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 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Scott Meyer
presiding. After a salute to the Flag, the Chairman read the “Open Public
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Meyer,
Larry Sweeney, Jim Rilee, Charles Bautz, Gary Behrens, Richard Zoschak, Michael
Shadiack, Steven Alford, Lisa Voyce. Joseph Schwab arrived at 9:15 p.m.
ABSENT: Teresa DeVincentis
Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the minutes. Mr.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms.
Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Sweeney, abstain; Mr. Meyer, yes.
M-1-05 – VILLAGES – AMENDED
SUBDIVISION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON SHIPPENPORT RD. BLOCK 11201, LOTS 1, 2, 3
IN R-5 ZONE
Attorney Steven Tripp represented
the applicant. He said we have a meeting with the County on Monday to talk to
them about Shippenport Road. Regarding pump station 2, we are still working
with Mr. Kobylarz and once he is satisfied with the redesign we will come back
to discuss that. Regarding water, the water supply is actually available now.
The issue is storage and to work out details. We have been discussing things
with the Council informally, and there should be an understanding shortly in
terms of the construction and the scope of infrastructure. That should be
firmed up in about a month. There was an issue regarding Basin F and whether
the redesign complied with the conditions. The basin had to be modified, and
the question is whether it complies with Condition 100. The professionals also
raised issues about the serviceability of lots in the vicinity. We will
probably have one more staff meeting to work out details.
Mr. Rilee asked if the
professionals agree that these are the issues that need to be addressed.
Mr. Stern said that is correct.
We are almost at a point where the staff should get together and come up with
certain conditions of approval.
Mr. Bodolsky said he agrees the
tone of the staff meetings has improved dramatically. The applicant has not
demonstrated an unwillingness to respond to any of the questions. There are
items that are still open and need responses.
Mr. Tripp asked Ms. Berninger to
address Basin F.
Ms. Berninger stated Basin F is
located at the back of the site adjacent to Mt. Arlington Road. Lot 183 is the
Mr. Rilee asked if that is the
area that has been discussed as open space.
Ms. Berninger said no.
Ms. Berninger said Condition 100
says Basin F shall contain walls no taller than 13’ (overall) with a maximum of
Ms. Berninger handed out an
exhibit (marked A-13 ) which was a chronological history of the Basin F
design. She said picture #1 was created in June of 2000. At that time the
detention basin had 3 terraces of walls along the back and there was a tot
lot. The wall height was at about 19 feet. We decided to relocate the tot lot
to the end of Villages Boulevard, and because two of the terraces equaled 13
feet of wall, we decided to do two terraces, 13 feet high, and take out the tot
lot. That is how we developed Condition 100. When we submitted for resolution
compliance in 2003, what we developed is shown on picture #2. That had two
terraces of walls 13 feet high, and Basin F got a little bigger. We discussed
it with Mr. Bodolsky, and talked about safety concerns and whether we should
add safety shelves. We then designed the basin in picture #3 which has three
tiers of retaining walls along the upper side for about 140 feet. The height
of those walls is 13 feet. In between each wall is a 4’ flat spot safety
shelve in the basin, and at the bottom of the basin, we drop 5 feet into the
bottom of the basin. The overall drop to the very bottom is 18 feet. The walls
themselves are a total of 13 feet in height. We provided the safety shelves
around the entire perimeter of the basin. A question arose in Mr. Bodolsky’s
report that we are violating Condition 100. There were additional concerns by Mr.
Stern that the basin should be redesigned to eliminate retaining walls which
would require the elimination of one lot. The only way you will eliminate
walls in the basin is to lose a lot. We prefer not to lose a lot. I think by
the addition of the safety shelves we have addressed the safety issue. The
basin is entirely fenced and there is maintenance access. The wall themselves
are 8 ½ to 10 feet high. There is an additional drop to the bottom of the
basin. For the most part we do meet the 13 foot drop.
Mr. Zoschak asked if the
applicant has a problem with Mr. Bodolsky’s requirements for guiderails and
Ms. Berninger said we would agree
Mr. Bodolsky said there is a
scenario “zero” which was the basin as submitted in 1999, which was the crux of
the initial comments. The way this project was progressing, a lot of the
issues were being addressed with exhibits. Picture 1 on the exhibit A-13 was
submitted to the Board and resulted in Condition 100. What snapshot “zero”
does is set a flavor for how the pond related to what was around it. There was
a flat spot next to Lot 183 in the original design. What was envisioned was
that the tot lot was going to be placed somewhere else, and the walls would be
left as shown. What has progressed is that the pond has moved and keeps on
chewing into the area next to lot 183. We now have walls on two sides of lot
183. Also, the walls have crept closer to the sidewalk on Road T. The overall
drop has gone from 13 feet to 18 or 19 feet.
Mr. Rilee asked what removing the
lot would do.
Mr. Bodolsky said the need for
walls came about because as the calculations were developed, they needed more
volume, and instead of sacrificing a lot they started putting in vertical
walls. You are picking up more volume by putting the walls in. If you were to
eliminate Lot 183 you would be able to slope back the curvilinear basin. The
proximity of the wall next to the intersection hasn’t changed. However, that
doesn’t mean they can’t bring it away by losing a lot.
Mr. Bautz asked how much higher
the wall would be by the intersection.
Mr. Bodolsky said it has gotten
higher by about 9 feet.
Ms. Berninger said that has been
like that for some time.
Mr. Meyer said if you lost a lot,
other than moving it away from the roadway, would it change the height of the
Ms. Berninger said we would still
have two tiers of walls at 13 feet. We might lose the third tier.
Mr. Bodolsky said the bottom of
the basin will stay at the same elevation. It is a matter of whether you have
three tiers of walls to get up to the road elevation or whether you have two
tiers and an embankment.
Mr. Meyer said the sense of the
Board would be for the applicant to design it both ways, and we would look at
what would be gained.
Ms. Berninger agreed.
Mr. Rilee suggested they look at
the safety shelves and possibly expand on them a bit.
Mr. Stern said the landscape plan
shows landscaping on each terrace.
Mr. Bautz asked what type of
landscaping would be on the tiers.
Mr. Stern said they would be
landscaped heavily with weeping forsythia and are also using euonymus, burning
bush, etc. to mitigate the large vertical expanse of retaining walls. They
would continue to flourish and flower.
Ms. Voyce said some of those plantings
are massively invasive.
The application was carried to
The applicant granted an
extension of time to 1/31/06.
S-31-05 – STORAGE GROUP –
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR STORAGE FACILITY LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9402, LOTS
7 & 8 IN B-1Z ZONE
Attorney David Zurav represented
Jeff Carreaga, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in. He gave his educational and professional background
and was accepted by the Board as a professional engineer.
Mr. Carreaga gave an overview of
the project stating they are looking to construct an 111,380 square foot self
storage facility. The site is in the B-1A zone and is a permitted use. The
property has been before the town previously for a few hundred residential
homes. That application was withdrawn. With the original application there
were numerous DEP permits with regard to a letter of interpretation, etc. The
LOI expired on 10/23/05, and we have applied for an extension of that. The
State has been to the site and have reviewed our application. We have applied
for a few general permits also. The site is on Route 46. The original
application for homes had the DOT permit for the roadway, and we are proposing
our roadway in the same place and have applied to DOT for that permit. We have
also applied to Morris County Planning Board and Soil Conservation. The site
is constrained with wetlands. There is a wetlands buffer and a stream running
through the property. We anticipate DEP will give us a 50 foot buffer on the
wetlands again. We want to develop the site for self storage. The property has
some slopes as shown on the exhibit A-1, colored rendering of sheet C-15 on the
plans submitted. We had to try to minimize the impact on the site with the
plans. There are some steep slopes to be disturbed, but there is a very small
area of the property that isn’t constrained by steep slopes. The buffer area
from the wetlands encroaches up to the roadway, and we propose a detention
basin. We feel this is the best layout to minimize the amount of dirt coming
off the site. We felt the best use was to build a retaining wall and work with
the grades of the property. The building would be two stories on the front and
one story on the back. We show about 5,400 yards of dirt that has to be removed
from the site. We determined the best location for a septic system is in the
back. We did soil logs for septic and for all the different areas for drywells
and detention basins. The site was all suitable soil regarding disposal of
surface water for the drainage. We found a relatively flat spot in the back
for the septic system.
Mr. Rilee asked if that area is
planned for sewers.
Mr. Stern said he believes so.
Mr. Germinario said it is, and
water as well.
Mr. Zurav said we will produce
testimony that will indicate we will not need water or sewer, and we will not
need sanitary facilities for the general public.
Ms. Voyce said if there is an
office in the building, you will need it. Also, there is currently a proposal
to pull that sewer service area by DEP that is currently in the works.
Mr. Carreaga said the water
requirements will be under 200 gallons a day for this facility.
Mr. Zoschak said the Fire
Official also indicated he would like to see sprinklers and fire hydrants.
Mr. Stern said they propose a
Mr. Carreaga said we do propose a
sprinkler building and propose two 10,000-gallon underground storage tanks with
a generator and electric pumps.
Mr. Carreaga said there will be
two two-story buildings. Building #1 will have the office as well. The access
road would come up from Route 46 and the flow of traffic would go to the
parking area in front. There will be automatic gates that go around the
facility. There will be multiple security systems built in.
Mr. Germinario asked how the
gates are used.
Mr. Carreaga said you would be
able to drive onto the site and into the parking area in front of the office
without going through a gate.
Mr. Behrens asked if anyone will
be living on the site.
Mr. Carreaga said we do not
propose that at this time.
Mr. Meyer asked about the
Mr. Carreaga said Route 46 is at
about 1030, and the office first floor is at 1041. There is a current drainage
area that feeds into the stream that is less than 50 acres, and we have a
previous letter from DEP to the original engineer for the site that said a
stream encroachment permit was not necessary. It falls underneath the 50 acre
requirement. The whole area is heavily wooded, so it won’t be that visible
from Route 46. It will be a filtered view. We have applied to DOT for the
entrance onto the site. The entrance is designed for WB50 tractor trailers.
We are applying for right and left turns out of the site as there is no issue
with sight distance. Entering onto the site there is a culvert that crosses
over the existing stream, and as we come up grade to the building, we have
retaining walls. Without the retaining walls there would be a lot more
disturbance to the site. The maximum height of the wall is 32 feet high. We have
to maintain the height because we have to keep the area low for the detention
Mr. Carreaga said that is
correct. There are a number of other walls in the area that are that high.
Mr. Zoschak asked if the wall
should be tiered.
Mr. Carreaga said it is not
proposed to be tiered. We need to keep the height to keep enough space for the
detention basin. We are trying to minimize any impact on the Netcong Heights
Apartments side. Regarding access, if someone rents units, they access around
the back of the site. There are unloading zones and parking proposed in the
back, as well as an area for future parking. We do propose 60 spaces. We are
asking for a waiver of sidewalks around the buildings.
Mr. Germinario said there is a
question regarding the noticing for this application. Did you obtain a
certified list of property owners from the Borough of Netcong?
Mr. Zurav said no.
Mr. Germinario said there are
properties in Netcong that should have been served.
Mr. Zurav said he got the list
from the Roxbury Tax Assessor and did serve the Borough of Netcong. The only
property in Netcong is Netcong Heights, and that one was noticed.
Mr. Zoschak asked if automobiles
will be able to go inside the buildings.
Mr. Carreaga said no.
Mr. Carreaga stated the grading
plan shows the retaining wall and shows the maximum height is 32 feet. The
wall starts out at 27 feet, goes down to 2 feet. Inside the detention basin
water flows out into the wetlands. There will be minor modifications for the
detention basin design, in particular sheet 2 shows the different drainage
areas. We included everything per the USGS maps. The engineer states the
Harley Davidson site does outlet their water into a pond which flows down into
the piping on Route 46, so that area will have to be included in our revised
drainage report. There is actually 7.7 acres less than our calculations show.
There will be a gain of 1.2 acres going towards our property which equals a
total drainage area of 43.4 acres. There is no substantial change that we see
to the detention basin size. The engineer had also commented on the biofilter,
and we will modify that to go to a vortex unit. We are proposing a lot of
landscaping. Coming into the site the entire roadway will be planted with trees
and shrubs. We developed a tree removal plan, and we will be removing 230
trees and they are required to be replaced per the ordinance. We propose a lot
of screening to the Netcong Heights apartments. We are maintaining the entire
wooded area and putting plantings adjacent to the parking area. There is a
cleared area that we are supplementing with a number of trees. The site will
be barely visible.
Mr. Stern asked Mr. Carreaga to
explain how the back portion of the site is to be done.
Mr. Carreaga said behind the
property the only level spot not impacted by the detention basin, wetlands and
wetlands buffers is the back. We did soil logs and found this was the best
place for the septic. We looked at various areas in back but due to relatively
shallow mottling by the wetlands area, we didn’t feel that was appropriate. We
decided to keep it as far away from the wetlands as possible and maintain some
sort of buffer on the side for the septic. The well itself is also proposed in
the back. By combining the septic and well lines, we can minimize trenching
and tree removal.
Mr. Rilee said if sewer goes to
the front of the building, the ordinance requires that you hook up. If that is
the case, would a detention basin make sense in that area?
Mr. Carreaga said no. It is much
higher there. We did cut into the hill to create a level parking area in the
back, and we propose a retaining wall.
Mr. Meyer asked how many parking
spaces are required.
Mr. Carreaga said 60, and we are
Edward Esse, architect for the
applicant, was sworn in. He gave his professional background, and was accepted
by this Board. He described the proposed buildings, stating it is a campus
design with the front building that would have the 900 square foot office facility.
Mr. Esse referred to Exhibit A-2,
rendered version of architectural plan A3.l.
Mr. Esse said we portray a
two-story front, and a one-story front at the highest point of the topography.
There would be two structures with a wide accessway between them, and there is
separation of units so that we can phase the buildings if desirable. The front
is two stories. With this building type, we like to slope the building in one
direction and put external drains on. For drainage of rainwater, we like to slope
the building in one direction and put on external drains. We wanted to make
sure we could collect the water, channel it underground and take it to the
retention design. This is not a typical first generation storage facility. It
is fully air conditioned, fully heated, fire suppressed, and it keeps people
from bringing in trucks, gasoline, etc. because there is only one main
entrance into each building. No elevators are required because there are
entrances at every level. Our prime clientele are insurance companies,
architects, pharmaceutical companies, and anything that generates paper. This
type storage facility also is in areas with heavy residential development. The
buildings have drop ceilings in the hallways, sprinklers throughout. We can move
the walls of the units to meet the needs of the customer.
Mr. Esse said regarding fire
suppression, we propose storage tanks underground with electric pumps. The
HVAC units would be inside the storage units with a louver, and it is flowed
within the ceiling structure. It will be thermostatically controlled. This is
an office-type structure rather than a storage-type structure that they used to
do. The finish will be drivit or stucco on the front and sides. The remaining
part will be a pebble grain finish.
Mr. Esse showed a sample of the
type of finish to go on the walls (marked A-3).
There was discussion on the air
conditioning system. There will be 20 vents per side of the building. The
building hasn’t been actually designed at this time.
Ms. Voyce stated there was an EIS
done for Southwinds, and there are quite a few discrepancies between the two.
There are questions about the LOI for wetlands. Mr. Glasson has not looked at
Roxbury’s Rare Threatened and Endangered Species Report. On page 18 of the EIS
for this application, it talks about groundwater in Mansfield – that should be
corrected. There is also a permit on page 20 about how this is important as a
rural and forested area. I’m not sure that is the case here. These questions should
be relayed to Mr. Glasson.
Mr. Stern said regarding
architecture, one issue is the height of the building at the entryway.
Mr. Carreaga said the actual
elevation of the high point of the building at the entrance is 1068, and the
average grade at the four corners is 1044.63. The actual building height is
23.4 feet. I will provide Mr. Stern with those numbers
Mr. Bodolsky asked that the
engineer address the phasing of the project for the next hearing. That would
necessitate a grading plan for phase 1.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Rilee suggested the applicant
address the professional reports with the staff for the next hearing.
The application was carried to
1/18/06. They granted an extension of time to the end of January.
Mr. Zurav asked for a special
Mr. Meyer said we will schedule
it for a regular meeting at this time.
Mr. Bodolsky said the applicant’s
engineer can generate a conceptual resubmission that can be discussed at staff
There was a 5 minute recess at
Joseph Schwab arrived at this
S-7-05 – PRIMAX – ADVANCE
AUTO – SITE PLAN FOR AUTO PARTS STORE LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 6502, LOT 18 IN
Attorney Alan Goldstein
represented the applicant. He stated the issues we feel need to address are
traffic, architecture, and we have our planner here this evening. At the last
hearing, we had agreed to provide the funds for the Board to hire its own
traffic consultant. I understand Mr. Dean is here tonight to present his
Gary Dean, traffic consultant for
the Board, was sworn in. He said it is my understanding there have been
revisions to the site plan and are different exhibits relative to the delivery
truck. Through consultation with the Board professionals, that seems to be a
primary area of concern.
Brett Skapinetz of Bohler
Engineering stepped forward. He stated the last exhibit we provided to Mr.
Dean and the Board is Truck Circulation Exhibit C dated 10/19/05. The exhibit
depicts the dimensions of the type of truck that would be delivering goods. We
also show the updated truck circulation through the site, using that vehicle.
Mr. Rilee said it was testified
earlier that this is not a typical delivery truck, it is the one you would use
for this particular site.
Mr. Skapinetz said that is
correct. It is not unique to just this site. It is used at some other
Mr. Dean stated he would
generally agree with the findings that development of the site as an automobile
parts store, limited to the sale of the parts, will be a generally low traffic
generator. Regarding the traffic statement, there is a statement regarding
trip generation that they won’t have a significant traffic impact and that the
applicant has complied with the parking requirements for retail stores. I did
not hear the testimony, but any concerns relative to on-site repair or
servicing of vehicles outside the building may have parking implications as
well as zoning implications. There is a minor discrepancy between the traffic
statement and the site plan amendment. There is a reduction of 3 parking
spaces, with 31 currently proposed. There was no information in the traffic
study relative to counts and the activity along Rt. 46 and the ability of
traffic to safely ingress and egress the property. It has been represented the
applicant has gotten an access permit from DOT. I have not seen the permit. I
believe the property is considered nonconforming by DOT standards and that by
virtue of that designation there would be certain traffic limits placed on the
property. Also, DOT does not typically doesn’t permit access anywhere where
there are dedicated turning lanes across the site frontage. There is a
dedicated turning lane, and we assume the application included a waiver for
that requirement of the State Highway Access Management Code which regulates
all access. We also noted the traffic statement was completed in 2003 before
the Ledgewood Circle improvements. Based on observations of the improved
traffic control, I would ask the applicant if there is any queuing or stacking
of traffic that may appear during peak hours that could impede safe and
efficient access to the site.
Mr. Dean referred to Truck
Circulation Exhibit C and said the applicant proposed a relatively wide
internal isle as one enters the site. The concern is that there is an abrupt
jog in the centerline striping. An entering vehicle has to make an extra right
hand turn to avoid a head on condition with vehicles coming from the rear
parking area or the parking area closest to the store. It is not the best
design and warrants a closer look by the applicant. It may be possible to open
the throat at the entrance. Our comment SP3 discussed the truck circulation
exhibit using a WB40 articulated tractor trailer truck.. The amended exhibit
depicts a different type vehicle, a pup trailer. We have not seen
manufacturer’s information as to whether this truck exists. What is depicted
is a conventional cab with a sleeper section and dual axels rear on the
tractor. I am not sure that truck exists within an 11 foot dimension. What is
also depicted is a 28½ foot trailer section. It becomes a zoning and
enforcement issue. What happens the day the 53-foot trailer shows up? Will it
unload on Route 46? Will it back into the site? Will it interfere with parked
vehicles or create another safety hazard? That is something the Board has to
weigh. We recommended some cross-hatching on the far easterly end of the
site in the double row of parking.
Mr. Dean said the last area of
concern is that 4 employee parking spaces are designated at the southerly end
of the site. When a delivery truck is within the loading area, for the next
two or three spaces, a customer cannot back out of that space because the truck
is in the way. If the truck can be moved a littler further to the south, there
may be enough room.
Mr. Stern said there is not a
designated loading area separate from the traffic isle. That requires a design
Mr. Dean said that is a result of
the property and the design itself. I don’t know whether the applicant
explored alternative designs for the loading area so that none of the parking
spaces were impacted.
Mr. Dean said regarding truck
circulation, referring to Exhibit C, the truck would approach from the west on
Route 46, make a right into the site, and pull forward to the northwest corner
of the building. The vehicle would then back up into the isle closest to the
building, pull forward up to almost the property limits, and then begin his
backing maneuver into the loading area. I have concerns with that movement as
the truck would block the entrance.
Mr. Rilee said the lines were
drawn to accommodate the perfect maneuver which doesn’t always take place. The
entire truck maneuver takes place where cars are entering the site.
Ultimately, even if we adjust the hours of delivery, it becomes an enforcement
Mr. Bodolsky said the exhibit not
only precludes an automobile coming into the site, but what happens with the
truck when someone is exiting the site? Does he have to stop on the highway?
Mr. Dean said that is correct.
Mr. Zoschak said he has a problem
believing this particular size truck is the only kind that will come to the
site. Also, when the truck comes into the site, there will be a conflict, even
if you used a regular size truck.
Mr. Goldstein stated there will
be no repair work on the site. That includes changing batteries, windshield
wipers, no carts, etc. Regarding the truck turning situation, this is a
difficult site. Mr. Dean testified the use is a low intensity use. The use is
permitted in the zone. No matter what use you have, there will be some kind of
delivery vehicle, and you would have these issues with any kind of delivery
vehicle. We think it is an appropriate use, and we want to work with the Board
Mr. Zoschak said there is no
reason it can’t be developed with a smaller building where the delivery truck
can go around the building.
Mr. Meyer said the sense of the
Board is that these issues have to be addressed before we go ahead with the
Mr. Goldstein said there will be
only one or two deliveries a week and initially we had wanted to use a larger
Mr. Bodolsky said we have had
other sites where the Board has strictly prohibited tractor trailers on the
Mr. Bautz said it doesn’t even
work with the smaller trailer. With smaller trucks and a smaller building, it
Ms. Voyce said there are reasons
why this applicant wants to be here. I don’t believe the site cannot be
redeveloped. It could be done with a smaller store and with a different
product. The tractor doesn’t work. It is not the appropriately sized store
and appropriately sized trucks for this site.
Mr. Goldstein said this is
clearly not the only project that can fit on the site. The applicant has
purchased the property, and I was suggesting if we can resolve the truck
issues, this is an appropriate use for the property.
There was a five-minute recess at
10:00 as requested by the applicant.
After the recess, Mr. Goldstein
said there are minor modifications that could be made, but I don’t know that
the issues the Board has raised can be addressed. Mr. Neil will go back to
Advance Auto Parts and ask them if they would agree to make deliveries when the
store is closed. I need some assurances from the Board that if he were to do
that it would be acceptable to the Board.
Mr. Meyer said there are other
Ms. Voyce said that kind of
solution doesn’t work. We have seen that in the past. To me, that is not an
Mr. Bautz asked what time the
deliveries would be.
Mr. Neil said early morning.
Mr. Meyer said that becomes an
enforcement problem. I feel it would be a good solution. The only direction
we can give you is to go and find that out.
Mr. Stern said you don’t have a
designated loading area, or a place to locate one. You have put in a very
large building on a very narrow site. It is very restrictive.
Mr. Rilee said he agrees. It is
a difficult site.
Mr. Stern said if you are in
compliance with the codes, the problem is solved.
Mr. Skapinetz said if we have a
letter from the Senor Vice President of Store Operations that they won’t be
backing into the site, I don’t know what else we can do. I am very frustrated.
We have gone with a smaller truck, redesigned the building, redesigned the
parking, have shown a willingness to limit the hours.
Mr. Meyer said going with the
smaller truck still doesn’t work. If the applicant can come up with other
alternatives, we are still willing to listen.
Mr. Germinario said not all
things are directed from corporate management. That’s what makes the problem.
Mr. Rilee said we have to plan
for the site. There are other sites on Route 46 that might be more
Ms. Voyce said she has pictures
taken in July of another Advance Auto. That is a much bigger site and there is
no landscaping. We were told in July that there were no freestanding stores in
the area. That is at Routes 57 and 31 in Washington Township. The conditions
at that site won’t happen here. That has no landscaping, no islands, etc.
No one stepped forward.
The application was carried to
1/04/06. The applicant granted an extension of time to 1/31/06.
Mr. Stern informed the Board that
there is a meeting next Wednesday, and one of the items on the agenda is the
Housing Element and Fair Share Plan.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 10:20 p.m.
A. DeMasi, Secretary