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 Meetings Act”.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott Meyer,
Larry Sweeney, Richard Zoschak, Michael Shadiack, Gary Behrens, Joseph Schwab,
Robert DeFillippo, Robert Schultz.
ABSENT: Jim Rilee, Steven
Alford, Charles Bautz.
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:
Russell Stern, John Hansen for Paul Ferriero.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Mr. Behrens made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Behrens,
yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes;
Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Mr. Stern stated this application
is for a 2 lot subdivision in the R-3 district. One completeness waiver for
utility connections is required. The only request we make is that the new
connections be shown on the drawings prior to public hearing
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to deem
the application complete with waiver granted for completeness only. Mr.
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes;
Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
The application was scheduled for
PBA-07-04 – ETEL ASSOCIATES –
FINAL SITE PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT ROUTE 10 & MARY LOUISE AVENUE,
BLOCK 6303, LOTS 6 & 7 IN B-2 ZONE
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
Decided: March 21, 2007
Memorialized: April 4, 2007
THE MATTER OF ETEL REALTY, LLC
6303, LOTS 6 & 7
Etel Realty, LLC (hereinafter the "Applicant") applied to the Roxbury
Township Planning Board (hereinafter the "Board") for final site plan
approval on March 21, 2007; and
application was deemed complete by the Board, and a public hearing was held on 3/21/07; and
has been determined that the Applicant has complied with all procedural
requirements, rules and regulations of the Board, and that all required
provisions of procedural compliance have been filed with the Board; and
Board makes the following findings and conclusions based upon the documents,
testimony and other evidence comprising the hearing record:
1. The property which is the subject of the
application consists of 1.33 acres located in the B-2 Highway Business
District. By Resolution memorialized 3/2/05,
Applicant was granted preliminary major site plan approval with design waivers
to construct a 3,930 square foot addition to the existing Crib City store.
The Applicant is now before the Board seeking final site plan approval.
2. The development of the subject property to which
the Board’s decision herein pertains is depicted and described in the following
drawings and/or plans:
Prepared by Stewart Surveying & Engineering, LLC
- Sheets 1 & 2, Final Site Plan,
3. The Board’s planning and engineering professionals
and/or consultants submitted the following reports concerning their respective
reviews of the application, which are part of the hearing record:
Russell Stern, PP, dated 3/13/07
Paul Ferriero, PE, dated 3/13/07
4. In the course of the public hearing, no exhibits
5. In the course of the public hearing, the Applicant
was represented by Gary Mizzone, Esq., and the Applicant
presented the testimony of the following witnesses, which testimony is part of
the hearing record:
Alfred Stewart, P.E., engineering expert
Kevin Lucas, principal contractor
Edward Kloss, owner
6. The Board finds that the Applicant has constructed
the project substantially in accordance with the approved preliminary site
plans, subject to the completion of those items set forth in the conditions
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board does hereby approve the final site
plan as depicted and described in the drawings and/or plans referenced
This approval is subject to the following conditions
which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy:
1. The following items shall be bonded and completed
a. Provide 4 permanent wall lights along
the Route 10 elevation, 4 permanent wall lights along the Mary Louise
elevation, and 3 permanent wall lights along the rear building elevation per
the approved plans.
b. Install missing bench, trash
receptacles and ash urns in front of building (1 per tenant).
c. Paint handrail located along the
southerly and westerly building elevations.
d. Provide concrete sidewalk between the
dumpster enclosure and building per the approved plans.
e. Install 2 interior bollards at the rear
of the trash enclosure.
f. Complete installation of the northerly
board on board fence to the parking area (6’ height to front of building, 4’
height beyond that) subject to review and approval by Township Planner.
g. Repair saw-cut pavement along the
center and westerly end of Mary Louise
Avenue curb line and driveway.
h. Topsoil and seed on both sides of the
westerly Route 10 sidewalk.
i. Install missing sod at northerly
portion of the Route 10 sidewalk and at the Route 10/Mary Louise Avenue
j. Topsoil and seed grass areas.
k. Topsoil and seed at westerly terminus
of Mary Louise Avenue sidewalk.
l. Topsoil and sod along roadway
sidewalks, as needed.
m. A tree inventory shall be provided as
more trees were removed than permitted by the approved plan. Additional replacement
trees will be required.
n. Re-lay sod as necessary.
o. Replace dead/marginal plants.
p. Stake shade trees.
q. Remove plant tags.
r. Remove deadwood from existing trees.
s. Plant three (3) stockpiled Taxus
located at the rear parking lot.
t. Remove stones from lawn area.
u. Remove trash.
v. Entrance apron is paved with striped
cross walk instead of concrete apron as specified on plan. Board approval is
w. Sewer cleanout at southwest corner of
building shall be set at grade.
x. Install flow channels in all storm
2. Applicant shall install 4 temporary wall lights
along both the Route 10 and Mary Louise elevations and 3 temporary wall lights
along the rear elevation acceptable to the Township Planner prior to Certificate
3. The following items shall be completed prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy:
a. Provide concrete wheel stops at
handicap parking stalls.
b. Install Mary Louise/Route 10 four-way
c. Missing “No Parking, Fire Lane” signs
shall be installed.
d. Install window well type protection for
below grade gas valve.
e. Replace stop signs with 30” signs.
f. Install handicap accessible sidewalk
ramp at west end of sidewalk on Mary Louise Avenue.
4. The following conditions from the Preliminary Site
Plan Resolution are reiterated:
Condition 1 - Lots 6 and 7 shall be merged, and proof
of such merge shall be submitted to the Board prior to final site plan
Condition 16 - Future tenants shall be made aware that
Section 13-8.911.1F limits window signs to a period not to exceed 20 days and
that all such signs individually or collectively do not exceed 30% of all
available window space on which the signs are located.
Condition 33 - A copy of the landscape guarantee shall
be provided as a condition of final site plan approval (13-8.805D).
Condition 37 - Future tenants shall be notified that
Section 13-7.21A03 prohibits the operation of a commercial establishment within
200 feet of a residential district during the hours of 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m.
Condition 39 - The use of tractor/trailers on this
site is prohibited.
Condition 41 - The proposed sight triangle shall be
dedicated prior to final approval.
Condition 42 - 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 final site plan/subdivision
Condition 46 - Pursuant to Section 13-7.829, the
Applicant shall pay a mandatory development fee equal to two percent (2.0%) of
the total equalized assessed valuation of the nonresidential development.
Fifty percent (50%) of the fee shall be posted prior to the issuance of any
building permit and the remainder paid prior to the issuance of a certificate
Condition 47 - Applicant shall source separate and
recycle all mandated material as required by the Municipal Recycling Ordinance
and the Morris County Solid Waste Management Plan both during construction and
for the duration of occupancy.
Condition 48 - Applicant shall submit annual recycling
tonnage reports to the Municipal Recycling Coordinator.
Condition 49 - Applicant shall meet with the Municipal
Recycling Coordinator to review all recycling requirements.
Condition 55 - This approval is subject to the payment
of all appropriate fees and taxes, including sewer fees.
5. The sight-triangle easement (Condition 41) shall
be reviewed and approved by the Board and Township Attorneys and filed prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. The easement shall be shown on the
final site plan.
6. The Deed merging Lots 6 and 7 (Condition 1) shall
be reviewed and approved by the Board Attorney and filed prior to issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy.
7. A copy of the final certificate of compliance from
the Morris County Soil Conservation District must be filed with the Board.
8. Payment of off-site and off-tract contributions
shall be verified, if applicable.
9. Payment of the mandatory development fee shall be
10. This approval is subject to all other approvals
required by any governmental agency having jurisdiction over the subject property.
11. This approval is subject to the payment in full
by the Applicant of all taxes, fees, escrows, assessments and other amounts due
and owing to the Township and/or any agency thereof.
12. 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.
13. 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 Resolution of the Roxbury Township Planning Board
memorializing the action taken by the Board at its meeting of April 4, 2007
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Behrens seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Shadiack,
PBA-07-08 - BLUE VISTA CONSULTING – CONCEPT APPLICATION
FOR RESTAURANT, 2 STORY MEDICAL BUILDING, 2 STORE OFFICE BUILDING AND
FLEX/WAREHOUSE BUILDING LOCATED ON RT. 206/MOUNTAIN RD. BLOCK 9202, LOT S 1, 2,
9 & 10 IN OR-5/B1A ZONE
Attorney John Wichiscala
represented the applicant. He stated he represents the applicant and the owner
of the subject property. The property is about 63 acres in size and is in a
public water and sewer district. There are some flat areas and some
environmentally sensitive areas. It is in the OR 5 zone and the B1A zone. It
is our understanding the property has been the subject of varied proposals, and
nothing ever came to fruition. It is at a good location. Sagima acquired the
property last year. The initial concept proposal was for a residential age
restricted community. We discussed that with professionals in the township,
and the response was lukewarm at best. We now are proposing commercial uses.
The township professionals had stressed sensitivity to the environmental
concerns. This will have office buildings, flex office space and a standalone theme
restaurant. The plan does conform with the zoning as far as permitted uses and
we comply with most of the bulk standards as well. Slope variances will be
required. We are very sensitive to the traffic issue as well. There will be a
significant fiscal benefit to the town.
Erik Keller of Omland Engineering was present. He
referred to an aerial photo of the property and described the location of the
site. Most of the property is in the OR5 district except for Lot 9 which is in
the B1A zone. The property is primarily vacant. There is a house on Lot 9
sitting up close to the road. The site is wooded, and there are pockets of
wetlands and steep slopes. We have obtained a LOI from the DEP and they have
said there are intermediate resource value wetlands, and there is a 50 foot
buffer required. We are in the Highlands Planning Area.
Mr. Keller referred to an aerial
photo with an overlay showing the proposal, and said we are proposing a
restaurant in the B1A portion, a medical building, flex office/warehouse
building, and a 3 story general medical office building in the OR5 zone. The
main access would be Mountain Road out to the intersection of Route 206. We
also propose a right-in/right-out driveway on Rt. 206. The site is in the
Musconetcong sewer service area. There are water facilities in the area that
can be extended. We are located at a major highway interchange. The density of
the project will have large areas of open space. The wetland and transition
areas will be deed restricted. The OR5 zone permits an FAR of 15% and we are
at 7%. The B1A zone permits 15% and we are at 5%. The impervious coverage in
the OR5 portion is 16%, 40% permitted. In the B1A zone we are at 50%, but if
you look at the entire tract, the B1A lot is 3 acres, so it is roughly 5% of
the total. If you look at the overall lot, it would be about 17%, whereas 41%
would be permitted. It is a very low intensity development and are conserving
a lot of open space. The overall disturbance to the site is a little over 29%.
We also provide significant buffers to the residential areas to the east. We
will need to fully comply with the stormwater regulations. One of the things
we were asked to do was a preliminary grading plan. The plan is not complete,
but there is a good indication of where walls will be required and what the
limits of disturbance would be. Regarding the height of the walls, we strived
to minimize the clearing of wooded areas and the amount of disturbance. 70% of
the tract will remain untouched by this development. The flex building is
terraced into the slopes. The buildings we are showing have not been fully
designed, and we will provide additional detailing and features.
Mr. Keller stated regarding the steep slopes, there is a
series of steep slope areas. Where the flex building is there is a relatively
flat area and then you drop down to the wetlands and then rise up to the
mountain. The ordinance looks at three categories. In the 15-20% slopes, we
will disturb 33% of the slopes – 35% maximum. In the 20 – 25% category we
would disturb 27% - 15% maximum. In the over 25% category, we are at 26% - 3%
maximum. It is a function of the fact that we have wetlands areas running
through the middle of the site. We would need various approvals from the County
Planning Board, Soil Conservation, DOT, and DEP.
Mr. Zoschak asked if any of the
larger steep slope disturbance can be mitigated.
Mr. Stern said we have seen many
concept plans. They have actually reduced it when compared to some of the
other concepts. The uses proposed are permitted uses. When they come in for
the variance, they are going in the most logical pods for development. In
looking at the steep slopes variances, and it was impacting adjoining
properties that would be a valid concern, there seems to be a significant
topographic distinction between where these slopes are and the residential
properties. This type of development has an incredibly extensive road
network. At some point there had to be a balance between the extent of the improvements
and the size of the buildings. Are these going to be private roads?
Mr. Keller said he would assume
Mr. Stern asked if this will be
developed in phases.
Mr. Keller said probably. Our
goal is to try and balance the site from an earthwork standpoint.
Mr. Zoschak said a main concern
is traffic. I don’t see a big problem with Mountain Road. I do see a problem
with the proximity with the entranceway to Route 80.
Mr. Keller said that will be
addressed when we are discussing traffic.
Mr. Hansen said the site will
have to comply with the stormwater regulations. Since there is varying
topography, that will be a challenge. I would suggest on-site permeability
testing as soon as possible, in the wet season.
Mr. DeFillippo asked if the flex building will be more
like a transfer station.
Mr. Keller said it will be more
of a warehouse. There won’t be a lot of tractor trailers. There will be more
single unit trucks. The type of users in this type building would be in the
category of mechanical contractors, etc.
Mr. Meyer asked if there are any
Mr. Keller said no, but we may be
restricted on when we can clear trees.
Mr. Keller stated the traffic consultant could not be
present, but he could address some of the traffic issues. Traffic counts were
done last week on Route 206 and Mountain Road. Rt. 206 has a lot of traffic –
about 2,900 vehicles per hours. For Mountain Road and Old Ledgewood Road there
is a maximum of about 50 vehicles. We have requested accident reports from the
Police Department We haven’t received a report from them at this point.
Currently the DOT states we don’t meet the volume requirements for a traffic
signal. We will be doing an added level of analysis. The development is not
high intensity. The peak hour volumes in the morning would be a little over
300 trips. In the afternoon it would be about 380 trips. We think the amount
of traffic will help us in meeting the warrants for a signal but wouldn’t
negatively impact the overall infrastructure or the highway system.
Mr. Meyer asked what would happen
if a signal is not approved.
Mr. Keller said we have the
right-in and right-out driveway. We also have the ability to have the traffic
run through the Netcong Circle and come back. I don’t think Mountain Road will
be a desirable way for people to leave the site. That is a discussion we will
have to have with DOT.
Mr. Behrens said regarding the
right-in/right-out, I can’t see the right-out there due to the proximity with
the entrance onto Route 80.
Mr. Keller pointed out there is
enough room where you wouldn’t have to get onto the Rt. 80 ramp. You could
continue on Rt. 206.
Mr. Zoschak said, coming
southbound on Route 206, will there be a dedicated, striped left turn into
Mr. Keller said we probably
wouldn’t meet the requirements for a lane there.
Mr. Schwab stated it is very
difficult now to make a left onto Mountain Road.
The Board members agreed it would
be very dangerous.
Mr. Hansen suggested the Board entertain hiring a traffic
consultant and work with the traffic consultant and the DOT.
Mr. Meyer stated the Board is
very sensitive to the safety issues regarding accesses along Rt. 206.
Mr. Stern said along with this
proposal would be a total improvement of Mountain Rd. to Rt. 206?
Mr. Keller said that would be
part of our proposal. This side of the road is in the preservation area, and
that may affect our ability to do any realignment. We will look into that.
Mr. Zoschak said traffic is one
of the major concerns with this site.
Mr. Meyer asked what kind of
restaurant is intended.
Mr. Keller said a chain
restaurant similar to TGI Friday’s.
There was discussion on signage,
and the Board indicated a monument sign would be preferred.
Mr. Schwab said for the medical
building, is it possible to move that further away from the residential
Mr. Keller said we will look into
that. We do want to align the driveways between the two uses.
Mr. Stern asked what the view of
the complex would be from Rt. 80.
Mr. Keller said what you would
see is the wooded area with the retaining wall behind that, and the façade of
the medical building behind that. You would also see the flex building. We
can plant in certain areas for some buffering.
Mr. Zoschak asked about the
retaining wall. Coming eastbound on Route 80, drivers will be able to see it.
Will it be decorative block?
Mr. Keller said yes.
Art Bernard testified regarding
fiscal impact. He stated fiscal impact is an estimated comparison of the revenues
that would be generated from the proposal and the cost associated with
servicing people that work there. We have used the per capita multiplier
approach in the Urban Land Institute’s Development Impact Assessment Handbook.
We based it on 45,000 sq. ft. off office space in the flex building along with
the 45,000 sq. ft. of warehouse. It is also based on 59,320 sq. ft. of general
office or medical office space, and 65,000 sq. ft. in restaurant. We valued
the proposal at just over $30,000,000. We come up with an assessed value of
$17,700,000. When we apply the tax rate, we come up with total revenues of
$592,550, of which the municipality gets $143,850, the County gets about
$76,500, and the school district gets over $372,000. In terms of cost, we
figured the cost of servicing each worker, and came up with a per capita cost
per worker of about $209. We anticipate the development would generate 419
jobs. In summary, the municipal revenues would be $143,847, minus the cost of
$87,571, and there would be a positive impact to the municipality of $56,276.
The school would have a positive net impact of $372,267.
Mr. Wichiscala said the property
owner is anxious to proceed with the development, but we are feeling the
Highlands pressure. This property, under the regional Master Plan and the Land
Use Capabilities map, is presently slated to be placed in the protection zone.
We have appeared at one of the Council’s public sessions in January and gave
rationale as to why it should not be in the protection zone, because of the
highway access, location, public sewer and water district, proximity of other
commercial development. We have asked that they change the designation. We
have also submitted a letter to the Township Council to support our request at
the Highlands Council. We hope they give it appropriate consideration during
the public comment period.
Mr. Stern said previously, the
Township bonded for the expansion of the Musconetcong sewage treatment plant in
anticipation of the growth that was going to occur along the Route 206
corridor. As a result of State planning designations and other things, we
haven’t realized that growth. This is a property where we could realize that
growth. This is what that expansion envisioned.
Mr. Stern said the main concerns
of the Board at this time are traffic and steep slopes.
Mr. Zoschak suggested the
applicant and DOT contact the Township Manager.
Ms. DeMasi asked if this
application goes forward, would the Board want to look into hiring a traffic
consultant before the applicant goes to DOT?
It was the feeling of the Board
they would want to have a traffic consultant.
Ms. DeMasi said before the next
meeting we will get a number of consultants for the Board to make a
Mr. Meyer asked for comments on
Mr. Zoschak stated there are
committees that we no longer have.
Mr. Stern said the ordinance
overrides some of the bylaws.
Mr. Behrens stated if you took
the bylaws from 1983 and made the corrections that we know about, and then give
it to us for comment, it may be a lot easier for us to review it.
Mr. Stern suggested the Board
members should flag what they know is obvious.
It was determined the Board
members will give their comments to Ms. DeMasi.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 9:15 p.m.
A. DeMasi, Secretary