and property lines.
Mr. Richard Sweeney said that
cannot be accomplished and we would require a variance. We would amend the
application for that variance. The notice included language to include other
Ms. Voyce asked if not doing perk
tests, and using information from the County, is standard practice.
Mr. Bodolsky said it is not
standard. The applicant is increasing the storage on this site from 8,400 cf
to 21,000 cf. It is almost immaterial how fast it permeates the soil. As long
as it is permeable, they are not going to generate more than the difference of
the storage, through the development of this lot. I caution the Board about
taking the testimony about how fast it drains as gospel. There are many things
that influence it. My observation is that the back yard does drain now. I
know it is permeable.
Ms. Voyce asked what previous
knowledge Mr. Appelbaum used.
Mr. Spillane said when we started
the application, there was concern about a mine hole. We were required to
excavate the hole. All that was there was buried debris. The entire lot is
sand, and it drains very well. Based on that, we assumed there was a
reasonable permeability rate.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for
questions of Mr. Appelbaum.
Gary Simons, 82 South First
Avenue, was sworn in. He asked where the water comes from.
Mr. Appelbaum stated once the
rainwater hits the ground, some will permeate into grass and other areas. The
water that comes from the pavement and houses will flow into the street and
eventually into the area in front of the dwelling.
Mr. Bodolsky said there is an
exhibit of the projected tributary area. It is not just this lot we are
Mr. Simons asked if all the water
was included, particularly the water on Route 46.
Mr. Appelbaum said he included
all the water from South First Avenue where it runs halfway between Lot 17,
behind the lot, down the middle of Frank Street and Ward Place, behind Lot 13,
14 and Lots 1 & 6. The tributary area was determined from topo, and Mr.
Spillane’s knowledge of the area and mapping the area. It was done both from
topo and visual information.
Arthur Grimm, 94 South First
Avenue, was sworn in. He asked if the calculations were done from Mine Hill,
or from his area (Block 2611, Lot 20).
Mr. Spillane said that is not
caused by us, and lot 20 is beyond the drainage area.
The applicant addressed Mr.
Item 2 – Mr. Richard Sweeney said
the water is running from the municipal street. The Board would have to make a
decision as to who would maintain it.
Item 3 – Mr. Richard Sweeney said
Kenvil is sand and gravel, and water has been flowing through that for a long
time. This applicant will allow the Board to impose such conditions it deems
appropriate based on the proofs in this case.
Item 4 – The applicant had no
objection to the Township Engineer overseeing the construction of the basin.
The plan before the Board is the one for which we seek approval.
Mr. Rilee said we would like
responses to the professional reports. This is not a variance-free
Item 5 - Mr. Richard Sweeney
said I assume we will submit a deed which will perfect the subdivision. That
deed will incorporate the provisions of the approval. If you want to add a
condition that the properties cannot be conveyed until the improvements are
installed, that is acceptable. Or, the Board may withhold the signing of the
deed until the basins are constructed. That means the period of time to
memorialize does not begin to run until the construction is done.
Mr. Germinario said we would have
to recognize the right to extend the 190 days based on the construction period.
We could add a provision to the resolution recognizing the 190 period, due to
the unusual condition, may need to be extended to accommodate the
construction. It would be a reasonable extension that is commensurate with the
needs of the construction.
Ms. Voyce asked about the
drainage easement draft which was submitted.
Mr. Germinario said it was worked
out with the applicant’s attorney, but the Township would need to accept it.
This approval would be conditioned on the Township agreeing to these terms. We
will address this matter at the end of Mr. Bodolsky’s report.
Item 7 - agreed
Item 8 – to be discussed as part
of the draft agreement
Item 9 – agreed
Item 10 – applicant requested the
Board not restrict them from having a basement. The Board determined basements
will not be prohibited.
Item 11 –Discussion – It was
determined a 2% grade from the curbline to the back of the house will be
Item 12 – Mr. Bodolsky said the
pond extends onto public property (variance required for setback of pond). Discussion.
– To be determined by the Township Council.
Mr. Bodolsky asked where the
water for that pond comes from.
Mr. Appelbaum said the water
comes from the side of South Second Street and down around Lots 13 and 14. All
of Second Street goes to the back yard pond.
Item 13 – Discussion. – To be
Item 1 – Mr.
Germinario described the draft drainage easement agreement he has prepared. He
said the beginning is the background. The first term coveys to the Township an
easement to an area which would be described in a schedule. The purpose of the
easement is to give permission for what is already occurring, the runoff of
water from Second Street onto the two lots that would be created
by this subdivision.
Mr. Rilee asked if the Township
Attorney has seen the draft easement agreement.
Mr. Germinario said he has not.
Mr. Rilee said he does not feel
comfortable discussing this agreement as we have just received it this evening.
Mr. Germinario said it should be
addressed in a public forum.
Mr. Rilee said we have not read
Ms. Voyce asked what roll Mr.
Shivietz has in this.
Mr. Germinario said he is an
attorney associated with Mr. Richard Sweeney.
Ms. Voyce said she has looked
through the easement agreement, and doesn’t see how it provides us with much
Mr. Germinario went through the
easement. The first paragraph is the grant of the general easement rights.
Paragraph 2 says the easement is limited to the right of the Township to
discharge from Second Street onto Lots 12 and 12.01 in a quantity and volume
not substantially greater than that which is presently being discharged onto Lot
12. The intent is not to give an open-ended easement that would allow the
Township to continually augment the volume of water going onto the property.
Mr. Richard Sweeney suggested
changing the wording to rate and volume, rather than quantity and volume.
Mr. Germinario agreed and said
the second part says the Township will not use this as an open-ended easement
to create a public detention basin on this property.
Mr. Rilee asked how that can be
Mr. Bodolsky said in his opinion
the widening of Second Street would violate this.
Mr. Rilee asked how you quantify
an increase in runoff.
Mr. Germinario said the
obligation of the Township is not to do anything, on its own, that would
increase the discharge.
Mr. Rilee asked if resurfacing or
anything like that would count.
Mr. Bodolsky said this is the low
point of the road. Both sides of the road come ultimately to this lot. I
don’t see that you can alter that to the detriment to the applicant. There is
a fine point. It is properly worded as it is the Township, not private
Ms. Voyce asked if a
Township-approved zoning permit for something like a shed increased the runoff,
would the Township be held responsible?
Mr. Germinario said
realistically, I can’t conceive how a shed would cause a substantial increase
in the rate or volume of runoff.
Ms. Voyce said that goes back to
how you quantify an increase.
Mr. Germinario said substantial
means something that would create a distinctly measurable increase in the
ponding of water on the site.
Mr. Rilee asked how we quantify
what the current rate is so that we can decide what would be substantial.
Mr. Germinario said that would be
something that would be a matter of proof by the complaining party.
Gary Simons stepped forward. He
said he has lived here for 27 years. The water starts at Rt. 46 and runs on my
property. The little drywell that they put in was because that property did
flood at one time. People know it floods when the ground freezes and it rains
on top of that. We need storm drains.
Jody LeFrance stepped forward.
She said she has pictures of her driveway where the water is. She said the
house in one photo is the one that is renting right now. You can have water in
the basement when you have French drains. There was water in the basement
Another photo showed the drain
out in the street.
Another photo showed curbing that
was put there by the owner who built the house. The town did not put it
there. You should find out about things.
Mr. Richard Sweeney said he has
just repeated testimony that the neighbors gave.
Steve Walilko, 66 South Second
Avenue, Mine Hill, was sworn in. He said he wants to know if there will be
sufficient basins made, how it affects his yard, and the street. He has photos
taken of a storm in March showing how the street floods. The water flows from
the property onto the street. His property is half in Roxbury and half in Mine
Mr. Walilko submitted photos P-1
Mr. Richard Sweeney asked if Mr.
Walilko took the photos.
Mr. Walilko said he and his wife
both took the photos. They were taken with a digital camera.
Mr. Richard Sweeney asked if the
photos were altered on the computer.
Mr. Walilko said no. He just
printed them and did not alter them. They were taken in mid-March. There had
been a normal storm. The photo depicts the house that is presently on the
Mr. Walilko described the photos
for the Board.
P-1 – Front of house showing
beginning of storm. Usually the driveway floods out first.
P-2 – A little later in the day.
Street and driveway are flooded.
P-3 – Flooding of the street.
P-4 – Photo taken from Mr.
Walilko’s driveway to left side of house, showing the water in the back of the
yard is starting to flow to the street. The back of the yard is higher than
the street level.
P-5 – Another picture from back
yard. There is one stream from the back of the yard flowing out to the street.
P-6 – Another picture of back
yard. Yard is starting to fill up with water.
P-7 – Photo of wife’s foot
showing water up to the ankles.
P-8 – Photo of back yard
Mr. Richard Sweeney said P-1
shows a Saab automobile in the driveway. Is there water accumulated at that
Mr. Walilko said no. It is just
starting to rain.
Mr. Richard Sweeney said P-2
shows water is beginning to collect on the street. Is it collecting on the
street where the drywell is?
Mr. Walilko said yes. He agreed
the drywell is flooded at that point, and is not taking the water, and it is
building up on the surface of the street. I can’t tell whether or not the
drywell is clear. It does get clogged up a lot.
Mr. Richard Sweeney said P-4
shows the gable side of the house and a trailer parked on the side yard. Water
is shown there to the left of the trailer. Is that water flowing from the
property onto the street?
Mr. Walilko said yes.
Mr. Richard Sweeney asked P-5
shows water is flowing from the property onto the street.
Mr. Walilko said yes. The same
thing applies to P-6.
Mr. Richard Sweeney said the
testimony of the engineers is that the grade of the property goes from a high
point in the vicinity of the street to the Tucci property. You don’t agree
Mr. Walilko said he does not
agree. I am there all the time. They are not.
Mr. Bodolsky said he spoke with
Ms. Walilko about two days after that storm. At the time I got there, the
property was largely dry. She indicated to me that what she observed was that
the water was progressing out of the back yard toward the street and
ultimately, the street joined that water. Is that what you observed?
Mr. Walilko said depending on the
type of storm, that does happen.
Mr. Bodolsky asked if it is
possible that what you are observing is not water flowing from the back yard
but a progression of the size of the pond.
Mr. Walilko said not on that day.
Mr. Bodolsky said the reason I
went out there was that I believe this was the remnants of Hurricane Ivan
which, in some areas was more than an average storm. Is that correct?
Mr. Walilko said he does not
Mr. Bodolsky said what we are
observing is something significantly higher than a two-year storm, in my
Ms. LeFrance submitted her photos
(marked P-9 to P-12) and described them for the Board.
Mr. Bodolsky asked who put the
makeshift curb in.
Ms. LeFrance said the original
owner of the house did. When the town put the sewer in the road was nicely
paved. When they put the water in, it got a little botched up.
The application was carried to 6/1/05.
There was a 5 minute recess at 9:45 p.m.
S-13-05 – KAZI FOODS –
MINOR SITE PLAN FOR RESTAURANT LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK6501, LOT
19 IN B-2 ZONE
Attorney Edward Dunne represented
the applicant. This is a minor site plan application attempting to amend a
site to add 440 square feet to the rear of the building to enclose an existing
walk-in freezer and add a walk-in freezer. There are some changes that have
been made to the plan. The garbage area is being expanded to accommodate
recycling and to have a front entrance. A fence is being used to enclose it.
The old loading dock has been removed from the plan as well. Loading and
unloading will occur during off hours at the rear of the building at the new
section. We have addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s memo at the last hearing.
The applicant addressed Mr.
Stern’s memo dated 4/14/05, updated 5/12/05:
Mr. Dicely described how the site
operates. He said traffic enters on the west side and queues up to the drive
thru. The order point is at the rear of the building on the east corner. The
pickup window is on the east side in the middle of the building. The traffic
exits onto Rt. 46. There is a “no left turn” sign there which is existing.
Vehicles generally turn right and left there. Since the traffic circle was
taken away, people do make the left turn out. You can turn left safely. There
are currently 6 employees at peak time. When we add the second franchise, the
number of employees will increase from 9 to 10 at peak periods. Probably about
half of the employees drive to the restaurant. We can control where the
employees park and would direct them to park on the east lot, which is the
farthest from the entrance. Regarding the queuing of vehicles, there is enough
room for 7 cars from the pickup window to the end of the queuing line. The
queuing does not frequently back up into the parking area. Seeing a long line
generally discourages people from getting in the line. Presently, there are
only about 7 or 8 cars queued. Three or four cars is usually the average. I
am at the site frequently. This parking lot now has 40 spaces. I have never
seen more than 50% of the parking lot filled up. It is my belief the 40
parking spaces are sufficient to handle the patrons who will come and eat
inside the restaurant. Right now 15% of the customers eat in. I don’t foresee
any parking issues. There is no place to put additional parking on the site.
We are not adding any square footage area for dining. We are just changing the
menu and adding a franchise.
Mr. Bodolsky said the site plan
designates 2 employee spaces near the dumpster. That is contrary to the
Mr. Dicely said the spaces near
the dumpster will be public spaces.
Mr. Dunne asked the timing of the
Mr. Dicely said it is never
during the hours the restaurant is open.
Mr. Gluszko addressed items in
Mr. Stern’s report:
Item 1.4 – done
Item 1.5 – addressed
Item 1.6 – Waiver requested. Mr.
Stern had no objection. This is an existing site, and there is no
Mr. Rilee suggested putting a cap
on the east side of the dumpster.
Discussion. End cap island will
Item 1.7 – design waiver agreed
Item 1.8 – Mr. Gluszko said the dumpster
will be 8 feet tall to allow for larger capacity, and we propose the 8 foot
fence. The enclosure is a recycled material. The color will complement the
Item 1.9 – Mr. Gluszko said we
have added plant material on the west side as shown on drawing A-3.1, revised
5/10/05. We have added arborvitae.
Item 1.10 – agreed
Item 1.11 – agreed
Item 1.12 – agreed
Item 1.13 – agreed
Item 1.14 – agreed
Item 1.15, 1.16 – no addition
A-4 – demonstration of a waste
Page 2 – cigarette snuffer
Mr. Sweeney asked that the items
not agreed to be addressed.
1.17, 1.18 – agreed
Signage and architecture – plans
have been modified to show two signs for the front. The proposal to put a sign
facing westbound has been withdrawn. The enter and exit signs will be 2 square
Mr. Zoschak suggested the enter
and exit signs should not block the sight distance for cars to be able to see
Mr. Zoschak said the no left turn
sign should stay there.
Mr. Dunne said the State is
looking into that.
A-5 marked – architectural
elevations plan dated 3/2/05.
Mr. Dunne said we have agreed to
eliminate the drive-thru sign, eliminate the Mugshot sign facing westbound, the
welcome sign, and the clock that says “Yum”.
Mr. Dunne said we don’t believe
the menu board and preview boards are signs, and we want to continue those.
Mr. Shadiack asked if the front
façade will be changed.
Mr. Dunne said it will be
Mr. Dunne stated a monument sign will
be installed. The sign is 94 square feet. It is 5’2” tall and 9’ wide. It
sits perpendicular to the road and replaces the existing pylon sign. The base
is concrete block with stucco finish.
Mr. Dunne said we will agree to
make the sign design subject to Mr. Stern’s approval.
Mr. Dicely said a preview board
is to expedite the ordering process and helps move the queue faster. The sign
faces the back of our building and our detention basin. The menu board and
preview board are large. They are 8 panels, 4 for each brand. We will be
offering probably 16 food items. The size of the menu board cannot be reduced
without sacrificing menu items. It is a standard board in the KFC system
The Board had no objection to the
Items 2.6, 2.7 – agreed
Regarding item 2.2, Mr. Dunne
said the Board should look at the renderings. The building is split up to
provide the appearance of the two tenants.
Mr. Gluszko said the two signs
cannot be merged, as the corporate image has been established as a prototype.
The signs are always separate. It is done on the pylon sign. This is a
replication of a traditional KFC and Long John Silver sign.
After discussion it was
determined the same tan color will be used. The Yummy separations will
be the same color as the rest of the wall on the front elevation. This will be
worked out with Mr. Stern.
3.2 – comply
3.3 – new stanchions will meet
3.4, 3.5 – will comply
3.6 – discussion – will do for
proposed light poles. Existing lights will stay where they are.
3.7, 3.8, 3.9 – agreed
3.10 – will comply – no neon
4.1 – landscape plan provided –
will contact Mr. Stern
4.2 – agreed
4.3 – agreed
The applicant addressed Mr.
Bodolsky’s report updated 5/18/05:
Mr. Dunne stated a complete set
of plans will be submitted.
Mr. Bodolsky said regarding items
2A, 4A, and 7A, there is a problem with some of the dimensions.
New comment A – Mr. Gluszko said
the exact distance is 60’7”. That was measured physically in the field. I
have included perpendicular parking on the site plan, and there are 9’ x 18’
parking spaces with a 24’ cartway, which is a two-way isle width.
Item B – applicant agreed
sidewalk will be increased to 6’
Item C – Mr. Dicely said there
has never been any difficulty with the truck maneuvering the site. The site
was approved in 1985 and there have never been any problems to his knowledge.
Mr. Gluszko said he did not see any marks on the curbs or lawn. We will cut
down the island and make the isle 30 feet.
Item D – Mr. Gluszko said the
field measurement showed the exit driveway throat width to be 16 feet.
Item E – Mr. Gluszko said he
surveyed the road and the clearance around the drive through is 20 feet.
Attachment B – Mr. Gluszko said
he watched cars make the turn and there was no problem with cars passing each
other. They were SUVs, cars, pickup trucks. The site operates now. We are not
proposing any change there.
Item 6 – agreed to .99
Item 7A – Applicant is pursuing
the left turn issue with the DOT. Will provide documentation. If we can’t get
the documentation, the no left turn will stay.
Mr. Behrens said he feels 8 feet
is too high for the dumpsters. Six feet is adequate. If they are full too
soon, you can schedule another pickup, or you increase your regular pickups.
After discussion, the Board
determined the dumpster will be 6 feet high.
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to
approve the application subject to all conditions set forth. Mr. Rilee
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms.
Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, Mr. Sweeney, yes.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 11:00 p.m.
A. DeMasi, Secretary