View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:00 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, Richard Zoschak, Steven Alford, Michael Shadiack, Gary Behrens; Charles Bautz, Jim Rilee, Lisa Voyce.   Teresa DeVincentis arrived at 7:10 p.m.


ABSENT:  Joseph Schwab, Larry Sweeney.


PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Tom Germinario, Russell Stern, Tom Bodolsky.


Also present:  Lorraine Mullen for Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary.



Mr. Meyer announced the application for The Storage Group will not be heard and will be heard on 11/2/05. 


Minutes of 9/7/05


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


Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Meyer, abstain.






                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

                                                         MAJOR 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 Planning Board (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.


1.  Applicant/PermitteeLorain Development, LLC


2.  Application Number:  S-24-05


3.  Property Identification:  Block 12101, Lot 6


4.  Subdivision/Site Plan Approval Date(s):  Site Plan



5.  Major Soil Permit Approval Date9/7/05


6.  Effective Date9/7/05


7.  Findings of Fact:


A.            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.


B.            Proof of adequate notice of this Application, pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-6.5, has been furnished to the Board.


C.            A public hearing was conducted, in accordance with the Ordinance, and with opportunity for comment by interested members of the public, on the following date(s):  9/7/05


D.            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 7/8/05; (2) soil movements stockpile plan by Joseph Mianecki, Jr., P.E. dated 7/7/05; (3) earthwork calculations by Joseph Mianecki, Jr., P.E. dated 7/7/05; and (4) reports of the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 8/23/05.


E.             The Board has made the following additional findings of fact:


1.             The Applicant intends to export 1,162 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil.


2.             The Applicant proposes to relocate within the site 1,582 c.y. of soil.


3.             The Applicant intends to export fill to a site outside the Township.


4.             The route of truck travel from Applicant's site to the disposal site will be:  Mt. Arlington Blvd. to Shippenport Road to Landing Road to Route 80. 


5.             The Applicant has agreed to comply with the recommendations contained in the report of the Planning Board Engineer dated 8/23/05.


6.             Pursuant to Section 17-9d of the Ordinance, the Board finds that circumstances warrant the restriction of the hours of soil moving operations to 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. on weekdays (with such operations prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays).


7.             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 thereto:  N/A


8.             Conditions of Approval:  This Permit is granted subject to the following terms and conditions: 


A.            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.


B.            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 Section 17-9c.


C.            The Applicant shall pay the engineering review and inspection fees as required in Ordinance Section 17-7.3.


D.            This approval shall not become effective until:  (i) Applicant has paid all outstanding property taxes and assessments due or delinquent as of the date hereof; and (ii) all conditions of the site plan approval have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer.


E.             Applicant shall comply with:  (i) "Hours of Operation" established pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-9d, as modified pursuant to paragraph 7.E.6 hereinabove; (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.


F.             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.


G.            This approval is subject to all outside agency review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.


H.            This Permit is subject to the following additional terms and conditions: 


1.             All fill will be exported from Applicant's site to a site outside the Township.


2.             The route of truck travel from Applicant's site to the disposal site shall be:  Mt. Arlington Blvd. to Shippenport Road to Landing Road to Route 80.


3.             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."


4.             Applicant shall post fees as follows:


Section 17-7.1  Application Fee - $250.00

Section 17-7.2  Soil Moving Fee - $174.00 ($0.15/cy

times 1,162 cy)

Section 17-7.3  Engineering Inspection Fees pursuant

to Section 13-2.404 of the

Township Ordinances


5.             Per Section 17-8 of the Ordinance, Applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount of $2,000.00.


6.             Applicant shall place hay bales on the site to supplement planned silt fencing for erosion control to the satisfaction of the Planning Board Engineer.


7.             In accordance with Ordinance Sections 17-6.1(t) and 17-6.4, the Applicant shall stake out interior improvements with appropriate cut sheets to the satisfaction of the Township Engineer, and a professional land surveyor shall stake out lot corners and appropriate points on line.


8.             Applicant shall maintain Mount Arlington Avenue free from tracked soils by employing effective anti-tracking facilities and by sweeping on an as-needed basis as determined by the Township Engineer.


The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate recitation of the action taken by the Planning Board on the approval date designated hereinabove.


Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Zoschak seconded.


Discussion.  Changes noted and made.


Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes.




                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

                                                                   RESOLUTION OF MEMORIALIZATION


Approved:  September 7, 2005

 Memorialized:  October 5, 2005




BLOCK 2611, LOT 2



WHEREAS, Carol DeRock applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the "Planning Board") for minor subdivision approval on 9/17/03; and


WHEREAS, the application was subsequently amended to name Mark Tucci as the Applicant; and


WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete on 3/4/04; and


WHEREAS, public hearings were held on 3/4/04, 5/19/04, 10/20/04, 5/18/05, 6/1/05 and 9/7/05, 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 comprises 39,430 square feet (0.90 acres) located in the R-4 Residence District.  The site has access from both Second Street and Ward Place.  The property is partially developed with a single family dwelling that is accessed off of Second Street.  The home has a pre-existing nonconforming front yard setback of 26.68 feet and is serviced by public water and sewer.  The undeveloped portion of the tract is wooded.  The property is surrounded by single family dwellings that are also zoned R-4.


The Applicant is now before the Board seeking minor subdivision approval to create one new lot (Lot 12.01) encompassing 19,115 square feet (0.44 acres), for the development of a single family dwelling.  The new home will be accessed at the intersection of Second Street and South Second Avenue.  Remaining Lot 12 will encompass 20,315 square feet (0.47 acres) and contain the existing dwelling.  Both lots exceed the R-4 minimum lot size requirement of 7,500 square feet and are larger than the existing lots surrounding the property.  Drawings depict the new home being serviced by sanitary sewer.  A well is depicted however the home will be serviced by public water when the moratorium is lifted.


2.  In support of its application, the Applicant submitted minor subdivision plans consisting of 3 sheets prepared by Michael J. Spillane, P.E. bearing a revision date of 5/12/05.  The Applicant also submitted stormwater calculations prepared by Spillane Engineering bearing a revision date of 5/12/05.  Reports concerning the application were submitted by the Township Planner, Russell Stern, dated 2/26/04 and by the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 2/24/04, 10/19/04, 5/13/04, 5/18/05, 5/26/05 and 8/17/05. Reports concerning the application were also submitted by the Township Engineer, Michael Kobylarz, dated 1/16/04 and 8/22/05. 

3.  At the public hearing of 3/4/04, the Applicant’s son-in-law, Mark Tucci appeared and represented that he had the consent of his in-laws to represent their interests in the minor subdivision application.  The Applicant’s engineer, Michael Spillane, P.E., testified that the proposal was to create two conforming lots with no variances.  The issue of a sinkhole on the property, identified in Mr. Bodolsky’s report of 2/24/04, was discussed.  It was determined that the Applicant should investigate this sinkhole further to determine whether it would have an impact on the proposed development of the property.  Responding to items contained in Mr. Stern’s report of 2/26/04, the Applicant indicated it would seek design waivers with respect to cartway width along Second Street and curbs and sidewalks.  With respect to street trees, the Applicant agreed to provide same and thus avoid the need for a design waiver.  The Applicant then agreed to comply with the remaining recommendations contained in Mr. Stern’s report.  The Chairman opened the hearing to public comments whereupon MaryJo Walilko residing at 66 South Second Avenue expressed her concern over drainage problems in the area and the safety of the proposed driveway access to the subdivided property.  Josephine LaFrance of 8 South Second Street urged an investigation of the sinkhole on the property and noted that local wells were contaminated.  Ken Lindzey of 1 Ward Place stated that the sinkhole on the property has deteriorated since

paving of the adjoining road by the Township.  There being no further public comments, the Chairman closed the public portion and adjourned the hearing.


                                4.  The hearing of the application continued on 5/19/04, with Mark Tucci representing his in-laws.  Mr. Spillane reported on his investigation of the sinkhole.  He testified that he found tree stumps and automobile parts, but below 5 feet he found sandy soil.  He reported that he excavated the debris and backfilled the hole.  Mr. Spillane opined that the soil was permeable enough to accommodate a drywell.  He stated that the subdivision would not affect drainage in the street and that runoff from the new house would not be discharged into the street.  Mr. Spillane agreed that the backfill placed in the hole would be compacted.  Mr. Bodolsky noted that calculations would have to be prepared for the sizing of the drywell capacity.  The Chairman then opened the hearing to public comments and Ken Lindzey again appeared and questioned where water from Ward Place would drain.  MaryJo Walilko stated that she had observed two ponded areas on the property during rain storms.  Josephine LaFrance noted that there is a Township moratorium on water connections which would affect this development.  There being no further public comments, the Chairman closed the public portion and adjourned the hearing.


                                5.  At the public hearing of 10/20/04, the Applicant was represented by Richard Sweeney, Esq.  Mr. Spillane again testified concerning the drainage situation.  He reported that the Township had no plans for drainage improvements in this area.  He testified that water currently runs from the street and adjoining properties onto the subject property, and stated that his design does not accommodate this water but only addresses water resulting from the new development.  He stated that the remainder of the water should flow onto the lot as it has always done.  He stated his opinion that the sandy soil of the property would allow this sheet flow to percolate into the ground.  Board members questioned whether the owners of the newly created lots would be able to change the topography thereby defeating the drainage system designed by Mr. Spillane.  Mr. Sweeney stated that the Applicant would be willing to have deed restrictions imposed to restrict the rights of the owners to alter the topography in such a way as to affect the drainage.  Mr. Germinario stated that the Applicant would be required to grant the Township an easement to continue the current drainage of water onto the property and to prevent the obstruction of the flow from adjoining properties onto the subject property.  He noted that the easement language would require that the Township’s right of discharge be limited to the drainage area which now affects the subject property.  Daniel Vallejo, the resident of the existing dwelling on the property stated that he observed no significant ponding in the backyard during a recent 4-inch rainfall.  The Board was polled and determined that the Applicant should work out a drywell system in accordance with the recommendations of Mr. Bodolsky.  The Chairman then opened the hearing to public comments, and MaryJo Walilko stated that the area draining onto the subject property extended beyond Second Street.  She expressed a concern that water not be diverted onto adjoining properties.  There being no further public comments, the Chairman closed the public portion and adjourned the hearing.


                                6.  At the public hearing of 5/18/05, the Applicant was again represented by Richard Sweeney, Esq.  Keith Appelbaum, P.E. of Spillane Engineering testified as to the proposed infiltrative basin and drywell stormwater management system.  He stated that the system had been designed to accommodate a hundred year storm, and that the water draining from Second Avenue would go to two infiltrative basins in the front and rear yards of the properties.  The witness identified as Exhibit A-1 a mark-up of Sheet 2 of the minor subdivision plans with a line indicating the hundred year flood under post-development conditions.  Mr. Appelbaum stated that no perc tests had been performed to test the infiltration rate of the proposed basins.  The question was raised as to whether the ponds should be considered detention basins subject to the setback requirements of Ordinance Section 13-7.906.  Mr. Bodolsky stated his view that the perc rate needed to be confirmed because it would affect the time for water to drain from the ponds.  Gary Simmons residing at 82 South First Avenue questioned the area which would drain into the proposed infiltrative basins.  Arthur Grimm of 94 South First Avenue stated his view that the actual drainage area was larger than that being considered by the Applicant in its design.  Turning to the review comments of Mr. Bodolsky’s report of 5/18/05, the Applicant agreed that the owners of the lots would be responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater facilities located on their properties.  It was also agreed that the drainage improvements would be installed prior to the filing of minor subdivision deeds, and that the Board would recognize the potential need to extend the 190-day period for the filing of such deeds in order to accommodate construction of the drainage improvements.  It was agreed that the Applicant would need the consent of the governing body to locate a portion of the grading for the front infiltrative basin in the public right-of-way.  The Chairman opened the hearing to public comments, and Gary Simmons and JoAnn LaFrance again expressed concerns about flooding problems in the area.  There being no further public comments, the Chairman closed the public portion and adjourned the hearing.


                                7.  At the public hearing of 6/1/05, the Applicant was represented by Michael Shivietz, Esq.  There was a discussion about the terms of a proposed drainage easement agreement.  It was directed by the Board that the Township’s drainage rights should be limited to the existing area draining onto the subject property.  Keith Appelbaum continued his testimony regarding drainage improvements, which had been altered since the last hearing in response to Mr. Bodolsky’s comments.  He testified that the runoff from the rooftops would be directed to drywells.  Mr. Bodolsky questioned whether the Applicant would be granting the Township rights to discharge into the smaller front yard basin as well as the larger rear yard basin, and the Applicant agreed that such rights were contemplated.  The Applicant introduced as Exhibit A-2 a videotape of a rainstorm event on 4/2/05 showing flooding conditions.  The Applicant introduced as Exhibit A-3 a rainfall report for the same date.  Gary Simmons questioned whether the proposed drainage facilities would block the existing drainage from his property onto the subject property, and Mr. Appelbaum represented that they would not.  Mr. Appelbaum further stated that the hundred year flood line currently extends onto the Simmons’ property, but in post-development conditions it would remain on the subject property.  Mr. Bodolsky suggested that new soil logs be prepared to determine the height of the water table in order to determine the permeability of the proposed drywells, and the Applicant agreed.  The Chairman opened the hearing to public comments, and JoAnn LaFrance asked that the Township consider upgrading the drainage facilities in the street.  There being no further public comments, the Chairman closed the public portion and adjourned the hearing.


                                8.  The hearing of the application concluded on 9/7/05, at which time Michael Shivietz, Esq. represented the Applicant.  Mr. Spillane testified regarding soil logs as described in his written report of 8/31/05.  He opined that the results were not indicative of a high water table and that the K4 soils observed would have permeability characteristics which would enable the proposed basins to handle a hundred year storm.  Mr. Spillane also noted that he and Mr. Kobylarz had agreed upon the drainage area currently affecting the subject property, as identified in the Drainage Area Map dated 6/30/04 attached to Mr. Kobylarz’ letter to Mr. Spillane dated 8/22/05.  Mr. Spillane identified as Exhibits A-4a and A4-b the permeability test results referred to in his testimony.  Regarding the question of the need for a variance with respect to the proximity of the two basins to the property lines, Mr. Bodolsky stated his opinion that the basins really do not constitute detention basins as defined in the Ordinance but rather are infiltrative basins.  He noted that detention basins are normally dry and have an outlet, whereas the proposed infiltrative basins here would retain water for an appreciable period of time during which it would percolate into the ground.  The Applicant agreed that the owners of the respective subdivision lots would maintain the ponds by mowing the grass and keeping the inlets clear.  The Chairman then opened the hearing to public comments, and Gary Simmons expressed concern as to the practicality of assigning maintenance responsibilities to the lot owners.  There being no further public comments, the Chairman closed the public portion.


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 minor subdivision as described in the drawings referenced hereinabove.  In connection with this approval the following variance and design waiver relief is hereby granted.


A.  A design waiver is granted from Section 13-8.602 for partial insufficient cartway width along Second Street.  The Board has no objection as the Applicant’s property has a wider cartway width in comparison to adjoining properties.


B.  Design waivers are granted from Sections 13-8.608 and 13-8.610A as curbs and sidewalks, respectively, are not provided along Second Street and Ward Place.  The Board has no objection as curbs and sidewalks are not present in the general area.


This approval is subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the filing of minor subdivision deeds:


1.  The Applicant shall enter into an agreement with the Township to grant to the Township a drainage easement to permit the discharge of stormwater runoff from Second Street and South Second Street onto Lots 12 and 12.01.  A proposed form of Drainage Easement and Agreement is attached as Attachment 1 to this Resolution.


2.  All stormwater facilities depicted on the approved plans shall be constructed prior to filing of minor subdivision deeds.  The Board recognizes that compliance with this requirement may require extension of the 190-day period for filing such deeds.  A Record Drawing depicting final grading shall be submitted to the Township Engineer for verification of volume compliance prior to deed filing.


3.  Permission shall be obtained from the Township Council to locate a portion of the grading for the front infiltrative basin in the public right-of-way.


4.  Backfill placed in the former sinkhole will be compacted to the satisfaction of the Township Engineer.


5.  Deed restrictions shall provide that the owners of both lots are prohibited from diminishing storage capacity in either pond through the introduction of fill, the alteration of grades, or the placement of structures.


6.  Deed restrictions shall prohibit the owners from introducing impervious surface within the backyard within the area designated as “post-development 100 year flood elevation” as shown on the plans.


7.  Deed restrictions shall provide that the property owners are responsible for the maintenance of the stormwater facilities located on their respective lots.


8.  Deed restriction language shall reference this Resolution and shall be reviewed and approved by the Board Attorney prior to filing of minor subdivision deeds.


9.  Low impact techniques shall be employed in the construction of the ponds to assure that natural permeability is preserved.  The design engineer or qualified soil scientist shall submit specifications for construction to achieve this goal.  Construction shall be observed by the Township Engineering Department.


10.  Actual construction shall strictly implement the plans approved by the Board.  House size and impervious coverage shall be strictly limited.


11.  The first floor elevation of the new house shall be raised to achieve proper separation to proposed grade 101.2 in the front yard.


12.  The swale between the two houses shall provide a minimum longitudinal slope of 2% from the curbline to the pond in the rear.


13.  Street trees shall be provided in accordance with Section 13-8.804 (40 feet on center, 2½” – 3” caliper, 14’ to 16’ height).


14.  The Board recommends to the Township Council that, in the Drainage Easement and Agreement to be entered into between the Applicant and the Township, there be included a provision pursuant to which, if storm sewers are installed in this area in the future, the Applicant may request a determination by the Township Engineer that the drainage easement and deed restrictions required herein are no longer needed, and if the Township Engineer makes such a determination, the Township Council will approve a release of the subject properties from said easement and deed restrictions.


15.  Vegetative debris at the terminus of Ward Place shall be removed.


16.  A grading/drainage plan for proposed Lot 12.01 shall be submitted to the Township Engineer for review and approval prior to obtaining a building permit for the new dwelling on Lot 12.01.  See also Conditions 10 and 11.


17.  Revised plans shall depict revised grading of the rear pond, specifically at elevation 99 and above, to avoid blocking of runoff from adjoining Lots 15 and 16.


18.  Lot numbers shall be verified by the Township Tax Assessor.


19.  The Applicant shall receive sewer capacity allocation from the Governing Body (Section 13-8.501) prior to issuance of a building permit for the new dwelling on Lot 12.01.


20.  The Applicant shall comply with Section 13-2.402A, Lot Line Revision Fee, prior to the filing of minor subdivision deeds.


21.  The Applicant shall comply with Section 13-11, Tree Conservation, and obtain a tree removal permit prior to the removal of any tree with a caliper of six inches or greater.


22.  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 the filing of minor subdivision deeds.


23.  This approval is subject to the issuance of a major soil moving permit for construction of the infiltrative basins and new dwelling.


24.  This approval is subject to all outside agency review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.


25.  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.


26.  This approval is subject to the payment of all appropriate fees and taxes.


27.  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 9/7/05.



Attachment 1

Prepared By:



, Esq.




THIS AGREEMENT is made this _______ day of _________________, 2005, by and between MARK TUCCI and DANA TUCCI, husband and wife, whose address is 33 Woolston Way, Washington, New Jersey 07882 (hereinafter Tucci or Grantor) and the TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY, a Municipal Corporation of the State of New Jersey, with offices at 1715 Route 46, Ledgewood, New Jersey 07852 (hereinafter ATownship@).




1.  Tucci is the owner of certain property in the Township of Roxbury, Morris County, New Jersey by deed of Jean DeRock and Carol DeRock, husband and wife, dated August 24, 2004 recorded in the Office of the Morris County Clerk on August 31, 2004 at DB6144, P262 and set forth on the tax maps of the Township of Roxbury as Block 2611, Lot 12 (hereinafter the ATucci Property@).


2.  Block 2611, Lot 12 is the subject of a Resolution of Approval adopted by the Roxbury Township Planning Board on October 5, 2005 which granted minor subdivision approval (Application No. M-3-04) for the subdivision of Lot 12 into two residential lots, Lot 12 and 12.01.


3.  Condition 1 of the aforesaid resolution requires Tucci to give, grant and convey to the Township its successors and assigns in perpetuity an easement to permit the right to discharge runoff from Second Street and South Second Street onto Lots 12 and 12.01 in Block 2611.


4.  The Drainage Easement is within the Township and the Township is the dominant tenement thereof.


5.  Tucci is desirous of granting to the Township a drainage easement, for said purposes, and in furtherance of its Resolution of Approval subject to the terms and conditions hereof.


NOW THEREFORE IT IS AGREED, in pursuance to said agreement and for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) paid by each of the parties to each other, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, and of the mutual covenants, agreements, conditions and stipulations therein contained, it is mutually covenanted, stipulated and agreed by and between the parties as follows:


1.  Tucci hereby gives, grants and conveys to the Township, its successors and assigns, in perpetuity, an easement for the purposes hereinafter set forth across the Tucci Property described on Schedule A attached hereto and made part hereof (the Aservient lands@).


2.  The easement granted hereby is limited to the right of the Township to discharge runoff from Second Street and South Second Street onto Lots 12 and 12.01 in Block 2611, which runoff accumulates on Second Street from the area currently draining onto Second Street (the Drainage Basin).  The parties agree that, for the purpose of this easement, the extent of the Drainage Basin as of the date of this agreement is described in Exhibit A hereto.  The Township may not act to cause a substantial increase in the area of the Drainage Basin without the prior written consent of the Grantor or their successors in interest.


3.  The Resolution of the Township Planning Board memorialized on [date] requires that the Grantor implement a stormwater management plan appropriate to the intended residential use of the Tucci property.  The Grantor or their successors in interest shall diligently implement the approved stormwater management plan and shall maintain the associated stormwater management facilities, which are designed to accommodate the runoff onto the Tucci property from the drainage basin via Second Street, in accordance with a maintenance plan approved by the Township Engineer.  The Township shall not act to cause a substantial increase in the area of the Drainage Basin or to substantially alter the drainage pattern from Second Street onto the Tucci property in a manner which impairs the functioning of the approved stormwater management plan so as to cause significant damage to the Tucci property and/or significantly interfere with the residential use of said property by the Grantor or their successors in interest.


4.  The Township agrees that the use hereby granted shall be limited exclusively to drainage and discharge purposes.  The right of discharge onto the Tucci property shall not be deemed to permit the installation of any piping or drainage improvements unless expressly authorized by the written consent of the Grantor.


5.  Tucci shall have the right to use the surface of the portion of the servient land conveyed, except as may otherwise appear herein or to be inconsistent with the rights hereby established.  The Grantor and their successors in interest shall not erect structures, implement grading, and/or install landscaping which impairs the functioning of the stormwater management plan approved pursuant to the Planning Boards Resolution of [date].


      6.  The Grantor recognizes that the discharge of runoff onto the Tucci property pursuant to this Easement will result in periodic flooding and/or ponding of water on portions of said property.  ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST, THE GRANTOR RELEASES THE TOWNSHIP FROM ALL LIABILITY WITH RESPECT TO SUCH FLOODING AND/OR PONDING, PROVIDED THAT THE TOWNSHIP FULFILLS ITS OBLIGATIONS PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPHS 2 AND 3 HEREOF.


7. Tucci represents, to the best of their knowledge, that Grantor is seized and possessed of those portions of the servient land conveyed and Grantor has good and lawful right and title to convey said lands and any interest therein, subject to easements, covenants and restrictions of record and such facts as an accurate survey would disclose.


8. The easement herein granted is subject to zoning ordinances, easements and restrictions of record and such facts as an accurate survey would disclose and shall run with the land and same shall be binding on the parties hereto, their heirs, assigns, and successors in title or interest, in perpetuity.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have hereunto caused these presents to be signed, sealed and acknowledged the day and year as indicated on the acknowledgements attached hereto and made a part hereof.




_____________________________ ___________________________________





Attest:                                         TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY




          ) SS.:



I CERTIFY that on                                               , MARK TUCCI and DANA TUCCI, respectively, personally came before me and acknowledged under oath, to my satisfaction, that this person (or if more than one, each person): (a) is named in and personally signed the attached document; and (b) signed, sealed and delivered as his or her act and deed.                                                         


                                    Attorney-at-Law of the State of New Jersey









BE IT REMEMBERED that on _____________, before me, the subscriber, __________________________, personally appeared_________________________, who being by me duly sworn made proof to my satisfaction that he/she is the Clerk of the TOWNSHIP OF ROXBURY, a municipal corporation, the grantor named in the within document, that ______________ is the Mayor of the said municipality; that the execution, as well as the making of this instrument has been duly authorized by a proper resolution of the Governing Body of the said municipality; that deponent knows the corporate seal of said municipality; and the seal affixed to said instrument is such seal and was thereto affixed, and said instrument signed and delivered by said ______________, Mayor, as and for his/her voluntary act and deed and as and for the voluntary act and deed of said municipality, in the presence of deponent, who thereupon subscribed his/her name thereto as witness.


Sworn and subscribed to before

me on ____________________


_________________________           ____________________________________

(Notary)                                                                Clerk


Mr. Zoschak made a motion to approve the resolution.  Mr. Rilee seconded.


Mr. Germinario went over changes to the resolution which were requested by the attorney for the applicant.


Attorney Michael Shivietz was present.


Discussion.  The Board agreed on certain changes to the resolution and they were made.


Roll as follows:  Mr. Zoshcak, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes.




Mr. Stern explained to the Board in March of 2004 the Township was considering making application to ANJEC.  The Township was awarded a grant for $18,000.  Through a competitive bid process the Township hired Frank Banisch and Associates to prepare a Build-Out Analysis and Carrying Capacity Study.  He has been working with me and the Environmental Commission, the Master Plan Committee, and ANJEC.  Part of the process is to vacant lands in the community and underutilized properties.  We will be getting conceptual sketches to see how development can be accommodated with the minimal amount of variances.  There will also be an analysis of the potential for non- residential development on commercial properties.  The goal of the document is to look at the impacts and to analyze making recommendations on how to address growth, and to consider adoption of the study as a technical appendix to the Master Plan so it can be used as a tool in the Land Use Element Plan update and revisions to the Zoning Ordinances.


Frank Banisch gave a summary of the findings in the report.  The lands studied include vacant and farmlands in the Highlands Planning Area and in the Highlands Preservation Area; underdeveloped parcels with the potential for further subdivision for lots greater than 1 ½ acres; approved  site plan or subdivision developments; and development of the Hercules parcel.  The potential number of new residential units will be between 800 and 900.  Most of those are from approved developments.  The potential for the development of vacant lands won’t result in many hundreds of units, but will be a couple hundred beyond the approved development.  In our findings, the conclusions relate more closely to managing community character.  With a limited development potential for new lots, and the impact of the Highlands Act, new residential development is not likely to change the character of Roxbury substantially.  However, the scarcity of new residential opportunities will probably precipitate an increase in the rate existing homes are torn down, and the rate at which lots with existing dwellings are viewed as potential for further development. It will be important to look at how your regulations affect lots that might be created that way.  The most obvious development implications for change come from the nearly 15,000,000 square feet of nonresidential development that is permitted under current regulations.  That is distributed among a variety of nonresidential zones, but about two-thirds of that will occur on the Hercules parcel as it is currently zoned.  We have calculated full build-out to be over 75,000 additional annual daily trips.  An additional 2,000,000 gallons per day in increased water demand will also result, and a new pupil generation in excess of 300 pupils will result in a local district cost of over $3,600,000.  That accounts only for the build-out calculated through this analysis.  We believe there are neighborhood characteristics that are important to protect, and we suggest a variety of regulatory and planning tools that will help to assure that, as further subdivision or redevelopment occurs, desirable neighborhood character can be protected.


Mr. Banisch said our specific recommendations are, in terms of protecting community character, we found that many central and north Jersey suburban communities are now confronted with the “tear-down” syndrome and with the further subdivision of already developed lots, it frequently has the effect of dramatically changing the character of residential neighborhoods.  It also results in the loss of an affordable housing resource.  We recommend that to control this, a variety of zoning standards be added or changed.  That would include making sure all residential zones have a minimum lot depth standard; minimum lot width requirements should be expanded; minimum improvable lot are requirements should be added to assure there is a minimum contiguous buildable area located on each lot to be created.  We recommend that resource restricted or critical lands should be discounted from the calculation of tract area.  We also would consider a lot-shaping technique, which is an inscribed lot circle that would be required to be drawn within the lot lines.    There are also other techniques we recommend.  Finally, we recommend you look more closely at whether or not you want to prohibit flag lots.  Another technique to help mitigate the direct impact of “tear-downs” is floor area ratio controls in residential zones.    


Mr. Banisch said one of the biggest findings in the report is that the biggest change that will happen in the community will happen at the Hercules site.  The train station relocation adjacent to this site will offer new and enhanced regional access opportunities.  Carefully considering the nature and mix of uses at that location is probably the biggest task you have that will shape the quality of life and the fiscal health of the community in the future.  We will come back with the full detail of the build-out analysis and review it with Mr. Stern before the next hearing.


Mr. Meyer said the report has extraordinary potential, and he thanked Mr. Stern, the Environmental Commission and ANJEC. 


Mr. Rilee and Mr. Zoschak also thanked Mr. Banisch and ANJEC for their help with this analysis.


Mr. Zoschak asked for Mr. Banisch’s opinions on the Highlands region for discussion at a later date.


Mr. Banisch said we will provide the Board with all the facts so they can make a determination.


Ms. Voyce said the Environmental Commission has been active on this as well and we have worked with ANJAC and Mr. Stern and Mr. Banisch on this, and you get an idea of the potential scope of change in the township.  We need to look at the numbers.  Hercules has been the subject of proactive conversation for many years, and we need to understand it even better.




No one stepped forward.






Mr. Germinario stated this is an unusual situation in that the applicant has already been to the County Agricultural Development Board and has received a resolution of approval for recommendation of a site specific agricultural management practice.  This is a pole barn that will be used as a dressage barn for breeding and training of Fresian horses for sale.  The Board has stated we have very limited jurisdiction in this application, because the Agricultural Board limited our jurisdiction to a number of items laid out in Mr. Stern’s report.  They include traffic circulation, driveways, ingress, egress, parking areas, stormwater management and drainage.  All but the last two of those will not be changed by the proposed dressage barn.  We are really here to just talk about stormwater management and drainage.  It is also important to know that while there is technically a variance for setback from the property line, the Agricultural Board approval does approve the location for the dressage barn, so we are not in a position to revisit that.   The strict conformance with the 200 foot sideyard setbacks would overlap on this property and make any structure impossible.   Mr. Bodolsky’s report raises the issues of the potential for wetlands exemption. The Board does not need to revisit that, because one of the provisions of the County is to comply with all the recommendations of Morris County Soil Conservation District.  The County approval resolution contains an Exhibit E3  which contains the fact that there may be freshwater wetlands and stream encroachment and Category 1 designation and requires that the applicant explore that and apply for whatever exemptions are required. 


Kevin O’Neill was sworn in.  He stated he and his wife built the house in 1984 and operated the farm since 1986.  We had Arabian and miniature horses and then Fresian horses.  The plan now is to breed one Fresian mare a year, take the offspring, train them and sell them.  We may train 2 a year after that.  The horses need to be trained, and we need a larger and a dressage barn.   You can’t sell a Fresian horse untrained. The property is kept extremely nice, and the barn will match the rest of the property.  We have put together a drywell plan for roof drainage.  I am already registered with the Morris County Soil Conservation Plan, and that was done after I got approval from the Agricultural Board.  


Ms. Voyce said this is a 9 or 10-stall barn.  Why are that many stalls needed?


Mr. O’Neill said we also already have miniature horses.  We have 8 miniatures now and 1 Fresian.  The Agricultural Board defines one horse unit as a 1,000 pound unit.  The facility will be for our personal use at this time.  We have never had complaints from any neighbors. 


Mr. Meyer asked if the applicant intends to give riding lessons, etc.  Would that trigger any changes to the Agricultural Board approval?


Mr. Germinario said if it is still defined as part of the permitted agricultural use, it would probably be permitted.


Mr. O’Neill said the Agricultural Board states there are accepted practices.  One is breeding, selling and training of  horses.  Boarding is acceptable if it goes along with the breeding, selling and training.  The resolution restricts me to 7 horse units.  A unit is 1,000 pounds.


Mr. Germinario said the resolution from the Agricultural Board defines what this dressage barn may be used for and it lists keeping horses owned by the farm owners, breeding of horses, training of horses owned by the farm owners, and other equine related activities as permitted by the Township of Roxbury. If the Township permits the type of activity in terms of riding instructions, then it would be encompassed in what is permitted by the County board.


Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Bodolsky for comments.


Mr. Bodolksy went over his report:


Item 1 – Informational.  No action necessary for Board.

Item 2 – Testimony provided.

Item 3 – It will be a condition of approval that drywells will be required for Phase II.

Item 4 – Informational – not Planning Board jurisdiction


Mr. O’Neill said he spoke with Mark Harris at DEP and found the rulings applicable to the property.  In the worst case scenario, for both the stream encroachment easements and the transition area, it is 150 feet from Drakes Brook.  I am well outside that.


Mr. Zoschak said they changed that.  Category 1 streams are 300 feet.


Mr. O’Neill said that is true unless two things come in to play – that the additional added impervious surface Is less than ¼ of an acre and the additional disturbed surface is 1 acre or less.  I fall under both of those.


Mr. Stern asked when Mr. O’Neill anticipates moving on to Phase II.


Mr. O’Neill said probably in the early Spring.




No one stepped forward.




Mr. Zoschak made a motion to approve the application, effective immediately.  Mr. Bautz seconded.


Roll as follows:  Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.




Mr. Germinario stated this is a courtesy review.


Michael Kobylarz, Township Engineer, was present.  He said the Skyview Wastewater Treatment Plant is antiquated and was built in the 1960s.  In the mid-1990s it was determined we needed to evaluate that plant and see if it was economically feasible to upgrade the facility or seek other alternatives.  A feasibility study was done to evaluate an upgrade or decommissioning the plant and constructing a pump station and force main to divert the flow to the Ajax Wastewater Treatment Plant.  The study results found the long term benefit would be to pump the flow to the Ajax plant.  The Township amended the wastewater management plan, and in June of 2003 the Township awarded the design permitting, construction, administration and inspection project to Suburban Consulting Engineers.  We have secured a low interest loan from the NJ Environmental Infrastructure Trust.  Melanie Michetti of the Engineering Department has been overseeing the design and construction aspects for the project. 


Andrew Holt of Suburban Consulting Engineers was present. 


Mr. Rilee asked if the fencing be visible.


Mr. Holt said maybe from one or two vantage points.  It will be a 6’ high metal clad chain link fence.


Mr. Holt showed an exhibit of photos of the existing structures, and an example of a similar pump station.   It will be masonry block with stone veneer.  Regarding noise, there is an electrical generator, and it is housed in the masonry building.  Under normal conditions the generator is not on, and would run during an emergency situation.  It would meet the daytime noise standards, and will possibly meet the night time standards.  As to odor, there is venting from the subsurface structure, but there is not a large change in air in the volume of the structure, and it is easily dissipated.  There is a system to try to keep the odors down.


Mr. Zoschak asked if there could be a more attractive door.


Mr. Holt said it may be possible to add trim.


Mr. Stern said in this case there is greater setback from the roadway, and there is some vegetation.    They are utilizing existing vegetation, and per DEP they have to put indigenous plant material.


Ms. Michetti said the control building is located 105 feet away from Patricia Drive, and sites down lower.  The door will face Route 206, rather than facing Patricia Drive.


Mr. Stern recommended vinyl clad fencing.


Mr. Holt said they will look into it.


Mr. Bodolsky asked if it is accurate that this is tested once a week.


Mr. Kobylarz said yes.




No one stepped forward.




There was a 5 minute recess at 8:35 p.m.







Frank Banisch and Chuck McGroarty were present.


Mr. Stern said the last Housing Element/Fair Share Plan was completed in 1997 and received substantive certification that was valid up to November 2003.  We received an extension to December 20th of this year.  COAH has adopted 3rd road rules, and we are required to have a Housing Element/Fair Share Plan.  The Planning Board must adopt the housing element as a part of its Master Plan, and the governing body needs to endorse the fair share plan.  We are in a good position and have a considerable surplus that covers us for our future growth to the end of 2013, and we are in good shape as a result of the money we have in our Affordable Housing Trust Fund that will go toward the production of units in town and outside town. 


Mr. McGroarty distributed a chart that explains the figures.


Mr. McGroarty went over the table and discussed the affordable housing obligation, stating the affordable housing calculation is comprised of 3 numbers.  The recalculated second round number is 161 units that Roxbury would be required to provide opportunities to create or bring in to existence.  That comes directly from COAH’s third round rules.  What is of importance is that in the prior round you had a much higher number of 375 units.  That has been reduced.  Add to the 161 the growth share.  All municipalities are given a number based on the anticipated population growth.  For every 8 market units built, one affordable home is required.  For new development, for every 25 jobs created, one affordable unit is required.  There is the 161 number assigned by COAH and the second number growth share,  and finally a rehabilitation obligation of 9, which is considerably lower than it was in the second round.


Mr. McGroarty said for the growth share, you are assigned a number of 66, and we project a slightly higher growth share of 72 units.  That is being conservative.  We get a total 3rd round obligation of 242 affordable units.  Table IV tells us you actually have a cumulative affordable housing inventory of 522 units and credits to work with.  When you subtract the 242 units, the surplus is shown at 280 units. 


Mr. Stern said what the surplus means is that if the 72 units was blown out of the water,  we could probably accommodate the anticipated growth in residential housing that we have zoned for as well as over 6,000 jobs. 


Mr. Zoschak said for all the new development that doesn’t have to provide low and moderate housing, do we get credits from them?


Mr. Stern said at this point, the ordinance is set up to collect 2% equalized assessed value for nonresidential development, or 1% for residential development.  We have been discussing whether we want to adopt a growth share ordinance for the nonresidential districts where they have to provide higher funding to provide for the cost of construction.  That construction would have to occur in town, and with that comes certain impacts.  We have talked about language to open that door for consideration, but we won’t have anything ready to go for the December 20th submission.


Mr. McGroarty said with this process, the 3rd, 5th, and 8th year there is monitoring in place.  One thing we did was to account for a certain amount of development at Hercules, and anticipate about 500,000 sq. ft. of nonresidential development at Hercules.  If zoning changes and there are other scenarios that come up, the numbers would change. 


Mr. Stern said this is up for discussion in 2006. 


Mr. McGroarty discussed Table 1, which shows everything built to date that has an affordable housing component.  We had to go back into the second round and look at those figures and make some adjustments.  The result was the number of affordable units is now 320 which is what has been approved and developed to date.  We then come to a total number of affordable units and bonuses which is a total of 161.  What we are showing is that Roxbury clearly addressed the recalculated second round obligation.  Table 2 shows the total number of rental units for a total of 167.  There will be an assumption that you will proceed forward with a Regional Contribution Agreement (RCA).  We added another 36 units in and we come down with a total of 212 units.  That is what will be created during the third round.  We have added the group homes that were not credited in the second round, etc.  The final totals show 212 units are or will be created in the next 10-year period.  We add another 149 bonus credits, and that gives you a total in the third round of 361 units and credits.  The 522 total units and credits is made up of two parts.  One of those is the 361 from the third round.  We added in the 161 from the second round.  That gives you a standing today of 522 total units and credits.  When you subtract the third round obligation, that is how we get the surplus.


Mr. Stern stated the group homes have established themselves over a number of years.  We get two credits per bedroom.


Mr. Meyer asked what buy-down units are.


Mr. McGroarty said you had a program certified in the second round to provide money to help buy down the cost of a unit. 


Mr. Stern said it started out at $20,000 or $25,000 and was raised to $35,000.  If the mortgage amount was $120,000, we would contribute $35,000, which would then make the mortgage affordable to a moderate income household.  We accomplished 6 of those before the spike in housing prices, and if we wanted to see the project become successful again, we would probably need $70,000 to $80,000.  That will be discussed later on as we go into the spending plan.  That is why there was a recommendation for Regional Contribution Agreement which is the agreement between Roxbury and a receiving community that is permitted by COAH.  We provide $35,000 per unit per credit to another community, and they build the housing in that community. 


Mr. McGroarty said you will see in the tables, the Regional Contribution has identified 35 units.  You cannot have more than 50% of your growth share number go out of town.  We are operating from this point at a growth share number of 72 units. 


Mr. McGroarty said on page 9 of the report is a chart showing some idea of how the affordable housing trust fund fees can be spent.  You must spend the money for procedures and activities sanctioned under the rules.  If you don’t spend it, 30% of the balance must be spent on affordability assistance.  The advantage in spending the money is that it adds credits to your inventory. 


Ms. Voyce asked if we can use the money to upgrade certain areas in need of upgrade.


Mr. Rilee said it is a fixed target.  It is not a changing target.  As money grows, we would have to address it then.


Mr. Meyer said you can’t just spend money to rehab a building.  It has got to do with affordable housing.


Mr. Meyer asked if everyone is in general agreement with the plan.


The Board members were.


A formal hearing was scheduled for the 11/2/05 Planning Board meeting.


Mr. Stern said he wants to send the plan to the governing body before submitting it to COAH.


Mr. Rilee asked if there were any modifications at the time of the COAH Committee meeting.


Mr. Stern said there were concerns about having Renaissance constructed as a senior affordable complex because we would be losing those credits.  It was unknown at the time whether or not we would have growth share associated with the 42 units at Renaissance.  We are looking into that.


Mr. McGroarty said we have established that on the Muscarelle tract with the 52 age restricited units, those age restricted units won’t count toward the 3rd round.  We have asked COAH if we can’t count those units in the third round, would you then get hit on the market units for grown share.  We understand the answer to be no, as long as the units are in compliance with the rules in terms of affordability and it is at the appropriate ratio, you will not suffer for that.  With the Renaissance units (35), even if they go to age restricted, they are associated with the Wellfleet project and that the set-a-side ratio of 4/1 is satisfied. 






Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant.


Steve Byszewski was present.


Mr. Nusbaum said it appears all outstanding issues have been resolved.  On the last page it is pointed out that an unmarked trash receptacle should be provided and notes extraneous litter exists that may be attributable to Dunkin Donuts.  The trash receptacles are on backorder.  Regarding Title 39 enforcement, I spoke to Ms DeMasi, and we had letters requesting Title 39, but that doesn’t happen until the Board gives its approval.


Mr. Bodolsky said the Board needs to give consideration to the backorder item


Mr. Stern said he was provided with a copy of an invoice for 4 trash receptacle/ash urn units, and it will be quite a few weeks before they arrive.  It is my understanding 3 of those will be located along the side facing White Castle and one at the entrance to Auto Zone.


Mr. Meyer asked if temporary trash cans can be put up.


Sam Graham of Auto Zone stated that can be done.


Mr. Bodolsky said wheel stops and/or bollards have not been employed at the column lines per discussion that they would cause more of a problem.  We will look at that more closely in the future.  They were not required in the original approval.


Mr. Stern said one of the problems with the White Castle site is that there are usually about 4 to 6 UPS trucks that back up into those spaces.  The ends of the trucks are about a foot away from the wall.  If there is a damaged column the owner will have to repair it.


Mr. Zoschak stated I had asked for “Don’t Litter” signs at the exits to the shopping center.  The applicant had agreed to do it.


Mr. Nusbaum said the signs will be put in.


Mr. Stern suggested the applicant be in contact with DPW for the type of sign.


Mr. Meyer said during the past few weeks there have been a great number of Auto Zone grand opening signs along Howard Boulevard and Route 46.  They are unsightly and the ordinance does not allow it.


Mr. Nusbam said he cannot talk on that issue as he represents the owner. 


Mitchell Riback was sworn in.  he said the management has the power to control signage, and will control any unauthorized signage on the property, including Dunkin Donuts.


Ms. Voyce asked what color the Dunkin Donuts sign is.


Mr. Riback said there are only red signs on a white background.


Mr. Stern said in his report, it also mentions Title 39.  The applicant has addressed everything, and there is also a reiteration of all conditions of prior approvals. 


Sam Graham stated the trash urns could take 8 weeks.


Mr. Nusbaum said the trash urns will be in by December 1st.


Mr. Shadiack asked if the fines have been paid or collected by the township


Mr. Meyer said no.  They can’t be collected until there is a C.O.


Mr. Germinario said payment of all fines prior to issuance of a C.O.  could be a condition of approval.


Sam Graham, project manager for Auto Zone, was sworn in. He stated he does not feel it will be a problem but is not authorized to agree to it.


Mr. Nusbaum said he represents the owners, not Auto Zone.  I think it is very important that Mr. Graham knows that Auto Zone must pay the fine prior to the issuance of a C.O.


Mr. Rilee said he doesn’t  believe it should be a condition of the resolution


Mr. Germinario said whatever the penalty is when you draw the C.O. is what you will have to pay.




It was determined the standard provision of the resolution will be that all outstanding fees are to be paid.


Mr. Germinario said if the applicant is unable to come to a resolution with the municipality and have to go to a municipal court, you could pay under protest and that would also suffice.




No one stepped forward.




Mr. Rilee asked if everything else is done.


Mr. Stern said there are a few outstanding items, and that will be addressed at the CVS phase. 


Mr. Nusbaum said all the other items are miniscule.


Mr. Stern said the one item that may not be characterized as miniscule is that the dumpsters to the rear were required to be installed as part of the CVS application.  All the dumpsters are located, and all the trash enclosures.   As a result of a modification to dumpster locations, a freestanding light didn’t go in.  They received a change order to put in wall lights, and that is the only outstanding issue I can see possibly linked to Auto Zone.  On the other hand, the trash enclosures were an issue with CVS.


Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the application.  Mr. Zoschak seconded.


Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.




Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant.


Steve Byszewski and Mitch Riback remained under oath.


The applicant addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report:


Item 1 - done

Item 2 – gates will be ready by 10/7/05

Item 3 – agreed to repair sidewalk by 10/31/05

Item 4 – agreed by 10/31/05

Item 5 – done

Item 6 – has been repaired – stormcepter will be cleaned by October 31, as per Township Engineer

Item 7 – on backorder – will be in by 12/31/05 - CVS has provided an interim container, and the proper ones will be installed upon delivery

Item 8 – letter submitted to Board last year from electrician dated 9/2/04 indicating the security lighting was complete


Mr. Bodolsky said there are some building lights that weren’t addressed. 


Mr. Byszewski stated the CVS contractor indicated to me that he would install the photocell by today to control one of the lights (security feature).  If that was not done, it will be done within 30 days


Item 9 – done

Item 10 – done

Item 11 – done

Item 12 – addressed – another letter will be sent to the Police Department

Item 13 – banners have been removed

Item 14 – agreed



The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s report:


Item 1 – by 12/31/05

Item 2 – agreed

Item 3 – addressed

Items 6, 7 – signs will be installed within two weeks

Item 8 – addressed

Item 9 – will be installed by 10/31/05

Item 20 – will be done by 10/31/05

Item 21 –  will be done by 10/31/05

Item 22 – will be done by 10/31/05- Mr. Stern will meet with Mr. Bbyszewski at site

Item 26 – standard conditions agreed to


Mr. Nusbaum asked that the approval be effective tonight.


Mr. Rilee said he is prepared to move forward to grant the approval effective tonight.  He told the two property owners that this feels like it has been a battle.  It is a nice looking site, and hopefully the two owners will work together to keep it a nice looking site.




No one stepped forward.




Mr. Zoschak made a motion to approve the application.  He said this has been a long time coming.  We worked hard on the application.  I think the job has finally been done right.  I wish the owners a lot of luck.  Mr. Alford seconded.


Discussion.  This and the Auto Zone approvals are effective tonight.


Roll as follows:  Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.


The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:20 p.m.


                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary