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 Meetings Act”.

 

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 to 4/20/05.

 

Minutes of 1/5/05

 

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

 

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.

 

AGENDA

 

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 tower.

 

Ms. DeVincentis asked where the access is.

 

Mr. Berger said there is an access easement off Mooney Road.

 

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 variance.

 

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 variance. 

 

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 ZONE

 

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 descriptions overlap.

 

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 that pavement?

 

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 proposed?

 

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 yet.

 

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 perpetuity.

 

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 change. 

 

Mr. Bautz asked how long the adjoining property owner has been there.

 

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 datum. 

 

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 design waiver.

 

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 the street?

 

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 allocation.

 

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 scheme.

 

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 vegetation.

 

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 resolution.

 

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 that solution.

 

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 Engineer.

 

Discussion. 

 

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.

 

                                                                        Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary

 

lm/