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 Vice Chairman Larry Sweeney presiding.  After a salute to the Flag, Mr. Sweeney read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.

 

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Larry Sweeney, Charles Bautz, Jim Rilee, Robert Schultz, Gary Behrens, Michael Shadiack, Steven Alford, Joseph Schwab, Robert DeFillippo.

 

ABSENT:  Scott Meyer, Richard Zoschak.

 

Minutes of 7/11/07 and 8/1/07

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schwab, abstain; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Shadiack, abstain on 7/11/07, yes on 8/1/07; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Sweeney, abstain on 7/11/07, yes on 8/1/07.

 

RESOLUTIONS

 

PBA-07-20 – KRISHA KRUPA – MINOR SITE PLAN FOR DANCE STUDIO LOCATED ON MT. ARLINGTON BLVD. BLOCK 11301, LOT 15 IN B-1 ZONE

 

                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

                                                                                           RESOLUTION

 

 Decided:  August 1, 2007

 Memorialized:  September 5, 2007

 

IN THE MATTER OF KRISHNA KRUPA

MINOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL

BLOCK 11301, LOT 15

APPLICATION NO. PBA-07-00020

 

WHEREAS, Krishna Krupa (hereinafter the "Applicant") applied to the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter the "Board") for minor site plan approval on 7/16/07; and

 

WHEREAS, the application was deemed complete by the Board, and a public hearing was held on 8/1/07; and

 

WHEREAS, it 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

 

WHEREAS, the 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 16,389 square feet (0.376 acres) located in the B-1 Limited Business District.  It is developed with an 8,958.5± square foot one-story retail building.  The site exhibits numerous pre-existing nonconforming conditions including site design, floor area ratio, lot coverage, building setbacks, parking setbacks, quantity of parking spaces, trash/recycling, loading, drainage, lighting, and landscaping.

 

According to the partial site plan, the property can accommodate up to 22 parking spaces but under current regulations the building requires 40 spaces.  Parking spaces along Rogers Drive and Mount Arlington Boulevard partially extend into the road right-of-ways.  The site is somewhat in disrepair with barely visible parking stall striping, broken trash enclosure, depressed pavement, partial entrance ramp, refuse located outside the trash enclosure, and poor façade maintenance.  The building is divided into two tenant spaces with an access to Krauser’s convenience store facing Rogers Drive and an access to a vacant tenant space facing Mount Arlington Boulevard.

 

Single-family homes are located to the east and south, a municipal park to the north, and Shore Hills Country Club to the west across from Mount Arlington Boulevard.

 

2.  The development of the subject property proposed by the Applicant comprises minor site plan/change of use approval with a design waiver for insufficient parking to utilize the vacant tenant space for a dance studio operated by Generations of Dance.  A dance studio is a permitted use in the B-1 District.  The studio will consist of 4 dance rooms, lobby/waiting area and hallway.  The Applicant’s attorney, Bernd Hefele, in a letter dated July 23, 2007, has provided a project overview addressing the general operation of the facility.  The minor site plan/change of use involves no exterior site improvements.

 

3.  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:

 

Prepared by Thomas C. Yeager & Associates

 

-                    Sheet 1 of 1, Property Survey, dated May 2, 2001

 

Preparer Unknown

 

-                    Partial Site Plan, undated

-                    Floor Plan, undated

 

4.  In support of the application, the Applicant submitted the following documents, which are part of the hearing record:

 

1.             Description of Operations Letter, dated

                July 23, 2007, from Bernd E. Hefele, Esq.

2.             Minor Site Plan Application

3.             Minor Site Plan Checklist

4.             Waiver Request

5.             Zoning Officer’s Letter, dated April 27, 2007,

                prepared by Tom Potere

 

5.  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 7/25/07

Paul Ferriero, PE, dated 7/27/07

 

6.  In the course of the public hearings, no exhibits were marked and are part of the hearing record.

 

7.  In the course of the public hearings, the Applicant was represented by Bernd Hefele, Esq., and the Applicant presented the testimony of the following witnesses, which testimony is part of the hearing record:

 

Ketol Shah, property owner

Elizabeth Johnson, owner of dance studio

 

8.  The development of the subject property as proposed by the Applicant requires relief from the following land use provisions of the Township ordinances:

 

A design waiver is necessary from Section 13-8.701B, as the total site requires 40 parking spaces while only 21 spaces will be provided on the property.  The removal of a parking space at the Mount Arlington Boulevard/Rogers Drive intersection will reduce parking to 21 spaces.

 

9.  Based on the hearing record, the Board has made the following findings relative to the design waiver sought by the Applicant:

 

The Board grants the design waiver from Section 13-8.701B for the following reasons:  (a) the site is completely built-out and will not accommodate additional parking; (b) the insufficiency of parking on the site is a pre-existing nonconforming condition; (c) the conditions of the Board’s approval, as set forth hereinbelow, insure that the existing parking area will be improved; and (d) the conditions of the Board’s approval limit the intensity of the new use.

 

10.  The Board makes the following additional findings relative to the proposed development:

 

(1)  The Planning Board does not formally approve the parking spaces located partially within the Mount Arlington Boulevard and Rogers Drive right-of-ways.

 

(2)  The testimony of the dance studio owner Mrs. Johnson indicated that there will be no deliveries in connection with her operation.

 

(3)  The testimony of Mrs. Johnson indicated that sounds from the dance classes will not be audible outside the building.

 

(4)  The testimony of the property owner Mr. Shah indicated that customers of the convenience store occupy no more than 5 parking stalls at any time.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board does hereby approve the minor site plan as depicted and described in the drawings and/or plans referenced hereinabove.  In connection with this approval, the Board grants relief from land use provisions of the Township ordinances in accordance with Paragraph 9 above.

 

This approval is effective as of the decision date.  This approval is subject to the following conditions which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the dance studio:

 

1.  The dance studio shall not have more than 20 students and 3 instructors on the premises at any given time.

 

2.  When there is student turnover between consecutive dance studio classes, the starting time of the later class will be staggered to begin at least 15 minutes after the end of the earlier class.

 

3.  The garage and loading area shall not be used for dance studio instruction or activities.

 

4.  The dance studio shall not conduct on the premises activities open to non-students, such as parties, recitals, or performances.

 

5.  The dance studio shall offer no products, including clothing, for sale on the premises.

 

6.  Parking stalls for the entire property shall be re-striped as the current spaces are barely recognizable.

 

7.  The parking space closest to the Mount Arlington Boulevard/Rogers Drive intersection shall be eliminated and striped as “No Parking” since it is located within the sight triangle of both roads.

 

8.  Handicap parking spaces shall be striped and signage posted.  Details shall be provided.  Pole and/or wall mounted handicap signs shall be provided.

 

 

9.  Concrete wheel/tire stops shall be provided to prevent vehicles from overhanging the sidewalks and preventing pedestrian access.  Details shall be provided.

 

10.  The ramp by the northwesterly building corner shall be repaired.

 

11.  The existing trash enclosure is in a state of disrepair and shall be replaced with a decorative masonry block enclosure, the design of which shall be approved by the Township Planner.  Details shall be provided.

 

12.  Trash/debris in the vicinity of the loading area shall be removed.

 

13.  Lighting in the form of a concealed source “shoebox” fixture shall be provided to illuminate the sidewalk and parking in the vicinity of the dance studio building entrance.

 

14.  The existing nonconforming exposed source wall lights shall be replaced with conforming “shoebox” fixtures.  A lighting plan shall be provided and reviewed and approved by the Board Engineer.

 

15.  Side panels shall be added to the two Krauser’s wall signs.

 

16.  Applicant shall repaint and repair the building façade to the satisfaction of the Township Planner.

 

17.  This approval is subject to all other approvals required by any governmental agency having jurisdiction over the subject property.

 

18.  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.

 

19.  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.

 

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 8/1/07.

 

 

 

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

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes.

 

AGENDA

 

PBA-07-23 – ROXBURY 2002 LLC – SOIL APPLICATION FOR PHASE II LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 9501, LOT 9 IN B-2 ZONE

 

Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant.

 

Grayson Murray, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in. 

 

Mr. Nusbaum said this application is to permit the applicant to continue on with phase II of the approved site plan.

 

Mr. Murray said we request permission to remove material from the phase II area to Mt. Olive and Hackettstown.  The rest of the site preparation was completed during the phase I construction.  The route of travel  will go up Route 46 West to Rt. 80.  We agree to all items in Mr. Ferriero’s report and to the fees mentioned in the report.

 

Mr. Nusbaum asked that the Board make any approval effective as of tonight so that we can post the money and the work can begin. 

 

Mr. Germinario said the Board has the resolution in front of them.

 

Mr. Stern said there is another issue regarding the Phase I final.  The resolution required the completion of certain items.  They have completed most of them except for some landscaping items and other minor items.  They are seeking to move from the  temporary certificate of occupancy to the final certificate of occupancy and they request those items be bonded with a completion date of 12/15/07.  There are also a few issues that have come up.   One is that there was an area of tree removal along Rt. 46 toward the sign.  DEP would not allow planting in that area, and the applicant requested that planting will occur on the embankment, and I do not object.  By the entry courtyard is a sitting area.  All the benches and landscaping are in, but there are no trash receptacles or ash urns.  This is not an area where people congregate so there is no objection.  There was also an issue of some bollards that were not constructed, and according to the project engineer there is no conflict with the tractor trailers in that area and they are not necessary.  

 

Mr. Rilee asked about the area along Rt. 46.

 

Mr. Murray stated the transition area overlaps onto the sidewalk and curb portion on Rt. 46.  There is a 150 foot buffer from the wetland delineation.  It overlaps into the roadway approximately 10 feet and turns back in to the site further east along Rt. 46. 

 

Mr. Rilee said you can see the building when driving along Rt. 46.  Is there the ability to put some street trees in there?

 

Mr. Ferriero said the area we are talking about is further west near the sign.  The plantings we are talking about are to be moved to the area Mr. Rilee is referring to.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said the amount of the bond would be increased by $5,000.  We are also asking for the final C.O. based upon the submission of the bond.

 

Mr. Stern and Mr. Ferriero were agreeable.

 

Mr. Rilee asked when the plantings along Rt. 46 will go in.

 

Mr. Murray said by December 15th, and we will try to get them in sooner. 

 

                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

                                                         MAJOR SOIL REMOVAL/RELOCATION PERMIT

 

 

Pursuant to Chapter XVII of the General Ordinances of the Township of Roxbury, Article 17-1 et seq. (the "Ordinance), the Roxbury Township Planning Board (the "Board"), having conducted a public hearing with public notice pursuant to the Ordinance, does hereby grant to the Applicant identified herein a Major Soil Permit, subject to the terms and conditions enumerated herein below.

 

1.  Applicant/Permittee:  Roxbury 2002/Gemini Electronics

 

2.  Application Number:  PBA07-23

 

3.  Property Identification:  Block 9505, Lot 9

 

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

10/6/04,

Amended 12/1/04

 

5.  Major Soil Permit Approval Date:  9/5/07

 

6.  Effective Date:  9/5/07

 

7.  Findings of Fact:

 

A.            The Board has received an Application consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-6, and the Applicant has paid the application fee pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-7.1.

 

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

 

C.            A public hearing was conducted, in accordance with the Ordinance, and with opportunity for comment by interested members of the public, on the following date(s):  9/5/07.

 

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 8/10/07; (2) soil movements stockpile plan by Bohler Engineering revised to 7/3/07; (3) earthwork calculations by Bohler Engineering dated 7/3/07; and (4) report of the Planning Board Engineer, Paul Ferriero, dated 8/28/07.

 

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

 


1.             The Applicant intends to export 17,243 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil.

 

2.             The Applicant proposes to relocate within the site 21,221 c.y. of soil.

 

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

 

4.             The route of truck travel from Applicant's site to the disposal site will be:  Route 46 West to Route 80.

 

5.             The Applicant has agreed to comply with the recommendations contained in the report of the Planning Board Engineer dated 8/28/07.

 

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 (with such operations prohibited on Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays).

 

7.             Pursuant to Section 17-17 of the Ordinance, the Board finds that strict application of the following Ordinance provisions would impose hardship and hereby grants waivers with respect thereto:  N/A

 

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

 

A.            Applicant shall post a performance guarantee, consistent with the requirements of Ordinance Section 17-8, in an amount indicated in Subparagraph H.5 below, as determined by the Board Engineer 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 Section 17-9c.

 

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

 


D.            This approval shall not become effective until:  (i) Applicant has paid all outstanding property taxes and assessments due or delinquent as of the date hereof; and (ii) all conditions of the 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 outside the Township.

 

2.             The route of truck travel from Applicant's site to the disposal site shall be:  Route 46 West to Route 80.

 

3.             The Erosion Control Plan shall be modified to indicate the following note:

 

"Notwithstanding the approved Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, the Applicant shall implement all measures needed to satisfactorily control erosion, dust, and sediment transport as may be reasonably determined by the Township Engineer during construction."

 

4.             Applicant shall post fees as follows:

 

Section 17-7.1  Application Fee - $250.00

Section 17-7.2  Soil Moving Fee - $2,586.45

                                                ($0.15/cy times 17,243 cy)

Section 17-7.3  Engineering Inspection Fees pursuant

to Section 13-2.404 of the

Township Ordinances

 

5.             Per Section 17-8 of the Ordinance, Applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount of $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), 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 soil movement application with the stipulations agreed to, and to memorialize the resolution as well with the route of travel to be Rt. 46 West to Rt. 80.  Mr. Alford seconded.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes.

 

Regarding the Phase I Final, Mr. Nusbaum said the Township already has bond money.  Can we move the bond money needed for the site plan to this new bond?

 

Mr. Rilee said the Council would have to address that.

 

Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the Phase I Final Site Plan – PBA-07-06 subject to the items to be completed by December 15th and bonded. 

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes; Mr. Alford. Yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes.

 

PBA – 07-21 – DAVID SENECA – SUBDIVISION FOR 2 LOTS LOCATED ON CENTER ST./MAIN ST. BLOCK 10301, LOT 2.02 IN R-4 ZONE

 

Attorney Paul Nusbaum represented the applicant.  He said this property is on Main Street and Center Street in Port Morris and is a parcel that was previously subdivided.  Now the application is to subdivide the remaining lot into two residential parcels.  It is conforming in all respects.  There are some design waivers requested.

 

Nicholas Wunner, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He stated this is a two lot subdivision proposal.  The property is on Main Street in Port Morris and consists of 18,346.96 sq. ft. and is in the R-4 zone which requires 7,500 sq. ft.  Each lot meets the area requirements.  One lot has 9,680.3 s.f. and the other has 8,666.7 sq. ft.  The minimum lot frontage is met for both lots.  The lots meet all bulk requirements of the zone.  What is shown on the plan is a conceptual plan for each lot.  There is public water and sewer available.  Two design waivers are requested.  One is from the requirement for insufficient pavement width.  Main Street has a 23 to 26 foot width along this property.  The waiver was granted in the 2003 minor subdivision and we are asking for it here as well.  Mr. Stern’s report indicates he has no objection.  The other design waiver is for curb and sidewalks not being provided.  Mr. Stern had no objection as these elements are not characteristic of the area.  A third design waiver was requested for street trees, and we are withdrawing the request for that waiver.  We are in agreement with all the requirements in Mr. Stern’s report.

 

Mr. Wunner addressed Mr. Ferriero’s report:

 

Mr. Wunner stated in accordance with the checklist, the plans are conceptual only and would be subject to review by the township engineer.  At this time, the type of house has not been determined.  Many of the items in Mr. Ferriero’s report would be reviewed at that the plot plan stage.

 

Mr. Rilee said we have always gotten footprints of the homes so that we can approve engineering plans based upon those footprints.

 

Mr. Ferriero said my concern is that there are certain things about the conceptual plans that should not be on the final plans.  I would like to see a minimum dimension for the setback from the drywell to the house.  Also, the retaining walls in the rear are right up on the LOI line.  I would like to see them shifted back. 

 

Mr. Wunner said we would be allowed to go to the line, but we would need to push it back a little bit in order to retain the retaining wall, but I think 5 feet is excessive. 

 

Mr. Ferriero said my concern is that there would be the ability to construct the wall without going on the adjoining property.

 

Discussion. 

 

Mr. Ferriero said he could agree to a setback related to the height of the wall.  The setback from the LOI line would be 50% of the height of the wall.   If the house is smaller, there may be no wall.

 

Mr. Ferriero said regarding the area between the two lots, there is a very narrow space between the set of walls and between each lot line.  The maintenance in that area would be difficult.

 

Mr. Wunner said it would be discussed between neighbors.  There is a swale there, and perhaps we might want to make that swale a drainage and maintenance easement.  We would agree to do that so that each owner would have access.

 

Mr. Ferriero said it is my understanding there would be a maintenance and drainage easement along the common property line for a 15 ft. width that encompasses the swale and the wall so that the owners have mutual access.

 

Mr. Nusbaum suggested approving the subdivision subject to the engineering issues being resolved.

 

Mr. Rilee said he would like to see the drainage easement on one property or the other.  That is a planning issue.

 

Mr. Wunner said the best place to put the swale is down the middle.  Putting it on one property puts the onus on one property owner.  I can see more problems that way.

 

Mr. Nusbaum said we are going for a minor subdivision and have complied with the ordinance.  The housing market at this time is not great, and it will be a while before we can make a determination on the exact houses that will be built.  I would suggest that engineering details be resolved between the Board’s engineer and the applicant’s engineer when the house plans are determined.

 

Mr. Ferriero stated the information I am looking for can be dealt with by minimum notes on the plans – the minimum setback from the drywell to the dwelling ; the minimum setback of wall to LOI line.  I believe a drainage easement of this type centered on the property line ends a potential argument in the future.  In the future, the homes might be sold to two individual owners who build the homes separately.  By creating a drainage easement down the middle of the lot line, we establish that.

 

Mr. Nusbaum stated the applicant agrees to put the notes on the plans as suggested by Mr. Ferriero.

 

Mr. Wunner stated regarding Mr. Ferriero’s report, the application to Morris County Soil Conservation will be done prior to building permit.  We agree to the other items in the report.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED

 

No one stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Bautz made a motion to approve the application subject to all items agreed to. Mr. Rilee seconded.

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes.

 

There was a 5 minute recess at 8:20 p.m.

 

PBA-07-11 - TOWER HILL ASSOCIATES – SUBDIVISION FOR 13 LOTS LOCATED ON BEEMAN PLACE/SHEARMAN PLACE/ SOUTH HILLSIDE AVE.  BLOCK 3602, LOT 9 IN R-3 ZONE

 

Attorney John Inglesino represented the applicant.  He stated the property is 7.35 acres in the R-3 zone.  The property previously contained a single family home.  The surrounding properties are single family homes.  The R-3 zone has a minimum lot size of 15,000 sq. ft.  This property complies with the lot sizes requirements.  Last year the applicant submitted a use variance application for a 28 unit multi-family development on the property.  Based on comments from the Board they elected not to pursue that use variance and are now applying for the permitted zoning.  This will be a conforming application.  One lot will contain a detention basin.   The details regarding access, slopes, etc. will be addressed by the engineer.

 

Frank Matarazzo, engineer and planner, was sworn in.  He gave his educational and professional background and was accepted by the Board.

 

Mr. Sweeney suggested tonight’s testimony will be limited to an overview by the engineer, and then the Board will take comments from the public.

 

Mr. Matarazzo described the proposal for the Board, stating the site is on the northerly side of South Hillside avenue just south of the intersection of Rt. 10.  The site is surrounded by residential uses.  To the north of the property are commercial uses along Rt. 10.  Until recently there was a single family home on the site which was recently removed by the applicant.

 

He referred to sheet 2 of the plans, boundary and topographic survey.  He stated there is a driveway running thru the middle of the site.  The site is fairly wooded and has a large grass area.  There is a steep slope area along the front of the property.  The site is 7.35 acres.  There is an old stone wall along the frontage which is proposed to remain and will be repaired.  The proposed subdivision (A-1, sheet 6/15) is for 13 lots, 12 of which will be building lots and one lot is to be a detention basin lot.  All the building lots will meet the township requirements for lot size.  The detention basin lot is 10,000 sq. ft.  (reverse frontage lots for lots 7 thru 12.  They front along the new road and South Hillside Ave.  A portion of proposed lot 6 touches the right-of-way, and we will move the lot line over slightly to eliminate the double frontage of that lot.  The applicant proposed 2,400 to 2700 sq. foot homes.  The applicant will meet the RSIS requirements.  The homes will meet the ordinances for height, setback, and lot size.  There will be a water line extended through the proposed road, as well as the water line on Shearman Rd. creating a loop water main system. The sanitary sewer will connect to the existing sanitary sewer on South Hillside Ave.  We have received letters from the water and sewer department stating there is adequate service.  Utility lines will be underground.  Steep slopes are along S. Hillside Avenue and the proposal complies with the steep slope ordinance.

 

The development will include the extension of Shearman Rd. and Beeman Place.  The cul-de-sac ends at the westerly property line and will be extended to our site.  The cul-de-sac at Beeman Place ends, and there is an existing easement for a future road (lots 19 and 20).

 

Mr. Matarazzo referred to a minor subdivision map for Highland Heights dated 2/25/82(A-2) and said it shows the subject property.  This was a 3 lot minor subdivision.  Our parcel is a remnant of a larger tract.  To the west where Beeman Place and Shearman Avenue are is an earlier subdivision dated 1979.  That was the overall tract which included our lot plus the 22 lots to the west.  In 1979 there was a subdivision that created the extension of Shearman Ave., Beeman Place, and Heights Road.  It created Shearman Ave. with a cul-de-sac bubble and created frontage along Beeman Place.  Lots 25 a and 25b weren’t there.  In 1982 there was a 3 lot subdivision that created lots 19 and 20, fronting on Beeman Place.  As part of that subdivision, a 50 foot wide easement was created on both lots, and that is labeled for a future road. 

 

Mr. Matarazzo stated the proposed roadway through our site will have sidewalks on both sides.  Depressed curb ramps will be provided.  We will provide sight triangle easements at the corners of the new intersection.  The extension of the Beeman Place roadway will be wholly within the easement.  The applicant will work with the property owners of lots 19 and 20 to relocate their driveways.  Currently those two lots have driveways that cross over the subject property.  Once we construct the roads, the driveways will have to be relocated.  We also propose the elimination of the cul-de-sac bubble on Shearman Road.  On Beeman Place, we propose the removal of the pavement on the northerly side effecting lots 18 and 19.  We don’t propose removal of the cul-de-sac bubble on the south side.  There is a small sliver of land attached to lot 1, and once we extend the roadway of Beeman Place, that 8 ft piece of land will be offered to the owner of Lot 19 if they choose to accept it.  The stormwater will be collected by means of a storm sewer and catch basin system along the proposed road and will be connected to a detention basin to the northeasterly corner of the property.  We propose a basin with walls. Currently there is an existing driveway with access to South Hillside Ave. and we will leave that in place for vehicle access to the basin.  We propose a fence around the basin and landscaping along the easterly side of the basin.  We will also add landscaping and vegetation there.  The basin meets the setback requirements at 20 feet off the sideline to the north as well as the proposed roadway dedication along South Hillside Ave.  The detention basin is impacted somewhat by the slopes.  The property slopes downhill in that area.  The basin meets the DEP requirements for stormwater quantity runoff and groundwater recharge.  We have prepared an EIS.  There are not wetlands on the property.  There is an issue with endangered species.  We have prepared a tree replacement plan, and the applicant will replace as many trees as possible.  Shade trees are proposed along the roadway and evergreens along the perimeter of the basin.  We will also make a payment in lieu of some of the plantings.

 

Mr. Matarazzo said there is little traffic impact.  RSIS states single family homes generate 10.2 trips per day and that is a minimal impact.  The detention basin lot will be dedicated to the Township.

 

Mr. Shadiack asked how the basin will be maintained.

 

Mr. Matarazzo said we propose it be dedicated to the township.

 

Mr. Alford asked if the owners of the lots that need to have the driveways moved do not agree to moving the driveway, would that be a problem.

 

Mr. Matarazzo said those driveways are on our property.

 

Mr. Bautz asked if that is an easement or a right-of-way

 

Mr. Matarazzo said there is an easement at lots 19 and 20, but that easement ends at our property line.

 

Mr. DeFillippo asked if these were the original driveways for those two lots.

 

Mr. Matarazzo said those structures existed, but the map from exhibit A-2 doesn’t show the driveways.

 

Mr. Inglesino said the resolution dated March 3, 1982 states “the dwelling houses are being separated by the minor subdivision at the request of the Planning Board so that there won’t be 3 uses on one property that presently exists”. (resolution marked A-3- Planning Board resolution dated 3/3/82)

 

Mr. Bautz said regarding Beeman Place, lot 18, the construction of the bulb between 17 and 18 – does that get straightened out there?

 

Mr. Matarazzo stated we propose that cul-de-sac will remain as shown on exhibit A-1, on the south side.  On Shearman, both sides of the cul-de-sac bubble will be straightened out.  On the south side, if we were to remove the bubble, that would create insufficient frontage for those two lots.

 

Mr. Ferriero asked what if you removed the cul-de-sac but did not change the right-of-way?

 

Mr. Matarazzo said that would be a possibility.

 

Mr. Stern said by removing the bubble it would be less maintenance on the municipalities part.

 

Mr. Rilee said he has several questions, especially regarding the detention basin report, but will defer to further in the hearings.

 

PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions on the testimony.

 

Robert Puzio, 9 Beeman Place, Lot 17, was sworn in.  He asked on lots 1 and 2, the slope comes toward my property.  I get pooling in my lot during heavy rains.  Will the water running off the downspouts go out to the detention basin, or will it come down towards my property?

 

Mr. Matarazzo stated there is an existing ridge that runs in a southerly direction.  The roof leaders will be directed towards the roadway.  The area tributary to the west will become smaller.  It is part of the engineer’s recommendations that we will put drywells on each lot, which we will do.  All the roof leaders will be tied into underground seepage pits. 

 

Mr. Puzio asked, regarding traffic flow, a major concern is that at the route 10 intersection, Shearman is very narrow and when someone makes a turn from rt. 10, the car coming in from Rt. 10 has to almost stop. Are there plans to change that?

 

Mr. Matarazzo said no. 

 

Ray Statlander, 35 South Hillside Avenue, stepped forward and said his concern is also about water.  There is no catch basin on Hillside Avenue at my end.  There are no sewers from the high school driveway to Route 10 that removes surface water from rain. There is a catch basin on the west side of Hillside Avenue that is occasionally cleaned by the town.  It goes under the road and comes back and runs into my driveway.  As we removed trees and lay more concrete, I assume there will be more water on Hillside Avenue.  I have a lot of water that I deal with, and I can only assume I will have more.  Will there ever be a continuation of the sewers that are by the high school? 

 

Mr. Rilee said that is a County road and it is a County issue.  If you contact me, we will have our engineer look at it and address it with the County.

 

Mr. Matarazzo stated the ridge line runs along the property.  There is currently an area that drains toward Hillside Avenue, and from our site, the water splits in two directions.  There is a high point in the middle of the property.  Some of that water from the easterly half of the site drains to the south, and the other half drains toward Rt. 10.  As part of this development the drainage area that flows toward South Hillside Avenue will be reduced.  The remainder will drain toward the proposed roadway.  This project will meet the requirements for stormwater runoff. 

 

Donna Francis, 11 Beeman Place, stepped forward.  Regarding the basin, is a variance required for lot size?

 

Mr. Stern said the variance is for the basin setback from the adjoining property which is required to be 20 feet.  There was testimony that they feel they comply.  This is a detention basin lot and the Board hasn’t determined the ownership at this time.  It is up to the Township to determine whether or not the Township will accept it.

 

Ms. Francis said we don’t need to have this.  Our taxes are so high already.  On Lot 19, I have full ownership of the driveway.

 

Mr. Matarazzo said it is only for Lot 20. 

 

Ms. Francis said I don ‘t know what the 1982 resolution has to do with this.  There were also 4 buildings. Regarding my driveway, will I have a say on where my driveway will be?

 

Mr. Matarazzo said the applicants will contact you and work out the best scenario, as well as the other owners.  You will probably have access on the new road.

 

Ms. Francis asked what the colors on the exhibit mean?

 

Mr. Matarazzo stated dark green is the existing wooded area.  The planer recommended a conservation easement along that frontage.

 

Ms. Francis wondered who would maintain that?

 

Mr. Rilee said it would be left in its natural state.

 

Ms. Francis said there is a construction trailer there.  Can that be moved?

 

Mr. Matarazzo said the planner recommends it be moved as far away as possible.

 

Mr. Matarazzo said the right-of-way is what it is.  We are proposing 30 feet of pavement, and that is consistent with the existing pavement on Beeman Place.

 

Ms. Francis asked during construction, there are a lot of children in the area, can we request that the construction vehicles use the Hillside Avenue driveway?

 

Mr. Ferriero said that is not realistic because the detention basin is the first lot to be constructed.

 

Mr. Rilee said we will keep that in mind during the hearings.

 

Alice Inge, 6 Beeman Place, stepped forward.  She asked how the trucks will come in.  There is no way they can come in off of Rt. 10 on Shearman.  There was an indication years ago that they were going to widen Shearman.  There is a bus stop where Shearman comes off Rt. 10.  You cannot get the bus and another car in there.  There is no way the construction equipment will fit.

 

Ms. Inge asked what the cost of maintaining the basin would be?

 

Mr. Stern said that is not known at this time.

 

Ms. Inge asked if there are plans for mosquito control with the basin.

 

Mr. Matarazzo stated the basin design is a dry basin and it would fill up during a storm event and then drain out.  The intention is that there won’t be standing water in the basin.

 

Ms. Inge asked if the driveway to the basin would continue up into the property.

 

Mr. Matarazzo said no, it will end at the basin.

 

Charles Alpaugh stepped forward.  Regarding the conservation easement, is that set in stone?

 

Mr. Germinario said the easement would go with the land and couldn’t be released except by court order.

 

Mr. Alpaugh asked if there will be a retaining wall at the back of the houses.

 

Mr. Matarazzo said no.

 

No one else stepped forward.

 

PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED

 

Mr. Sweeney suggested the applicant meet with the professional staff to address the reports before the next hearing.

 

Mr. Inglesino agreed with the suggestion.

 

The application was carried to 10/3/07.  The applicant agreed to an extension of time if needed.

 

NEW BUSINESS

 

Review and recommendation to Council on Ordinance 18-07

 

Discussion.  Mr. Stern concluded the ordinance is consistent with the Master plan in promoting a desirable visual environment.

 

Mr. Rilee said about half the towns have put in some form of zoning requirement to control the pods.  We don’t want to see the pods sitting for a long period of time with no regulation.  A majority of the council members agree to move forward with this.

 

Discussion

 

Mr. Rilee made a motion that the ordinance is consistent with the Master Plan.  Mr. Behrens seconded. 

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes.

 

Resolution to appoint Finelli Consulting Engineers as consultant on an as-needed basis

 

Mr. Stern said there is a conflict of interest for Mr. Ferriero for one new application that has been submitted at the corner of Commerce Boulevard and Righter Road, and the township recommends utilizing Finelli consulting engineers to review the application.

 

Mr. Bautz made a motion to approve the appointment at the same rates as Mr. Ferriero.  Mr. Alford seconded. 

 

Roll as follows:  Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Mr. DeFillippo, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schultz, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes.

 

The meeting was adjourned by motion at 9:40 p.m.

 

 

                                                                        Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary