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 Meyer presiding. After a salute to the Flag, the Chairman read
the “Open Public Meetings Act”.
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Scott
Meyer, Larry Sweeney, Jim Rilee, Michael Shadiack, Joseph Schwab, Gary Behrens,
Teresa DeVincentis, Lisa Voyce, Richard Zoschak..
ABSENT: Steven Alford, Charles
Bautz.
Professional Staff present: Tom
Germinario, Russell Stern, Lorraine Mullen for Dolores DeMasi, Secretary.
RESOLUTIONS
S-10-04 – ETEL REALTY –
SITE PLAN FOR RETAIL LOCATED ON RT. 10/MARY LOUISE AVE. BLOCK 6303, LOTS 4
& 5 IN B-2 ZONE
ROXBURY
TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION
OF MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: February 2, 2005
Memorialized: March 2, 2005
IN
THE MATTER OF ETEL REALTY, LLC
PRELIMINARY
SITE PLAN APPROVAL
BLOCK
6303, LOTS 6 & 7
APPLICATION
NO. S-11-04
WHEREAS,
Etel Realty, LLC (hereinafter known as the "Applicant") applied to
the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the "Planning
Board") for preliminary site plan approval on February 2, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the
application was deemed complete on May 5, 2004;
and
WHEREAS,
public hearings were held on 6/16/04, 1/5/05, 1/19/05 and 2/2/05, notice being required, at which time the Planning
Board rendered its decision on the application; and
WHEREAS, it
being determined that the Applicant has complied with all of the rules,
regulations and requirements of the Roxbury Township Land Development Ordinance
and that all of the required provisions of the compliance have been filed with
the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, the
Planning Board has made the following findings and conclusions based upon the
testimony and documentary evidence produced by the Applicant and by the Planning
Board staff:
1. The subject property consists of a total of 57,953
square feet (1.33 acres) located in the B-2 Highway Business District. Lot 7 contains
an existing 5,230 square foot building and associated improvements occupied by Crib City. The building
has a pre-existing nonconforming front yard setback along Mary Louise Avenue of 38.9 feet (40 feet required). Lot 7 is developed with a structure formerly occupied by
a locksmith and tattoo parlor. Both sites are in substantial noncompliance
with the Township’s design regulations.
Adjoining the site to the north is a B-2 Highway
Business zoned parcel developed with retail. To the northwest and west are
developed single family lots zoned R-3 Residential District. One dwelling
contains the office of a chiropractor. Located across Mary Louise Avenue is Ledgewood Mall zoned B-3 Planned Shopping Center District.
The Applicant seeks site plan approval to construct
3,930 square foot addition to the existing Crib City. The existing locksmith/tattoo building will be
demolished. Floor area ratio will be 15.8% (20% permitted). The façade of the
existing building will be renovated so that both new and old structures will
appear as one comprehensively designed building. Existing impervious coverage
will be reduced from 66.6% to 53.49% (60% permitted). One of two existing curb
cuts along Route 10 will be eliminated which results in a new landscaped area
along the highway. Existing pavement between Crib City and Route
10 and Mary Louise Avenue will be eliminated.
2. In support of its application, the Applicant
submitted preliminary site plans consisting of 11 sheets prepared by Bohler
Engineering bearing a revision date of 1/25/05. The
Applicant also submitted architectural plans prepared by Matthew Evans bearing
a revision date of 11/15/04. Reports concerning the application were submitted
by the Township Planner, Russell Stern, dated 6/10/04 (updated 12/30/04 and
2/1/05) and 12/30/04 (updated 1/31/05) and by the Planning Board Engineer,
Thomas Bodolsky, dated 6/10/04 and 12/29/04.
3. At the public hearing of 6/16/04, Gary Mizzone,
Esq. represented the Applicant. Grayson Murray testified regarding the
existing site conditions. He stated that there is an existing 5,200 square
foot Crib and Teen City store and a vacant 2,300 square foot structure which
was formally a tattoo parlor. Access to the property is by two curb cuts at
Route 10 and two curb cuts at Mary Louise Avenue. A colored rendering of the
site plan was marked as Exhibit A-1. Mr. Murray stated that the Applicant
posed a significant upgrade to the site which would involve demolition of the
vacant structure and construction of a retail building addition north of the
Crib and Teen City. Prospective tenants would include Dunkin Donuts, T-Mobile,
1-800-Mattress, and Kinkos. All deliveries to the site would be by box truck.
Several board members voiced objection to any 24-hour operation at the site
given the close proximity to the residential district. Mr. Murray testified
that the number of curb cuts on Route 10 and Mary Louise Avenue would be
reduced to one at each location. A right-in, right-out driveway is proposed on
Route 10 and a two-way in and out driveway on Mary Louise. Traffic circulation
on the site would be clockwise around the building and half perimeter
counterclockwise between Route 10 and Mary Louise Avenue. There was discussion
regarding various options for improving the plan by revising it and
deintensifying the development. The hearing was opened to the public and there
being no public comments, the public portion was closed and the meeting was
adjourned.
4. The public hearing of the application was
continued on 1/5/05, at which time Gary Mizzone, Esq. again represented the
Application. He indicated that, in response to the Board’s previous comments,
the proposed addition to the Crib and Teen City building had been reduced in
size to approximately 3,900 square feet. A rendered version of the site and
landscape improvements plan dated 11/29/04 was marked as Exhibit A-3. Grayson
Murray, P.E. continued his testimony and indicated that the proposed retail
space would encompass approximately 9,100 square feet, with three building
entrances adjoining Route 10. He indicated that a DOT permit would be required
for the Route 10 driveway. The witness testified that 40 parking stalls were
now being proposed, which would require a design waiver from the ordinance
standard of 41 spaces. He indicated that the 40 spaces would satisfy the
operational needs of the facility. While the site would accommodate WB40
vehicles, only box truck deliveries are anticipated to the site. He also
indicated that a design waiver would be needed for parking setback from Route
10. He noted that the revised plans provided an increased buffer area to the
adjoining R-3 zone and reduced parking and impervious coverage in the front
yard. He testified that impervious coverage had been reduced from 66% to 53.5%
in the revised plan, which was now complying with the ordinance limit of 60%.
He stated there would be an additional 7,200 square feet of green area on the
property and that stormwater runoff would consequently be reduced. At the
conclusion of Mr. Murray’s testimony, the hearing was opened to public comments
and, there being none, the public portion was closed and the hearing was
adjourned.
5. The hearing of the application was continued at
the Board’s meeting of 1/19/05, at which time the Applicant was again
represented by Gary Mizzone, Esq. Mr. Stern advised the Board that the
application now complied with the required 35 foot buffer to the residential
district and Applicant had also agreed to compliance with the township
ordinance limiting hours of operation adjoining a residential district.
Grayson Murray testified regarding the rationale for the three design waivers
involving the number of parking spaces, the setback of the parking from the
Route 10 right-of-way, and the width of the parking and islands. The hearing
was opened to public comments and Ken Abrahamsen of 60 Riggs Avenue requested
that fencing be installed between the site and the residential area to the
west. Applicant agreed to install chain link fence. Mike Adrusano of 9 Riggs
Avenue, commented favorably on the site plan.
6. The public hearing of the application concluded at
the Board’s meeting of 2/2/05, at which time Gary Mizzone, Esq. again
represented the Applicant. Matthew Evans, the Applicant’s architect testified
regarding the expanded addition to the loading dock area and agreed to submit
drawings for same to Mr. Stern for his review and approval. The Applicant
agreed to compliance with hours of operation ordinance Section 13-7.21A03 as a
condition of approval. Mr. Matthews introduced as Exhibit A-4 a rendered
architectural drawing of the proposed building. The outstanding items in the
reports of Messrs. Stern and Bodolsky were reviewed and the Applicant agreed to
comply therewith.
The Chairman then opened the hearing to public
comments, and there being none closed the public portion of the meeting. A
motion was made to conditionally approve the application based on the
recommendations contained in the reports of Messrs. Stern and Bodolsky, as
modified and supplemented in the course of the hearings, which motion was duly
seconded and favorably acted upon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve the
preliminary site plan as described in the drawings referenced hereinabove. In
connection with this approval the following variance and design waiver relief
is hereby granted.
A. A design waiver is granted from Section 13-8.701B
as 41 parking spaces are required while 40 are proposed. The Board has no
objection to the waiver as the new site plan represents a significant
improvement of the property.
B. A design waiver is granted from Section 13-8.702F
which requires a 20 foot setback from the road right-of-way to a parking area
(including access drive). The Applicant proposes a 12.51 setback from Route 10
and an increased setback along Mary Louise Avenue from 7 to 14.5± feet. The Board finds this relief to be justified
because the current proposal represents a substantial improvement over existing
conditions.
C. A design waiver is granted from Section 13-8.707F
as light intensity exceeds 0.3 foot candles along the Mary Louise Avenue
right-of-way. The Board finds there is no detriment associated with this minor
encroachment.
D. A design waiver is granted from Section 13-8.804B
as the street trees are not located within the Route 10 and Mary Louise Avenue
right-of-way. The Board has no objection as long as these trees are not
classified as replacement trees or parking lot trees.
This approval is subject to the following terms and
conditions, which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the
Board=s signature of the preliminary site plan drawings:
1. Lots 6 and 7 shall be merged, and proof of such
merge shall be submitted to the Board prior to final site plan approval.
2. Site furniture shall be provided. Bench, trash
receptacles and ash urn should be provided along with details. Color shall be
specified to complement the building.
3. Rear entries shall be better detailed on the site
plan and grading plan and reflect stairs, railing, sidewalk to the loading area
and spot grades. Engineering and architectural drawings are in conflict with
each other.
4. A railing detail shall be provided and color
finish identified.
5. Fire Zone pavement marking and signs shall be
provided as specified by the Township Fire Official.
6. Board on board fence shall be further detailed.
Specify minimum one inch overall.
7. Plans shall be reviewed to relocate the
handicapped parking stalls to the front of the building where they were located
on the previous plan, and to substitute two regular parking stalls and a
planted end-island at the handicapped stall location currently depicted.
8. General colors shall be depicted on the
architectural drawing. Roof and awning materials should also be identified.
New stucco and brick should be labeled on the rear elevation. A rear
loading/service entrance shall be provided for tenant A.
9. Pursuant to Section 13-8.706A, the engineering and
architectural drawings shall note: “Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be
architecturally screened in a manner compatible with building architecture.”
The architectural drawing depicts full screening. However, the notation should
be provided.
10. A freestanding sign detail shall be noted “Not To
Exceed 75 Square Feet.” A side sign elevation shall be provided with the width
dimensions.
11. Wall sign width shall be corrected. The
architectural drawing specifies each wall sign at 3’-0” x 17’-7” and complying
with the design regulations. When scaled, the signs actually range from 12’-9”
to 18’-9”.
12. Percentage of sign area to wall shall be
verified.
13. The architectural drawing identifies a variance
for number and area of wall signs. Actually, the area and number are in
compliance with the ordinance. The chart on the drawing shall be revised
accordingly.
14. Sign colors and method of illumination should be
specified on the plans.
15. Pursuant to Section 13-8.903N, the freestanding
and wall sign details shall be dimensioned with a minimum 2” wide border.
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.
17. The signage table on sheet 4 shall be updated to
include all signs on the east and south facades. A freestanding sign detail
shall be depicted on the engineering drawing.
18. A detail of the trash/recycling enclosure gates
shall be provided depicting solid board fence mounted on a steel frame.
19. Pursuant to Section 13-8.501A, a sewer capacity
allocation shall be verified/obtained from the Township Engineer/Director of
Public Works, and authorization by the Governing Body, as needed, shall be
obtained as a condition of approval.
20. Existing on-site wells should be located and
depicted on the drawings. It shall be sealed, if they are not to be utilized,
in accordance with State regulations.
21. Existing on-site wells to remain in use shall be
tested in accordance with Health Department requirements. Inaccessible well heads
shall be redrilled if such wells are to remain in use.
22. The architectural drawings depict decorative
lights along the north, each and south building elevations. Details shall be
provided.
23. Building code requires wall lights at the three
rear doors. Such lighting shall be provided on the drawings and a detail
provided. Wall light details shall also be provided. Depict wall lights on
architectural elevations. Their location may be in conflict with the building
design and shall be adjusted accordingly.
24. Light pole and fixture color should be
specified. Light pole and fixture color shall match building cover. Identify
building color.
25. Freestanding lights shall align with parking
stall striping.
26. As deemed necessary and directed by the Township
Engineer, snow fencing for tree preservation shall be installed along the limit
of disturbance line prior to tree removal and grading. The timing and specific
location of the snow fence installation shall be determined by the Township Engineer.
Such language should be noted on the engineering drawings.
27. A tree removal permit shall be obtained prior to
tree removal.
28. Pursuant to Section 13-11.13c, a performance
guarantee shall be submitted in an amount not to exceed 120% of the cost of
replacement trees prior to the issuance of a Tree Removal Permit.
29. The transition buffer along the westerly and
westerly portion of the northerly property line shall be heavily planted and/or
planted and fenced in accordance with Section 13-8.806.2 and 13-7.21A01. A
combination of fence and landscaping is required. Extension of fence along Lot
2 shall be provided.
30. Landscaping shall be provided by the southwest
building corner to soften/screen this area. Some sidewalk shall be installed
in this area, as required by the Township Planner.
31. Exterior mechanical equipment, including
transformers, shall be located and screened (Section 13-8.807K).
32. The method of treating the ground plane within
the westerly wooded area shall be addressed. A combination of topsoil/seeding
and shrub clusters as well as mulched beds shall be employed as required by the
Township Planner.
33. A copy of the landscape guarantee shall be
provided as a condition of final site plan approval (13-8.805D).
34. The Township Planner shall be contacted for
additional landscape comments.
35. A revised landscape plan will be submitted and
subject to the review and approval of the Township Planner.
36. The loading dock addition shown on the
architectural drawings shall be depicted on the engineering drawings. Floor
area ratio and coverage calculations with this addition shall be verified.
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.
38. Landscaping shall be provided between Route 10
and the building in front of the building sidewalk.
39. The use of tractor/trailers on this site is
prohibited.
40. A perforated pipe from the building to the
parking lot within a trench of clean gravel shall be provided to the East and
South of the building to provide some recharge of roof runoff.
41. The proposed sight triangle shall be dedicated
prior to final approval. The Planner should determine if the proposed ash
plantings within the triangle are satisfactory.
42. A phasing plan satisfactory to the Board Engineer
shall be submitted.
43. Applicant shall determine what is serviced by the
existing electric manhole in front of the existing buildings. The location of
the underground lines shall be shown. If there is an easement affiliated with
this installation, it shall be identified. Should additional investigation
reveal that the utility lines are of public nature or are affected by proposed
improvements, plans shall be adjusted accordingly to the satisfaction of the
Board Engineer.
44. The following construction mitigation measures
are hereby made applicable to this project:
A. Elimination of
anti-vandalism horns on equipment.
B. Work hours shall be limited
from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No work shall take place
on Sundays or holidays except on an emergency basis. The holidays which shall
be observed for purposes of this condition shall be New Year's Day, President's
Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving and Christmas.
The Applicant shall maintain personnel on site to whom incidents of noise
disturbance shall be reported and said personnel shall be authorized to take
measures to minimize said disturbances. As used in this section, “work” shall
include both interior and exterior construction.
C. Anti-litter regulations
shall be imposed on site.
D. The Applicant shall
establish regulations for the safe and proper transfer and transport of fuel on
site.
E. Tracking mats shall be
located by the Morris County Soil Conservation District and the Township
Engineer in such places as to minimize the tracking of dirt and mud onto Route
10.
F. Clean-up and wash-down of trucks
and equipment shall be required before leaving the construction site.
G. Adequate provisions for
safe control of employee parking including employees of the contractors and
sub-contractors shall be required on site during construction.
H. During construction, all
construction traffic shall enter and exit the site exclusively from Route 10.
I. Violation of any of these
construction mitigation measures may result in a stop work order, which order
shall remain in full force and effect until the condition is remedied to the
satisfaction of the Township Engineer.
45. 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 approval.
46. Pursuant to Section 13-7.829, the Applicant shall
pay a mandatory development fee equal to one percent (1.0%) 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 of occupancy.
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.
48. Applicant shall submit annual recycling tonnage
reports to the Municipal Recycling Coordinator.
49. Applicant shall meet with the Municipal Recycling
Coordinator to review all recycling requirements.
50. Drawings shall identify areas for trash and
recycling enclosures and potential future expansion of these enclosures with
corresponding details.
51. In the event that future additional dumpster
enclosures are needed for the site, then upon the approval of the Zoning
Officer, they shall be constructed.
52. This approval is subject to the issuance of a
major soil moving permit.
53. This approval is subject to all outside agency
review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.
54. 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.
55. This approval is subject to the payment of all
appropriate fees and taxes, including sewer fees.
56. Revised plans shall be submitted within 60 days
and must be deemed complete to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer within 6
months of the date of memorialization. Failure on the part of the Applicant to
satisfy this or any other condition of this resolution will result in referral
of this matter back to the Planning Board for purposes of deeming the approval
null and void.
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting
of 2/2/05.
Mr. Sweeney made a motion to
approve the resolution. Ms. DeVincentis seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Sweeney,
yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes; Mr. Zoschak,
abstain; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes.
S-2-05 – CLEARVIEW CINEMA –
AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR THEATER LOCATED ON RT. 10/MARY LOUISE AVE., BLOCK 5004,
LOTS 7 & 8 IN B-3 ZONE
ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD
RESOLUTION
OF MEMORIALIZATION
Approved: February 2, 2005
Memorialized: March 2, 2005
IN
THE MATTER OF CLEARVIEW CINEMA
AMENDED
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVAL
BLOCK
5004, LOTS 7 and 8
APPLICATION
NO. S-2-05
WHEREAS,
Clearview Cinema (hereinafter known as the "Applicant") applied to
the Roxbury Township Planning Board (hereinafter known as the "Planning
Board") for amended preliminary site plan approval on February 2, 2005;
and
WHEREAS, the
application was deemed complete on_December 21,2004; and
WHEREAS,
public hearings were held on 1/19/05 and 2/2/05, notice being required, at
which time the Planning Board rendered its decision on the application; and
WHEREAS, it
being determined that the Applicant has complied with all of the rules,
regulations and requirements of the Roxbury Township Land Development Ordinance
and that all of the required provisions of the compliance have been filed with
the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, the
Planning Board has made the following findings and conclusions based upon the
testimony and documentary evidence produced by the Applicant and by the
Planning Board staff:
1. The subject property consists of a total of 31.87
acres (1,388,126+/- s.f.) located in the B-3 Planned Shopping Center District.
The site is currently developed with various retail and office uses including a
movie theater, four story office building, one story building with various uses
(offices, day care, martial arts studio), McDonald’s restaurant, three story
office and bank building and various retail stores in two separate buildings.
On 4/5/00 (memorialized 4/26/00), the Applicant
received unanimous Planning Board approval for preliminary site plan to remove
the existing vacant two story bank building and construct an expansion of the
existing movie theater and various site improvements. Theater screens would be
increased from 10 to 16 and seating increased from 1,876 to 2,627 seats.
Theater floor area would be increased from 34,768 square feet to 58,786 square
feet. The existing exterior box office would be eliminated and located
entirely indoors. Lot coverage would be decreased from 88.2% to 87.7%.
Wetlands and wetland transition areas would not be impacted.
In
connection with this approval, the Planning Board granted relief allowing 4
façade signs and allowing 1,494 parking stalls while 2,075 spaces required.
All
conditions of the preliminary site plan approval were addressed and the
drawings were signed in August 2001. The two-story bank was subsequently
demolished. No further construction activity has occurred.
The
Applicant now seeks an amended preliminary site plan approval for a smaller
theater expansion to create three new auditoriums. One of the auditoriums will
be utilized as a convention/party space until the demand is present for movie
use. Activities utilizing the party space are directly connected to viewing
the movies. The party space will not be a sole/independent destination use.
The
application increases the residential buffer to the east and decreases number
of seats, floor area, impervious coverage and parking requirement.
|
|
Approved
|
Proposed
|
|
Residential
Buffer
|
30’
|
66.45’
|
|
Trash
enclosure setback to R-3 District
|
30’
|
60’
|
|
Floor
Area ratio
|
29.6%
|
29.0%
|
|
Lot
Coverage
|
87.5%
|
87.0%
|
|
Proposed
parking spaces based on proposal
|
1,487
|
1,487
|
|
Parking
requirement based on proposal
|
1,984
|
1,926
|
|
Number
of total seats
|
2,336
|
1,852
(two auditoriums and party spaces)
2,113*(three
auditoriums)
|
|
Wall
signs
|
4
|
3
|
2. In support of its application, the Applicant
submitted amended site plans consisting of 11 sheets prepared by Maser
Consulting bearing revision dates of 9/7/04 and 11/9/04. The Applicant also
submitted architectural plans prepared by Furman & Furman bearing revision
dates of 2/5/04 and 11/1/04. Reports concerning the application were submitted
by the Township Planner, Russell Stern, dated 1/12/05 (updated 2/2/05) and by
the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 1/14/05. Reports
concerning the application were also submitted by the Township Fire Official,
Michael Pellek, dated 1/14/05, and the Township Police Department’s Traffic
Safety Bureau, Ptl. Gregg Prendergast, dated 1/13/05.
3. At the public hearing of 1/19/05, the Applicant
was represented by Joel Kobert, Esq. Mr. Kobert indicated that the bulk of the
Applicant’s testimony would relate to altered architectural elements. He
stated that there would be no change in the parking configuration. He also
mentioned that the Applicant was proposing a party room sized as a theater if
needed for theater use in the future. The use of that party room would be tied
to the movie theater and its patrons. The hearing was opened to public
comments and there being none the public portion was closed and the hearing was
adjourned.
4. At the hearing of 2/2/05, the Applicant was again
represented by Joel Kobert, Esq. Mr. Kobert indicated that the overall parking
elements were not changed and that the building size had been reduced. John
Hathaway, the Applicant’s Vice President of Facilities and Real Estate,
testified that there would be no changes in the hours of operations, nor in the
number of employees, nor in the hours of delivery. He indicated that the party
room would cater to children’s birthday parties which occur on the average of
15-20 per month. He anticipated no additional traffic, since the party room
would be utilized solely for patrons of the theater. He affirmed that the
restrictions listed in Mr. Kobert’s letter of 1/11/05 to Russell Stern would be
complied with. He stated there would be no game or arcade machines in the
party room, and that the same employees would service it with the same
concessions. He stated that the Applicant was requesting that the Board
approve the option of converting the party room to a movie theater auditorium
within 4 years of the amended approval. Paul Sterbenz, the Applicant’s
Engineer testified that the amended plan would double the setback to
residential properties and reduce impervious coverage. The number of screens
in the theater would remain at 10. Richard Fuerman introduced Exhibit A-1, a
rendered version of the architectural floor plan dated 8/5/04. He testified
that 2 existing theaters at the mezzanine level would be removed and that the
addition area would be utilized for 2 larger theaters and a party room. He
indicated there would also be an expanded lobby area and that the ticket booth
would be relocated indoors. He identified as Exhibit A-2 a rendered version of
the building elevations (Drawing A3) dated 8/5/04 and discussed the building
materials to be utilized. He identified as Exhibit A-3 a rendered version of
the front entrance view (Drawing A4) dated 8/5/04. The witness testified that
the signage area would remain the same as previously approved but that 3 signs
would be utilized instead of 4 with the façade sign on the westerly elevation
being removed. He identified as Exhibit A-4 a materials and finishes board dated
1/19/05. With regard to phasing, Mr. Sterbenze agreed to develop a phasing
plan acceptable to Mr. Bodolsky with regard to safety issues involving
operations of the theater during construction. He also agreed that, pursuant
to the suggestion of the Municipal Traffic Safety Bureau, a second pedestrian
crosswalk would be located on the southern end of the parking field. The
hearing was opened to public comments and Alice Eng of 5 Beman Place commented
that the one-way driveway in front of the theater was a good idea. Michael
Womer of 4 Beman Place expressed concern about installation of rumble strips
creating noise for adjoining residences. Mr. Sterbenze responded that the type
of rumble strip utilized and the velocity of the vehicles would not be such as
to create appreciable noise. Timothy Eng of 6 Beman Place commented favorably
on the amended site plan. At the end of the public comments Mr. Kobert on
behalf of the Applicant agreed that, if the Applicant intended to convert the
party room to a theater auditorium, it would seek a further amended site plan
approval from the Board.
There being no further public comments, the Chairman
closed the public portion of the meeting. A motion was made to conditionally
approve the application based on the recommendations contained in the reports
of Messrs. Stern and Bodolsky, as modified and supplemented in the course of
the hearings, which motion was duly seconded and favorably acted upon.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Board does hereby approve the
amended site plan as described in the drawings referenced hereinabove. In
connection with this approval the following variance and design waiver relief
is hereby granted.
A. The Board approves the modification of the
variance granted from Ordinance Sections 13-8.905B and 13-8.913D1 under the
Resolution of 4/26/00 with respect to signage. Under the amended plan, sign
area will remain the same but the number of signs will be reduced from 4 to 3.
B. All other variance and design waiver relief granted
by the Resolution of 4/26/00 is reconfirmed as the Board finds that the
rationale for such relief is not altered by the amended site plan.
This approval is subject to the following terms and
conditions, which shall, unless otherwise stated, be satisfied prior to the
Board’s signature of the amended site plan drawings:
1. The Engineering drawing shall be corrected to
specify 2,113 seats rather than 2,103 seats.
2. The following use/restrictions shall apply to the
convention/party space.
The Applicant shall utilize the location designated on
the plans (and similar in size to a theater) for parties, corporate events, and
community activities.
The Party Space will be constructed according to the
specifications of the other theaters, but will not have the seats and will be
sheetrocked and painted. It will be operated by the Applicant and all events
therein shall be related to attendance at the movies.
Restrictions on Use:
A. Hours – same as theater hours of operation.
B. Refreshments – similar to refreshments at
concession. No alcoholic beverages served or allowed on the premises.
C. Activities within Party Space will be supervised
by theater staff personnel.
D. Events will be scheduled to provide sufficient
time for groups to depart prior to commencing another event.
E. No additional signage will be displayed except for
internal directional signs.
F. The number attending an event shall not be greater
than the seating capacity and parking requirements.
G. Ingress shall be from the theater lobby, with no
separate entrance from the building exterior.
H. There shall be no game/arcade machines in this
area.
3. Any future conversion of the party room to a
theater auditorium will require amended site plan approval.
4. The drawings shall clearly distinguish between
proposed concrete and Belgian block curb. Concrete curb will only be provided
adjacent to the main building sidewalk.
5. The drainage ditch south of the theater shall be
cleaned and stabilized prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
6. As previously required, an approximate length of
340’ along the northern portion of Commerce Boulevard shall be depicted for
dedication to the Township to create a 33’ half width right-of-way (dedication
prior to final approval).
7. All conditions of the 4/26/00 Resolution shall
remain in full effect to the extent not inconsistent herewith.
8. As noted in the preliminary site plan resolution,
“There shall be no garbage pickups from the trash enclosure prior to 9:00 a.m.
9. The Application shall comply with Sections 13-4.6
(off-site improvements), 13-4.7 (off-tract improvements), 13-7.829 (mandatory
development fee), as required by the 4/26/00 Resolution.
10. Pursuant to Section 13-8.501E, the Applicant
shall obtain sewer capacity allocation from the Township Engineer and
authorization by the Governing Body for the addition as required by the 4/26/00
Resolution.
11. As required by the Township Planner additional
architectural accents shall be incorporated to help visually reduce the scale
of the walls. The 4/26/00 Resolution required a color band along the Route 10
elevation.
12. The architectural drawings shall note that
rooftop mechanical equipment shall be architecturally screened in a manner
compatible with the building architecture.
13. Access opening in the rooftop screening shall be
depicted on the drawings. These openings shall not be visible to adjoining
properties.
14. A canopy will be provided above the main lobby
entrance. No canopy will be provided along party room.
15. Exterior signage shall be dimensioned.
16. A crosswalk shall be provided across from
southerly lobby entrance with new sidewalk connecting to the proposed sidewalk.
17. Existing sidewalk along the westerly (Commerce
Boulevard) location shall be increased to an 8-foot width so pedestrians
leaving the theater aren’t forced out into the traffic aisle. Plan shall note
that damaged existing sidewalk leading from the westerly exists shall be
replaced.
18. The trash/recycling enclosure shall be revised to
depict a side door to the recycling areas as was shown on the approved
drawings.
19. The trash/recycling enclosure gate shall be
constructed with a solid board fence mounted on a steel frame.
20. The color of the trash receptacle detail shall be
revised to complement the building.
21. Instead of painted block, a decorative split
faced block shall be provided with a color to match the building. The 4/26/00
Resolution required treatment consistent with the building architecture.
22. Manufacturer catalog cuts on all wall mounted and
canopy/soffit lights shall be provided.
23. Applicant shall correct the height of wall lights
specified on sheet 7 at 10 feet, which are in conflict with Sheet A-3 at
approximately 15 feet. Wall lights must be correctly depicted on the
architectural drawings.
24. Additional landscaping shall be provided along
lots 3, 6 and 7 to enhance buffering to the adjoining residential properties.
Shade trees shall be included.
25. The planter to the west of the main building
entrance shall be increased to an approximate 8-foot width. Consequently, the
sidewalk will be reduced to roughly 15 feet.
26. The Applicant may modify the landscape plan with
regard to shade trees blocking some of the front marquee and a door.
27. ‘PM’ shall be specified at a 7-8 foot height.
28. The Township Planner shall be contacted for
additional comments regarding landscaping. The landscape plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the Township Planner.
29. The Applicant shall address any issues that the
Board Engineer has regarding the phasing of construction. If there will be
conflicts between the public and construction activities, the theater or
portions thereof will be closed.
30. The plan will be revised per the Board Engineer’s
comments to provide additional turning radii for vehicles that will be
collecting and removing refuse from the compactor.
31. The plan will be revised to address the layout of
the refuse enclosure to assure accessibility by truck to the various containers.
32. The landing behind the curb at the drop-off area
shall be dimensioned as 5 feet in width.
33. The proposed “wallpak” wall mounted units shall
be of shoebox type. Discrepancies in manufacturers calls between sheets 7 and
8 (Lithonia vs. Kim) shall be rectified.
34. Condition 43 of the 4/26/00 Resolution called for
the depressed curb across from the theater to be widened to 8 feet. The
current plans which revise the cross-walk location, depict a 4 foot wide
sidewalk receiving a 10 foot wide cross-walk. This sidewalk and the associate
curb ramp shall be widened to match the handicap aisle width of 8 feet since
appreciable pedestrian traffic may utilize this route.
35. The entire area in front of the new building
addition shall be marked, painted, and the appropriate signs be installed to
create a “No Parking Zone.”
36. The trash compactor and recycling bin shall be
located at least 15 feet from the building so as to not constitute a fire
hazard.
37. A note will be added to the architectural plans
indicating the building will be fully equipped with a fire sprinkler system.
38. All landscaping in the rear of the addition shall
be located and, if deemed by the Fire Official to interfere with the means of
egress from the exit doors, shall be relocated.
39. An additional pedestrian crosswalk shall be added
to aid pedestrians who are crossing from the main mall parking lot, on the
north side of the Route 10 access road to the Clearview Cinema lot.
40. Stop signs shall be added to the south end of
each of the Clearview Cinema parking aisles.
41. This approval is subject to the payment of all
appropriate fees and taxes.
42. Revised plans shall be submitted within 60 days
and must be deemed complete to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer within 6
months of the date of memorialization. Failure on the part of the Applicant to
satisfy this or any other condition of this resolution will result in referral
of this matter back to the Planning Board for purposes of deeming the approval null
and void.
The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing
is a true copy of the action taken by the Planning Board at its regular meeting
of 2/2/05.
Mr. Sweeney made a motion to
approve the resolution. Mr. Behrens seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Sweeney,
yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
AGENDA
S-10-05 - NEW CINGULAR
WIRELESS – CO-LOCATE TO MUNICIPAL TOWER ON PINE ST. BLOCK 7101, LOT 8 IN GU
ZONE
Ms Voyce said Cingular is a
client of her company, however she does not know the applicants.
Mr. Germinario said this is a
courtesy review. The Board’s roll here would be to just make recommendations.
There was no objection from the
applicant.
Attorney Michael Levine
represented the applicant. He said there is an existing tower on municipal
property on Pine Street. The tower currently has two carriers, and we propose
to co-locate our antennas. The antennas are connected to equipment cabinets,
which we propose to locate inside the existing fenced compound. We submitted
plans for this courtesy review.
John Colagranda, licensed
engineer stepped forward. He stated there is an existing compound located on
Lot 8. It currently has an equipment pad and shelter and tower on it. There
are two carriers on the tower, and we will be the third. The top carrier is at
elevation 178. Cingular proposes to install antennas at elevation 164. The
site is unmanned and there is no need for water or sewers. The tower is
monitored from a remote location, and there will be routine maintenance every 4
to 6 weeks. There is no lighting proposed. There will be no signage.
Mr. Rilee asked why so many
cabinets are needed.
Mr. Colagranda stated he doesn’t
know why they use 5 cabinets. It is standard for their sites. They are
outdoor stand-alone cabinets about 6 feet tall. They are weather-proof and
painted steel. They are typically light brown, but we will paint them to
conform with what is there now.
Mr. Zoschak asked why these
cabinets can’t be put inside a shelter.
Mr. Colagranda said Cingular
prefers to have the outdoor cabinets. It would take up more room if they were
inside a shelter.
Mr. Behrens asked if they are
utilizing any other towers in the Township.
Mr. Levine said that will be
discussed by a Cingular representative.
Me. Meyer asked about the
integrity of the existing pole.
Mr. Colagranda stated we did an
analysis, and found the structural capacity is at 70% of its ultimate
strength. The foundation reactions don’t exceed the design reactions. It is
not unreasonable to say another carrier could go on the tower at a lower
elevation.
Mr. Zoschak asked if the other
operators have to be shut off to put up these antennas.
Mr. Colagranda said not to his
knowledge.
Mr. Stern said if requested by
the Township Engineer, could you provide additional landscaping along the front
and wrap it around a little on the side?
M r. Levine said that would be
acceptable.
Gagan Bhandari stepped forward.
He referred to a map showing the coverage areas and described the area where
there is a gap in coverage that this antenna is intended to service. He said
there are 4 Cingular sites in Roxbury – Mooney Road, Mc Near site, Route 10,
and this one. Regarding the cabinets, there are 5 because Cingular has two
frequencies we are working with.
Mr. Rilee asked if that is
because of the merger.
Mr. Bhandari said A T & T had
two. It is because the spectrum is limited and we had to get another one. It
will stay that way.
DISCUSSION ON GEMINI SOIL
RELOCATION PERMIT
Attorney Larry Kron represented
the applicant and said they are here to request the Board to permit them to
commence the soil operation. There was a memo from Mr. Bodolsky and there are
5 items on the list that relate to the soil moving application. Those are the
ones we would address.
Mr. Rilee said most contingencies
are based on getting Planning Board approval. We were led to believe Gemini
can lose out on this expansion. Usually once there is Planning Board approval,
most sales or lease agreements are contingent on that.
Grayson Murray, engineer for the
applicant, was present and stated the testimony by Gemini was that they are
operating out of multiple facilities in Clifton. They need to consolidate to
this one space. The contract is written where phase I facility needs to be
available to Gemini. We need to start construction immediately. My
understanding is they need to be in 2005.
Paul Rosen, representative of the
property owner, was present and sworn in. He stated the urgency extends with the
leases Gemini has with their various facilities which expire in the 3rd
and 4th quarter. That is tied into how the lease is structured.
Mr. Bodolsky asked what can be
accomplished at this point in time with the soil moving. There is frozen
ground and a lot of cut and fill to do.
Mr. Murray said the tree clearing
would be initiated first, beside soil erosion measures. The soil movement is
critical. As far as frozen ground, that will be subject to review and
recommendations by the on-site geotechnical engineer. Topsoil stripping can be
achieved and stockpiled. If we get below frozen earth surface, and can get
into suitable subsurface soils, they can start with the mass earthwork
activity.
The applicant addressed the items
in Mr. Bodolsky’s report related to soil movement:
Condition A – Agreed – Mr.
Germinario said with respect to the conservation easement, the resolution
condition requires all the undisturbed area of the site be dedicated as a
conservation easement, however, a portion of that consists of regulated
freshwater wetlands and transition area, where the NJDEP requires its own
easement. We have agreed there will be a conservation easement with respect to
the wetlands and transition area that will include the township as a grantee on
that easement. There will be a separate upland easement that will address only
the Township’s easement. The drafts of both of those have been provided to me
are both basically acceptable. We just have to work out some tweaking of the
metes and bounds description. The documents will be formalized prior to
breaking ground.
Item 2 – Mr. Kron said we are in
the process of obtaining the easement, and will achieve it. Mr. Bukiet has
agreed. Mr. Germinario said he has reviewed the draft and has approved it. We
will have signature before breaking ground.
Item 56 – agreed
Item 75 – agreed
Item 85 – will provide
Item 114 – MCSCD – done
NJDEP –
has no bearing on application for TWA
NJDOT –
Mr. Kron said Mayor Zoschak wrote a letter to DOT dated 2/22/05 requesting a
letter to the Township or applicant indicating the major access permit
application will be approved provide it meets the requirements of the Highway
Access Code and that all technical issues are adequately addressed during the
review process. The Applicant received a letter from DOT stating it is the
intention of the department to approve the application provided it meets the
requirements of the NJ Sate Highway Access Management Code and that all
technical issue are addressed during the review process.
Mr. Murray said the DOT has
accepted our application for the major access permit and the street definition
and the scope of study submitted by Atlantic Traffic. They recognize the
impact to the intersections and are under their formal review process. What we
are waiting for is a technical review of the plans. They also do an analysis
based on the traffic impact study for fair share contributions. The traffic
study has determined no fair share contribution shall be required, but if they
determine it is, it is a matter of a financial contribution.
Mr. Bodolsky said traditionally,
we don’t allow a project to break ground until all conditions are satisfied.
There are two outstanding permits that have not been satisfied. What the
applicant is asking is that the Board go on faith that these two elements will
be procured. The Board may need to determine what happens if they are not. If
the major access is not permitted, we will have a performance bond for $72,000
for restoration of the site should something go wrong. If they don’t’ get the
treatment works approval, and they don’t get the major access, would the Board
be satisfied that they are protected?
Mr. Stern said there will also be
a performance bond for tree removal for $179,217.
Mr. Bodolsky asked if the Board
is comfortable that these permits are imminent and that we won’t have to rely
on the bond, and if we need to rely on the bond, is it worth the risk?
Mr. Meyer asked when the
applicant expects to hear a response from DOT.
They agreed to take action May 16th.
Mr. Rilee asked if they plan on
doing the soil moving on the entire project all at one time?
Mr. Murray said in a way. We
need to prepared the phase 1 building pad, which requires borrow of soil
material from the phase 2 area.
Ms. Voyce said we are being asked
to approve this and allow soil moving before they have the two permits.
Ms. DeVincentis said if the DOT
happens to deny it, does that mean you would try Frontage Road?
Mr. Murray said we would have to
come back to the Board.
Ms. DeVincentis asked how much of
the soil moving is for the clearing of the road?
Mr. Murray said we have taken the
road out of the application, but there are on-site driveways required for
construction. Phase 1 and 2 buildings and driveways and detention ponds are
less than 30 acres.
Mr. Bodolsky said he believes
most of the earthwork that would go on, independent of a denial from DOT, would
still be necessary even if they had to flip the project.
Mr. Zoschak asked the applicant
to address the TWA permit.
Mr. Murray said the NJDEPES
permit has been issued. I believe Council signed the application that was
submitted. The treatment works is the technical review and acceptance of the
septic design. Most of the details have been worked out.
Ms. Voyce said it is not just the
applicant that would be taking the risk, there will be an impact on the trout
and everything else. This is an exceptional resource. It is very important we
get the approved permits. I agree they are close on the permits. I am
concerned about the amount of the bonds because I don’t think they are
adequate. I would like more information. I am concerned about accepting that
the permits will be issued on faith.
Mr. Germinario said we don’t have
authority to go beyond the bond amounts set by ordinance. It doesn’t encompass
the type of considerations referred to in terms of downstream implications. If
the applicant were willing to volunteer an additional bond to cover those
circumstances in respect to being able to proceed with the work prior to
literally fulfilling all the conditions, that could be done, but we don’t have
authority under the ordinance to do it.
Mr. Bodolsky said there is in the
ordinance a range we can assign for the performance guarantee from 15¢ to 35¢
per c.y. I applied 25 ¢ per c.y. We could request an additional 10¢ per c.y.
Mr. Murray said the estimate for
the total bond is $320,000. It was a cash bond. Soil is $74,000 - $900 fee
for truck traffic - $175,000 for tree bond – $70,000 for tree replacement.
Mr. Stern said the tree
replacement fee was $47,000.
Mr. Kron said the applicant would
agree if Mr. Bodolsky determined to go to the 35¢ per c.y.
Mr. Bodolsky said he doesn’t
believe the soil moving ordinance would prohibit them from putting up silt
fence and clearing the site. I don’t know if that would help the applicant
out.
Mr. Murray said it helps, but it
would only give us about two weeks of work.
Mr. Zoschak said he would suggest
if the applicant agrees to go to 35¢ per c.y., we should do it.
Mr. Murray said a lot of time has
gone into the permitting process with DOT, but there is no guarantee.
Mr. Rilee said a big concern was
the clearing.
Ms. Voyce said the Environmental
Commission hasn’t had a chance to review the tree removal permit.
Mr. Stern said that was forwarded
a few years ago to the Environmental Commission.
Mr. Bodolsky said before the
Board takes action, the applicant has not suggested they wouldn’t comply with
the rest of the items in the resolution. I know they will be back to discuss
some items, however, if the Board were to allow them to move soil, there needs
to be a defined terminus to that activity. Suppose they do all the earthwork
and there are still resolution items outstanding. Then what? If they reach
that point and haven’t gotten the permits and want to then put piping into the
ground, that is not what we are talking about this evening. The project would
have to cease at that point and be stabilized.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to
approve the modification to the soil application with all the comments and
addendums put forth this evening. The performance guarantee will be modified
to 35¢ per cy; condition that all resolution items must be completed is relaxed
to the extent they will complete the items discussed this evening other than
the DOT and TWA approvals. Mr. Rilee seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms.
Voyce, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
There was a 10 minute recess at
9:50 p.m.
S-11-05 – WHITE CASTLE –
FINAL SITE PLAN FOR RESTAURANT LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK 6502, LOTS 1 & 2 IN
B-3 ZONE
Attorney Larry Kron represented
the applicant. He said a lot of work has been done on the site, particularly
today. We have received reports from Mr. Bodolsky and Mr. Stern.
Steve Byszewski, engineer for the
applicant, was sworn in.
The applicant addressed Mr.
Bodolsky’s report.
Item 1 – snow has been removed –
dumpsters removed to side of building – driveway has base course placed as of
this afternoon.
Mr. Bodolsky said he went by this
evening, and there is stabilized base and the equipment is moved out. We will
have to discuss the staging for the Auto Zone construction and the need to keep
the aisle open.
Mr. Bodolsky said Item 1 also has
the aspect that Phase III was to have top course for the entire back. I was
concerned it was a safety issue. Now that goes away, but there is the promise
on the phasing plan that this was supposed to have been completed with top
course as well by this time.
Mr. Byszewski said when we
separated out Auto Zone as a phase 4 item, we should have delineated the portion
behind them as stabilized base only. We will have disruption of that during
construction. From Howard Blvd. toward Route 46 to the end of the bowling
alley, the driveway has base course and top course. The only part without top
course is from the bowling alley to White Castle. The four parking spaces
behind Auto Zone are not done either. That should also have been put into
phase 4 as those spaces will not be used for Auto Zone.
Mr. Meyer asked if the rear
driveway will be passable.
Mr. Byszewski said he has told
the contractor that needs to be left open. I also told him Mr. Bodolsky’s
concerns about the staging of his equipment and he promised he will have the
construction equipment out from around the Auto Zone and back over to the CVS
building pad by the end of this week.
Mr. Meyer said it is very
important that it be monitored.
Ms. Voyce said this is a pattern
with this mall that things are done the day before they come here. It is not
good faith at this point. It is a ridiculous pattern of behavior, and it has
to stop.
Mr. Bodolsky said regarding items
1, 2, and 3, they are all related to this issue. The Board should set forth
how the staging should be done. All construction activity should go through
the back from the CVS area.
Mr. Meyer asked the applicant to
discuss the phasing area.
Mr. Byszewski said the route will
be from the CVS pad through the parking lot along Howard Boulevard, and behind
through the back.
Mr. Zoschak asked who would
police that during the day.
Mr. Stern said if there is an
engineering inspector on site at the time, that is about as far as we can go.
The engineering inspector is aware of a number of issues involved here.
Regarding the four parking spaces
north of the dumpster, Mr. Byszewski suggested that be a phase 4 item.
Mr. Bodolsky said those spaces
are unpaved. Can you put the base course back there?
Mr. Byszewski said they could do
it within a few days and agreed it will be done prior to C.O.
Item 4 – ok
Item 5 – Mr. Byszewski said as a
result of the amended site plan, those spaces are now part of phase 4. Those
spaces can act as part of a staging area for the Auto Zone construction.
Mr. Bodolsky said a logical place
to terminate the top course would have been along the curb line. When will
White Castle be top coursed?
Mr. Byszewski said it would be
logical to wait until Auto Zone is substantially underway. The footings are in
and the underslab utilities are in, and the floor slab has bee poured. They
are waiting for the weather to break to continue.
It was determined the top
coursing for White Castle will be a condition of C.O. for Auto Zone.
Mr. Rilee said we will not grant
C.O’s unless you are significantly along with the phase 1 improvements. If we
need to turn White Castle or the next occupant onto the owners to get it done,
so be it. We can’t be governed by the users when the landlords refuse to go
along with what they agree to do.
Mr. Kron said we have a bond
posted of over $1,000,000.
Mr. Rilee said we would rather
see the work done. In this case, and with the way the owners have treated the
resolutions, we have found things get done when we refuse to issue further
building permits.
Mr. Meyer asked that the
applicant address the remaining items in Mr. Bodolsky’s.
Mr. Bodolsky said his
recollection is that prior to granting final approval for phase 1, the
applicant came in and asked for relief from some of the outstanding items. The
reason for that was to get the building permit for White Castle. Those
outstanding items are contained in Items 8 through 11 of the report.
Item 8 – Mr. Byszewski said that
should have been shown as part of phase 4 – final paving is done from Howard
Blvd to the end of the bowling alley
Item 9 – Mr. Kron said the
applicant has contacted JCP&L. There is an order in. They went on
strike. There is a letter from Mr. Riback dated 2/26/05 (marked A-1)
confirming that it is ordered and that we cannot do anything.
Mr. Stern said there are two
lights closest to Howard Blvd. There is another floodlight that was put up
illuminating the back of the liquor store. That should be removed.
Item 10 – Mr. Byszewski said
other than the section behind the 4 parking spaces and dumpster pad, that is
the only are in the entire length that has not yet been landscaped, mulched and
stabilized – will be done along with the base coat for the parking spaces –
will be done prior to C.O.
11 – certification from Mr. Hyman
12 – agreed
13 – agreed to write letter to
Mayor and Council requesting Title 39
14 – agreed
15 – a, b, c, d – will comply –
mostly done at this time – prior to C.O.
16 – prior to C.O.
17 – condition of Auto Zone C.O.
18 – done
19 – done
20 – will be delivered Friday –
discussion – will be relocated subject to Russell Stern approval
21 – all roof leaders connected
to underground stormwater system
22 – as-built will depict the
seepage pit is there
23 – agreed
24 – will be corrected if too
steep – to be done before C.O. for Auto Zone
25 – agreed – prior to C.O.
26 – agreed
The applicant addressed Mr.
Stern’s report dated 3/2/05:
1.1 – agreed
1.2 – agreed
1.3 – done
1.4 – done
1.5 – addressed
1.6 – agreed
prior to C.O.
1.7 – addressed
1.8 – agreed –
by April 30
1.9 – addressed
1.10 – will be relocated by April
30
1.11– provided certification
1.12 - Mt. Laurel fee paid
1.13 – done
Item 2.1 – addressed
Item 2.2 – signs posted –
striping on pavement is done in front – rear striping will be done by April 30
– as soon as weather breaks – by end of March
Item 2.3 – a) –tape- b) letter
submitted [exhibit A-5] – will be done by April 30 c) will be done by April 30
Item 2.4 – addressed
Item 2.5 – lease will be provided
for Domino’s–Circle Lanes sign will be conforming by April 30 – others need to
show lease agreements or will be changed
Item 2.6 – done
Item 2.7 – agreed – will be done
prior to C.O.
Item 2.8 – will be done by April
30
Item 2.9 – agreed
Item 2.10 – agreed
Item 2.11 – agreed
Item 2.12 – agreed – by April 30
Item 3- all conditions agreed to
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
Mr. Rilee said it is very
important that the work needs to continue, and everything needs to get done.
Hopefully this will continue to move forward.
Mr. Zoschak agreed.
Mr. Zoschak made a motion to
approve the application with the stipulations made this evening. Mr. Sweeney
seconded.
Roll as follows: Mr. Zoschak,
yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes;
Mr. M. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.
Old Business
Mr. Stern distributed a draft of
the Master Plan Reexamination Report revisions.
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 10:15 p.m.
Dolores
A. DeMasi, Secretary
lm/