Create an Account - Increase your productivity, customize your experience, and engage in information you care about.
View Other Items in this Archive |
View All Archives | Printable Version
A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Township of
Roxbury was held on the above date 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, Richard Zoschak, Michael Shadiack, Joseph
Schwab, Teresa DeVincentis, Jim Rilee, Lisa Voyce, Charles Bautz.
ABSENT: Steven Alford
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Tom
Germinario, Russell Stern, Tom Bodolsky.
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Rilee
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr.
Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, abstain; Mr. Bautz, abstain; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr.
Schwab, yes; Mr. Meyer, abstain.
Mark East, Inc. – Walgreens
Mr. Stern said this is an
application for a 14,696 square foot pharmacy store, and they would have one
access through the McDonald’s property. They have submitted all information to
be deemed complete. No waivers are requested.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to deem
the application complete. Mr. Bautz seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Zoschak yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms.
Voyce, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
The application is scheduled for 1/18/06.
Scott Meyer congratulated Mr.
Rilee on his re-election to the Council.
ADOPTION OF THE HOUSING
ELEMENT AND FAIR SHARE PLAN OF THE ROXURY TOWNSHIP
Mr. Stern stated we were before
the Board on October 5th to discuss the Housing Element and Fair
Share Plan. The township is obligated to submit the plan to the Council on
Affordable Housing by December 20th. Since that hearing, we have
fine-tuned the document and are here with the final draft.
Chuck McGroarty said in summary,
Roxbury has a surplus of 233 units and credits. The number has fluctuated
slightly, but the most substantial change since the last review was that we
learned that we will not get a rental bonus credit for group homes. Apart from
that, the findings from before still hold. The total third round goal is 245
units, before applying the credits. The prior round obligation was 161. The
rehabilitation requirement is 9 units, and Roxbury had a vigorous program of
rehabilitation with the County program. Unfortunately, any of those that
pre-date 4/1/00 do not count. Roxbury has well over the 9 units required, so
that component is satisfied in the third round. The third part of the third
round obligation is the growth share number. You were assigned a number of
66. That was derived from projections of new households and new jobs that
would be created. After a study of development activity, we found it was
prudent to come up with a growth share number of 75 units. In total there are
245 units. All the units we have counted toward the prior obligation of 161
have already been certified by COAH in the prior round plan. We determined
Roxbury has, coming into the third round, a total of 308 units. We take away
the 75 units, and that leaves a balance of 233.
The key points are that the bonus
credits will not be counted for group homes. We have identified there is a
third round rental obligation and that is taken care of by existing units.
Lastly, there is a cap on the number of age restricted units (37) that can be
counted for credit. Any that exceed that number would carry forward to future
rounds. Part of the process involves a Fair Share Plan, and that is how you
will achieve your objectives. You have a substantial amount of money in the
trust fund to date. You are entitled to fund up to 37 units in a RCA program.
At $35,000 per unit, the total outlay would be almost 1.3 million dollars. We
have identified that you can not only fund all the units and have money left
over, but the best course of action would be to spend the money on activities
that will generate additional credits and then add to your surplus and reduce
the balance to a point where you will be obligated to spend 30% of the balance
on affordable housing activities.
Mr. Zoschak said we just had a
communication from DCA about spending the money. They seem to be anxious to
have it spent.
Mr. McGroarty said our intention
is that we will submit a spending plan to them. There is no deadline on
spending it. The Housing Element and Fair Share Plan must be submitted by 12/10/05, and we intend to submit the spending plan at the same time.
Mr. Rilee said monies that don’t
get spent get taken away and we don’t get any credit.
Mr. McGroarty said there is an
administrative fee which you are permitted to collect for time spent by your
Planner and staff, and us as well. That will also come out of the Housing
Trust Fund. Our intention is to finalize the projections, and we intend to
submit the plan at the same time.
Mr. Stern said the extra money is
already coming in so we will have the ability to spend it on other projects
that we may get credits for.
Mr. McGroarty said it is possible
the plan could be sent back for further information, but we are confident this
is a valid and comprehensive plan. I had heard there is a rule change in the
works, and if that takes place, I expect COAH will be sending plans back to
Mr. Stern said at a seminar he
attended, they mentioned the issue of excess senior housing units. As we are
involved with the Muscarelle project, and we are going with the senior housing
component, those units exceed our cap and won’t be counted in this round. An
issue has always been whether or not we would be obligated to growth share for
those Muscarelle units. It is questionable.
Mr. McGroarty said in the worse
case scenario it might be 18 to 20 credits reduced. The Muscarelle market
units should not count towards your growth share obligation. If the growth
share number goes up because of Muscarelle, the RCA credits will go up as
well. Tonight, we feel it is appropriate to proceed and to leave them in the
Mr. Germinario stated he agrees
there is no legal impediment to submit the plan as it is and wait for COAH to
take a position on it.
Mr. Zoschak said the resolution
references the current Master Plan. Shouldn’t it mention the Re-examination
Mr. Germinario said that can be
added, but the resolution before the Board is legally sufficient.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
HOUSING ELEMENT AND FAIR SHARE PLAN
Planning Board of the Township of Roxbury, State of New Jersey, adopted its
current Master Plan pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-28 on August 15, 2000;
Master Plan includes a Housing Element pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-28b(3);
5:94-2.2(a) requires the adoption of the Housing Element by the Planning Board
and endorsement by the Governing Body; and
5:94-4.1(a) requires the preparation of a Fair Share Plan in accordance with
the Housing Element of the Master Plan; and
5:94-4.1(b) requires the adoption of the Fair Share Plan by the Planning Board
and endorsement by the Governing Body; and
upon notice duly provided pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-13, the Planning
Board of the Township of Roxbury held a public hearing on the Housing Element
and Fair Share Plan on November 9, 2005; and
Planning Board has determined that the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan are
consistent with the goals and objectives of the Township’s 2000 Master Plan and
that adoption and implementation of the Housing Element and Fair Share Plan are
in the public interest and protect public health and safety and promote the
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Board of the Township of Roxbury,
County of Morris, State of New Jersey, that the Planning Board hereby adopts
the November 9, 2005 Housing Element and Fair Share Plan.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, abstain; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, abstain;
Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr.
M-5-05 – JOAN DI DOMENICO –
SUBDIVISION FOR 2 LOTS LOCATED ON MAIN ST./CENTER ST. BLOCK 10501, LOT
3 IN R-4 ZONE
Attorney Larry Kron represented
the applicant. He said this application is for a 22,498 square foot parcel
between Main Street and Washington Street. Main Street has an existing
dwelling, and we propose to subdivide with a new lot fronting on Washington
Street. The parcels will comply with all the zoning requirements of the R-4
Mr. Kron said there is a report
from Mr. Kobylarz regarding the road. The report states it is a 24 foot wide
road and narrows to 15 feet near the property. It is currently serviced by the
township, and there is a secondary access road going to Main Street. There are
also some wetlands near the road. Mr. Kobylarz concludes this portion of Washington
Street currently serves one dwelling and there is no ability to create
additional lots except for proposed Lot 3.01. He recommended that the roadway
width and configuration remain as it currently exists, but a variance for
frontage on an unimproved street would be necessary.
Mr. Kron stated there is also a
letter from Mike Pellek, Fire Official and he states he finds the plans are
acceptable to his office. Statute 40:55d 36 and 37 allows the Board to grant a
variance from a house being on an unimproved street if we can provide there is
emergency access. That is the case here, and we ask that the Board grant a
variance from us having to do any improvement to the road.
Mr. Germinario said Mr.
Bodolsky’s report indicates you don’t meet the offset to the rear setback line.
Mr. Kron said we think we do, and
there will be testimony.
Ms. Voyce said on the zoning
requirements on the map it states 23.9 existing remainder, which is less than
the 30 feet.
Mr. Kron stated that is a
pre-existing variance for the existing house. It doesn’t relate to the new lot
that will be created.
Michael DiDomenico was sworn in.
He stated he lives in Mine Hill, and the applicant is his aunt. He will be
building a house on the proposed lot for his personal use. When he lived in
Roxbury he was on the Board of Adjustment. He is currently an electrician.
William Chapin, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in. He gave his educational and professional background
for the Board and was accepted as a professional engineer.
Mr. Chapin referred to a rendered
subdivision plan (marked A-1). He said the proposal is to subdivide the
property. We have application before DEP for transition area waivers and GP2
and GP10 permits. We have moved the house toward the rear. We are still
waiting for our final approval from them. We now have a turnaround as DEP
doesn’t want parking in the transition area. There is a seepage pit in the
rear of the property and plantings required by DEP. Regarding Washington
Street, I don’t believe there need to be improvements to the road, as per the
recommendations from the Township Engineer. We feel the street is adequate to
handle the amount of traffic a house like this would generate. There is a
secondary access. My understanding is that the township plows across the front
of the property
Mr. Chapin addressed Mr.
Bodolsky’s report dated 10/27/05:
He stated an ambulance would
drive up Washington Street and could turn directly into the driveway.
Currently emergency vehicles use Washington Street for access to the existing
house. That is also true of a fire truck. There is no issue about that.
Item 3 – agree curbs and
sidewalks are not warranted – requires the RSIS waiver
Item 4 – (new 4A) – action to be
conditioned on DEP approval
Mr. Bodolsky asked if this plan
is what DEP will see.
Mr. Chapin said the plan
submitted to DEP was slightly different from this one. The location of the
house and planning aspects are the same.
Mr. Zoschak asked if that road
ends up in Lake Musconetcong.
Mr. Chapin said the right-of-way
does. There is not a public street to Main Street. There is a drive
connecting to the sanitary sewer for emergency access.
Mr. Germinario said we are
approving a minor subdivision, not a site plan. Mr. Bodolsky proposes that the
NJDEP approval would have to be for this identical proposal for the location of
Mr. Kron said we agree to that.
If the location of the house changes, we would have to come back to the Board.
Mr. Bodolsky said there are also
questions about the underground utilities. You would be going through
transition areas with underground utilities. A GP10 doesn’t cover that.
Mr. Bodolsky asked about
averaging in order to accommodate a house. Are they ok with that?
Mr. Chapin said we now only have
a small area on the side and nothing behind the house as far as any transition
Mr. Bodolsky said there appear to
be a number of questionable elements. Rather than us deciding that, let DEP
The applicant agreed.
Mr. Bodolsky stated his
experience with transition averaging is that when you average and give back
there is a compensation area.
Mr. Chapin showed it on the map.
Mr. Bodolsky said he believes DEP
requires deed restrictions. Is that practical here?
Mr. Chapin said he is aware of
the deed restrictions. We have been told that some kind of a fence would be
acceptable so that the area would pretty much stay natural. That fence would
be about 6” off the edge of the driveway, and about 10 feet from the house.
Mr. Bautz asked what is there
Mr. DiDomenico said it is a
vacant lot and it is maintained.
Mr. Bodolsky said when this is developed,
DEP would impose a deed restriction on the remaining transition area.
Mr. Kron said we have agreed any
approval would be subject to DEP restrictions. If it is determined it is
unusable, he won’t build the house.
Mr. Meyer suggested the applicant
continue to address the other comments in the professional reports, and we will
return to this issue.
Item 6 – agree
Item 7 – done
Item 8 – Applicant is not asking
for any C variances that relate to the size of the lot. The only variance we
are asking for is for building on the unimproved street. We don’t believe the
Board has any jurisdiction in terms of the size of the house. This will be a
2,200 square foot house.
Mr. Stern said there is a
requirement for an 8-foot setback from the rearyard setback line to allow for a
Item 10 - Mr. Chapin said as a
result of moving the house back to get it out of the transition area as much as
possible, we did not propose a deck. Originally we had a deck proposed, and
we have now changed it to a patio at grade.
Mr. Stern said the ordinance says
you have to have the room in order to allow for a future deck.
Ms. Voyce asked, if we grant
this, are we aggravating a pre-existing nonconforming condition?
Mr. Germinario said the
nonconforming condition is on the lot with frontage on the other road. It
doesn’t help that nonconformity to have this unused space to the rear. I don’t
think the fact of the variance for not abutting on an improved street goes to
the issue of the size of the house, but I agree that if we have the variance
for the lack of 8 foot offset to the rear property line, it does bring the size
of the house into the picture.
Mr. Kron asked if the Board would
condition an approval on the applicant not being permitted to come back for a deck?
Mr. Meyer said the ordinance was
written because of Poet’s Peak where people wanted to put a deck on.
Mr. Germinario said we cannot
bind future Boards to not consider a variance application. This ordinance was
intended to apply to this very situation.
It was determined the Board will
return to this question.
Item 9A – Mr. Chapin said there
are seepage pits that are about 12 feet from the foundation and have graded for
Item 10 - addressed
Item 11 – Mr. Chapin said the
utilities are subject to a GP2 permit that allows utilities to be placed
between the house and the street.
Mr. Bodolsky said he does not
believe it applies to crossing transition areas.
Mr. Chapin said at this point, it
appears they are applying it right.
Item 12 – Mr. Chapin said the
Township Engineer has said they are taking care of things. The DEP has
allowances for linear development in public streets. That area is in a public
street so it is not a problem.
Item 13 – Mr. Chapin stated the
plan has gone to DEP with the well as shown, and we have not had any comment
back that it would have to be moved. If it is required, we can do it. Our
plan is to tie into public water at some point. The plan also shows a well.
Ms. Voyce said you would end up
taking Musconetcong water probably. If you are going to have setbacks to that
if you have seepage pits. I am not sure there is enough room.
Mr. Chapin said we need 50 feet,
and we have it.
Ms. Voyce asked about from other
structures in the area.
Mr. Chapin said we are fine with
Ms. Voyce said she is concerned
not enough is known yet to even know if you can have a workable well on the
site. The potential homeowner should be aware of that.
Mr. Chapin said they have casing
that takes care of things like that.
Ms. Voyce said she understands
that and she also understands the location and that there are things going on
that you need to be concerned about.
Mr. Bodolsky asked if the
applicant has laid templates to indicate fire trucks can turn around?
Mr. Meyer said it is stated in
Mr. Pellek’s letter that there was no problem.
Mr. Chapin said he has not placed
a template on the plan. A fire truck would be able to turn around here as well
as at any other house on the street.
Mr. Bodolsky suggested that the
applicant prepare an exhibit showing how a fire truck will turn around.
Mr. Zoschak asked what the
condition of the emergency road is.
Mr. Kron said the Township
Engineer was satisfied it would be an alternate access. I also believe the
fire official was satisfied.
Mr. Bodolsky said he thinks it is
a dirt road.
The applicant addressed Mr.
Item 1 – addressed
Item 2 – addressed
Item 3 – Mr. Chapin stated the
roof of the house is done with drywells. We can’t place drywells in the
transition area, so we are calling out for the use of porous pavement with a
series of stone beds beneath the driveway. There would have to be a deed
restriction against sealing the driveway.
Ms. Voyce asked about the other
water that will be on the site. It will sheetflow from the lawn into the
wetlands into the stream into the lake.
Mr. Chapin said yes, that is what
it does now.
Item 4 – to be addressed
Item 5 - agreed
Item 6 – to be addressed
Mr. Germinario said the Board can
look for other information that goes into the visual impact of the
development. I believe it would help you if you have architecturals, to share
them with the Board.
Item 7 – not applicable
Item 8 – to be further addressed
Item 9 – agreed
Item 10 – agreed
Item 11 – agreed
Item 12 – agreed
Item 13 – agreed
Mr. Stern stated we would like to
see the sizes of the plants and they should be specified.
Mr. Rilee asked how you would
supply a street tree on Washington Avenue.
Mr. Stern said the street trees
would go along the roadway.
Mr. Chapin said within the transition
Items 14 to 18 – agreed
The application was carried to 1/4/06. The applicant agreed to an extension through 1/31/06.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
There was a 5 minute recess at 9:00 p.m.
S-32-05 – FRESENIUS/KENVIL
MEDICAL CENTER – SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON RT. 46/BERKSHIRE VALLEY RD.
BLOCK 4002, LOT 16 IN B-2 ZONE
Attorney Larry Kron represented
the applicant. He stated this is a one-story warehouse building on Rt. 46 and Berkshire
Valley Road. It is in a state of disrepair. We propose to convert it to
medical offices. Two-thirds of the offices would be used as a dialysis center
that is currently being operated at St. Clair’s Hospital.
Richard Knudsen, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in.
Ken Nelson, area manager for
Fresenius, was sworn in.
Rosalita Mokhtar, architect for
the applicant was sworn in.
Edward McGinley, project manager
for Fresenius, was sworn in.
Mr. Knudsen gave his educational
and professional background and was accepted by the Board as a professional
Mr. Bodolsky asked if Mr. Knudsen is a traffic engineer.
Mr. Knudsen said he is not.
Mr. Knudsen referred to a colored
rendering of the first sheet of the site plan (marked A-1) and gave an overview
of the project, stating the site is on the corner of Rt. 46 and Berkshire
Valley Road. It is a corner lot and is about 1.7 acres. There is an
existing building and some impervious area on the north and east sides of the
building. There are existing depressed curbs on Berkshire Valley Rd. We are
proposing a renovation of the existing building. A new parking lot would be
constructed and the existing curb cuts would be improved. There would be 58
parking spaces to the north of the building, a driveway off Berkshire Valley
Road for ingress and egress. There would be a single ingress driveway off
Route 46. All traffic would exit onto Berkshire Valley Road. We propose
landscaping as shown on the plan, and there would be additional landscaping.
Mr. Knudsen addressed a report
from Mr. Bodolsky:
Item 1 – agreed
Item 2 – agreed – and agree to
easement for placement of the sidewalks
Item 3 – agreed
Item 4 – agreed – there will
still be 58 spaces with 6 handicap spaces along the frontage.
Item 5 – to be addressed
Item 6 – agreed – Mr. Knudsen
said the project proposes an underground infiltration system. There are also
comments on how to handle the roof runoff. Roof runoff would go directly to
the infiltration pit. Runoff from the parking lot would go to an oil separator
and grit chamber. O & M manual will be submitted for Mr. Bodolsky’s review
Item 7 – agreed
Item 8 – agreed
Item 9 – addressed
Item 10 - agreed
Item 11 – to be reviewed and
approved by Mr. Bodolsky
Mr. Bodolsky cautioned that a half-footcandle illumination
average is low.
Mr. Knudsen stated a
half-footcandle illumination means many areas of the parking lot are very dim.
That is not sufficient for a parking area where there may be people who are at
a medical facility. A higher footcandle of about 2 footcandles would be
preferable. That could be achieved so that the higher illumination levels
would be within the site and at the walkways and not affect the neighboring
properties. We feel 2 footcandles is a reasonable number.
Mr. Bodolsky asked what the
latest time the facility would be operating.
Mr. Nelson stepped forward and
said the hours of operation are 5:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. There are no
narcotics on site.
The Board agreed the average
illumination won’t be more than 2 footcandles, to be worked out with Mr.
Bodolsky, and overflow will be mitigated as much as possible.
Mr. Stern said a design waiver
will be required for slight overflow along Lot 17.
The Board agreed to the design
Items 12, 13, 14 - agree
Ms. Voyce asked if the soil
application will be major or minor.
Mr. Knudsen said we don’t expect
there to be a lot. I doubt there will be more than 1,000 c.y.
In answer to questions from Mr.
Kron, Ken Nelson stated he said he has been a nurse since 1995 and has been a
manager and currently manages 3 clinics in Morris County and one in Hudson County.
Currently we are looking to relocate a clinic that has 90 patients. They come
for dialysis generally 3 times a week. They come for about 3 to 4 hours, and
there are 3 shifts a day. At no time will there be more than 20 patients
receiving treatment at once. Regarding the parking, generally we discourage
the patients from driving. We do have some younger patients who drive. On the
Monday, Wednesday, Friday patients, only 12 of those drive now. There are 3 to
4 per shift who drive themselves. The others are dropped off by family or van
service. We are required to have 7 caregivers treating 20 patients. We also
have 7 support personnel and myself. In the worst case scenario. you would
look at less than 20 on a given shift.
Mr. Zoshcak asked who does the
ambulatory transport from the nursing homes.
Mr. Nelson said the nursing home
Mr. Rilee asked how many square
feet of the building will be for this use.
Ms. Mahktar said about 11,000
square feet. The other part is about 4,000 square feet. That 4,000 square
feet has no tenant yet. We assume it would be a medical office. The required
number of parking spaces would be 56 parking spaces, which is consistent with
what is provided.
Mr. Nelson said we do draw labs
on a weekly basis. Blood vials are stored according to regulations in a plastic
bag which is sealed, and those are picked up via carrier. Almost all the labs
are kept in a refrigerator. We would agree to store the labs for pickup
Regarding the method of handing
hazardous waste material, Mr. Nelson said we do not generate hazardous waste.
We do generate medical waste that is stored indoors, in plastic and stored in a
room to be picked up. The trash going to the trash enclosure area is solid
waste, not regulated medical waste. Deliveries are once a week on a straight
truck. The pallets are brought into the building. We do get some smaller
deliveries, but that is typically done in a small shopping bag. We are also a
supplier of the equipment we use. All that activity occurs to the side of the
Mr. Kron asked Mr. Knudsen if he
feels adequate parking is provided.
Mr. Knudsen said yes, based on
the number of spaces needed for the staff and patients and means of deliveries,
and the Township requirements for the tenant medical space.
Mr. Bodolsky said now that you
are increasing the handicap stalls to 6, once the second space is rented out,
where will there be an area for drop-off?
Mr. Knudsen said patients would
be dropped off at the main entrance, and with the 56 handicap spaces the island
is just shrunk by a small amount. That would meet the ADA requirements for a
Ms. Mahtka was sworn in and gave
her educational and professional background and was qualified as a licensed
Ms. Mahtka referred to an exhibit
showing the floor plan and 4 elevations of the building (marked A-2). She
stated we propose new finishes on all 4 sides of the building. The main
entrance for Fresenius is on the back, but we felt we had to be respectful of
all sides of the building. There are canopies over the entrances, decorative
light fixtures. The material we propose is stucco. The canopy is corrugated
metal which color will match the stucco. We added a rather large cornice to
accentuate the building.
Mr. Meyer asked if Mr. Stern is
satisfied with the architecture.
Mr. Stern said this is a rehab of
an existing structure. This is a significant upgrade. I have recommend some
further accents by the windows and service doors.
Ms. Mahtka said we tried a few
things, and felt we want to keep the clean lines of the building.
Mr. Zoschak said I think some of
the landscaping will add to the ambiance of the building.
Mr. Stern said there will be some
foundation plantings added. Also, part of the plan is evergreen and ornamental
trees along Route 46.
Mr. Stern suggested there should
be something done to improve the appearance of the service doors.
Ms. Mahtka said the doors will
have some accent to make it look more like a residential type door. We prefer
that they recede.
Mr. Stern asked if the accent
lights that are proposed along the building elevations shine out.
Ms. Mahtka said they do shine out
and are fluorescent. The light will be cast down. (as shown on Exhibit A-3 –
arco 17” round and A-4 – lumilyte. We agree to work with Mr. Stern on the
Mr. Stern said the ordinance
states the light lens has to be parallel to the ground and decorative lighting
is permitted at the discretion of the Board.
Mr. Rilee said he would like to
see a photo sample of the light fixture (showing the fixtures in daytime and
Mr. Meyer said this is an
opportunity to get the best looking façade possible along Route 46.
Item 1.6 – There is a variance
required for impervious coverage. Mr. Knudsen said because of the infiltration
system, the fact we are over on the impervious coverage will not have a
detriment to the community
Item 1.7 – dictated by County
Items 1.8 through 1.16 – agreed
1.17 – will comply with Fire
1.18 – agree
1.19 – agree
1.20 – addressed
1.21 – agreed
2.1 – addressed
2.2 – Board had no objection to
encroachment on corner of building
2.3 – Mr. Knudsen said a waiver
is required near trash enclosure – screening is provided
2.4 – addressed
2.5, 2.6 – agreed
2.7 – addressed
2.8 – agreed – application agreed
to prohibition of tractor trailers
2.9 – waiver requested
2.10 – agree
2.11 – agree to granite block
curbing, but concrete at base of building
2.12 – request design waiver –
will provide easements for the areas where the sidewalk is outside the public
Mr. Kron asked if the Board would
allow them to draw a building permit for interior work on the building due to
the time constraints.
Mr. Germinario said it would
involve granting them a partial site plan approval just pertaining to the
Mr. Stern stated this would be
granting direction to the Building Official to accept the plans and start the
review process. No construction is to begin until site plan approval, and no
Mr. Sweeney made a motion to
allow the Building Department to begin the review process. Mr. Bautz seconded.
A voice vote approved, with Mr.
Rilee opposed and Mr. Zoschak abstaining.
The application was carried to 12/7/06.
The applicant granted an
extension until 12/31/05.
Richard Cramond was sworn in. He
said the Historic Advisory Committee is very concerned about the architectural
treatment of the building. I agree that more needs to be done, and we hope
between now and the next meeting it can be made more pleasing and a more acceptable
architectural presence. I think existing buildings should have the most
compatible treatment that would fit in and enhance the streetscape on Route 46.
The applicant agreed to contact
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 10:40 p.m.
A. DeMasi, Secretary