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 Scott Meyer
presiding. After a salute to the Flag, Mr. Meyer read the “Open Public
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Meyer, Gary Behrens, Michael
Shadiack, Steven Alford, Joseph Schwab, Charles Bautz, Teresa DeVincentis, Lisa
Voyce, Jim Rilee.
ABSENT: Richard Zoschak, Larry Sweeney.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Tom Germinario, Russell
Stern, Tom Bodolsky.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary
Mr. Meyer announced Applications M-1-05, Villages at
Roxbury, and S-4-05, Villages at Roxbury will not be heard and are carried
Minutes of 1/5/05
Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr.
Shadiack, abstain; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, abstain;
Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
S-9-05 – NEXTEL – ANTENNA ON A TOWNSHIP
TOWER LOCATED ON MOONEY – RD. BLOCK 9002, LOT
3 IN RR-5 ZONE
Attorney Richard Schneider represented the applicant. He
stated this is a courtesy review. This application involves a co-location of a
wireless communications facility on an existing tower on Mooney Road.
Mr. Berger, engineer for the applicant, was present and
said this is an existing tower. In addition to municipal services, there are
also A T & T antennas. The tower is 135 feet tall, excluding the municipal
antenna. Cingular has an antenna at 135 feet. The Nextel antennas would be at
125 feet. We propose 12 antennas, in three sectors. We would also use a low
profile platform. We also propose a 12 x 20 foot equipment shelter to contain
the radio equipment. The cables are above ground on a cable bridge and they go
about 12 feet to the tower, and go through a port at the base and run internal
to the monopole. The shelter has a stone aggregate finish. There is no
on-site generator. The facility is only visited about once every 4 to 6
weeks. There is no water or sewer service. We would meet all code
requirements for structural integrity.
Mr. Rilee asked if any new color scheme is being added.
Mr. Berger said it is a grayish galvanized finish for the
Ms. DeVincentis asked where the access is.
Mr. Berger said there is an access easement off Mooney
Mr. Meyer said the antenna is located on an existing pole,
and it is a benefit to the Township.
M-10-04 – KENNETH JACOBSEN - MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 2
LOTS LOCATED ON DOGWOOD LANE, BLOCK 3201, LOT
30 IN R-2 ZONE
Mr. Germinario said regarding the jurisdictional issue in
Mr. Stern’s report, in the R-2 zone, flag lots are listed as a conditional use,
however, due to a glitch in the ordinance, the conditional use standards for
flag lots contain no bulk standards for the R-2 zone. Therefore, we can’t
consider it as a conditional use. It would be a stretch to jump to the
conclusion that it would be a prohibited use. All of that will be clarified in
the upcoming revisions to the ordinance, but for now, we have to consider it a
permitted use, and treat the variance for lot width as a bulk variance.
Kenneth Fox, architect and planner, was present. He
stated he just received a report from Mr. Stern, revised 2/11/05. He said this lot is about 97,000 square feet. The zone requires 25,000 feet. The shape of
the lot is such that we have some variances required, dealing with lot width
and lot frontage. The lot on the left with the existing home presently has two
existing setback variances for sideyard setback and for front yard setback. Lot
frontage variances are being requested for both lots. The lot on the left (lot
A) has 103 feet of frontage, where 110 feet is required. For lot width, we
have 114 feet where 125 feet is required. On the lot on the right, lot frontage
required is 110 feet, and we propose 50 feet. Lot width is at the front
setback line, and we do not require a variance for that. Since the last
meeting, we have retained an engineer to address Mr. Bodolsky’s concerns.
Mr. Fox stated a design waiver is required for
insufficient cartway width on Dogwood Lane. We are not proposing a new road,
and are asking for a waiver. A waiver is also being requested from the
requirement for curbs and sidewalks. We feel they would be out of character
with this completely developed neighborhood.
Mr. Germinario asked if that would require a planning
Mr. Fox stated that is correct. 40:55d35 talks about
building a lot on an existing street, and 55d35 talks about the Board being
able to grant relief or appeal from that standard. I will talk specifically
about that at the end of the presentation. 35 says such a street has to have
been duly placed on the official map, and it has been. It also talks about it
being adequate in respect to public health, safety and general welfare of
special circumstances of a particular street. We also feel it is. It then
says it shall have been established that the street shall have been certified
to have been suitably improved to the satisfaction of the Governing Body. We
feel it is satisfactorily improved, and we are asking for variance relief.
Mr. Germinario said I think you do need a variance, in the
absence of some contrary statement from the Governing Body. That is not
mentioned in the public notice and the notice to adjoining landowners. It is
because the lot is not related to a street improved up to municipal standards.
We do have a difficulty in proceeding insofar as the notice doesn’t cover that
Mr. Fox said that issue did come up at the last hearing.
Our notice does mention other variances that may be brought up. That issue was
brought up at the last public hearing and it was discussed at length.
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Germinario for a ruling.
Mr. Germinario stated it is true we did touch on it at the
last hearing. Public notice is an important issue. Property owners within 200
feet is part of the notice, the other part is notice to the newspapers. I
will have to rule that it is a notice deficiency, and will not allow this to
continue without proper noticing.
Mr. Meyer announced we will not hear the application
tonight. The applicant will have to re-notice with the appropriate notice.
The application was carried to 3/16/05.
S-21-04 – GLENN BOTT – SITE PLAN FOR STEEP SLOPES
LOCATED ON CENTER ST. BLOCK 10501, LOT 31 IN R-2
Attorney Robert Stiles represented the applicant. He
stated at the last hearing there was an issue as to the property line. This
application is for a single family home on a lot that has a slope issue. At
the last hearing, there was a question concerning where the sideline was on the
property. In order to satisfy the Board that we were correct, it was suggested
that we get a second opinion from an independent surveyor. That was done.
Bricker and Associates did his own survey, and we have received a letter from
him (marked A-1) stating he had completed the work and agreed with the work
from our surveyor.
Mr. Germinario said at the last hearing, there was to be
an agreement reached between the two owners of Lots 31 and 32 since the deed
Mr. Stiles said they do not overlap, but if the Board
thinks some type of easement may be necessary for his comfort, we are prepared
to grant him that.
Mr. Stiles submitted a survey showing the location of the
two lots and the lines. He said the dark area is where the macadam driveway
is, even though it is over the line on our piece. From looking at the pictures
we have, that part is not necessary for him to have access to his garage.
Mr. Stern said to clarify, the adjoining owner does have a
portion of his driveway on this property. Is it your proposal to eliminate
Mr. Stiles said no.
Mr. Stern said the drawing shows the retaining wall along
the common property line. Does that mean the retaining wall is no longer
Mr. Stiles said the red line is where the actual line is.
There is a need for a wall there. We would prefer to move it a little bit away
to give a little more yard area to that dwelling.
The copy of the survey was marked A-2.
Mr. Germinario said by maintaining that driveway, you are
retaining a structure that doesn’t relate to the use of your lot, yet you are
claiming it is on your property. If it is removed, there is a dispute with the
neighbor which hasn’t been resolved.
Mr. Stiles said we will work on obtaining an easement.
The neighbor is no longer cooperative. All I can do is to certify to the Board
that we will grant whatever easements are necessary for his convenience.
Mr. Germinario said he doesn’t see how the Board can take
action on this until there is a resolution of the issue with the neighbor. We
could go forward with testimony, but to approve this, it is implicit in the
approval that we are acknowledging the boundary lines. I don’t want to have an
approval that says you will give and easement, and then later a court
determines his property line is in that area and he owns it and doesn’t need an
easement. We need to have the property line resolved.
Mr. Bodolsky said you could treat the edge of pavement,
the disputed area, as the new property line. The Board could grant a sideyard
variance for the house up to the disputed area.
Mr. Rilee said we can’t make a decision on that stretch
Mr. Bodolsky said what I’m seeing is an impasse. One
solution would be to process it that way and then let them work it out. What
they are saying is that they would grant them an easement to use it in
Mr. Germinario said we need to know the legal rights. That
needs to be determined by a court of law.
Mr. Meyer said there are questions of sideyard setbacks,
impervious coverage, etc. We couldn’t possibly address that.
Mr. Bautz said if we make a decision, and the judge makes
a different ruling, what happens to us?
Mr. Rilee said it needs to be resolved one way or
another. It is difficult for us to make decisions when so many things can
Mr. Bautz asked how long the adjoining property owner has
Mr. Stiles said about 30 years.
Mr. Bautz said if he goes for adverse possession, we would
have a problem.
Mr. Germinario said if you want to move forward with
testimony, we can do that, but we can’t make a determination until this issue
is resolved .
Mr. Stiles said if we take testimony tonight, I will try
to contact Mr. Korn to try to get him to take action.
Mr. Meyer said he would agree to take testimony as long as
it doesn’t affect this issue, such as the lot line, lot size, etc.
Ms. Voyce said there are issues related to steep slopes,
and also various other issues. Everything would be impacted. I don’t see how
we can hear testimony without a determination.
The application was carried to 4/6/05. An extension of time was granted to that date.
S-8-05 – DELL AVE. PROPERTIES – DELL
AVE. PROPERTIES – SITE PLAN FOR FLEX OFFICE/WAREHOUSE LOCATED
ON DELL AVE. BLOCK 7101, LOTS 17 & 18 IN I-3 ZONE
Attorney Lawrence Berger represented the applicant. He
stated we are here for site plan approval, and would like to address Mr.
Bodolsky’s report and the report from the Fire Official.
George Ritter, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.
He described the property in question and the proposal before the Board,
stating the property is located on North Dell Avenue and contains 6.32 acres of
land. It is a previously developed tract and is basically flat. About 2/3 of
the site is wooded. There is a parking lot in the front of a little over 2
acres that is currently paved in asphalt. The wooded area is second growth,
and you can see various piles of earth that may signify past activity. My
investigation indicates there were never any structures on the site except for
the parking area. The proposal is to create a flex warehouse building and
outdoor storage yard. The plan is to construct a 22,000 sq. ft. building with
about 4,000 sq. ft. of office along the front and 18,000 sq. ft. of warehouse.
The tenant mix is not yet known.
Mr. Ritter referred to exhibits A-1, Existing Features
Plan, and A-2, Site Plan.
The proposal is to develop a public parking area off of
Dell Avenue, with the primary access to the rear for truck service and loading,
and a secondary means of access along the southern side of the building for
truck and cars with a parking loop across the front. Stormwater facilities
would be in the front bordering Dell Avenue and a detention basin/infiltration
system along the existing service road. The site will be served by private
well and septic. When water is extended along North Dell Avenue, the site will
hook in. There be parking provided for 37 cars. There will be textured siding
and brick finishes on the building.
Mr. Ritter referred to exhibit A-3.
Mr. Ritter stated the site can be developed essentially
consistent with the ordinance. There will be adequate parking spaces. We will
provide 1 space per 225 spaces for the offices, and 1 space per 1,000 square
feet of warehouse space. The proposal is within the I-3 industrial district
which permits outdoor storage, provided the outdoor storage is kept out of the
yards established for the principal building. Impervious coverage is less than
the 55% permitted at 50.1%. There are variances required dealing with parking
in front yard. It involves having 25% in terms of coverage in the front yard.
There are also minor variances dealing with setbacks from the side property
lines. The site is proposed to be heavily landscaped. We believe it will be
an improvement over what is there today. There will be stormwater controls
placed on the site in conformance with the new State regulations. A variance
is required for disturbance of steep slopes. There are several piles of debris
and dirt across the rear of the facility, and those will be knocked down and
graded. A variance is required for the 50 foot landscape buffer adjacent to
residential areas. A design waiver deals with improvements to North Dell
Avenue. Under the design standards, we would be required to provide a 20 foot
half width within the right-of-way. We propose a 15 foot wide half width.
That matches previous approvals that we had for the western side of Dell
Avenue. The other waiver request deals with the requirement for the topography
Mr. Rilee asked how far the main driveway into the
property is from the recycling center.
Mr. Ritter said approximately 34 feet at the closest
point, with the landscape buffer.
Mr. Stern said the adjoining property to the north was
rezoned in 2001 to Rural Residential. As such, an industrial property
adjoining a residential zone requires a minimum 50 foot landscape buffer.
Relief will be required for the structure within the buffer zone. Either it
has to come out or the applicant has to provide an alternative that is
acceptable to the Board.
Mr. Ritter said we did not see that requirement in the
ordinance. We established a minimum of 25 feet. We think we can provide a
fully landscaped buffer 50 feet wide. We will discuss that further. There
will also be discussion on what trees will be removed.
Mr. Berger addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s’ report:
Agreed with 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10,16, 17, 19, 23.
Mr. Ritter addressed items 12 and 13:
Item 12 – Mr. Ritter said the only thing that has been
developed is that the front portion of the tract is currently paved, and was
only used as a parking area. The area is still used to park trucks
occasionally. As you walk through, there is no indication that there were any
other structures. You can find piles of dirt, debris and soil that run through
the area. It appears the balance of the site is second growth and was either in
fields or manipulated in the past. The area is wooded today.
Mr. Bodolsky said in the northeast part of the asphalt
area, there appear to be 3 risers with different caps. What were those?
Ronald Petillo was sworn in. He said some years back, the
DEP came back there and was measuring the water in the aquifers and put three
wells in. They are no longer in use.
Ms. Voyce asked if the applicant has researched the
history of the property. There are a number of things in the Development
Impact Study that should be addressed. I wonder if the applicant has done due
diligence and if there are any other things we should be concerned about.
Mr. Petillo said when title transferred, there was a “No
Further Action letter” from the DEP that included those lots. The entire
tract, including the opposite side of the street, has a “No Further Action
Letter”. There was no contamination or any other problems on this side of the
street. They did have a beryllium problem on the other side of the road which
was addressed the last time we had an approval.
Mr. Behrens said he has driven by this lot for many years
as his business is nearby, and when I first started there 35 years ago, it was
an employee parking lot. I have never seen any structures on it.
Mr. Germinario asked that the Board be provided with a
copy of the “No Further Action” letter”.
The applicant agreed.
Mr. Ritter said regarding item 13 in Mr. Bodolsky’s
letter, there are two sets of driveways widths. The larger which is to the
north of the building was laid out as the principal access drive and was laid
out with a 30 foot cartway width to the rear to provide access into the service
area and loading areas. We felt to improve circulation, we provided a driveway
along the opposite side for an alternative means to access the site, not
necessarily as a continuous through road for every vehicle. The principal
entrance would be the 30 foot driveway for larger trucks.
Mr. Bodolsky said his turning template shows the lower
driveway won’t work for tractor trailer trucks.
There was a 5 minute recess at 8:50 p.m.
Gary Dean, traffic expert for the applicant, was sworn
in. He listed his educational and professional background for the Board.
Mr. Berger said Mr. Dean had previously done a traffic
report on the property across the street as well.
Mr. Bodolsky said the traffic report discusses the levels
of service at the two proposed driveways, and also goes into the level of
service at Dell Avenue and Route 46, which is a concern to the Township, as well
as the traffic going through the residential area.
Mr. Meyer said this is an ongoing concern of the Township.
Ms. Voyce suggested a brief overview of the testimony that
was given for the previous application.
Mr. Dean said the prior application for Dell Industrial
Park was for a substantially larger project that entailed 200,000 square feet
of warehouse/flex space with outdoor storage to be built on a build-to-suit
basis. This application is about 1/10 the size of that application. It is a
very small flex-type building, largely to be used for warehouse, and a small
amount to be used as office. In the previous application we did counts along
Dell Avenue. This type of use is very passive from a traffic standpoint. Much
of the use is for storage. There is minimal in-and-out activity. There is no
way to accurately forecast the number of trucks that would be generated on any
given day. In studying the other buildings, the majority of truck traffic is
single unit box type trucks. In Mt. Olive, we saw an occasion where a tractor
trailer was left on the property for a week or two. It is not the kind of use
we would see at a distribution center. These types of buildings are generally
used by plumbing or home improvement contractors for storage. In our study we
did some estimates. Generally it would generate 20 to 22 trips on an hourly
basis. Of that, there may be one truck generated at peak hours. If the
building is divided among several tenant spaces, we would see more smaller
trucks than larger trucks. In terms of Dell Avenue, it is an industrial
corridor. The pattern of use on this end of Dell Avenue is more industrial.
There is a lot of truck activity at times. It runs with the zoning of the
property. We did look, in the prior application, at a consistency of the road
improvement on Dell Avenue. It has been improved consistently to 30 feet. Mr.
Bodolsky’s report points out the ordinance requires an improvement of a 20 foot
half cartway width. This would be the only section to be improved to that
width, and that doesn’t add much to maneuverability, safety, etc. What is
proposed is consistent with the balance of the road. General activity on Dell
Avenue is fairly light. There area bout 250 vehicles during morning peak, an
about 300 during evening peak. Route 46 carries almost 1,400 vehicles per
hour. I don’t think the extra 5 feet of pavement width would add anything.
Mr. Berger said the Board has already approved the 15 foot
section of the road at Dell Industrial. Would this be the only section on
either side of the road that would actually be 20 feet?
Mr. Dean said yes. I reviewed the overall plans, and I
think further south the road is all 30 feet. When you get to Route 46 it is
much narrower. I think the applicant has agreed to provide curbing, and it
will be a high designed standard roadway even at 30 feet. It makes sense from
a design perspective.
Mr. Bodolsky said it was a condition of the design waiver
for Dell Industrial Park that Dell Avenue would be posted for “No Parking”.
This particular stretch is already posted. I don’t have any problem with the
Mr. Stern said in the prior application there was a
concern by the Morris County Planning Board about traffic at the Route 46
intersection. How does this impact that?
Mr. Dean said since the improvement at the Ledgewood
Circle, I don’t believe it is as acute a problem as it once was. We are
generating 20 trips in total, and I believe our impact would be 1% or less of
the total traffic. There was no commentary from the Morris County Planning
Board regarding that issue.
Mr. Bodolsky asked about the LOS at the Route 45
intersection before and after the build.
Mr. Dean said in our report we evaluated the intersection
operations at both ends of Dell Avenue. We saw the longest delays were in
Level Of Service (LOS) D during evening peak hour, which represents an average
delay between 35 and 55 seconds. After the project is constructed, we forecast
longer delays, but we would maintain LOS D conditions or better throughout both
peak hours. It is not indicative that major improvements are needed at the
intersections. The delay increase is still within the LOS D range. The p.m.
peak delays today are 37 and 38 seconds. After the sites are built and we add
traffic, the delays go up to 45 seconds.
Mr. Bautz asked if that is based on renting the whole
space to one tenant or breaking it up.
Mr. Dean said we looked at it on a light industrial use.
If we had a particular tenant that had excessively high employee counts, we
might have a slight increase. In terms of what the ordinance permits, it is
consistent with what we see out in the field.
Mr. Rilee asked if the counts include the property across
Mr. Dean said yes.
Mr. Rilee asked if there would be any input from the
County. There is no County road involved.
Mr. Dean said it is an advisory review, and I would
imagine, as it states in their letter, that because new impervious area is
greater than one acre, County drainage review is required under the County
Planning Act. They exert jurisdiction based on a stormwater concern, but
nothing in terms of traffic.
Ms. Voyce asked when Dell Industrial Park will be built.
Mr. Petillo said there is a water moratorium. I need fire
protection. Without the water, I can’t have it. This particular building will
be put on a well. The real issue is when the town will give me water
Mr. Stern said Mr. Petillo should stay aware of the
approval period on that and the need for possible extensions.
Mr. Alford asked if a gymnastics center or sports facility
could go in there.
Mr. Dean said he doesn’t know if the zoning standards
permit it. If that were to happen, we would have to evaluate the effect on the
Level of Service.
Mr. Berger said Mr. Petillo has indicated that is not a
use he is interested in.
David Plante, licensed civil engineer, was sworn in. He
addressed certain items in Mr. Bodolsky’s report:
Item 1 – Mr. Petillo will be responsible for the
maintenance of the pond.
Mr. Bodolsky suggested Mr. Plante go over the stormwater
Mr. Plante said on Dell Avenue, there are no drainage
improvements in the vicinity of this project. Stormwater from this site comes
out to Dell Avenue and some of it sheet flows off the site in each direction
onto the neighboring properties. A good portion of the site is currently
wooded. We propose two infiltration basins. One is a large basin to the rear
of the site which will pick up stormwater from the site itself, and a smaller
basin along Dell Avenue. The basin in the rear will function completely by
infiltration. It is a very conservative design and won’t fill even in a
100-year storm. The smaller basin will pick up water from the infiltration
basin as well as Dell Avenue and some smaller areas just off the site. The
concept behind these infiltration basins is that we will pick up the water in a
swale along Dell Avenue and allow that water to drain underneath the sidewalk,
and water would go into sediment fore bays where it is slightly detained,
allowing the heavier matter to settle out. We are also proposing a larger
sediment fore bay in the larger basin. These are designed in accordance with
the new stormwater management regulations. Originally we proposed a swale
along Dell Avenue. We meet the water quality goals without the swale. Mr.
Bodolsky has suggested that we consider putting a berm along there, and we
agree. The Dell Avenue basin was designed for up to a 25-year storm. The
overflow would continue down Dell Avenue, but the overflow would be greatly
reduced over what is there today.
Mr. Berger said Mr. Bodolsky had suggested sand at the
bottom of the basin.
Mr. Plante said it is what is called for in the NJ Best
Management Practice Manual. It requires 6” of highly permeable sand. The
problem with that is aesthetics. That is of concern along Dell Avenue. We
would propose sand, with topsoil on top of that so that we can grass and
Mr. Stern asked if that would be for both basins.
Mr. Plante said yes.
Mr. Bodolsky said he agrees a bare sand bottom would not
be aesthetically pleasing. I would need to insist that the entire bottom be
manifold. That would be acceptable, but not just a single pipe. The Board
should be aware of the highly unusual nature of this to handle a Township
structure. It is similar to what was approved with the Dell Industrial Park.
There is a particular problem in this area in that there is no storm sewer
infrastructure. There was a lot of discussion on the last application as to
whether it would be acceptable to pipe up Dell Avenue. The realization at that
time is that there were only two spots where piping could go – either the
Corwin Pit or the Gallo Pit. Both areas were envisioned at one time for
recreation and potable water source. The Planning Board rejected the
conventional approach, and what was fashioned is what is being proposed - to
take a portion of the road into the infiltrated structure and get rid of the
25-year storm. The 50 and 100-year storms would overflow down the road. What
is unusual about this is that although the infiltrative pond largely handles
Dell Avenue runoff, the applicant agrees to handle the maintenance for the
pond. As to the infiltrative pond in the back, Mr. Berger said they agreed to
Item 5 in my report. The idea there was that any tenant that moves into the
building needs to be pre-approved by the Zoning Officer in consultation with
the Township Engineer. The wording in Item 5 was verbatim from the previous
Mr. Stern said he applauds the applicant in wanting to
cover the top of the sand basin and get lawn established. I hope they pursue
Item 15 –Mr. Berger said the report says Dell Avenue
pavement is severely rutted and alligatored, and the applicant should be obligated
to replace same to center line. If the word “replace” means milled to 8”, 6”
of standard base, 2” of top as our total off site contribution, we agree.
Mr. Stern said that needs to be verified by the Township
Mr. Petillo said the solution on the opposite side of the
street was that we were going to install the water main. We are going to do a
2-foot widening on the north side of Dell Avenue. That was the final
solution. There won’t be any rebuilding of the road. Beyond that, the
intersection where the DPW and Recycling Center comes out, was replaced some
years ago by Mr. Crimi. That didn’t hold up. Even the repair you are asking
for, with the truck traffic coming out of the Crimi pit, it is only a matter of
when it’s going to fail.
The Board asked that Mr. Bodolsky contact the Township
Engineer for his input.
Ms. Voyce said there is an Environmental Resources
Inventory and a Threatened and Endangered Species report which are not
referenced in the Development Report. They should be reviewed. I would also
like to know where this property stands in the Highlands Preservation area and
the status of any permits.
The application was carried to 3/16/05. The applicant
granted an extension of time to that date.
The meeting was adjourned by motion at 9:45 p.m.
A. DeMasi, Secretary