A regular meeting of the Planning
Board of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Scott Meyer presiding. After a salute to the Flag, the Chairman
read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Meyer,
Larry Sweeney, Gary Behrens, Lisa Voyce, Richard Zoschak, Steven Alford, Joseph
Schwab, Michael Shadiack, Jim Rilee, Teresa DeVincentis arrived at 7:35.
ABSENT: Charles Bautz
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Tom
Germinario, Russell Stern, Tom Bodolsky.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Board Secretary.
Mr. Meyer announced Application M-3-04,
Mark Tucci will not be heard and is carried to 9/7/05 and Application S-7-05, Primax will not be heard and is carried to 9/7/05.
Minutes of 6/1/05
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Discussion. Corrections noted
and made.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr.
Sweeney, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
RESOLUTIONS
S-15-05 – FRANK NABATIAN –
FINAL SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON RT. 10/MAIN ST.
BLOCK 1902, LOT 4 IN B-2 ZONE
ROXBURY
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION
OF MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: June 15, 2005
Memorialized: July 6, 2005
IN
THE MATTER OF FRANK NABATIAN
FINAL
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
BLOCK
1902, LOT 4
APPLICATION
NO. S-15-05
WHEREAS,
Frank Nabatian (hereinafter known as the "Applicant") applied to the
Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the "Planning
Board") for final site plan approval on May 5, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the
application was deemed complete on 6/15/05; and
WHEREAS,
public hearings were held on 6/15/05, no notice being required, at which time the Planning
Board rendered its decision on the application; and
WHEREAS, it
being determined that the Applicant has complied with all of the rules,
regulations and requirements of the Roxbury Township Land Development Ordinance
and that all of the required provisions of the compliance have been filed with
the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, the
Planning Board has made the following findings and conclusions based upon the
testimony and documentary evidence produced by the Applicant and by the
Planning Board staff:
1. The subject property consists of two lots
encompassing 27,161 square feet (0.623 acres) located in the B-2 Highway
Business District. By Resolution memorialized May 8, 2002, the Applicant
obtained preliminary site plan approval with variances and design waivers for a
one-story 4,200 square foot retail building.
2. In support of its application, the Applicant
submitted final site plans consisting of 7 sheets prepared by Donohue
Engineering bearing a revision date of 5/3/05. The
Applicant also submitted an as-built survey prepared by Richard F. Smith, Jr.
bearing a revision date of 5/3/05, and an architectural building plan prepared by Fox
Architectural Design consisting of one sheet revised 5/2/05. Reports
concerning the application were submitted by the Township Planner, Russell
Stern, dated 6/9/05 and by the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky,
dated 6/10/05.
3. At the public hearing of 6/15/05, the
Applicant was represented by Ira Levine, Esq. Kenneth Fox, Applicant’s
Architect and Planner, testified regarding the professionals’ reports.
Addressing the first item in Mr. Bodolsky’s report, Mr. Fox stated that inlets
were modified to eliminate ponding on the site. He said that the Township
Engineer reviewed and approved the field change. Regarding item #3, he
testified that the inlet was covered and now has been exposed. Regarding item
#4, Mr. Fox said the area will be regraded, and a revised as-built grading plan
will be submitted within 30 days. Concerning item #5, the witness stated that
the site is served by public water, and the plan will be revised to so
indicate. Regarding item #6, Mr. Fox stated that, if unacceptable light
spill-over is revealed by an inspection by the Township Engineer or by public
complaints, the lighting will be modified to address this. If needed, a design
waiver in this regard is granted by the Board. Regarding item #3 of Mr.
Stern’s report, Mr. Fox stated that the floodlights over the entrance and rear
doors are for emergency purposes only. Applicant agreed to comply with the
remaining recommendations of the professionals’ reports.
The Chairman then opened the hearing to public
comments, and there being none closed the public portion of the meeting. A
motion was made to conditionally approve the application based on the
recommendations contained in the reports of Messrs. Stern and Bodolsky, as
modified and supplemented in the course of the hearings, which motion was duly
seconded and favorably acted upon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve the final
site plan as described in the drawings referenced hereinabove.
This approval is subject to the following terms and
conditions, which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:
1. The trash enclosure shall be provided with
additional cement/stucco finish to hide the mortar joints. Color shall match
building. A cap block shall be provided on top of the enclosure.
2. Exterior air conditioning ductwork shall be
painted to match building.
3. The wall light along the rear door shall be
replaced with a concealed source or heavily diffused fixture acceptable to the
Township Planner.
4. Hairpin striping shall be provided per the
approved plans (sheet 2k general notes).
5. Wire fence and metal pipe (imbedded in trees)
along the Suburban Furniture property line shall be cut out as required on
sheet 2.
6. Remove “Danger” and “No Trespassing” signs mounted
on a shade tree along Main Street.
7. The southwesterly portion of the northerly
detention basin lawn shall be reseeded.
8. Main Street shall be weeded and mulched.
9. Dead wood from the easterly and westerly trees
shall be removed (sheet 5).
10. Tilting trees shall be straightened and
re-staked.
11. Additional seeding shall be provided along the
westerly building elevation.
12. Ten Viburnum Carlise (Fragrant Spice Viburnum)
are required along the westerly side of the detention basin and twenty-two
along the easterly parking area. Instead, Arrowood Viburnum were installed.
The Fragrant Spice Viburnum shall be installed. Arrowood Viburnum can be
located between the rear parking area and Main
Street hedgerow.
13. Undersized and marginal Spruce shall be replaced.
14. The Thundercloud Plum across from Suburban
Furniture is in marginal condition and shall be replaced.
15. Seven marginal/dead Forsythia shall be replaced.
16. Liriope shall be installed along the front
building elevation as specified on sheet 5.
17. Marginal Butterfly Bush shall be replaced.
18. This approval is subject to the following conditions
from the preliminary site plan approval:
Condition C – A design waiver is granted from Ordinance Section 13-8.602 as a
36' wide Main Street cartway (18' half-width) is required. The Main Street
cartway is currently 30' wide (15' half-width) and the Applicant proposes no
modifications. The Board finds that expanding the cartway along this limited
length of road frontage would create an incongruous appearance. This waiver is
conditioned upon the Applicant’s contributing an amount equivalent to the cost
of the road improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.
Condition D – A design waiver is granted from Ordinance Section 13-8.608 as
curbs are not provided along Main Street. Curbs are not present on adjacent properties along Main Street.
The granting of this design waiver is conditioned upon the Applicant
contributing an amount equivalent to the cost of the waived improvements as
determined by the Township Engineer.
Condition E – A design waiver is granted from Ordinance Section 13-8.610A as
sidewalks are not provided along Main
Street and Route 10. Adjoining
properties do not have sidewalks. The granting of this design waiver is
conditioned upon the Applicant contributing an amount equivalent to the cost of
the waived improvements as determined by the Township Engineer.
Condition 1 – There shall be no tractor-trailer deliveries and/or pickups on the
site.
Condition 2 – The site shall have no access to or from Main Street.
Condition 10 – Revised plans shall note that, pursuant to Section 13-8.810,
decorative trash receptacles and ash urns are required if the building contains
a convenience store, delicatessen, fast food restaurant or similar use.
Condition
11 – Pursuant to Section 13-7.814, any
noise-making instruments such as phonographs, loud speakers, amplifiers,
radios, television sets or similar devices which are so situated as to be heard
outside any building are prohibited.
Condition 13 – Pursuant to Sections 13-4.6 and 13-4.7, the Applicant shall pay
their pro-rata share of off-tract and off-site improvements as determined by
the Township Engineer and in accordance with the Township Engineer’s
interoffice memo of February 26, 2002.
Condition 22 - Section 13-8.911.1F limits window signs to a period not to exceed
20 days and all such signs individually or collectively shall not exceed 30% of
all available window space on which the signs are located.
19.
One “no parking, fire lane sign” is missing and shall be installed.
20.
The area on the west side of the building where a 2% swale was originally
proposed shall be re-graded to establish an adequate pitch away from the
building and to prevent ponding on adjoining properties to the satisfaction of
the Board Engineer. The lawn drain shown on the approved plans shall be
installed or uncovered to accept drainage from the swale. A revised as-built
grading plan will be submitted within 30 days.
21.
Should inspection by the Township Engineer or public complaints reveal
unacceptable light spillover from the site, the site illumination shall be
modified to correct this. To the extent necessary, the Board grants a design
waiver in this regard.
22.
The area of the Route 10 pond shall be scarified, re-topsoiled and replanted to
the satisfaction of the Township Planner.
23. As a condition of this approval, pursuant to
Sections 13-4.6 and 13-4.7, the Applicant shall request and obtain from the
Township Engineer a determination of their pro-rata contribution for off-tract
improvements as determined by the Township Engineer. Said contribution shall
be paid in full prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
24. Pursuant to Section 13-7.829, the Applicant shall
pay a mandatory development fee equal to two percent (2.0%) of the total
equalized assessed valuation of the nonresidential development. Fifty percent
(50%) of the fee shall be posted prior to the issuance of any building permit
and the remainder paid prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
25. Applicant shall source separate and recycle all
mandated material as required by the Municipal Recycling Ordinance and the
Morris County Solid Waste Management Plan both during construction and for the
duration of occupancy.
26. Applicant shall submit annual recycling tonnage
reports to the Municipal Recycling Coordinator.
27. Applicant shall meet with the Municipal Recycling
Coordinator to review all recycling requirements.
28. In the event that future additional dumpster
enclosures are needed for the site, then upon the approval of the Zoning
Officer, they shall be constructed.
29. This approval is subject to the issuance of a
major soil moving permit.
30. This approval is subject to all outside agency
review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.
31. If the Soil Conservation District, Morris County
Planning Board, or any other governmental body from which approval is necessary
causes, through their examination of the plans as recited in this resolution,
any revisions to said plans then, in that event, same shall be submitted to the
Planning Board Engineer. If the Planning Board Engineer deems said revisions
to be significant, the Applicant shall return to the Planning Board for further
review and approval.
32. This approval is subject to the payment of all
appropriate fees and taxes.
33. Revised plans shall be submitted within 60 days
and must be deemed complete to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer within 6
months of the date of memorialization. Failure on the part of the Applicant to
satisfy this or any other condition of this resolution will result in referral
of this matter back to the Planning Board for purposes of deeming the approval
null and void.
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting
of June 15, 2005.
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Rilee seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr.
Sweeney, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
S-16-05 – CENTER STREET
HOLDINGS – FINAL SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON CENTER ST. BLOCK 10901, LOT
3 IN I-5 ZONE
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION
OF MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: June 15, 2005
Memorialized: July 6, 2005
IN
THE MATTER OF CENTER STREET HOLDINGS, LLC
FINAL
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
BLOCK
10901, LOT 3
APPLICATION
NO. S-16-05
WHEREAS,
Center Street Holdings, LLC (hereinafter known as the "Applicant")
applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the
"Planning Board") for final site plan approval on 5/26/05; and
WHEREAS, the
application was deemed complete on 6/15/05; and
WHEREAS,
public hearings were held on 6/15/05, no notice being required, at which time
the Planning Board rendered its decision on the application; and
WHEREAS, it
being determined that the Applicant has complied with all of the rules,
regulations and requirements of the Roxbury Township Land Development Ordinance
and that all of the required provisions of the compliance have been filed with
the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, the
Planning Board has made the following findings and conclusions based upon the
testimony and documentary evidence produced by the Applicant and by the
Planning Board staff:
1. The subject property consists of 1,237 acres
(53,887 square feet) located in the I-5 Limited Industrial District. By
Resolution memorialized May 19, 2004, the Applicant obtained major preliminary
site plan approval with ‘c’ variances and design waivers to construct a
one-story 3,945 square foot building for its contracting business, including a
7,917 square foot gravel outdoor storage area for the parking and storage of
vehicles and equipment utilized in the Applicant’s business.
2. In support of its application, the Applicant
submitted final site plans consisting of 3 sheets prepared by Dykstra Walker
Design Group bearing a revision date of 6/7/05. Reports concerning the
application were submitted by the Township Planner, Russell Stern, dated
6/10/05 and by the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 6/13/05.
3. At the public hearing of 6/15/05, the Applicant
was represented by Berndt Hefele, Esq. The Applicant’s Engineer Ken Dykstra,
testified with respect to item #1 of Mr. Bodolsky’s report that plans had been
resubmitted. Regarding the other items of Mr. Bodolsky’s report, Applicant agreed
to comply. With respect to item #1 of Mr. Stern’s report, Mr. Hefele requested
that the Applicant not be required to install a canopy over the front entrance
and the Board concurred. The Applicant agreed to install the upper louver on
the front elevation, as requested in item #3. Applicant agreed to the
remaining recommendations of Mr. Stern’s report.
The Chairman then opened the hearing to public
comments, and there being none closed the public portion of the meeting. A
motion was made to conditionally approve the application, effective
immediately, based on the recommendations contained in the reports of Messrs.
Stern and Bodolsky, as modified and supplemented in the course of the hearings,
which motion was duly seconded and favorably acted upon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve the final
site plan as described in the drawings referenced hereinabove.
This approval is subject to the following terms and
conditions, which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:
1. The following deviations from the approved
preliminary site plan are approved:
a. Deletion of cement/stucco finish along
front elevation.
b. Three upper level windows
added along each side elevation.
c. Soffit lights provided
instead of wall-mounted “shoebox” to illuminate front entrance.
d. Fuel tanks installed on
concrete pad along easterly elevation.
e. Modified design of
freestanding sign.
f. “Future” trash
enclosure constructed.
g. One extra wall light
installed along rear and westerly elevation, and two additional wall lights
along easterly elevation.
h. Hairpin striping of
parking stalls deleted.
i. Deletion of canopy
over front entry.
2. The upper decorative circular louvered vent
depicted on the front elevation on the architectural drawings shall be
installed.
3. Temporary electric meter, wires and pole shall be
removed.
4. Portable toilet and trash containers shall be
removed.
5. Temporary “Mills Contracting” sign shall be
removed.
6. Rolled silt fence at the rear property line shall
be removed.
7. Disturbed road frontage east of driveway shall be
mulched.
8. Leaning shade trees and evergreen trees shall be
straightened and staked.
9. This approval is subject to the
following conditions from the preliminary site plan approval:
Condition 2 - All work on vehicles shall be done
inside the building. There shall be no hazardous material storage in the
outdoor storage area and no road salts shall be stored in the outdoor storage
area.
Condition 5 - There shall be no floor drains within
the building draining to the drywell.
Condition 6 - Material and equipment within the
storage yard shall not exceed a height of fourteen (14 feet).
Condition 7 - Outdoor storage is only permitted for
the building tenants. Use of the storage yard by non-building tenants is
specifically prohibited.
Condition 25 - Future approvals by the Zoning Officer
for changes of use should consider pollutant introduction via the drywell
system.
10. Condition #24 of the preliminary approval is
deleted.
11.
Applicant shall maintain the drywells annually with reports submitted to the
Township Engineer. The Township shall have the right, but not the duty, to
enter onto the property to conduct its own inspections of the drywells.
12.
A digital copy of this site plan shall be filed with the Township for inclusion
in its GIS system.
13.
The Applicant shall revise the “Existing Conditions Plan” to depict the proper
number of light units. Manufacturer’s information shall be presented on the
plans for each light type. An As-Built lighting plan should be prepared to
demonstrate that adequate lighting is still being provided and that spillover
beyond the property lines does not exceed acceptable levels.
14.
The grading around the hydrant along Center Street, which appears to be
partially buried, shall be cut down.
15. As a condition of this approval, pursuant to
Sections 13-4.6 and 13-4.7, the Applicant shall request and obtain from the
Township Engineer a determination of their pro-rata contribution for off-tract
improvements as determined by the Township Engineer. Said contribution shall
be paid in full prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
16. Pursuant to Section 13-7.829, the Applicant shall
pay a mandatory development fee equal to two percent (2.0%) of the total
equalized assessed valuation of the nonresidential development. Fifty percent
(50%) of the fee shall be posted prior to the issuance of any building permit
and the remainder paid prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
17. Applicant shall source separate and recycle all
mandated material as required by the Municipal Recycling Ordinance and the
Morris County Solid Waste Management Plan both during construction and for the
duration of occupancy.
18. Applicant shall submit annual recycling tonnage
reports to the Municipal Recycling Coordinator.
19. Applicant shall meet with the Municipal Recycling
Coordinator to review all recycling requirements.
20. In the event that future additional dumpster
enclosures are needed for the site, then upon the approval of the Zoning
Officer, they shall be constructed.
21. This approval is subject to all outside agency
review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.
22. This approval is subject to the payment of all
appropriate fees and taxes.
23. Revised plans shall be submitted within 60 days
and must be deemed complete to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer within 6
months of the date of memorialization. Failure on the part of the Applicant to
satisfy this or any other condition of this resolution will result in referral
of this matter back to the Planning Board for purposes of deeming the approval
null and void.
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting
of June 15, 2005.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Sweeney seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms.
Voyce, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
AGENDA
LETTER FROM ATTORNEY
LAWRENCE FOX FOR AN EXTENSION ON MORRISTOWN CORNERSTONE
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the extension for one year. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Mr. Stern recommended at the time
they request building permits they have to comply with the Mt. Laurel housing
ordinance in effect at that time.
The Board members agreed.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes;
Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
LETTER FROM ATTORNEY JOSEPH
VENA FOR AN EXTENSION ON RAINBOW MANAGEMENT
Mr. Germinario said this
application was extended once before for 190 days. Mr. Vena indicated it is
still in litigation and the request is for another 190 days.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the extension for 190days, but if they come again for an extension,
they should have a meeting. Ms. Voyce seconded.
Mr. Stern said the Mt. Laurel housing
ordinance in effect at the time will apply to this application as well.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr.
Behrens, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
S-16-05 – ETEL ASSOCIATES –
SOIL RELOCATION APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON RT. 10/MARY LOUISE AVE.
BLOCK 6303, LOTS 6 & 7 IN B-2 ZONE
Attorney John Testa represented
the applicant.
Mr. Bodolsky went over his report
and stated the total soil for export and import is 2,100 cubic yards. He
suggested the hours of operation be prohibited on weekends because of the
proximity of the site to adjoining residences.
Mr. Testa said the applicant
would agree not to work on Saturdays and Sundays.
Grayson Murray, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in. He stated the route of travel will be to an approved
Morris County Soil Conservation location, but we don’t have a specific location
established yet. We would agree to take Route 10 to the closest highway.
Discussion.
Mr. Murray said the applicant
would agree to an out-of-town site.
Mr. Bodolsky recommended the
standard conditions, including posting of performance bond for $2,000, soil
moving fee of $323, stakeout of interior improvement, stakeout of lot corners,
addition of a note to the plans, permit plan of one year, unconditional site
plan approval.
The conditions were acceptable to
the applicant.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve
the application. Mr. Sweeney seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr.
Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Meyer,
yes.
S-18-05 – KIDDIE ACADEMY –
FINAL SITE PLAN FOR DAYCARE LOCATED ON RT. 206, BLOCK 9201, LOT 3 IN B1/A ZONE
Attorney Joel Kobert represented
the applicant. He said we have received the reports from Mr. Bodolsky and Mr.
Stern.
Mr. Rilee said he is very
disheartened by what is in the reports.
Mr. Zoschak said a lot of things
were done on final that were not approved on preliminary. I would like to know
why.
Mr. Kobert said regarding the
Maple trees which were removed, they should not have been. We have no excuse.
A lot of things were done that shouldn’t have been and we apologize.
The applicant addressed Mr.
Stern’s report:
Items 1 & 2 – Applicant has
submitted a supplemental plan to mitigate the damage that has been done.
Mr. Stern said there is a
proposal for 3 Dogwoods and 3 Oaks.
Discussion. Mr. Rilee said he
would prefer to see mature trees.
Ms. Voyce asked if planting
mature trees in that location on the highway is a good idea or if they should
be planted elsewhere in town where they would have a better chance of survival.
Mr. Kobert said we would agree to
that.
Mr. Stern said there is not a lot
of room to put what is required in terms of replacement trees. The applicant
could give the town the money to plant mature trees elsewhere.
Mr. Kobert said the applicant
will submit a landscaping plan subject to Mr. Stern’s approval, and if there is
a cost associated with the other trees, we would meet that cost.
Mr. Stern said typically shade
trees are placed 40 feet on center. They have put up three shade trees and
were talking about putting additional shade trees in. They would add some
vertical columnar material between the sidewalk and the building, and to put
shrubs along the PVC fence where there is room. That, plus a contribution to a
tree fund sounds like a good conclusion.
Item 3 – done – subject to Mr.
Stern’s approval
Item 4 – subject to Mr. Stern’s
approval – agreed
Item 5 – fence has been relocated
to where it is located on the plan. (#)
Mr. Stern asked if the new fence
is installed in the location that was approved by the Board.
Thomas McGrath, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in. He gave his educational and professional background
and was accepted by the Board as a professional engineer. He said the fence is
not exactly where it is shown on the preliminary plan, but is slightly in front
of it. It is offset about 8 or 10 feet. It will be put where it is depicted
on the site plan.
William Hotz, builder of the
project, was sworn in. He said the dosing tank is very close to where it is shown
on the plan. We will put the fence outside the dosing tank. There is a strong
need for playground area for this use. We thought we would pick up the front
area because it is so flat. We shouldn’t have done it. We will move the fence
back.
Mr. Rilee said there was a lot of
discussion at the preliminary about keeping the playground area off the septic
area. The applicant should have asked if they needed more playground area.
Mr. Hotz said we will move it
back.
Mr. Stern asked if the location
of the fence will conflict with the retaining wall.
Mr. Hotz said no.
Mr. Stern said this was to be a
black vinyl clad chain link fence.
Mr. Hotz said this is a highway
location, and we thought the white PVC fence would provide more separation of
the play area to Route 206, and would provide better isolation.
Mr. Zoschak said he understands
that, but it needs more landscaping.
Mr. Hotz said we have discussed
this with Mr. Stern, and agree to buffer the front of the fence and at the side
of the doors, and will buffer around the electrical and gas meters.
Mr. Schwab said the fence looks
awful. Will landscaping hide that?
Mr. Hotz said the front of the
fence is down now. We can go back to the black chain link fence. That is what
you would see from the road. We would suggest the back of the fence would
stay.
Mr. Meyer asked about the height.
Mr. Hotz said the height of the
fence is correct.
Mr. Stern said there is also the
multi-colored play structures. There is not a lot of opportunity to landscape
along the fence because of the septic field, dosing tank, and other septic
structures.
Mr. Meyer said the feeling is to
put chain link fence. If you are going to move it back, you would need to do
plantings.
Haj Chadha of Kiddie Academy was
sworn in. He said they own 16 schools and there are 4 under construction. I
apologize for not complying with the preliminary approval. Regarding the
fence, we are trying to hide the playground with the fence. I have personally
testified that my preference at preliminary was the black chain link. A lot
has gone in since then, but I would prefer the white vinyl because it provides
the privacy we need. I would agree to move it back, but it would eat into the
minimal playground area we have. I would request we not move it back any
farther than where it was approved, and that we cover and conceal it as well as
we can.
Mr. Rilee said he still prefers
black chain link fence.
Mr. Stern said he observed the
fence and in some of the areas where there are septic there is no room to put
shrubs in.
Ms. DeVincentis said she prefers
black chain link. It should be done according to the approved plan. There
were too many deviations from the plan.
It was determined the Board
prefers chain link, with landscape buffering, along the front.
Mr. Stern said he thinks it will
look awkward. I have no assurance that it will be sufficiently screened.
Ms. Voyce suggested we carry this
issue to a later meeting to give Mr. Stern an opportunity to review it.
Mr. Rilee suggested we target
some of the key items, and give the applicant some direction on what needs to
be done for the next hearing.
Mr. Kobert agreed. Item 6 in Mr.
Stern’s report discusses the fact that the sign is internally illuminated.
That may be better than the original sign which had floodlights.
Mr. Stern said there is no
regulation. I would not object to the internal illumination. Also, they had
proposed a masonry sign with brick and stucco surface. They put in a sign with
metal base and metal box. It would be desirable to obtain some masonry
elements that match the building.
Ms. Voyce suggested this matter
also be carried.
Mr. Meyer suggested the applicant
go through the reports and address the ones the applicant agrees to.
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Bodolsky what
the substantial issues are in his report that should be discussed tonight.
Mr. Bodolsky said the biggest
source of disagreement is the retaining wall on the northern side of the
building. It was not shown on the original plans. The applicant has said they
got agreement from the engineering department, but in examining that approval,
even that deviated. What was approved was a 1 – 2 foot high wall, and what was
installed was a (4) foot high wall. I would not have approved this because of
the location of the septic system. My interpretation of the septic code is
that this doesn‘t meet the code. I would suggest we defer this to the Health
Department to comment on. Or, it should be built according to the plan. There
are also related items, such as proper lighting, the second chain link fence,
perhaps a handrail in this area. I would suggest the applicant address those
issues. It should be put in according to the preliminary site plan.
Mr. Hotz said the inspector came
out today and measured it. The plan was approved by the Township Engineer.
We created two fairly level planes. We put a retaining wall in and the
location was approved.
Mr. Bodolsky suggested if the
applicant is not willing to put it back as it was designed, that the Board refer
this to the Health Department for their comment.
Ms. Voyce agreed. This Board
takes this very seriously, and I don’t feel the applicant took us seriously.
We were ignored, and this is unacceptable.
Mr. Stern asked about the trash
enclosure.
Mr. Kobert said it will be
board-on-board.
The application was carried to
8/3/05. The applicant granted an extension of time to that date.
S-19-05 – AUTO ZONE – FINAL
SITE PLAN FOR AUTO PARTS STORE LOCATED IN LEDGEWOOD SHOPPING CENTER, BLOCK
6502, LOTS 1 & 2
Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented
the applicant, Edward Dougherty. He stated we have made it clear to Auto Zone
what the process is in Roxbury. The opening of the Auto Zone had nothing to do
with Ed Dougherty. That was done on their own. The building and sidewalk and
parapet were all constructed by Auto Zone. Mr. Dougherty entered into a land
lease with them. Mr. Bennett will answer many of the questions in the report.
Steve Byszewski, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in.
Dalton Bennett, Construction
Project Manager for Auto Zone, was sworn in.
Edward Dougherty was sworn in.
Mr. Nusbaum said he expects there
is consternation on the part of the Board regarding the fact Auto Zone opened
without a Certificate of Occupancy. That is Auto Zone’s issue. Our issue is
to get this construction job completed and get final approval and continue on
with the redevelopment of the shopping center.
Mr. Rilee said we are not willing
to hand out C.O.’s until there is completion on these projects. What Auto Zone
did was a slap in the face of us trying to get a good project out of this
mall. I am offended by that. I will not support Certificate of Occupancy
until I see completion of some of the items. .
Mr. Nusbaum said the town will do
what they will do with Auto Zone. We are here to obtain final approval and are
representing Mr. Dougherty.
Mr. Bodolsky said Item 1 in his
report segregates the report into several categories: safety related;
cosmetic; and those that may affect the longevity of the project.
Mr. Zoschak asked Mr. Byszewski
his opinion of the workmanship.
Mr. Byszewski said he does not
disagree with the items mentioned in Mr. Bodolsky’s report.
Mr. Meyer said the applicant for
the shopping center originally intended to repair the sidewalks only a half
width. That was not acceptable. They agreed to replace them completely. I
can’t believe how awful the concrete work is on the sidewalks.
Mr. Bennett said today was his
first time in Ledgewood. I was not impressed with the workmanship. That
concrete is coming out. It is unacceptable.
Mr. Zoschak asked if the sidewalk
is being replaced, how will you conduct business?
Mr. Bennett said it will be done
during off-hours. It can be done in sections. I believe the life safety issue
is at the front of the store and along the west side. I would leave the
sidewalk along the side, but would replace the front sidewalk.
Mr. Nusbaum said we are seeking
final approval. There is a large bond already with the township.
Mr. Meyer said, speaking for
himself, he does not want this bonded. He wants it fixed.
Mr. Zoschak said the sidewalks
should be replaced prior to C.O.
Mr. Rilee said a lot of progress
has been made, but we want the work done. The only way we can hold up the
Township’s responsibility is to keep after the owner. The owners haven’t been
proactive in getting the work done on time.
Mr. Nusbaum said we would request
final approval, with the condition that a certificate of occupancy won’t be
granted until specific items are done.
Mr. Bodolsky said he recommends
the applicant agree to an inspection by Mr. Stern and him before C.O. is
granted.
Mr. Nusbaum said we would agree
to a condition that the work be completed subject to approval from Mr. Stern
and Mr. Bodolsky.
Mr. Zoschak said if they don’t
have a C.O. until the work is done, what happens to Auto Zone?
Mr. Germinario said each day they
remain open without the C.O. they remain in violation and would be fined
accordingly by the construction official. The township, in an extreme
situation, could seek a court order to shut them down, if there were
substantial risks to the public.
Mr. Meyer said regarding the
sidewalk, he would like to see it replaced so that it is consistent, and is
done right.
The Board agreed the entire
sidewalk is to be replaced.
Mr. Alford said he would caution
the Board. Going back to Commerce Bank and Kiddie Academy and now this
application, the Planning Board must be picking up some reputation. What is
the sense of coming here and spending all this time, and things are being done
arbitrarily. I don’t understand why Auto Zone is allowed to remain open.
Mr. Germinario said it is in
violation of the law, and there is recourse through the Municipal Court to
bring violations and penalties. To go beyond monetary penalties would require
an action for injunctive relief. If it was a matter of public safety, this
Board could make that recommendation to the Township Council and Township
Attorney.
Mr. Bodolsky said it is implied
in what Auto Zone is planning to do, with ripping up the sidewalk and perhaps
effecting the columns, I think it is a safety issue, and I am surprised they
would be willing to stay in operation while this is being replaced. I would
not recommend a C.O. be granted when heavy construction work is ongoing in the
immediate proximity of the building.
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Bennett what
they agree to do with the sidewalk.
Mr. Bennett said he would agree
to rip out all the concrete in the front and side and replace it. By no means do
I like doing what I had to do, and I apologize to the Board. We opened for the
employees. Their paychecks were at stake.
The applicant addressed Mr.
Bodolsky’s report:
Mr. Nusbaum said for all of the
items relocating to construction requirements of Auto Zone, they will signify
how they will respond. For issues dealing with the shopping center, Mr.
Byszewski will address them.
Items A-G – refer to the sidewalk
– will be replaced
Item K – sidewalk – addressed
Items M, N, O, P – sidewalk –
addressed
Item H – has been repaired
Item I – done – Mr. Bodolsky said
maybe on future applications, the Board should look at the columns
differently. Mr. Stern suggested concrete tire stops.
Discussion. It was determined
bollards or wheel stops will be installed, subject to agreement with the staff.
Item J – will wear off in 6 to 8
months – marks can’t easily be removed as it would make the problem worse
Item L – top layer put down
Item 2 – agreed, if possible
Item 3 – Discussion. Wallpacks
in rear have been changed to concealed source. Recessed soffit lighting is
under the canopy. Emergency lights are required by the fire code and only come
on in an emergency. Two additional wall lights were added to the rear. If in
compliance with the ordinance, there will be no objection. Applicant will
change the fixture to a more low profile fixture if permitted.
Item 4 – agreed
Item 5 – will be substituting
5-foot high dumpsters next week
Item 6 – agreed (by Mr. Bennett)
Mr. Zoschak said there should be Keep
Roxbury Clean, Don’t Litter signs at the exits to White Castle and
the mall exit and the wall at the side of Auto Zone. Also, the manager of
White Castle agreed to help with that.
The applicant agreed.
Item 8 – Title 39 is requested,
but won’t be done until the whole project is complete
Mr. Bodolsky said the Board may
want to reconsider the fact that we did delete parking spaces in the far
westerly side. There is a parking deficiency. We probably didn’t anticipate
the traffic that would be generated by White Castle. Auto Zone also has the
potential of generating a fair amount of parking need. The Board may want to
consider putting those stalls back.
Item 7 – Mr. Stern said the logo
is not permitted. They should be painted out. Mr. Dougherty said he will
discuss that with White Castle.
Item 9 – done
Mr. Shadiack stated he was there
this Sunday, and there was an employee in the parking lot replacing windshield
wipers. Is that permitted?
Mr. Stern said it is not
permitted by ordinance.
Mr. Bennett said it is his
understanding they would be in violation if they replace batteries. In other
municipalities we have signs we can post stating no repairs on the premises.
Ms. DeVincentis said she does not
object to replacing the windshield wipers and that she doesn’t think a sign is
necessary.
Mr. Zoschak said it is a
violation of the ordinance.
Mr. Zoschak said there are also 3
electrical outlets there.
Mr. Bennett said they have been
removed.
Mr. Meyer said we are out of time
for tonight. He asked that Mr. Byszewski address only the items in Mr. Stern’s
report that need further discussion.
Mr. Byszewski brought the
following items to the Board’s attention.
Mr. Byszewski said one of the two
dumpsters closer to the building was scheduled to be constructed.
Mr. Stern said this was part of
the CVS application. There is a fundamental problem with the dumpsters along
the property line. They are not deep enough. All the pickups are with
front-loaded garbage trucks. There are dumpsters all over the place except in
the enclosure. If the future additional dumpster is constructed, it can be
constructed with enough depth, and the garbage trucks could swing in and pick
them up. The recommendation is to construct the “future” one.
Mr. Byszewski said he will bring
that up with the other owner of the shopping center and hope to have it
resolved by the time CVS returns to the Board.
Item 15 – Mr. Stern will review.
Item 16 – will do
Item 17 – done
Item 18 – will determine which
plants need to be replaced, with Mr. Stern. CVS is anticipated to be completed
towards the end of August.
Item 19 – addressed
Item 20 – removed
Items 21, 22 – agreed
The application was carried to
7/20/05. If revisions cannot be made in time for that meeting, the applicant
will let Dolores know, and it will be carried to 8/3/05.
Mr. Bennett said they will not be
doing the work while the store is open.
There was a 5 minute recess at
9:30 p.m.
M-5-05 – RALZONE –
SUBDIVISION FOR 5 LOTS LOCATED ON S. HILLSIDE AVE. BLOCK 4305, LOT 12 IN R-1
ZONE
Attorney Michael Roland
represented the applicant.
Mr. Germinario asked Mr. Roland
to address a notice issue. Mr. Stern’s report dated 6/30/05, indicates there
would be a front yard accessory structure variance required. Is that addressed
in the public notice?
Mr. Roland said not specifically,
but it does indicate all necessary variances, exceptions and waivers. However,
specifically a variance for an adjoining property is not noticed.
Mr. Germinario said we can
proceed on the basis of the general language of the notice, but members of the
public here should be advised that there is a specific variance involved that
would have to be addressed.
Mr. Stern asked if the consent of
the owner of Lot 13 is required.
Mr. Germinario stated the best procedure
would be to have the owner of Lot 13 join in the application. My conversation
with Mr. Roland indicated the participation of the owner of Lot 13 might be
problematic. Is that owner present?
Mr. Roland said he is not.
Mr. Germinario said he will allow
it to go forward on the basis of the representation from Mr. Roland that the
owner of Lot 13 is not willing to participate in this application, and we could
grant the relief as part of this application. However, if the owner of Lot 13
appears at a future hearing and indicates his willingness to be a part of this,
the posture may change. I don’t think that owner should be able to block this
application by refusing to participate and thereby precluding a subdivision
approval. I’ll allow it to go forward on that basis.
Mr. Rilee said Item 1.7 in Mr.
Stern’s report talked about the sewer line being extended 1,000 feet up the
road. Those homes would be forced to hookup to that sewer line. Should those
people be noticed?
Mr. Germinario said that would
make sense as a practical matter. From the literal requirements of the
Municipal Land Use Law, if they are not within 200 feet of this property, they
are not required to receive individual notice. However, if the Board feels
that is an important item of public input, we could ask that the applicant send
notice to those property owners before the next hearing.
Mr. Rilee suggested they be
notified.
Mr. Roland said he would agree,
provided he be given the block and lot information for those owners.
Ms. DeMasi said the planning
office will provide a list.
Mr. Zoschak said those notices
should indicate the reason why they are being requested to be noticed.
Mr. Roland agreed and said he
would provide Mr. Germinario a copy of the notice.
A. Thomas Murphy, engineer for
the applicant, was sworn in.
John Harter, was sworn in
Mark Rallo was sworn in.
Paul Rallo was sworn in.
Mr. Murphy gave his educational
and professional background, and was accepted by the Board as a licensed
professional engineer and planner.
Mr. Murphy said he prepared an
environmental impact statement and hydro geological study.
Mr. Roland asked that Mr. Murphy
give an overview of the plan.
Ms. Voyce asked what Mr. Murphy’s
qualifications are to write the EIS. She requested a copy of Mr. Murphy’s
resume.
Mr. Murphy agreed to provide the
resume.
Mr. Murphy referred to a
colorized version of the subdivision plan (marked A-1). He said this is a 6.6
acre parcel with a single residential development on it. We have designed a
subdivision in conformance with township ordinance. There is an 800-foot long
subdivision off of Carey Road and we propose 5 new dwelling lots. We propose
to extend the sanitary sewer to service the properties. Water is located on
Carey Road and will be extended into our property. We have complied with RSIS
regarding road width, provided a stormwater detention system in accordance with
the latest New Jersey rules and regulations. There is a detention basin
provided on Lot 12.01. Also, all the homes will have drywells, and roof leader
drains. The existing structure will be razed as part of this development. The
new roadway will go through that location. All the ancillary structures will
be removed as well. We propose to dedicate right-of-way of 60 feet of Carey
Road that would extend to the front of our property. Carey Road will be
improved, curbing and sidewalk provided. The subdivision provides curbing and
sidewalks throughout. We terminated the sidewalk at the beginning of Lot 12.05
as the residents of the lot would have access to go out to Carey Road. The
properties to the south on Carey Road don’t have sidewalk. To the north there
is currently a sidewalk. Regarding the installation of sanitary sewer and the
extension of the sanitary sewer, the disturbance would start at the manhole
about 1,000 feet down Carey Road. That will be backfilled and repaved. The
applicant is in agreement that portions of the road will be repaved and brought
back to a suitable condition.
Mr. Zoschak said the reports from
the professionals suggest repaving the whole road.
Mr. Murphy suggested this can be
coordinated with the Township Engineer.
The applicant addressed Mr.
Stern’s report:
Item 1.1 – done
Item 1.2 – agreed – 4 bedroom, 2
½ bath homes, approximately 4,000 – 4,500 sq. ft.
Item 1.3 - the plans show
typical dwellings – on Lot 12.03, the driveway comes in on the right of the
house – we can flip the driveway and use a different style house.
Ms. Voyce said she has several
questions on the EIS. She will forward them to Dolores to have them sent to
the applicant.
Item1.5 – can be corrected
through dedication or connect that strip of land with the last lot on the
cul-de-sac, which we don’t recommend
Mr. Germinario said the preferred
option would be to take that strip and consolidate it with Lot 13. However, in
conversations with the applicant’s attorney, they have contacted the owner of
Lot 13 and the offer was rebuffed.
Mr. Roland said early on it
became clear good planning meant the strip should be granted to the owner of
Lot 13. We contacted Mr. Tourney, and initially it was favorable. There was a
perceived need for a sight line easement of about 825 square feet. We
anticipated an agreement. Mr. Tourney then got representation of counsel and
that attorney said his applicant would allow us to buy his property for
$250,000. Because we had been working on the agreement for many months, and
because we have a contract with Mr. Sutton, we would have to re-plan the entire
subdivision. We weren’t in a position to agree to that. We still believe the
reserved strip doesn’t belong in a conservation easement. We believe it should
be donated to Mr. Tourney. He has not indicated a willingness to join this
application. The corner lot issue just came to light last Wednesday.
Mr. Germinario said a second
option would require an agreement to exceed under RSIS and the consent of the
Governing Body. There is a potential Mr. Tourney won’t cooperate, and then the
Township would have the decision as to whether they want the maintenance. They
may not want that.
Mr. Bodolsky asked, why not make
the road straight?
Mr. Murphy said to the south
there is a little bit of a curve to the road. Originally, I though it would be
donated to Lot 13 and would not be an issue.
Mr. Roland said we contacted Mr.
Tourney in February and it wasn’t until late April that we were told he wasn’t
interested in joining the application.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
Anthony Leoni, 20 Alexandria
Drive, was sworn in. He said a concern is that our lots get water in the
basements in heavy rains. The way the drainage was proposed with drywells in
the back would be adding to the ground water. It can cause us more problems
because we are on a downhill slide.
Mr. Murphy said the reason there
are drywells is to maintain the ground water. Right now, we have a drainage
swale that goes along the northerly property line.
Mr. Leoni said if you are having
all the water being diverted to a detention basin, why can’t all the water go
there. Why does it have to go to drywells?
Mr. Murphy said the way it is set
up you take that water and can enter it directly into drywells. It is part of
the regulations.
Mr. Leoni said during heavy,
heavy rains the sump pumps are running constantly.
Mr. Meyer said there will be a
lot of testimony on stormwater management.
Mr. Murphy said the soil logs are
in the report and it sounds like more of a surface water problem.
Vincent Termini, was sworn in.
He said we have been here 19 years, and the last three lots on Alexandria Drive
were required to put in drywells. I think that is what caused our problems. I
don’t think they were put in correctly. We have had unbelievable amounts of
water problems. The pump works all the time. We want to be guaranteed that
when the development goes in, it won’t cause us more problems.
Mr. Meyer said they cannot
exacerbate existing conditions, and there will be testimony.
Ms. Voyce said another issue is
that there seems to be a question about whether you will be able to get a sewer
connection permit. Also, the Highlands Preservation area is something to be
considered.
Carol Reed, 20 Alexandria Drive,
was sworn in. She said she is very concerned about the detention pond and
mosquitoes, rodents, fencing, security, etc.
Mr. Murphy said the design is a
dry basin and will only have water in it when it is raining or for a short
period after rain. We don’t show fencing around the basin. That would be
determined by the township. It will be a grassed area.
Mr. Reed asked who would be
responsible for maintaining it?
Mr. Murphy said a Homeowner’s
Association would be responsible.
Mr. Reed stated the concern is
that if it isn’t maintained it would come over onto our property.
Mr. Murphy said all these
structures have an emergency easement that would allow the township to go in
and do the maintenance in the event of an emergency
Ms. Reed said she disagrees with
the drywells. It is extremely expensive and is not sufficient. We would like
the town to give us the opportunity to hook up.
Mr. Rilee said at least 2/3 of
the homes need to agree to hook up and then there is a process.
Ms. Voyce said the applicant
still needs to get the DEP permits.
Mr. Roland said she doesn’t
believe the cost of running a line down Alexandria would be cost-prohibitive.
Ms. Reed asked if there would be
restrictions on the hours of construction activity.
Mr. Meyer said the township has
normal standards, and the Board has the right to restrict it farther.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
The application was carried to
7/20/05. An extension of time was granted through 8/3/05. Noticing is
required as agreed to.
New Business
Mr. Stern said there will be a
Master Plan meeting on 7/13/05 at 9 a.m. and we will go over the Housing
Element Fair Share Plan.
Resolution for closed
session
TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING CLOSED SESSION
DISCUSSION
OF POTENTIAL LITIGATION
Approved:
July 6, 2005
WHEREAS,
the Planning Board seeks to discuss in closed session issues pertaining to
potential litigation relating to the Tucci/DeRock minor subdivision application
(application #M-3-04); and
WHEREAS,
the Open Public Meetings Act N.J.S.A. 10:4-6 et. seq. provides that
a public body may conduct closed session discussion pending or anticipated
litigation in which the public body is or maybe a party.
NOW,
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby enter into a
closed session for the purpose of discussing issues of the aforesaid potential
litigation. The issues to be discussed in closed session will be disclosed to
the public upon the resolution of all matters related to the potential
litigation.
The
undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the action
taken by the Planning Board at its meeting of July 6, 2005.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Sweeney seconded.
A voice vote approved.
Executive session commenced at
10:35 p.m. and ended at 10:50 p.m.
The regular meeting was adjourned
by motion at 10:50 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi, Secretary
lm/
