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 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, Joseph Schwab, Gary Behrens, Richard Zoschak, Michael Shadiack, Jim
Rilee, Steven Alford, Robert DeFillippo, Robert Shultz.
ABSENT: Charles Bautz, Larry
PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT: Tom
Germinario, Russell Stern, Paul Ferriero.
Also present: Dolores DeMasi,
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the minutes. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schultz, abstain;
Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Meyer, abstain.
PBA-07-13 – MARK EAST
(WALGREENS) SOIL APPLICATION LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 601, LOT 17-31 IN A B-2
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: Mark East Inc./Walgreens
2. Application Number: PBA-07-13
Property Identification: Block 6601, Lot 27.01 & 31
Subdivision/Site Plan Approval Date(s): Preliminary Site Plan
Major Soil Permit Approval Date: 5/2/07
Effective Date: 5/2/07
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): 5/2/07
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 6/3/05; (2) soil
movements stockpile plan by Bohler Engineering revised to 2/15/06; (3)
earthwork calculations by Bohler Engineering dated 6/6/05; and (4) reports of the
Planning Board Engineer, Paul Ferriero, PE, dated 4/24/07.
E. The Board has made the
following additional findings of fact:
1. The Applicant intends to
export 450 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil and rock.
2. The Applicant proposes to
relocate within the site 5,945 c.y. of soil.
3. The Applicant intends to
export fill to Mt. Hope quarry.
4. The route of truck travel
from Applicant's site to the disposal site will be: Route 46 to Howard Blvd.
to Route 80 out of the Township.
5. The Applicant has agreed
to comply with the recommendations contained in the report of the Planning
Board Engineer dated 4/24/07.
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 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and
8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays (with such operations prohibited on
Sundays and legal holidays).
7. Pursuant to Section 17-17
of the Ordinance, the Board finds that strict application of the following
Ordinance provisions would impose hardship and hereby grants waivers with
respect thereto: N/A
8. Conditions of Approval: This
Permit is granted subject to the following terms and conditions:
A. Applicant shall post a
performance guarantee, consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section
17-8, in an amount indicated in Subparagraph H.5 below, as determined by the
Board Engineer based on quantity of soil moved at the rate of 15 cents per
cubic yard of material moved.
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 preliminary 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 Mt. Hope quarry.
2. The route of truck travel
from Applicant's site to the disposal site shall be: Route 46 to Howard Blvd.
to Route 80 out of the Township.
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 - $891.75 ($0.15/cy
times 5,945 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 $3,000.00.
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.
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. Alford seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes.
Mr. Germinario explained when we passed the Villages
resolution in August of last year, there were deed restrictions on the open
space. That was prior to discussions with the Township. In the course of
negotiating the contract of sale, some different conditions were attached to
the use of the open space. This resolution modifies condition 5 in order to
make the deed restrictions consistent with what is in the contract for the
purchase of the open space project.
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
Decided: March 7, 2007
Memorialized: March 21, 2007
THE MATTER OF WELLFLEET DEVELOPERS, INC./VILLAGES AT ROXBURY
PRELIMINARY AND FINAL MAJOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
11201, LOTS 1-3; BLOCK 10101, LOT 34
Wellfleet Developers, Inc./Villages at Roxbury (hereinafter the
"Applicant") applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board
(hereinafter the "Board") for amended preliminary and final major
subdivision approval on 10/10/06; and
application was deemed complete by the Board, and a public hearing was held on
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:
The property which is the subject of the application consists of 179.54 acres
located in the R-6 Planned Residential District. On July 5, 2006 the Applicant
received amended preliminary major subdivision approval (memorialized August 2,
2006), for 179 single-family lots. Through negotiations with the Township, the
Applicant now seeks amended preliminary and final subdivision approval to
subdivide a 33.969 acre parcel, to be purchased by the Township, and
reconfigure the road layout for a reduced lot yield of 161 single family lots.
Two lots along Williams Road, sixteen lots along cul-de-sac Roads ‘P’ and ‘Q’,
Detention Basin ‘G’ and Roads ‘P’ and ‘Q’ will be eliminated. The 33.969-acre
parcel will be acquired by the Township with the assistance of a Morris County
Preservation Trust Fund Grant. The Township and Applicant have drafted a
contract of sale but have yet to execute the document.
2. The proposed development of the subject property
to which the Board’s decision herein pertains is depicted and described in the
following drawings and/or plans:
- Preliminary Major Subdivision Plans (161
lots), consisting of 124 pages, revised
through October 5, 2006, prepared by
Robert J. Foley, PE.
- Preliminary Major Subdivision Plans (179
lots), consisting of 125 pages, revised
through October 25, 2006, prepared by
Robert J. Foley, PE.
- Final Plat (161 lots), consisting of eight
sheets, dated August 1, 2006, prepared by
Glen J. Lloyd, PLS.
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, P.P., dated 3/1/07
Paul Ferriero, P.E., dated 3/1/07
4. In the course of the public hearings, the
following exhibits were marked and are part of the hearing record:
A-1 161-Lot Site Layout
A-2 Sheet 10 of 119 for 179-lot layout,
A-3 Road O Preliminary Plat
5. In the course of the public hearings, the
Applicant was represented by Steven Tripp, Esq., and the Applicant presented
the testimony of the following witnesses, which testimony is part of the
Susan Berninger, P.E., engineering expert
6. The Board finds that this application is a benefit
to the community and will result in more municipal open space lands and less
density, less site disturbance, impervious coverage and infrastructure. The
Board also finds that the 161-lot subdivision plan represents a substantial
improvement over the 179-lot plan, insofar as it requires less variance relief
and better conforms to Ordinance requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board does hereby approve the amended
preliminary and final major subdivision approval, including
bulk variances, as depicted and described in the drawings and/or
plans referenced hereinabove.
This approval is subject to the following conditions
which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to Board’s signature
of the amended preliminary subdivision drawings and/or final subdivision plat:
1. As a condition precedent to this 161-lot
preliminary and final subdivision approval, a contract for the sale of the
33.969 acre parcel by the Applicant to the Township shall be executed. The
179-lot plan approved by the August 21, 2006 Resolution shall remain in effect
until the 33.969 acre parcel is conveyed to the Township, at which point this
161-lot approval shall supercede it.
2. Prior to approval and signing of the amended
preliminary subdivision plan or the final subdivision plat, the Board Engineer
and the Township Planner shall certify that all applicable conditions of the
August 2, 2006 Resolution have been fulfilled by the Applicant and a
performance bond in an amount to be determined by the Board Engineer shall be
All conditions of approval previously set forth in the Resolution of August 2,
2006, shall remain in effect, unless modified herein.
Since the only point of public access to the 33.969 acre Township open space
parcel is from Williams Road, an access easement shall be provided from Village
Boulevard to the open space parcel for maintenance and emergency purposes.
On the open space parcel, the drawings depict an area reserved for JCP&L to
accommodate the potential relocation of utility lines. All references and
proposed easements for JCP&L that are located on the future municipal
except for portions of the JCP&L easement that are not being relocated,
shall be eliminated as the property is being acquired through a Morris County
Preservation Trust Fund Grant for open space and recreation purposes. Necessary
easements shall be located within the proposed single-family lots. Setback
lines shall be adjusted accordingly to provide a 5-foot setback from the
easement per Ordinance Section 13-8.205A. Lot line adjustments to accommodate
the relocated JCP&L easement may be administratively approved by the
Township Planner to the extent they do not involve new variances.
Pursuant to Condition 77 of the August 2, 2006 Resolution, the drawings shall
note that overhead utility line in the vicinity of Road ‘O’ shall be placed
underground, except where they cross open space areas and to the extent
permitted by JCP&L.
JCP&L has expressed an interest in locating a power substation on the
property, but nothing is depicted on the plans at this time. Any proposal for a
substation will require site plan approval wherein the Board can address
planning issues, including buffering of adjoining properties.
The development sign proposed at the Road ‘O’/Mansel Drive/Salmon Road
intersection shall be removed.
Building setbacks for lots on the easterly side of Road ‘O’ shall be depicted
on sheet 2.
Deed language for the easements must be provided for review and approval by the
Board and Township Attorneys and the Board and Township Engineers.
Descriptions for these easements shall also be prepared for review.
Prior to the signing of any maps, a performance bond must be posted. An
engineer’s estimate should be provided after the Resolution compliance review
The engineer shall confirm that all outbound monuments for the tract are set.
All lots shown on the index plan (sheet 2) shall show all setbacks. The
setback lines are missing from some of the lots on Road J and Road O.
Since the modified plans results in the elimination of Basin G, the remnant
“10’ wide berm” label shall be removed from page 22.
The following changes shall be made to the Final Plat:
leader for Sight Easement E on sheet 3 shall be moved to be consistent with the
references on the plans to resolutions shall include the date of the
text near the easement legend on Sheet 4 shall be moved to eliminate conflicts
and permit legibility. The maps shall be rechecked to eliminate all text
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 3/7/07.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr.
Behrens, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Mr. Meyer stated the Board has
received a letter from Mr. Kron regarding Walgreens.
Attorney Larry Kron was present
and stated he had requested at the last meeting that the Township allow
Walgreens to proceed with limited construction while waiting for issuance of
the TWA. In the process for applying for the TWA, it was determined there was
a missing easement for the property in front of BJs. There was no recorded
easement. I got that easement from the owner, and now the town is about to put
through the TWA. We request that the Board allow us to commence limited
construction as outlined in my letter to the Board. We understand we would be
doing it at our own risk.
Mr. Germinario stated he looked
at the preliminary resolution and there is no condition to forbid them from
beginning construction as stated by Mr. Kron. It can be done administratively
by the Board, pending the TWA. This would be at the applicant’s risk.
Mr. Rilee stated his concern is
that it is only at ground level. I don’t want to see any framing done.
Ms. DeMasi asked if they have to
complete all the other items before they can get the permits.
Mr. Germinario said yes. I
believe all of those items have been addressed, except for administrative
Mr. Stern said the Township Engineer’s office is working
on the TWA.
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve limited construction as detailed in Mr. Kron’s letter of 5/3/07 and
authorize Ms. DeMasi to advise the Construction Official accordingly, and
subject to all other items agreed to. Mr. Zoschak seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes; Mr.
Alford, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Virginia Grodeska, Alice
Dufford’s daughter, was sworn in and said she has Power of Attorney for her
Edward Secco, surveyor for the
applicant, was sworn in.
Mr. Secco stated the lot is
located on Righter Road. The applicant proposes to subdivide it into two
conforming lots. The zone is R-3. We show a conceptual dwelling on the vacant
lot that would fit in the building envelope. There are comments in the
engineer and planner’s reports. We also propose to dedicate land in Righter
Mr. Secco stated the intention is
to keep the new lot in the family.
Mr. Stern stated two waivers are
required from sidewalks and street trees. I do recommend some trees.
Mr. Secco stated he will plant
two trees where there is sufficient room. We are using the existing drop
curb. We show the proposed contours on the conceptual dwelling. I have a
letter stating the lots will be 1.01 and 1.02. The lot line revision fee is
acceptable, and the pro rata share is acceptable.
Mr. Secco addressed Mr.
Item 1 - will provide easement.
We can provide language for the easement.
Mr. Ferriero stated that is
sufficient, and the ultimate owner of Lot 1.2 should have knowledge of that
Items 2 – 5 – agree, when it is
determined what type of house is put in.
Mr. Ferriero stated a lot of it
can be handled with a general note stating all items will be done prior to
construction and soil logs should be done prior to signing of deeds.
Mr. Secco said that is
Mr. Secco said all other items
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Rilee made a motion to
approve the application. Mr. DeFillippo seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Rilee, yes;
Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr.
Behrens, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented
the applicant. He stated there was a short list of items to be done. Mr.
Murray will testify to the status of those items. Also, a portion of the Mt.
Laurel fee has already been paid and the rest will be paid tomorrow.
Mr. Meyer suggested the applicant
address only the items that still need to be done.
Mr. Meyer, Mr. DeFillippo and Mr.
Behrens indicated they have listened to the recording of the last meeting.
Grayson Murray, engineer for the
applicant, was present. He stated on Monday I met with Mr. Ferriero, Mr. Stern
and Mr. Henry to walk the site and to focus on some of the specifics in the review
letters. I drafted a letter today identifying some of the key points of that
meeting. As of this afternoon, the public safety issue has been addressed,
which is the depressions in the parking field and the depressions around the
V-inlet. We agree to clean up the gravel and remove it from the landscape beds
and replace it with appropriate mulch.
Mr. Murray addressed Mr. Stern’s
report updated 4/27/07, outstanding items:
Mr. Stern said we will assume
that the items which are not addressed will be bonded.
Mr. Murray said that is correct.
Regarding screening – there is
rip-rap on the basin slopes that wasn’t indicated on the plans but was required
by Morris County Soils. We propose that we work out a fair screening solution
with Mr. Stern consisting of adding topsoil in the voids in the rip-rap and
seeding that, and add evergreens along Rt. 46 at the appropriate spacing and
staggering that satisfies Mr. Stern.
Mr. Rilee said the rip-rap is an
issue, but there is also the issue of the screening of the building itself from
Rt. 46. I’m not sure that just putting trees on Rt. 46 would be enough. I
think there might be the ability to cut back some of the pavement to allow for
some trees to also be put at the top.
Mr. Ferriero said there isn’t a
lot of room there. The most effective screening is close to Rt. 46.
Mr. Stern agreed. I don’t see
any opportunity for cutting off pavement there. The most effective screening
is trees along the roadway.
Mr. Nusbaum stated at the time we
got our approval, there was testimony that as motorists travel westbound along
Rt. 46 there isn’t much time to notice the building.. We still are willing to
go along with some reasonable addition along the roadway. I have driven by.
It is seldom that one even looks in that direction, but if you do, you will see
a building there.
Mr. Zoschak asked if Mr. Stern is
suggesting a tree height.
Mr. Stern stated the evergreen
trees would be 6 or 7 feet high, or somewhat larger in some places. This
landscape plan also has a number of shade trees.
Mr. Meyer asked if the Board
agrees to have the applicant work something out with Mr. Stern.
Mr. Rilee said as long as Mr.
Stern understands we want significant planting, I would agree with that.
Mr. Nusbaum said we are willing
to work with Mr. Stern on the plantings, and would like to get an approval
Mr. Germinario asked when the
plantings would be done.
Mr. Murray said it would be
bonded, and the plantings would be done by the end of September, but not
between June 15 and the end of September, or by mid-October.
Item 24 – to be worked out with
Item 27 – to be bonded and
completed by July 1
Item 29 – to be bonded and
completed by July 1
Item 36 – agreed – to be done by
Item 48 – we request additional
planting not be put there – to be worked out with Mr. Stern
Remaining items agreed to
Mr. Stern said regarding item 13,
is there anything outstanding with Morris County Soil?
Mr. Murray said there is nothing.
Mr. Stern asked about the
headwall at the westerly end of the Rt. 46 frontage.
Mr. Murray said the contractor
removed some of the debris there, and I don’t think anything else needs to be
Mr. Murray addressed Mr.
Ferriero’s report dated 4/24/07:
Mr. Murray stated all items have
been addressed, except for item 42 – the work was completed today. Everything
else is either completed or acceptable.
Mr. Ferriero said he would like
to go out and verify that all items have been addressed.
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to
approve the application subject to all conditions and caveats mentioned this
evening. Mr. Rilee seconded and asked that the applicant try to address the
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes;
Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
PBA-07-07 – KBC PROPERTIES – SITE PLAN FOR LUMBER YARD
LOCATED ON RT. 10, BLOCK 1905, LOTS 11 & 13 IN B-2 ZONE
Attorney Ted Einhorn represented
the applicant. He stated we have made some changes in the plan and would like
the architect to testify to that.
Mr. Byrne described the
architectural changes. He stated the revised plans reflecting the warehouse
changes were submitted to the Board. We have enhanced the exterior elevation
to the rear facing Eyland Avenue, and the side facing Horseshoe Lake. We have
done a continuation of some of the details on the other elevations.
Mr. Byrne referred to an
architectural rendering (marked A-6) showing the rear view of the building from
Eyland Avenue and the rear facing Horseshoe Lake on the top. There is also a
rendering of the more direct view from the Horseshoe Lake building showing the
back of the warehouse building and a 3-sided shed building that was added to
the project to create some buffering of the lumber storage.
Mr. Zoschak asked if there will
be plantings along the side of the 3-sided shed that faces Horseshoe Lake.
Mr. Byrne said yes.
Mr. Stern said they also committed
to putting in a decorative steel fence that matches the Horseshoe Lake fence,
as well as shrubs, and 2 tiers of landscaping between the fence and the
building. I think it is a good approach.
Mr. Byrne showed a rendering of
the 3-sided shed from the opposite elevation (marked A-7). It also shows an
enhancement to the end walls of the T-sheds.
Mr. Byrne showed a rendering of a
sight line (marked A-8) from a person standing on the second floor of the
buildings across Eyland Avenue. The viewable portion of the building would be
about 11 ft. 6 inches.
Mr. Einhorn said questions were
raised at the last hearing about the HVAC units.
Mr. Byrne said any of the
penetrations we would need would be di minimus in scale, none of which
exceed 12” x 12”. The compressors for air conditioning will be on the ground in
front of the building.
Mr. Rilee asked if the sight line
is at maturity of the planting.
Mr. Byrne said no, it is at the
time of planting.
Mr. Zoschak asked if there will be any signage on the
rear of the building.
Mr. Byrne said no.
Mr. Rilee said he still has
concerns about the building height of 25 feet.
Mr. Byrne said at the fascia
line, the height of the building is 22 feet.
Adam Remick, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in. He referred to a colorized rendering of the landscape
plan dated 5/4/07 (marked A-9). He described the changes that have been made
to the plans:
-addition of three-sided shed
along the southerly boundary of the property
-addition of plantings directly
behind the building and adjacent to the properties to the left.
Mr. Remick stated he spoke to Mr.
Pellek, the Fire Official and discussed the need for a fire lane that was
depicted around the building. He did not feel it was beneficial in any way.
The building is fully sprinkled, and the fire connection point is at the front
of the site. He did not see any benefit or use for the fire lane. We have
removed the fire lane and are providing a grassed area there. We didn’t
increase the width of the landscape buffer; however, more plants are being
proposed in that area. We do have a groundwater recharge trench on the
perimeter of the building, as a beneficial feature. We feel the benefits of
that outweigh the additional plantings that would be at a lower elevation. We
also are proposing a board-on-board fence along the three boundaries along the
westerly portion of the property adjacent to the residences on East Mapledale
Avenue and Eyland Avenue. We added one additional parking space at the front
of the building. We also added the condensers for the air conditioners in the
planting islands separating the drive thru area and the office area. We did
also provide additional landscaping at the driveway entrance and at the front
area of the project.
Mr. Rilee asked if the fence
along the Horseshoe Lake side is on the property line.
Mr. Remick said it is set back
somewhat. We intend to pull it 10 feet off the property line, and we will
plant some shrubs along the Horseshoe Lake side of the property.
There was a 5 minute recess at
Mr. Einhorn stated we have
reviewed Mr. Stern’s updated report of 5/8/07.
Mr. Remick addressed some items
in Mr. Stern’s report:
Item 2.1 – agree to comply with
light fixture height, except for the 22 ft. mounting height within the T-shed
canopy and for the lights mounted to the T-sheds. Mr. Stern had no objection.
Mr. Zoschak asked how late the
lights will be on.
Mr. Remick said during business
hours, except for security lights.
Mr. Stern asked if more
freestanding lights will be needed.
Mr. Remick said we may have to
Item 2.8 – The 1,000 watt bulbs
are proposed because of the layout of the site. This is for the fixtures on
the T-sheds. If we reduced that to 250 watts we wouldn’t get the proper
lighting within the yard. It would necessitate placing poles in the traffic
areas or adjacent to the rail. We would provide shoebox fixtures where
necessary. We do feel the 1,000 watt is appropriate here. There is
significant screening on almost all sides, except for the easterly side
adjacent to the rail spur.
Mr. Ferriero said it is too
Mr. Stern said he feels 1,000
watts is very intense and is not something we have been approving.
Mr. Remick referred to sheet
10/15, lighting plan and stated the 1,000 watt fixtures are limited to the ones
mounted on the T-sheds and over the main entrance of the building.
Mr. Zoschak said the site will
not operate at night. Why do you need that light?
Mr. Remick stated during the winter hours, they will be
Mr. Rilee stated he agrees it is
Discussion. The applicant agreed
to reduce the wattage to 400 for the one on the front of the building and the
ones that are on the three sheds, and work out the locations with Mr.
Ferriero. One or two more fixtures may need to be added.
4.1 – addressed
waiver requested – Mr. Stern had no objection
4.9 – there will be portable
sprinklers and hoses for watering the plantings. We have also graded to
provide watering from rain.
Mr. Stern had no objection.
Mr. Remick addressed Mr. Stern’s
memo of 2/28/07, last updated 5/7/07
1.3 – Mr. Remick said we don’t
propose any pedestrian interconnection as they are two distinct uses. Mr.
Stern had no objection.
1.10 – will be provided
1.11 – addressed
1.12 – addressed
1.19 – addressed – will be
1.20 – Mr. Remick stated we have
applied for the necessary permits. We will be revising the functional analysis
due to the modifications to the plan. It is currently under review at DEP for
a number of general permits.
1.21, 1.22 – Mr. Remick stated we
have received a letter from the MUA, and as a result of discussions, the MUA
asked us to investigate providing recharge on the site. We did investigate
that, and discovered that in a number of locations there are sufficient soils
and separation from the seasonable high water table to provide some recharge
trenches. We are directing the runoff from the roof leaders to the recharge
trench, and have provided an overflow from that trench. None of the stormwater
discharge will go into Horseshoe Lake. The letter from the MUA states they are
in support of the revised plans and felt we addressed all their concerns.
Ms. DeMasi said she also received
a letter from them and suggests they use best management practices and reduce
the salt to Horseshoe Lake.
1.23 – Mr. Einhorn said at the
last hearing, it was determined the parking of trailers does not require a
Mr. Rilee asked about outdoor
storage and parking vehicles. It was to be inside the building and along the
loading bays and inside the T-sheds.
Mr. Remick stated that is
correct. The ones under the T-sheds would be completely under cover. That
would also apply to the 3-sided shed.
Mr. Stern said his concern would
be in the future where parking under the T-sheds could lead to having numerous
vehicles parked there.
Mr. Kuiken stated we are looking
for the option to put a truck in the sheds on occasion. If the T-sheds are an
issue, we could limit it to the 3-sided shed.
Mr. Kuiken agreed to limit the
parking for only trucks associated with this operation.
It was determined the trucks
would not be parked under the T-sheds, and would be limited to the 3-sided
shed. This will be a condition of approval to be noted on the plans and in the
1.23 – Mr. Germinario stated this
is a bulk variance, and we are merely to judge whether the separation distance
is mitigated by other factors including the neighboring uses and the uses of
the public well that is within 500 feet.
Mr. Remick stated we have done a number of things relative to water quality and
reducing impervious coverage on an operating lumberyard. We also have jacked
and bored a water main along Route 10. That main has been partially extended
along East Maple Avenue. We have also provided stubs to the east and the
west. We discussed the wells with MUA and Morris County Planning Board.
1.24 – addressed
1.25 – we have not agreed to the
conservation easement. We have been cooperative with the Board and
professionals. We believe the area in question cannot be built upon because it
is within the C-1 regulations of DEP. We have no intention of doing anything
there in the present, but if in the future DEP would allow us to, we would have
to come back to the Board for approval. We would not agree to the conservation
easement at this point.
Mr. Rilee said it is not uncommon
for us to require this, especially when it may impact Horseshoe Lake. We are
granting relief here in many instances, and I am surprised that the applicant
does not agree to the conservation easement.
Mr. Einhorn said he will discuss
that with the applicant.
1.26 – addressed – we have also
enhanced the architectural details
1.27 – addressed – will be
additional testimony from the planner
1.29 – addressed – Board needs to
deliberate on those items. There is one stretch that is presently overhead and
will remain overhead.
1.36 – addressed – chain link
fence will be maintained along the railroad tracks
1.41 – agreed
1.43 – board-on-board fence
Mr. Einhorn stated Mr. Kuiken
agrees to grant the conservation easement.
Mr. Meyer stated there was a
member of the public here and they asked me to tell you they are very pleased
with the proposed screening.
The application was carried to
The applicant granted an
extension through 6/30/07
PBA-07-15 – KYECOPLAZA – ROXBURY LLC – SITE PLAN FOR
DAYCARE, RETAIL AND BILLIARDS IN EXISTING BUILDING LOCATED ON RT. 46/BERKSHIRE
VALLEY RD., BLOCK 2704, LOT 11 IN B-2 ZONE
Attorney Michael Garafalo
represented the applicant. He stated this application is for preliminary site
plan. We already have Morris County Planning Board approval. The tenants have
changed. The Dollar Store will still be proposed. The applicant does not want
to have the billiard hall or the daycare, but will have general retail.
Thomas Knutelsky was sworn in.
He gave his educational and professional background as a professional engineer
and was accepted by the Board. He referred to sheets 1 and 2 of the site plan
gave an overview of the proposal stating the property is located at the
intersection of Berkshire Valley Road and Route 46 in Kenvil. There is a
loading area on site, and the parking space sizes are generally 9’ x 18’, with
some 10’ x 28’. A variance is required for parking setback in the front yard.
There are currently 98 parking stalls on site with 38 stalls to the west, and
the remainder are in the front to the east of the site. It is a corner site
with front yards on both roads. There are existing gas facilities and sanitary
sewer and electric facilities with an emergency generator. The stormwater
management system relies on a pump system, and the generator also services
that. Referring to sheet 3/5, the proposal for the site is a rehabilitation of
the site. The use for the site is intended to be retail. The billiard use
shown on the plan will be removed and will be proposed as retail. That will
reduce the parking requirement to 121 stalls. We are maintaining the egress
and ingress points and the general parking fields. We will revise the striping
to provide handicap parking stalls. We wanted to try to better access the
parking area to the rear with an additional sidewalk to the north.
Mr. Knutelsky showed a revised
parking plan concept dated May 2007 (marked A-1) showing offsetting of some of
the parking stalls to allow for 101 parking stalls on site, and provides for
the required number of van accessible and general handicap stalls. We want the
parking to the rear to be mainly for employee parking and overflow parking.
The stalls are now shown as 9’ x 18’.
Mr. Rilee stated parking along
the west side shows an entrance to the building on that side.
Mr. Knutelsky said there are rear
entrances for employees, not for the general public.
Mr. Knutelsky stated it is his
understanding shopping carts are not required for this use.
Mr. Knutelsky said the existing
site was a supermarket. For this use, we don’t feel we need to have a
depressed loading area. We intend to fill that area in and keep the 15’ x 60’
loading area, and provide circulation around the building with a sidewalk.
Outside of that loading area we show an 8’ x 8’ trash enclosure for bulk
garbage and recycling. It is our understanding the enclosures might not be
sufficient for the use. This is an existing site and there is not a lot of
room for additional loading areas and trash enclosures. We do propose to
request relief for the loading area and provide for up to 3 separate trash
enclosure areas. That would be policed by tenant agreements. The Dollar Store
is indicating that they do their own recycling internal to the building. The
types of retail uses proposed have typical hours of 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. There
would be self-policing to prevent deliveries during certain hours.
Mr. Zoschak said you would not
have access to all three tenants at that end.
Mr. Knutelsky stated that would
be structured as part of the tenant agreement. To continue, we intend to
connect into existing sewer, gas and electric. We feel the sidewalk connecting
parking lots is important. There are no conflicts there. The screening for
the generator would have to be rotated. It is possible a smaller sized
generator maybe used. Regarding the screening wall, in order to provide for
the loading area and trash enclosures, the wall is a hindrance to the site, and
we propose to take it down and put up another screening buffer. There is an 8’
high board-on-board fence with sufficient landscaping as a buffer as part of
the 1993 approval.
Mr. Knutelsky showed sheet 4/5
that shows the landscaping for the site. We have tried to provide replacement
species and vegetation where the theoretical building entrances would be, as a
result of suggestions from the Planner. As to lighting, there are no proposals
for any additional lighting on site. The lighting shown on the plan is 0.5
foot candles, and there are void areas shown. The sidewalks along the south of
the property have bollard lights, and we would revise the plan to show that
Yung Kim, architect for the
applicant, was sworn in and gave his educational and professional background
and was accepted by the Board.
Mr. Kim gave an overview of the
architecture for the site, stating the plans submitted showed the billiard
hall, which is no longer proposed. The proposal is for an 8,600 sq. ft. Family
Dollar Store. The store will occupy the front of the store. The part to the
rear will have two ADA bathrooms, storage, and employee area. Entrance to the
store will be by sliding doors. There is a cashier area in the front. The
facility has an existing rear entry which will remain.
Mr. Stern asked where the doors
are to the northerly tenant space.
Mr. Kim stated currently there is
no tenant, and I have not drawn the layout of that at this time.
Mr. Zoschak asked if there is a
rendering of the new façade. There are no windows shown for the other retail
Mr. Kim stated we are trying to
keep the existing façade of the building at this time. There will probably be
changes to the façade when the other tenant is identified.
Mr. Schwab asked if there is a
possibility of having more than 3 tenants.
Mr. Kim stated he doesn’t know.
Mr. Meyer stated the development
of Rt. 46 is very important. There is a new medical facility across the street
from this site. Anything you can do to enhance the Rt. 46 corridor by the
treatment of the outside of this building would be beneficial.
Mr. Kim said this building does
not have a deep parapet. We will be adding screening of the HVAC units. We
propose a prefab unit that has a pre-coated manufacturer’s screen.
Mr. Rilee stated he wants further
testimony on the other portion of the building.
Dr. Kye Chun was sworn in. He
stated he is the landlord and owner of the building. He stated he does not
know at this time home many tenants there will be and that he is very selective
regarding the tenants. The Family Dollar Store is a retail store, and is good
for the community. There are over 6,500 of these stores nationwide, and it is
Mr. DeFillippo asked if the
façade for the building would be determined by what tenant will go in.
Dr. Chun stated that is correct.
Mr. DeFillippo stated we would
like to see a consistent look.
Mr. Kim stated we will conform to
what the town wants.
Mr. Stern stated it is a
concern. It is important that the architectural scheme is unified along this
Dr. Chun said he will discuss
that with the architect and will unify the look of the building.
Mr. Rilee agreed, and stated the
rear and both frontages should also have some decorative treatment.
Dr. Chun said we have a signed
contract with Family Dollar Store, and would like permission to begin the
interior renovation to the building.
Mr. Garafalo stated it is clear
that there have been improvements to Rt. 46. I sense that Roxbury is favorable
to an overall physical improvement to the site. Is it Roxbury’s protocol to
allow, pre-approval, clean up of the site, some interior renovations?
Mr. Meyer stated we need more
testimony than what we have had tonight.
Mr. Garafalo asked if Roxbury
would allow some clean up to the site and some interior demolition work at the
Mr. Stern said the interior
demolition wouldn’t require a zoning permit, but you should inquire in the
Mr. Germinario agreed the
demolition doesn’t require a zoning permit, but you would be proceeding at your
Mr. Stern stated cleaning up the
landscaping, etc. would also be acceptable.
Mr. Zoschak asked if the
applicant is looking to open up the Dollar Store before renovating the rest of
Mr. Garofalo said perhaps.
Mr. Rilee said there have been
some issues with this site regarding screening and noise. We had complaints
from neighbors. There may be some other site improvements that may be required
with the Dollar Store.
Mr. Zoschak said we would all
like to see some kind of plan for the rest of the façade as well.
The application was carried to
Mr. Rilee asked when the last
time was that we looked at the application fees. He asked that Dolores check
with neighboring towns.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 10:30 p.m.
A. DeMasi, Secretary