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
regular meeting of the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m.
with Chairperson Gail Robortaccio presiding. After a salute to the Flag, Ms.
Robortaccio read the “Open Public Meeting Act”.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Gail Robortaccio, Kathy DeFillippo, Mark Crowley, Joyce
Dargel, Scott Meyer, Barbara Kinback.
Robert Kurtz, Mike Roome, Robert Church.
STAFF PRESENT: Larry Wiener, Russell Stern, Tom Bodolsky.
present: Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary
Minutes of 11/8/04
Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Crowley seconded.
Corrections noted and made.
as follows: Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo,
yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
Minutes of 12/13/04
Meyer made a motion to approve the minutes. Ms. DeFillippo seconded.
as follows: Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley,
yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-2-05 – HILDI & JOHN LIBBY – VARIANCE FOR REAR YARD
SETBACK FOR ADDITION LOCATED ON KELLY DR., BLOCK 4603, LOT
7 IN R-2 ZONE
RESOLUTION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
Memorialized: February 14, 2005
WHEREAS, Hildi & John Libby have applied
to the Board of Adjustment, Township of Roxbury for permission to construct a
20’ x 20’ rear addition requiring a dimensional variance for premises located
at 2 Kelly Drive and known as Block 4603, Lot 7 on the Tax Map of the Township
of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-2” Zone; said proposal required relief
from Section 13-7.1101D5a of the Roxbury Township Land Use Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Board, after carefully
considering the evidence presented by the applicant and having conducted a
public hearing has made the following factual findings:
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the
relief requested by the applicant can be granted without substantial detriment
to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose
of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the Township of Roxbury for the
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT
RESOLVED by the
Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 10th day of January, 2005
that the approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the
Mr. Crowley made a motion to approve the
resolution. Mr. Meyer seconded.
as follows: Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms.
BA-3-05 – ROBERT & DANA TAGGART – VARIANCE FOR 5 FOOT FENCE
LOCATED ON HENRY ST. BLOCK 2907, LOT 8 IN R-3 ZONE
the matter of Dana & Robert Taggart
February 14, 2005
& Robert Taggart have applied to the Board of Adjustment, Township of
Roxbury for permission to construct a fence in violation of the Zoning
Ordinance for premises located at 38 Henry Street and known as Block 2907, Lot
8 on the Tax Map of the Township of Roxbury which premises are in a “R-3” Zone;
said proposal required relief from Section 13-8.809B of the Roxbury Township
Land Use Ordinance; and
Board, after carefully considering the evidence presented by the applicant and
having conducted a public hearing has made the following factual findings:
Board has determined that the relief requested by the applicant can be granted
without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially
impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance of the
Township of Roxbury for the following reasons:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Adjustment of the Township of Roxbury on the 14th day of February, 2005 that the
approval of the within application be granted subject, however, to the
Ms. DeFillippo made a motion to approve the
resolution. Ms. Dargel seconded.
as follows: Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr.
Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-5-05 – WEST
MACHINERY – SOIL RELOCATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON OLD LEDGEWOOD RD. BLOCK 9303, LOTS 6 & 7 IN B1A ZONE
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
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 Zoning Board of Adjustmen5t (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: West Chester
Application Number: BA-05-05
Property Identification: Block
9303, Lots 6 & 7
Subdivision/Site Plan Approval
Major Soil Permit Approval Date: 3/7/02
Findings of Fact:
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.
Proof of adequate notice of this
Application, pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-6.5, has been furnished to the
A public hearing was conducted in
accordance with the Ordinance and with opportunity for comment by interested
members of the public on the following dates: 1/10/05.
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 3/7/02; (2) earthwork
calculations by George Gloede, P.E., dated 1/4/05; and (3)
reports of the Zoning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 1/3/05.
The Board has made the following
additional findings of fact:
The Applicant intends to export
1,770 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil.
The Applicant proposes to relocate
within the site 267 c.y. of soil.
The Applicant intends to obtain
export fill to a location outside the Township.
The route of truck travel to
Applicant’s site to the disposal site will be: Mountain Avenue to Route 206
South to International Drive West (and reversed).
The Applicant has agreed to comply
with the recommendations contained in the report of the Zoning Board of
Adjustment’s Engineer dated 1/3/05. .
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
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 respect
Conditions of Approval: This
Permit is granted subject to the following terms and conditions:
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 Board Engineer
based on quantity of soil moved at the rate of ($0.35) per cubic yard of
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
The Applicant shall pay the
engineering review and inspection fees as required in Ordinance Section 17-7.3.
This approval shall not become
effective until: (i) Applicant has paid all outstanding property taxes and
assessment due or delinquent as of the date hereof; and (ii) all conditions of
the 3/7/02 approval fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer.
Applicant shall comply with (i)
“Hours of Operation” established pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-9d; (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.
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.
This approval is subject to all
outside agency review, as may have jurisdiction over this matter.
This Permit is subject to the
following additional terms and conditions:
All fill will be exported from
Applicants site from/to a site outside the Township to Mt. Olive Township.
The route of truck travel from
Applicant’s site from the borrow site to the disposal site shall be Mountain
Avenue to Route 206 South to International Drive West (and reversed).
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”.
Applicant shall post fees as
follows: $265.50 (1,770 c.y x $0.15)
Per Section 17-8 of the Ordinance,
Applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount of $2,000.00 (Ordinance
Applicant shall place hay bales on
the site to supplement planned silt fencing for erosion control to the
satisfaction of the Planning Board Engineer.
In accordance with Ordinance
Section 17-6.1(t), the Applicant shall stake out interior improvements with
appropriate cut sheets to the satisfaction of the Township Engineer.
undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate recitation of
the action taken by the Zoning Board on the approval date designated hereinabove.
Dargel made a motion to approve the resolution. Ms. DeFillippo seconded.
as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Mr. Meyer,
yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-21-04 – KENBAR INVESTMENTS – USE/SITE/SUBDIVISION FOR
HOUSE LCOATED ON ORBEN DR.
BLOCK 8602, LOTS 2, 3, 4, 5, 14 & 15
not available. Carried to 3/14/05.
Robortaccio announced Application BA-39-04 – Viacom will not be heard
and is carried to 3/14/05. Application BA-25-05 – Merry Heart
Nursing Home will not be heard and is carried to a special meeting on 2/28/05.
BA-25-04 – Kingtown Diesel will not be heard and is carried to a special
meeting of 3/14/05. Application BA-66-04 - John Selby
will not be heard and is carried to 3/14/05. BA-75-04 – Dakor/Roxbury Motel will not be heard and
is carried to 3/14/05.
BA-1-05-ROBERT MAC EWEN –
VARIANCE FOR ADDITION/PORCH/GARAGE LOCATED ON MORGAN DR. BLOCK 1604, LOT 31 IN
MacEwen was present. He stated he has submitted new plans to address the
suggestions given by the Board at the last hearing. He said he made the garage
smaller and attached it to the house.
Dargel said this has made the impervious coverage and building coverage come
down closer to what the ordinance allows.
one stepped forward.
DeFillippo made a motion to approve the application. Mr. Crowley seconded.
as follows: Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Meyer,
yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-8-05 – MICHAEL SPITZER – VARIANCE FOR ADDITION TO HOME AND
GARAGE LOCATED ON CAROL DR. BLOCK 1609, LOT 17 IN R-3 ZONE
Spitzer, 46 Carol Drive, was sworn in.
Spitzer, 46 Carol Drive, was sworn in.
Spitzer said they would like to build a dining room addition and expand the
current detached garage. The layout of the property makes it difficult to
build towards the side, so they want to build the dining room out the back.
They would also like to expand the garage towards the right side property
line. Mr. Spitzer said he wants to expand the garage so that they can build a
loft above it for his equipment and to make the garage wider for another
vehicle. The height of the addition to the detached garage would be within the
15 foot requirement from the eave to the midpoint.
Dargel said there is a shed on the property which is not shown on the plans.
Spitzer said the shed is 8’ x 8’ and he is not sure whether it was included in
the figures for impervious and building coverage. He said he would also like
to mention that the survey he submitted did not include his current driveway.
It is wider than the one shown on the survey. That would also increase the
impervious coverage by 275 square feet, for a total increase of 339 square
Dargel said it also looks like there will be a 4’ x 4’ landing on the ground
level between the dining room and garage.
Spitzer said it will be a raised wood deck.
Meyer said there is also a deck marked 4’ x 18’.
Spitzer said that is a wrap-around deck around the back portion of the house.
Dargel said that is not shown on the schematic of the inside of the house which
DeFillippo said it looks like the lower deck is existing and the applicant
plans on extending it out past the proposed dining room addition. Is that off
Spitzer said it is three steps up, about 24 to 30 inches. At the end will be
steps going down to the garage, and steps from the new addition down to the
garage. At the bottom of the two staircases will be a wooden deck at the lower
level, one step up from the driveway.
Dargel asked what the impervious coverage will be.
Wiener said if the dimensions are as stated, it would add 3.6%, making the
impervious coverage 32.64%. Building coverage would increase slightly.
Currently it is 18.6%.
Stern said this will require a revised submission by the applicant.
Robortaccio asked if a variance would be required for more than two accessory
Stern asked if the deck will be attached to the garage.
Spitzer said the platform will be attached to the house and to the garage.
Stern said we would need to see this shown on the plans.
Crowley asked if there will be any electricity or water in the garage.
Spitzer said no.
Stern asked what will occur on the second floor of the garage.
Spitzer said he has shop equipment and woodworking tools. There would be
electricity on that level. This is not related to a carpentry business. With
the addition, it would be a 2-car garage.
Stern said it appears from the plans that some of the deck encroaches on the
front of the existing garage by about 4 feet.
Spitzer said it would be tight, but it could still fit a 16 foot door. A lot
of the errors on the plans goes back to previous submissions. The earliest
submission was in July of 2001. I had submitted a plan for a similar dining
room and that Zoning Permit was approved by the former Zoning Officer. I went
back a few years later to follow through with the building, and I couldn’t go
forward because I didn’t have a sealed copy of the original permit. I do have
a copy of the Zoning Officer’s signature at that time, with all the items I was
asking for at that time.
Robortaccio said that zoning permit has expired. There have been changes in
the requirements, notably for impervious coverage.
Robortaccio said the exact size of the proposed garage is not shown.
Dargel asked if a patio is proposed for around the pool.
Spitzer said no.
Meyer asked what the height of the house is, and the height of the peak of the
Spitzer said the proposed garage peak is about 18 ½ feet, and he believes the house
is about 16 feet high.
Dargel said we should have the exact dimension.
Stern said he recommends they re-submit with all the correct information,
correct dimensions, and location of driveway. Mr. Potere will then do a full
review of the application.
Meyer suggested the applicant discuss the plans with Mr. Potere regarding the
variance situation with the garage attached, or with the garage not attached.
application was carried to 3/14/05 at 7:00
BA-7-05 – RTM HOLDING – USE VARIANCE FOR TWO USES IN BUILDING
LOCATED ON WEST DEWEY AVE. BLOCK 12702, LOT 2 IN LI/OR ZONE
Bernd Hefele represented the applicant.
Wiener said this application is for a ‘d’ variance, and there are only 6 Board
members present to hear this application.
Hefele said they will proceed. He said this application requires a use
variance for a property located on West
Behrens, owner of the property, was sworn in.
Marthens, of RTM Holdings, was sworn in.
Hefele stated this is a 60,000 square foot building which currently has one
use, and we propose a second use in the building.
Behrens stated the building is used for manufacturing compressed air dryers,
which are tanks put together with piping, painted, and shipped out by flatbed
or box trailer. The building has been used for this since 1965. There are no
hazardous materials, and no outdoor storage. This use will continue in a small
way. The operation will be more assembly. We are downsizing our operation to
about 6,000 square feet. Currently there are about 52 parking spaces, and we
have 6 employees. The property faces West
Dewey Avenue. Directly
across the street is vacant property. Down Mill Pond Road,
there is currently a well being drilled by Morris County. At the end of that street are several rental properties,
which I believe will be vacated by the current residents. To the west of us in
an abandoned rail line. Across the rail line is a small industrial complex
with about 10 tenants. To the east is Mill
Road. Behind the property to
the north is the active N.J. Transit rail. We do not use the rail line.
Stern asked if Mr. Behrens received a Certificate of Pre-Existing Nonconforming
Use from the Township.
Behrens said he received the certification. Prior to 2001, the property was
zoned I-10, Heavy Industrial, and in 2001 it was changed to LI/OR. We are a
pre-existing nonconforming use.
Hefele asked about the trucks entering and exiting the site.
Behrens said we ship two ways. If it was a large piece of equipment, a tractor
trailer would drive into the building and be loaded. We also ship by Common
Dargel asked if a solid wall will separate the two uses.
Marthens said that is not anticipated.
answer to questions from Mr. Hefle, Mr. Marthens said he is the contract
purchaser, and intends to put in storage and warehousing of office furniture.
We would use about 2/3 of the building. The office would be in the smaller
section of the “L” and there would be warehousing in the larger area, and there
will be storage in the mezzanine. Clients will be coming in from time to time
to look at specific items. It is not a retail use.
Stern asked if customers come in to Mr. Marthen’s operation.
Marthens said sometimes customers come in to inspect items. We don’t sell out
of the building. Most of the business is national or international.
Hefele asked Mr. Marthens to explain how his business operates.
Marthens stated we buy out and liquidate large buildings. We bring the
furniture in and store it. The furniture comes in by truck, sits in the
warehouse, and then goes out by truck. There will be two employees, including
Mr. Marthens. About 1,500 square feet will be used for office space for the
Meyer said there is an overabundance of parking spaces.
Stern said if you were a full manufacturing facility and doing assembly, you
could have warehousing related to that, because it is a component of
warehousing. What is different here is that the applicant has about a 95%
warehousing type operation. Though this application, the applicant is reducing
the nonconforming nature of this as he is eliminating the manufacturing use.
Hefele said our position is that it does fit in even though it is not
specifically enumerated in the ordinance. We do need the ‘d’ variance. We
feel it fits into the character of the neighborhood and has no negative impacts.
Dargel said there is a big tank out back.
Behrens said it is an above-ground, double walled, 5,000 gallon oil tank. It
meets all the State criteria. Number 2 fuel oil is stored there. There is
another tank in the back that is an air receiver, and is filled with compressed
Meyer made a motion to approve the application. Ms. Dargel seconded.
as follows: Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes – she stated she believes this is
a good use for this area; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo,
yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-9-05 – AMERADA HESS – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR SERVICE STATION
AND FOODMART LOCATED ONR T. 10 BLOCK 5003, LOT 1 IN B-2 ZONE
Donna Jennings represented the applicant. She this application is for final
site plan approval for the Hess Station. She said they received the reports
from the consultants. We would like to address the items in the reports that
we need to have discussion on. All other items are agreed to.
Lautenbacher was sworn in.
Pugsley of Bohler Engineering was sworn in.
applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report dated 2/11/05:
2 – Mr. Lautenbacher stated when we ordered the store, we instructed the
manufacturer to finish it completely all the way around and they put the
checkerboard pattern all around.
answer to questions from Ms. Jennings, Mr. Lautenbacher said when we presented
the original architectural drawing it was for a standard Hess store where the
rear of the store is not visible from the street. Here, all four sides are
exposed to the street. We think this is an enhancement and would like to leave
it as constructed.
Stern said he has no objection.
Board members had no objections.
3 – Ms. Jennings said for now, the applicant would like to turn the light off
on the interior Hess Express sign, and determine at a later date whether or not
we will seek a variance or remove the sign.
Ms. Dargel said the township is moving forward with an ordinance to not allow
any neon signs. I would not be in favor of allowing the sign. Also, there are
3 canopy signs existing, where only 2 canopy signs were permitted.
Stern said that is correct.
Jennings said if there is a third canopy sign that was not shown on the plans,
we will remove it.
Stern said that would be the one closest to the freestanding sign, facing the
Crowley asked why the existing neon sign inside the building can’t be taken
Jennings said we have the option to apply for a variance for that sign, and we
would like to be given time to think about that.
Lautenbacher said it is anchored to the wall, and is a delicate neon sign.
Stern said this is a fixed sign on a wall that is clearly visible. This is in
violation of the sign standards.
Jennings said we would make a determination within 60 days whether or not we
want to apply for the variance.
was a poll of the Board regarding the neon sign:
Dargel – no neon
Meyer – Signage is very important in Roxbury. Reducing visual clutter is an
important issue. He is not in favor of leaving the sign up, and does not think
it is necessary to have that number of signs.
Lautenbacher said they will remove the sign.
6 – Light will be removed
7 – Parking stall stripes will be re-painted white
18 – Mr. Lautenbacher said the irrigation system is in
25 – Mr. Pugsley said the old fixture was removed, and a new fixture installed
other items in the report are agreed to, and will be completed by the end of
applicant addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report dated 2/10/05:
Jennings said the applicant agrees to all items. Regarding Item #9, referring to
verification of a deed of easement for the public sidewalk, the easement was
submitted to the Township Engineer, was executed, and was forward to the
Township Clerk to put on the Council agenda.
Item #5, Mr. Lautenbacher stated the two concrete approach pads are being
replaced right now. Regarding Item #6, the ice machine is being removed.
Regarding Item #7, the wallpak light will be removed.
Stern said the only safety issues appear to be completion of the access aprons and
installation of the “Do Not Enter” sign.
Bodolsky said the applicant has suggested these items will be completed very
shortly. Therefore, there will be no need for a bond except for landscaping.
Lautenbacher said to the right of the front doors are windows that come all the
way down, and they were not supposed to be. That has to be corrected. We
would agree to set a deadline for that for installation within 30 days.
Dargel said it is very rough in the rear where the fill caps are for the gas.
Lautenbacher said that is standard design for gas stations.
Stern asked about the piping mounted on the exterior of the trash enclosure.
Lautenbacher said that will be moved to the interior of the trash enclosure.
Meyer made a motion to approve the application subject to all items agreed to;
front façade will be renovated and completed within 30 days; landscaping to be
bonded; items in Mr. Bodolsky’s report from prior resolution. Mr. Crowley
as follows: Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Ms. Dargel,
yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
was a 5 minute recess.
BA-76-04 – A T & T – VARIANCE FOR ANTENNA LOCATED ON
LANDING RD. BLOCK 10604, LOT 4 IN LI/OR ZONE
Michael Levine represented the applicant. He stated we were here in December
to collocate additional antennas on the existing monopole. The lot that is the
subject of our application is an 18-acre parcel with contiguous surrounding
properties. Since the last hearing we sent in a revised submission that
addresses some of the concerns. We were asked to show the other existing uses
on the property. Mr. McNear does operate a quarry operation; there is a
tree-mulching/wood chipping operation which was brought up by Mr. Stern. That
matter was referred to the Zoning Officer as that was not an approved use.
Subsequently there was an application submitted by the property owner for
approval of that operation. That is separate from this application. You will
see from our plans and testimonies, the most intense aspects of the quarry
operation take place on the other properties contiguous to ours, and not on
this particular 18-acre parcel. We do show the southern boundary and the limits
of disturbance on the quarrying activity to give the Board a sense as to where
that is, relative to the existing tower compound. We also show where the
mulching/chipping piles are. We will confirm that, given the passive nature of
our proposed use and the fact it will be limited to the tower site and compound
and that it is an unmanned facility, we don’t feel it would present any sort of
conflict in terms of ingress and egress.
Meyer asked Mr. Stern what roll the other activities going on at McNear should
play in the decision of this Board on this application.
Stern said the Board needs to determine how much interplay an additional
antenna array on an existing pole has with the mulching operation. The
mulching operation is in the process of zoning code enforcement. They have
submitted an application and we are awaiting additional information on it.
Dargel said the Board needs to know what is actually approved for that site.
The quarry operation is approved, but not the mulching/chipping operation.
Levine said the existing tower is approved. It is our position the quarry
operation has been in existence even before the installation of the cell
tower. I believe the storage of machinery and equipment was also in
existence. The 1991 resolution for the tower was not that specific. Our
position is that we, as a co-locater on the existing approved monopole,
shouldn’t have to get zoning approval for our landlord. We are prepared to
offer testimony to the effect that we don’t feel the existing uses of the
property are in conflict with what we propose.
Wiener said there is a threshold issue that needs to be addressed by the
Board. It needs to be determined whether the application should be
entertained, notwithstanding the fact there is not any real factual dispute
there are activities taking place on the site that are not approved and should
not be taking place without appropriate approval.
Levine said our position is that it would not be property for the Board to deny
or postpone this application pending that.
Wiener said the Board needs to determine whether or not to go forward. I don’t
think it is the Board’s place as part of this application, should it go
forward, to try and figure out what to do about the other use, other than to
have the appropriate enforcement action take place. The Board has to determine
if the scope of what you are doing on site rises to a certain level that, given
what else is going on there, is something of real concern or not.
was a poll of the Board as to whether or not to proceed. The poll resulted in
a unanimous decision to proceed without delving into the other activities on
the site, other than to discuss briefly whether or not the other uses are in
conflict with this use.
McTygue, engineer for the applicant, was present and stated the plans have been
revised since the last hearing. He said he received CAD files from Dykstra
Walker, and we superimposed them onto our files. We have also reviewed aerial
photos of the site and surrounding area. On Sheet SO-1 we added the wood
chipping operation and the storage area, just north of the Lenel Road cul-de-sac. The quarrying operation takes place mostly on
another property way north of our compound. We show a dashed line up towards 5th Street. That is the southern limits of the quarry
operation. It starts a little more than 400 feet from our compound. Our
technicians would not traverse that area.
Levine asked if Mr. McTygue has reviewed Mr. Bodolsky’s updated engineering
McTygue said he has, and based on his review of the aerial photo attached to
the report, sheet SO-1 of the plans shows where the storage area is located.
In my opinion, I don’t see anything that is going on at the property that would
interfere with our proposal to co-locate antennas on the existing monopole.
Levine asked about the access road.
McTygue stated that is not currently paved or curbed. It is a dirt gravel
road. It is customary to see an access road to a monopole that is dirt or
gravel. I have only seen two cases where an access road was required to be
paved. There is no indication that the access road has not functioned
appropriately for the existing carriers on the monopole.
McTygue addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report:
3 – Drawing CO-1, power to the cabinets is coming from an existing transformer
southwest of the compound, about 10 feet outside the compound. There will be
no additional overhead lines. We don’t know how the power gets from Lenel Road to the transformer.
4 – The gate off the cul-de-sac is there to keep individuals from driving in
and misusing the compound. That gate is locked. We would accept a condition
of approval to provide Township emergency personnel with a key or combination to
the gate, or a breakaway gate.
5 – Applicant will submit an earthwork calculation. If soil movement
application is necessary, applicant will agree to comply.
6 – Discussed. Mr. Levine stated this would qualify as a minor site plan and
would request preliminary and final site plan approval simultaneously.
1A – Mr. McTygue said he has never seen anyone pile mulch on the “roadway”. If
they were to, you could easily just drive around it. You don’t necessarily
have to follow the “roadway”. That information has no bearing on what we are
doing at our site. It is far enough away that even if they were digging holes,
it would not affect the foundation. Our foundation is mostly located
underground, and well within the existing compound.
Meyer asked how long the “roadway” is from Lenel Road to
. McTygue said it is about 900 feet.
Meyer said it seems that one more technician a month would not be much of an
increase in traffic on that road, and would not justify paving the road.
However, when the mulch/chipper operation comes to the Board, it may be an
issue for them.
Bodolsky suggested, in that event, it would be appropriate to grant waivers
from the items outlined in his items in 2A. We have heard testimony on the
impact of this operation on the road. We haven’t had any testimony on how
other operations are impacting the road and whether or not it will remain
Dargel said that can be addressed with the other application.
Board members agreed.
Crowley addressed Mr. Stern’s report updated 2/10/05:
3 – Mr. McTygue stated we submitted a structural analysis report with the
revised plan. The revised analysis is different from the original analysis.
Initially we were told to analyze it with the coaxial cables on the outside of
the monopole. We did that, and found the monopole would need to be retrofit in
order to do that. This analysis has them routed inside the monopole. A
retrofit is not required. There is sufficient space within the monopole to
accommodate the coaxial cable. A monopole with 4 carriers on it are still
customarily able to route everyone’s cables inside.
Levine asked Mr. McTygue to explain how the structural analysis was performed,
and discuss what space is existing on the tower and what is reserved.
McTygue stated on Page 3 of the analysis it lists all the existing, reserved,
and proposed antennas. Table 1 lists what A T & T proposes, which is a
total of 12 antennas and 12 Nokia tower-mounted amplifiers, and 12 feel lines.
Table 2 lists the existing and reserved antennas – 12 Verizon antennas at 150
feet (currently there are 9); 9 Nextel antennas at 125 feet (currently there
are 9); 3 T-Mobile antennas at 115 feet (currently there are 3) and 6 tower-mounted
Crowley asked if there would be any value to Nextel and T-Mobile to go to the
12 antennas that Verizon and A T & T have.
McTygue said we analyze the towers physically, but as far as what needs to be
place because of the signals is out of our range. That is determined by the RF
engineers. It falls under different carriers. In our analysis, we have
assumed Verizon will add the 3.
Wiener said they would have to return to the Board to add antennas, and would
have to do their own analysis.
Dargel asked if we know what is actually existing, and also what has been
McTygue said our research shows there was a resolution dated 5/7/91,
which was the approval for the build of the monopole itself; there was a
resolution dated 4/13/93 for Nextel. Also, we had submitted copies
of building permits for the two carriers, Nextel and Omnipoint.
Dargel said a contention was made that there were illegal antennas on the
pole. What is legal and what is not? I don’t recall T-Mobile being legal.
Levine said Omnipoint is T-Mobile.
Dargel asked if they all have Zoning Board approval to be on the tower.
Stern said when the applicant submitted for completeness, it came to our
attention from the drawings that an additional array was put on the tower, and
we would not proceed with the application until we found out the status of the
antennas. Through the research of the applicant and the Building Department,
it was determined one of the carriers did not appear before the Board and they
had submitted to the Construction Department, and the Construction Department
felt it was a minor issue and granted the permits. That carrier proceeded with
those permits and installed the antennas. It was a legal approval in terms of
the Construction Department.
Dargel asked if all the antennas are legal or not.
Stern said they were granted permits by the Construction Department and they
proceeded with those permits.
Dargel asked if it is legal. She was concerned a precedent was set.
Wiener said the legal precedent is that if you go in, follow the rules, make
application to the appropriate municipal official, get a permit, construct it
and get approvals, you should feel fairly secure that you have done what you
are supposed to have done. Assuming everything happened as it has been said,
I think after all the time that has gone by (since 1998) it would be extremely
difficult for the municipality to say they now have to come in for approval.
Meyer said in the structural analysis report, there is a communication from WPW
communications that says the tower is overstressed.
McTygue said that report was for a different tower and should be omitted.
applicant continued to address Mr. Stern’s report:
5 – The retrofit was taken out of the plans – It was determined the tower does
not have to be painted.
6 – Agreed – note added to drawings
7 - agreed
9 – cables will be inside the monopole
13 – to the extent a waiver is required for the above-ground coaxial cables,
applicant requests waiver
16 – agreed
18 – will submit as-built site plan
19 – agreed
20 – agreed
PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. McTygue.
Dargel asked the applicant to address the variances.
J. Scolaro, professional planner, was sworn in. He described his educational
and professional background for the Board and was accepted as an expert in land
Scolaro stated the site is particularly suited to the application because it is
a co-location on an existing monopole. Because of the topography of the area,
the location fulfills the gap in the radio frequency for the carrier. It is
also distantly located from any residences or sensitive uses. This activity
will not create a negative impact in the LI/OR zone. It does not create any
noxious uses. There is very minimal traffic. We are seeking a “D-3”
variance. It is a permitted conditional use, which implies it is a suitable
and appropriate use as long as it meets conditions. This application does not
meet some of the bulk requirements.
the distance to the nearest zone line, the nearest zone is on Lenel Road which is another industrial zone, which is equally or more
intensive. It is not detrimental. Regarding the distance to the nearest lot
line, the requirement is 1 ½ times the height of the tower. We are only 87
feet from the lot line. The property in that area is not fenced or partitioned
by lot line. The adjacent property has the same owner and same operation. The
overall tract is made up of multiple lots. Regarding the height not meeting
the maximum 125 foot requirement, we are proposing to co-locate at 140 feet on
an existing 150 foot monopole. It is a pre-existing condition. This proposal
furthers the preferred siting of wireless applications as it is in the LI/OR
Zone, and is a co-location on an existing tower.
Scolaro referred to an exhibit of photos of the existing conditions and
proposed conditions from several vantage points in the Township and indicated
there will be no significant change in the appearance of the tower.
Stern asked about the increase in size to the equipment pad since the last
McTygue stated initially the plans were done under General Dynamic’s control
doing the work for A. T. & T. Since that time, Bechtel took over the work,
and their standards are different.
Meyer made a motion to approve the application subject to the conditions agreed
upon. Ms. Dargel seconded.
as follows: Mr. Meyer, yes; Ms. Dargel, yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. DeFillippo,
yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
BA-6-05 – KIMBER PETROLEUM – USE VARIANCE FOR CONVENIENCE STORE
LCOATED ON RT. 10, BLOCK 1905, LOT 21 IN B-2 ZONE
Thomas J. Hirsch represented the applicant. He stated there was a use variance
and final site plan approved for an existing gas station on this site in 1994.
We are not adding any new structures to the site. We are proposing to convert
an existing bay, bathroom and office space into a convenience store of 414
Atkins, Vice President of Engineering with Kenderian Zilinski, was sworn in.
He described his educational and professional background for the Board and was
accepted as a professional engineer.
Atkins described the site, stating there is an existing Exxon station located
on the eastbound side of Route 10 across from the furniture store. The Black River is to the east of the property.
Atkins referred to an exhibit of portions of sheet 1 and sheet 2 of the site
plan (A-1). He said there is an existing 1,750 square foot building with
pavement, underground tank, and pump islands. The upper elevation on the
exhibit shows the existing condition, and the lower elevation is the proposed
Hirsh stated the convenience store is a permitted use with the gas station
use. A gas station is permitted to have up to 750 square feet of a convenience
store. This is 414 square feet.
Atkins said there will be no structural changes other than the interior
re-partitioning of the building and minor changes to the façade.
applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report dated January 6, 2005:
1 – Mr. Hirsh stated currently there are 3 employees, and 4 are proposed.
Hours of operation will be 5
a.m. to 11 p.m., as required
with the prior resolution for the site
Atkins said the peak hour parking demand and peak hour traffic, in my opinion
they would not occur at the same time. The facility is very busy early
morning. They have a lot of visitors for gas. Around 9 a.m.
the service portion opens up and at that point there would be more vehicles
parked within the site. The early morning hours would be most likely to be the
busiest times for the convenience store, and the parking demand would
increase. There would be a greater demand from 5 – 7 a.m.
vs. 8:30 to 9:30 where the service element takes a more
significant roll. We do not have a traffic study to support that, but that
information comes from my experience working with numerous gas station
locations. In my opinion the parking is adequate to meet the needs. My survey
results are that under existing conditions, 7 parking spaces are needed. All
service work is scheduled. Under the proposed conditions, there will be a
total of 12 parking spaces provided, and meet the ordinance requirements.
Atkins said in terms of the type of retail product, it will be pre-packaged
items, coffee, etc. Sandwich sales is not proposed. There will be no
cooking of food. At some time in the future there may be a hot dog machine.
3 – informational
4 – addressed
5 – one vehicle will be removed, and two will remain until they are repaired.
It is not intended to be a storage area.
6 – deliveries will be by panel van. They will park in the car spaces, unload,
7 – agreed
8 – broken boards will be repaired
9 – informational
10 – no vending machines
11 – no signage changes proposed. Banner signs have been removed
12, 13 – informational
14 – drums will be removed
15 – agreed
17 – agreed
18 – there is only a potable well, no water service to the site
20 – informational
21 – informational – agreed
applicant addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report dated 1/5/05:
1 – addressed
2 – addressed
3 – striping will be removed and a notation will be added to the plans
Meyer asked how many cars that are there for service are normally parking in
the existing 9 stalls.
Atkins said he is told no more than 3.
Meyer said at rush hour, for people at the pumps who want to use the
convenience store, there are only two spots to accommodate them. Otherwise,
they would have to make a right turn and go past the bays to get to the other
Atkins said that is correct, but it is fairly unlikely. There will be no
prepared food. Customers will be in and out in a minute. They would probably
leave their car at the pump. Or, they may park at the store and after making
their purchase they would pull up to the pump to get gas.
Dargel asked how many cars can be accommodated in queue for the gas pumps.
Atkins said it would be 5 or 6 vehicles. At this station there are 8 fueling
points, and that would minimize the amount of queuing.
Dargel asked if there will be an ATM machine.
Atkins said no. There will be lottery ticket sales.
Bodolsky said when this site was previously before the Board, there was a
groundwater recovery site. I believe there are still monitoring wells. What
do we know about the integrity of the site to support a convenience store?
Frantz, Real Estate Manager with Kimber Petroleum was sworn in. She stated
Kimber put in a new well when the station was built. We had to test the water
quality before we could use it. Water samples have to be given to the County
Bodolsky said the Board may want to place a condition that the Board of Health
has to approve the water with a single test for the initial operation of the
applicant agreed to get the appropriate Health Department approvals for a food
Dargel made a motion to approve the application. It is less intense than the
existing application, which is good, especially since it borders the Black River. Pre-existing nonconforming conditions are not being
expanded. Approval is subject to all items agreed to and subject to approval
by the Health Department and all other agencies deemed necessary. Ms.
as follows: Ms. Dargel, yes; Ms. DeFillippo, yes; Ms. Kinback, yes; Mr. Meyer,
yes; Mr. Crowley, yes; Ms. Robortaccio, yes.
meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:45
A. DeMasi, Secretary