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 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
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
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.
S-24-05 – LORAIN DEVELOPMENT –
SOIL APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON MT. ARLINGTON BLVD. BLOCK 12101, LOT 6
IN R-3 ZONE
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
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.
Applicant/Permittee: Lorain Development, LLC
2. Application Number: S-24-05
Property Identification: Block 12101, Lot 6
Subdivision/Site Plan Approval Date(s): Site Plan
Major Soil Permit Approval Date: 9/7/05
Effective Date: 9/7/05
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
M-30-05 – MARK TUCCI (DE ROCK)
– MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR TWO LOTS LOCATED ON SECOND RD. BLOCK 261, LOT 12 IN
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
Approved: September 7, 2005
Memorialized: October 5, 2005
THE MATTER OF CAROL DEROCK/MARK TUCCI
2611, LOT 2
Carol DeRock applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known
as the "Planning Board") for minor subdivision approval on 9/17/03;
application was subsequently amended to name Mark Tucci as the Applicant; and
application was deemed complete on 3/4/04; and
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
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
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
of the adjoining road by the Township. There being no further public comments,
the Chairman closed the public portion and adjourned the hearing.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
11. The first floor elevation of the new house shall
be raised to achieve proper separation to proposed grade 101.2 in the front
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
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
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
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
DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT
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
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
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 Board’s Resolution of [date].
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 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.
NEW JERSEY )
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.
MICHAEL T. SHIVIETZ
of the State of New Jersey
STATE OF NEW JERSEY )
COUNTY OF MORRIS ) SS.:
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.
subscribed to before
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
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
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
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.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
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
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
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
Mr. Bodolksy went over his
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
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.
S-30-05 - ROXBURY TOWNSHIP
PUMPING STATION – LOCATED ON PATRICIA DRIVE, BLOCK 7801, LOT 1 IN OS ZONE
Mr. Germinario stated this is a
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
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
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
Mr. Holt said they will look into
Mr. Bodolsky asked if it is
accurate that this is tested once a week.
Mr. Kobylarz said yes.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
There was a 5 minute recess at
DISCUSSION ON HOUSING
ELEMENT FAIR SHARE PLAN
Frank Banisch and Chuck McGroarty
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
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
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
Mr. Stern stated the group homes
have established themselves over a number of years. We get two credits per
Mr. Meyer asked what buy-down
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
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
S-29-05 – AUTO ZONE – FINAL
SITE PLAN FOR AUTO PARTS STORE LOCATED IN LEDGEWOOD SHOPPING CENTER, BLOCK
6501, LOT 2 IN B-3 ZONE
Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
S-28-05 – CVS – FINAL SITE
PLAN FOR RETAIL LOCATED ON RT. 46/HOWARD BLVD, BLOCK 6502, 1 & 2 IN B-3
Steve Byszewski and Mitch Riback
remained under oath.
The applicant addressed Mr.
Item 1 - done
Item 2 – gates will be ready by
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
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
Item 14 – agreed
The applicant addressed Mr.
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
Item 20 – will be done by
Item 21 – will be done by
Item 22 – will be done by
10/31/05- Mr. Stern will meet with Mr. Bbyszewski at site
Item 26 – standard conditions
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.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
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.
A. DeMasi, Secretary