View Other Items in this Archive | View All Archives | Printable Version

A regular meeting of the Planning Board of the Township of Roxbury was held on the above date at 7:30 p.m. with Chairman Scott Meyer presiding.  After a salute to the Flag, the Chairman read the “Open Public Meetings Act”.


BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Scott Meyer, Larry Sweeney, Charles Bautz, Gary Behrens, Michael Shadiack, Richard Zoschak, James Rilee, Joseph Schwab, Teresa DeVincentis. Lisa Voyce arrived at 7:40 p.m.


ABSENT:  Steven Alford.


PROFESSIONAL STAFF PRESENT:  Tom Germinario, Russell Stern, Tom Bodolsky.


Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary.


Minutes of 3/16/05


Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the minutes.  Mr. Zoschak, seconded.


Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Schwab, abstain; Mr. Bautz, abstain; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, abstain.


Minutes of 4/6/05 and 4/6/05 Executive


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


Roll as follows:  Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes;  Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Rilee, abstain; Mr. Schwab, abstain; Mr. Bautz, abstain; Mr. Sweeney, abstain; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.




Mr. Meyer announced Application M-2-05, Mark Lisa, will not be heard and is carried to 5/18/05.


Ms. Voyce arrived at 7:40 p.m.




Attorney David Stern represented the applicant.


Fred Meola was sworn in.


Nick Dousmanis was sworn in.


Mr. David Stern said this application is for a major soil moving permit. 


Mr. Bodolsky said this is a fairly straightforward application.  The applicant received approval for a two lot major subdivision, and he has told me he may not be the one building it.  The subdivision approval is conditioned on the major soil moving permit, and there is a likelihood that they may need an amended soil permit from the Township Engineer once they know who will be building the project.


Mr. Bodolsky suggested the applicant discuss the route of travel for the export of soil. 


Mr. Dousmanis said it will be exported out of the township.  He suggested Berkshire Valley Road to Route 46 to Route 80, or Berkshire Valley Road toward Jefferson and out of town.


Mr. Behrens suggested the applicant look into whether the railroad bridge on Berkshire Valley Road has clearance for the truck size to be used.


The Board determined the route will be Berkshire Valley Road to Route 46 West to Route 80 West.  Standard hours of operation will be acceptable.  The applicant agrees to all other items in Mr. Bodolsky’s report.




No one stepped forward.




Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the application.  Mr. Sweeney seconded.


Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.


Extension of time for Built-Right Homes Subdivision application


Mr. David Stern said the applicant is also asking for a 6-month extension of the subdivision approval.


Mr. Rilee made a motion to approve the extension.  Mr. Zoschak seconded.


Roll as follows:  Mr. Rilee, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Behrens, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Bautz, yes; Mr. Sweeney, yes; Ms. DeVincentis, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.







Mr. Zoschak said he listened to the tapes on the previous hearings on this application.


Mr. Meyer asked that the bulk variances be addressed first.


Mr. Germinario said that is a threshold issue.  The applicant may want to poll the Board to see what their feeling is on the variances before going any farther.


Kenneth Fox, architect and planner, was present.  He said this is a minor subdivision application on Dogwood Lane.   It is a dead-end road. 


Mr. Fox referred to a color rendering of Sheet S-1 revised 1/31/05 (marked A-5). He said the plan shows the two lots which they propose to create out of the one lot.  There is a house on the lot shown as Lot A.  Two variances are required, one for lot frontage and one for lot width.  Regarding lot frontage, Lot A has 103 feet where 110 feet is required.  Lot B has 50 feet where 110 feet is required.  Regarding the variance for lot width, Lot A has 114 proposed where 125 feet is required.


Mr. Stern asked Mr. Fox if it is his interpretation that the proposed flag lot meets the lot width requirements.


Mr. Fox stated that is correct, at the setback line.


Mr. Stern said he differs in opinion.  It is measured at the front yard setback line, and in this zone, the front yard setback line is established at 50 feet.  The lot width then would be about 50 feet.


Mr. Fox said we can accept that interpretation and include that in the variance request.


Mr. Fox said our engineer, Hank Huelsebusch, has visited the site and spoken to the Township Engineer and Fire Official and done research to address engineering concerns.  We are requesting a C-1 variance from the Board, and the Board has the discretion to grant a C-1 variance provided we show hardship and satisfy the positive and negative criteria.  We will show that the property is unique and different and that the uniqueness places a hardship on the owner of the property.  The hardship standard doesn’t require that we prove that without the variance the property would be zoned into inutility.  We do need to demonstrate that the property’s unique characteristics inhibit the extent to which the property can be used.


Mr. Fox said the property is very unique in this neighborhood and in this zone.  Other than the Lutheran Church and one property behind the church, there are no other properties in this zone or neighborhood that are even close to the size of this lot.  It is almost 4 times bigger.  This would create one new house on the street.  Exceptional narrowness is listed as a reason the Board can grant a variance.  The lot already appears as a flag shape and that creates a situation where there is a 97,000 square foot lot that, if it was configured along a roadway would allow at least 3 homes.  We feel the aspect of the width of the lot is unique and shows exceptional narrowness.  This lot is also uniquely shaped.  By zoning ordinance, this lot could be developed into 3 or almost 4 residential units, by density.  We are asking for 2 lots.  We feel the Board can grant these variances because of the uniqueness, exceptional narrowness, and the fact it is different from other lots in the area.


Mr. Fox stated we will be providing testimony as to the adequacy of a turnaround we will be providing on Dogwood Lane for the Fire Department benefit.  We feel our application improves safety.


Mr. Zoschak asked where the turnaround will go.


Mr. Fox said it will be on the driveway shown accessing the new lot to the rear.  It will be designed and signed so that the emergency vehicles and township vehicles and the public can use it.  There will be a public easement. 


Mr. Fox said this application does not represent any detriment to the public good.  We would be creating one new lot that is far below the coverage standards allowed in the zone.  We would not be changing or altering the character of the neighborhood.


Mr. Germinario asked if the placing of the Lot B house in back of the Lot A house a detriment, from a planning standpoint?

Mr. Fox said the lot being placed behind the other house is not typical.  It is not undesirable.  There are many people who would prefer to have a house surrounded by trees set back from the road.  It doesn’t change or alter the character of the neighborhood.  We feel the positive criteria outweigh any negative criteria. 


Mr. Fox stated regarding the C-2 variance, undue hardship is not a requirement for the granting of variance.  What must be shown is that:


1.  The application relates to a specific property – that has been shown

2.  The purposes of the municipal land use law will be advanced by deviation from the zoning ordinance requirements. – Mr. Fox said this standard is met as in Kaufman vs. Planning Board of Warren Township.  The purposes of zoning we advance is to guide or use the development of land to promote the general welfare.  In addition, we are maintaining the character of the area by providing for safety improvements along existing and proposed roads as mentioned in Section 13-8.600.

3.  The variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and that the benefits outweigh the detriments. – The safety aspects allow the Board to grant that.

4.  That the variance will not substantially impair the intents and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance. – The purpose of the zone plan is multi-functional.  When you have lots that are shaped uniquely, every aspect cannot be followed.  We have a minor width variance.  Flag lots, by definition, are permitted in the zoning ordinance as a conditional use. 


Mr. Fox referred to Exhibit A-6, sheet S-1A, and stated on the plan he has relocated the lot approximately 13 feet to the right.  We could do that, but we don’t feel it is good planning to have a 37 foot wide flag, as opposed to a 50 foot wide flag.  However, with this we could provide a flag lot that is allowed as a conditional use, with no standards shown, and a fully conforming lot with the existing house.  We feel the Board can support the variances.


Mr. Fox said Statute 40:55d-35 states in order to build a home a street has to be duly placed on a township map.  It states before any such permit shall be issued, the street shall have been certified to be suitably improved to the satisfaction of the Governing Body.  We feel it has been.  We feel we could improve a portion of this road up to municipal standards.  This road is already plowed and provided with garbage service, and it has been stated it is acceptable to the residents on the road.  Statute 40:55d-36 says where the enforcement of this section would entail practical difficulty, etc.  the Board may give approval, subject to conditions that would provide adequate access for fire fighting equipment.  That is being provided.  A major concern of the neighbors is that the road would not become a through street and that the road won’t be changed in its character.


Mr. Meyer said there was a question about granting a subdivision on a substandard street.


Mr. Germinario said an additional planning variance would have to be granted for an additional building lot that will not relate to a fully improved street.


Mr. Rilee asked Mr. Germinario’s opinion on the case cited.


Mr. Germinario stated each case turns on its unique facts.  There are some similarities, but there are a number of dissimilarities as well.  I don’t think the Kaufman case controls here and requires the Board to grant the variance.  The considerations here are that you have a lot that is substantially larger in its current condition than the required lot size for the zone.  The factual question is, if you deny the subdivision, does that constitute a substantial underutilization of the lot.  If you believe that to be true, you still have to look at the positive and negative criteria.  I am not sure I agree with the analogy made to the flag lot conditional use standards. There are several of the conditional use standards where this wouldn’t comply.  The standards would require front, rear and sideyard setbacks to be twice the required.  There is a requirement for not less than 200 feet of the rear lot from the right-of-way.  If this were to be considered a flag lot conditional use, which it is not, it would be before the Board of Adjustment.


R. Henry Huelsebusch, engineer for the applicant, was sworn in.  He referred to the original subdivision map prepared by Douglas Wesp dated September 22, 2003, and the turnaround design Mr. Huelsebusch prepared dated February 1, 2005.  He described the subdivision plan and stated Dogwood Lane is about 860 feet long.  The first 300 feet is just over 15 feet wide.  At the end, the width is 20 feet.  In between those points it tapers down to about 13 feet wide in front of the subject property.  On average it is about 14 ½ feet wide.  It is paved and is in good condition with no curbing or sidewalks.  That is consistent with Unneberg Avenue and the roads that come off Unneberg.  There are no drainage problems that I am aware of.  The property slopes to the east in a gentle to moderate slope.  The water sheet flows off the site and into the ground.  The sight distance at the intersection is good.  Roxbury does provide municipal services on the road.  RSIS designates the road as a rural road, which requires a minimum width of 18 feet. That is typically for new construction, not necessarily on an existing roadway.  RSIS anticipates that a development on an existing roadway would be granted an exception by the municipality if the township does not anticipate on widening the roadway in the future and that it provide for the safe passage of vehicles, which this roadway does, in my opinion.  RSIS also has an addendum for Harding Township on a rural road and allows a 12 foot wide roadway as long as a passing area is provided every 500 feet.  We propose a turnaround area at the subject proposed flag lot which is just over 500 feet from the intersection.  This roadway could be widened to 18 feet, however, I think it would have a negative impact to the properties along Dogwood Lane.  There are several large trees close to the roadway, as well as utility poles.  Some of the residents have told me some of the septic systems are also close to the roadway.  Also, the houses are close to the roadway.  In my opinion, there is enough reason to justify it is safe the way it exists.


Mr. Meyer said he has seen references to the cartway width being 9 feet, 13 feet, and tonight I am hearing 14 ½ feet.


Mr. Huelsebusch said he measured the roadway today, and the narrowest part is in front of the subject property and it is about 13 feet wide there.  I had spoken to Rick Blood, Public Works Director, and he was not aware of any problems.  I also spoke to Dave Apgar of the Sanitation Department and he said the garbage trucks back off of Unneberg to the end of Dogwood and drive out forward.  He seemed happy with the proposed turnaround.  I also met with Mike Pellek, Fire Official, and he said he believes the largest truck will get in there.  The other 5 trucks will definitely make it.  He provided a letter which requested if there were a driveway it should be at least 18 feet wide.


Mr. Huelsebusch said, regarding the turnaround design, it is 50 feet long, 18 feet wide and has two 25 foot radii where it meets Dogwood Lane.  It is proposed to be paved, and we propose that it be used as a public turnaround.  It would allow for a k-turn. 


Mr. Fox said the applicant will be responsible for maintaining the turnaround.


Ms. DeMasi said Mr. Pellek sent a letter to the Board dated 9/10/04 which stated each driveway should be a minimum of 16 feet wide, but 18 feet wide would be recommended so that the largest piece of emergency equipment could be used; and any overhanging trees in the driveway area should be pruned up to allow clearance of the largest equipment.


Mr. Bodolsky said regarding the RSIS classification of the road, a rural residential lane is defined as a street that serves dwellings on lots that are two acres or greater.  Is that true here?


Mr. Huelsebusch said no. 


Mr. Bodolsky said the definition also states a rural residential lane shall only connect to a rural residential street.  Is that true?


Mr. Huelsebusch said no.


Mr. Bodolsky said then this is not a rural residential lane.


Mr. Huelsebusch asked Mr. Bodolsky what he thinks the minimum width should be in accordance with RSIS.


Mr. Bodolsky said 28 feet.  It is a residential access street by definition.


Mr. Huelsebusch said regardless of what RSIS classifies it as, in my opinion, it is an existing roadway that has served its function well for 9 existing houses and suffices for providing safe passage of vehicles.  If my testimony was wrong regarding the classification, I stand corrected.


Mr. Bodolsky said RSIS also talks about the standards being considered the absolute minimum for safety.  Assuming a 28 foot cartway is required, how do you rationalize 13 feet?


Mr. Huelsebusch said I think that is a ridiculous requirement on a roadway like this.  There is off-street parking and driveways.  I haven’t seen cars parked on the roadway.  People don’t drive fast, and there is adequate sight distance.  I think 28 feet is absurd.  This road can be widened, and there are reasons why it hasn’t been widened and why I propose that it should not be widened. 


Mr. Bodolsky said RSIS also suggests that this would be a cul-de-sac.


Mr. Huelsebusch said it does not have a cul-de-sac and there is not right-of-way to provide a cul-de-sac.


Mr. Bodolsky asked where the 40 foot bulb is proposed.


Mr. Huelsebusch said we are not proposing it; we are proposing the turnaround area.  If we provided the bulb, it would be very close to the existing house.


Mr. Bodolsky said RSIS suggests this is the minimum standard for safety.


Mr. Huelsebusch said he can understand that when you are proposing a brand new subdivision.  This is for a subdivision on an existing roadway that is constrained by right-of-way width, trees, and other aspects.


Mr. Bodolsky asked if a stubby road could be built to the back lot and provided with a full turnaround?


Mr. Huelsebusch said he did not analyze that, but you probably could.  But, then you would be saying it’s a public roadway.  Why would an applicant want a bulb on his property unless it was a municipal roadway?  The k-turn is to allow emergency vehicles and passenger vehicles to make a turnaround as opposed to using someone else’s driveway.  For an 18 foot roadway, a 25 foot minimum radii is required by RSIS.  The largest fire truck would probably need a 28 foot turning radius.  There is room to widen it to 28 feet if that is what the Board requires, but there is probably less of a turning radius off of Unneberg onto Dogwood.


Mr. Rilee said they could use the second largest truck if necessary.


Mr. Huelsebusch said that truck could make it.


Mr. Bodolsky said his report requested some turning exhibits to show this can accommodate the truck.


Mr. Huelsebusch said his testimony would say that it would probably have to be increased to 28 feet. 


Mr. Bodolsky stated Dogwood Lane is only a little bit wider than a one-way driveway.  Can you get two cars down Dogwood?  Can you get volunteer equipment down Dogwood Lane at its current width, with cars coming in the other direction?


Mr. Huelsebusch said it is a very lightly traveled roadway.  You can pull off into grassed areas and pass.  You may be creating rutting on a landscaped area, but it is not as though it’s constricted by steep slopes or retaining walls.


Mr. Stern asked who prepared the subdivision plan.


Mr. Fox said it was prepared by a surveyor.  We prepared a 3 or 4 lot subdivision scenario as well.


Mr. Stern asked if there were variances with that.


Mr. Fox said there would have been lot width or lot frontage variances. Exhibit A-1 shows the scenario for 3 lots and a lot width/lot frontage variance would have been required.  We abandoned that scenario.  What we are asking the Board to consider is the fact that we don’t want to change the character of the neighborhood.  We don’t believe the construction of this one house will change it.  As to whether a cul-de-sac could be provided, pending an engineering investigation, I believe we could provide it, but I think it would be a negative.  The Board can grant a variance subject to conditions that provide adequate access for firefighting equipment, and we have provided testimony that we can do that.  We are also providing safe access for the entire neighborhood. 


Mr. Fox submitted a copy of an appendix to the RSIS standards (marked A-7).  He said our contention is that, unless the Board determines we must improve the road, a minor subdivision does not trigger the RSIS standards to be required on that road.  We are asking the Board to consider that any improvement of this road would be a negative to the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood.  We feel that if the Board looks at the minor nature of the variances and the proofs that are required, they can approve this application.


Mr. Rilee stated he may consider certain items.  But, with some of the recommendations from our professionals, specifically the opinions from our planner, it makes it very difficult to grant these variances and design waivers.  This lot was bought as is, in its current state.  It is close to a flag lot now, and we would be creating a second flag lot.  We do grant variances often.  I think in reference to this road, it is small and I currently can’t support the variances at this time from the testimony heard so far.


Mr. Bautz said Dogwood is a narrow lane and there is no plan to expand it in the future.  If we can provide some type of k-turn that would help the residents and the township, it seems to me it would be an improvement.  I don’t agree with garbage trucks backing down a road like this.  If the good outweighs the bad, I would like to see some sort of k-turn here.


Ms. DeVincentis said she did not hear testimony as to why it would be a negative to have a cul-de-sac.


Mr. Fox said it would change the character of the neighborhood because of the expanse of openness and pavement.  The character of the neighborhood is a small lane with houses on it.


Ms. DeVincentis said it is a very narrow area, and personally she doesn’t think there is much character there.  I do agree there should be an area for turnaround, but a cul-de-sac would be more desirable in order to grant the variances.


Mr. Zoschak said he would like to see a letter or hear testimony from Mr. Pellek.  Also, there should be some testimony from the residents as to what is happening there now.  It is very narrow.


Mr. Bodolsky said so far in the testimony, I haven’t seen any demonstration that there will be a suitable turnaround.  That is up to the applicant.  The real issue relative to this road is whether it provides safe passage for emergency equipment.


Mr. Bautz said it doesn’t now, and it never will.  If a fire truck needs to go back there now, with the k-turn, it will be there.  The way it is now, you can’t get two trucks down there and you won’t be able to get two trucks out.


Mr. Bodolsky said another issue is the RSIS standards.  I feel RSIS does apply, and the standard is 28 feet vs. 13 feet.  Also, RSIS talks about special standards for special designated areas. In order to qualify for those, you have to appeal to DCA.  Harding Township did that, and they were granted a special standard.  It only applies to them.  In my opinion, the applicant can conform to the ordinance relative to setbacks, lot widths, etc. by putting a roadway of certain width and length with a cul-de-sac bulb.


Mr. Bautz said if we did that, there would be one house in the front and one in the rear.


Mr. Bodolsky said in addition, the Board would have to grant an exception to RSIS, if they did not require the road widening.


Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Stern his opinion.


Mr. Stern stated regarding Mr. Fox’s statement regarding his preference for this proposal as opposed to the proposal for 3 lots with an approved cul-de-sac, I would agree that with a minor subdivision you have less mass, less impervious coverage and less clearing.  With that, you have to look at the character of the area.  Part of granting these variances is a determination of the negative criteria and can the variances be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the zone plan and zoning ordinance.  Mr. Fox mentioned the uniqueness of the large property, but the Board needs to evaluate if creating this lot creates a new uniqueness in terms of lot configuration in relationship to the neighborhood and adjoining properties.  Out of the 10 lots on Dogwood Lane only two don’t comply with the lot width requirement.  Regarding the lot frontage requirement, only two lots don’t comply with that.  The Board needs to evaluate if that rises to the level of being a substantial detriment to the character of that area.  This will create a home behind other homes.  Our zoning requirements, by establishing lot width and lot frontage, make it so that you could locate a home basically related to the street.  Those are the standards that regulate and stop this type of development.  A three lot subdivision would require variances as testified.  You would also be creating a variance to the south and you would be creating a new front yard to the existing dwelling to the right.  If they went with the roadway extension for just this one extra lot and you created a roadway, that would be an additional variance. 




Louis Catero, 10 Dogwood Lane, stepped forward.  He stated this would be a safety issue, rather than a positive.  The k-turn doesn’t create a situation where it would be utilized correctly.  Garbage pickup is Wednesday morning between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m.  The truck backs down the road with no problem at all.  If the turnaround is put in, how would it benefit a garbage truck?  It would still have to back up at some point.  I don’t see any benefit from the turnaround.  Comparing Dogwood Lane to Harding Township doesn’t make sense.  There is a 5 acre minimum lot size there.  I am totally against this application.  I believe the road is undersized and can’t support this.


Mr. Zoschak asked what the residents do now as far as traversing the road.


Mr. Catero said you can pull into another driveway, or if they are small cars, they can pass.


Mr. Zoschak asked what the detriment would be.


Mr. Catero said adding the safety issues during construction and the additional traffic on the road.  The road is too small to support another house.


Mr. Bodolsky said Mr. Huelsebusch said there are no problems with sight distance going out Dogwood Lane to Unneberg Road.


Mr. Catero said there is a problem because there are large trees on each side of Dogwood Lane there.


No one else stepped forward.




Mr. Fox requested a poll of the Board on the variances.


The Board members felt they do not have enough information to make a decision at this time.  Some members said they feel there are too many variances being requested, and it is an undersized road.


The application was carried to 5/18/05.


There was a 5 minute recess.




Attorney Edward Dunne represented the applicant.  He said this is a minor site plan application with variances to expand an already approved site by proposing a walk-in box refrigerator/freezer and adding a 444 square foot addition to enclose the existing outdoor walk-in freezer.  We are reorienting the trash so that access is from the Route 46 side, and we are eliminating the curbed landscaped area on the southwest corner of the building so that the turning radius is slightly improved.  The purpose is to improve the site, and we are adding some fish food under the logo of Long John Silvers.  We have additional signage requirements for that purpose.  We are not changing anything else on the site.


Peter Gluszko, architect for the applicant, was sworn in.


Lee Dicely was sworn in.


Mr. Gluszko referred to the existing site plan (marked A-1) and described the site.  He pointed out the entrance, loading area, freezer box, queuing area for drive-thru, parking area and landscape area.  He said drawing SP-2 (marked A-2) shows the existing site with the proposed new addition. The addition is about 444 square feet.  The rear service door is relocated to the side of the building.  We also removed an island at the end of the parking area for accessibility for truck unloading.  We reversed the entranceway to the dumpster area.  The plan also shows the locations for the new signs – pylon, menu board, preview board, entrance & exit sign, Mugshot sign, Long John Silver sign.  The existing signage consists of a pylon sign, KFC letter signs, KFC Mugshot sign, menu board, exit & entrance signs.   There are no other substantial changes to be made on site.  Regarding lighting, we will be mostly replacing existing lighting.


The applicant addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report dated 4/11/05:


Item 1 – acceptable

Item 2 – Mr. Dunne stated this site was an approved site in its current configuration.  When the site was approved, the Board obviously felt there was sufficient parking and curb lines and adequate angle for parking.  We can’t move the building to adjust the aisle width on the parking lot.


Mr. Bodolsky said you can angle the parking more.  We should get testimony as to whether the parking configuration meets the current standards, and what can be done if it doesn’t.


Mr. Dunne said the standards it meets are the standards that were applicable when the building was constructed, which was 9 parking spaces.  There are 39 existing spaces. 


Mr. Gluszko stated the existing parking spaces are 10’ x 20’, and the proposed parking spaces are 9’ x 18’.  The cartway between the parking is 24 feet and 18 feet on each side.  At the time of approvals, that was the approved spaces and sizes.


Mr. Bodolsky asked what aisle width there would be if the spaces are 9’ x 18’.  I doubt there is a 20 foot deep aisle width.


Mr. Gluszko said they are 9’ wide and they do vary where it is adjacent to the building because of accessibility issues with the front doors and the new service access.


Mr. Bodolsky suggested the applicant should show us a 18’ x 9’ pattern through there at a later hearing, and come back with the resultant aisle width.  The only reason I believe the site is working now is that there is not a volume of traffic presently to make it apparent.  If the traffic is increased, you won’t be able to get out of the spaces.  I believe that can be corrected.


Mr. Dicely, regional director for Kazi Foods, stated he has seen the westerly parking lot relatively crowded at peak times, and has not seen any problems.  Typically at a busy time, the lot on the east side is rarely used, and all the cars are on the west side.  I have not seen problems with cars backing in and out.


Mr. Bodolsky said if you just go from the 80 degree parking to the 60 degree parking, the situation can be rectified. The drop curb may have to be moved a little.


Returning to Mr. Bodolsky’s report:


Item 3 – Applicant will make a smaller end cap there with landscaping and still accommodate a tractor trailer.


Mr. Gluszko referred to the site plan showing the truck turning plan (marked A-3).  He described how the truck will manipulate the site. By making the island a little bit smaller we can accommodate the trucks.


Mr. Bodolsky said the plans need to be refined and discussed further.


Mr. Dunne asked how often the tractor trailer will come to the site.


Mr. Dicely said it comes twice a week on Monday and Thursday mornings between 9:00 and 9:30 a.m. and the restaurant opens for business at 10:30 a.m.  It stays there about 30 minutes.  The intent is to have the truck off the lot prior to opening.


Mr. Dunne asked why the loading dock is being removed.


Mr. Dicely said the existing loading dock couldn’t be used.  We don’t use equipment other than a hand cart to transport the food into the restaurant.  It is taken up the ramp.  There are no customers there.  The truck currently unloads on the west side of the building.


Mr. Bodolsky said the Board first needs to determine whether an end island is needed there or not.


Mr. Meyer said his impression is that Mr. Gluszko will re-draw the plan with 9 foot stalls and see what works.  The trucks would park on the eastern lot and the western lot would be available for the customers. 


Item 6 – Discussion.  The applicant felt a higher footcandle is necessary for security reasons as there is an abandoned service station next door, and an unlit detention basin to the rear.  It was determined the applicant will work out the lighting with Mr. Stern.


Ms. Voyce said the abandoned service station adjacent to this site is currently coming before the Planning Board with a site plan application.


Item 7 – applicant will provide additional testimony regarding the “no left turn” requirement.

Item 8 – agreed

Item 9 – Addressed.  Garbage pickup is scheduled 2 times a week during the night.

Item 10 – agreed

Item 11 – stepping stones will be removed

Item 12 – to be addressed in testimony

Items 13, 14, 15 – acceptable

Item 16 – will be addressed at time grease trap is installed


Ms. Voyce said she has concerns about the trash.


Mr. Dunne said we will definitely clean up the drainage area and take care of the maintenance.


The application was carried to 5/18/05.




Attorney Larry Kron represented the applicant. He said since the last hearing, we have revised the plans and revised the stormwater management system.  We have submitted an EIS and have made revisions in response to the Board’s comments.


John Harter, traffic expert for the applicant, was sworn in. 


Bret Skapinetz was present.  He referred to a colorized version of the revised site plan (marked A-1), and distributed reduced copies to the Board.  He said he and the representative of their environmental firm met with Mr. Stern and Mr. Bodolsky since the last hearing.  We will have a representative from that firm here for the next meeting.


Mr. Skapinetz described the changes that have been made to the plan since the last hearing:


·        Wetlands associated with the canal and the buffer associated with it would encroach into our property.  We revised the basin to reconfigure it and added a retaining wall around two of the sides in the back; made an adjustment to the overflow spillway.

·        The scissor lift has been removed.

·        One parking space has been removed along the westerly side and we included an additional landscaped area.

·        Added two trees to the center island, and the island has been widened.

·        Added end island to the row facing the building and added landscaping there.

·        Added landscaping along the side of the building.


Mr. Skapinetz said we made other minor changes and have eliminated 7 waivers out of 14.  We have received new reports from the staff and will meet with them prior to the next hearing.


Mr. Skapinetz said there was mention about the adjacent property owner raising comments regarding the stormwater management of the site. That was Mr. Romano and his attorney.  I spoke with them on April 14th, and have forwarded them information on the application. 


Mr. Stern asked when architectural drawings will be submitted.


Mr. Skapinetz said he has contacted the architect and the revised drawings will be submitted, however he didn’t know exactly when.  We will expect to see them for the next meeting.


Ms. Voyce said she would like to attend when the applicant meets with the staff.


Mr. Germinario stated a recent court decision requires that notice be given to the public if a board member attends.


Ms. Voyce said she would let the staff know her concerns.


Mr. Bodolsky asked about the unloading of the truck.


Mr. Skapinetz said there will be a tail gate lift on the trucks. 


John Harter stepped forward.  He stated his firm prepared a traffic impact statement to compare trip generation with the previous use.  The gas station had two access points along Rt. 46.  We are now proposing one access point.  The trip generation for this use is a low generator – about 15 trips in peak hour in the morning and about 40 in the evening.  That is half or less than what the gas station would have projected.  We met with DOT on the access design in 2003, and we received a minor access permit in May of 2004.  We will submit a copy of that permit. 


Mr. Bodolsky asked if that permit had any restrictions on left turns.


Mr. Harter said it did not.


Mr. Harter addressed the comments in the professional reports:


Item 1.5 in Mr. Stern’s report/Item 13 in Mr. Bodolsky’s report – Regarding deliveries, they use a standard WB-62 or WB-67 by running the deliveries in the morning period when the parking space are not occupied.  We have agreed to limit the trucks to WB-40.  The DOT is aware of Advance using large wheel based trucks.  The truck (shown on sheet 1 of 1, truck circulation exhibit, revised 4/5/05, marked A-2) makes a right turn in from the lane adjacent to the curb line, heads south, and turns into the second cross isle and reverse and proceed back towards the driveway to straighten out, and reverse to the back of the site.   The movement into the site slightly encroaches over the outbound maneuver coming out of the driveway by about 3 feet.  The parking stalls would not be occupied, and when the truck moves back toward the driveway, it will have full visibility and there should be no issue backing up into the rear of the site. Typically the trucks are larger than the ones that will be used here. 


Mr. Zoschak asked if they have the smaller trucks to use.


Mr. Dicely said they have them.


Mr. Behrens said he doesn’t see on the plans how the truck will make the maneuver.


Mr. Harter explained the maneuver.  If the parking spaces were occupied, the truck wouldn’t be able to make the maneuver.  This is the standard practice for Advance Auto Parts stores.  We have used a much wider isle of 33 feet than the standard 25 foot width. 


Mr. Bodolsky said the Board would have to accept the fact that a WB-62 won’t come to the site, and the Board would have to accept the fact the deliveries can be controlled so that there are no customers on the site at the time. 


Mr. Stern said the testimony was that the deliveries are off-peak.


Mr. Harter said the deliveries will be in the morning.  There will be some employees there, and there potentially could be some customers.


Mr. Rilee said his only concern with the site is the truck delivery.  He is concerned the truck will stop on Rt. 46 and back into the lot.    We want to prevent that type of action.  This is a very busy section of Rt. 46.


Mr. Behrens said it would also create a problem for anyone wanting to access the site when the truck is on site making the deliveries.


Mr. Meyer said this is a very important issue.  The applicant will have to come back with some corporate assurance that deliveries will be made when the business is closed.


Mr. Harter said he can get an acknowledgement from the corporation that the WB-40 exists in the fleet and they will bring it to this site.  He will try to get an assurance on the time of deliveries.


Ms. Voyce asked why they need to have tractor trailers.  Could they use box trucks?


The application as carried to 6/1/05.




Attorney Steven Tripp represented the applicant.   The original action by the Board was technically a denial, but it had conditions attached.  Ultimately, it went to the Judge, and the approval was ordered subject to conditions.  One of the conditions was that we had to return for an amended preliminary application.  It was tied to resolution of the water issue.  There is now a water master plan and an agreement with the MCMUA.   Another issue was to ensure there was water for the affordable housing sites.  Those sites have water allocated.   DEP permits have been issued for Renaissance and Dellamo.  For this site, the plans include the infrastructure.  The Township engineer and Planning Board Engineer have been reviewing the submissions, which include on-site and off-site infrastructure.  The only issue that has not been resolved is the direction of the water line.  The Lake Rogerene residents had request that we put the water line up Orben Drive, and we agreed, subject to the municipalities working out the details.  There is a tentative agreement at this time.  Subject to that agreement, the line will go up Orben Drive.  Because the issue is unresolved, we submitted both scenarios.  There was a meeting with Mt. Arlington, and they had some absurd demands, and after another meeting, they backed off on everything except for reasonable requests. 


Mr. Germinario said although we have a court order that does provide for various options by which water would be provided to the site, the actual water gallonage is not yet in the possession of the township.  What has been agreed upon is that the project will be built in phases that will be determined by the availability of water.


Mr. Tripp said Mr. Kobylarz has said there is enough water for an initial phase of 41 units.  We propose to put in all the infrastructure for the entire site, and the work on 41 lots.  As water becomes available, we will come back for subsequent phase or phases.


Susan Berninger, professional engineer and Vice President of Engineering for Continental Properties/Wellfleet Developers, was sworn in.  She gave her educational and professional background for the Board.  She said her roll there is to manage the approval process and engineering. 


Mr. Bodolsky asked if Ms. Berninger will be testifying in both capacities. 


Ms. Berninger said she will be testifying as a licensed professional engineer and will provide the overview.  We also have engineers from Schoor DePalma who will provide testimony if required.  I will also be able to answer on behalf of Continental Properties. 


Ms. Berninger referred to exhibit A-1, a plan entitled Villages at Roxbury, dated August 1998, is the site layout plan that was originally submitted to the Planning Board with 190 lots and required no variances.  Exhibit A-2, plan entitled Villages at Roxbury, exhibit A-19 from the original hearings dated 11/29/99, which is the approved subdivision plan for 186 lots.  Exhibit A-3, dated 4/20/05, is the current plan before the Board for 179 lots. 


Ms. Berninger said during the original proceedings it was decided to eliminate two roads on the project – Road U and Road M.  We did that, and eliminated one pump station and a detention basin.  It was agreed a the time to try and retain the 190 lots, and some variances would be entertained by the Board of net area variances, lot width.  We then came back to the Board with a layout for 187 lots with some variances for net lot area and lot width.  Eighteen lots required lot width relief and 17 lots required net area relief.  There was a total of 29  lots that required variances.  We also had 18 allowable reduced lot size lots.  The ordinance permitted 10% of the lots to be of reduced size.  The minimum lot size on the project was 10,000 square feet, and the allowable reduced size lots was 8,500 square feet, with an 85 foot width.  Each lot was required to have the minimum lot area, exclusive of slopes 20% or greater.  We were also required one RSIS di minimus exception for the number of lots on a cul-de-sac on Road K/Road L.  The current plan maintains that same configuration.  The approved plan also had 21 lots with decks in order to meet the useable rear yard card criteria, which says each lot must have at least 20 feet behind the house with slopes 15% or less.  There is a provision in the ordinance that if we can’t meet that through grading, decks or other measures, could be implemented.  There were 21 lots that did not meet the criteria. 


Ms. Berninger said with the current plan, we are down to 179 lots.  Two lots will be dedicated to the Township for pumps stations.  We will also dedicate a recreation lot at the corner of Mansel and Salmon and a Morris Canal passive park along Shippenport Road to the Township.  One of the lots we are losing is a result of meeting we had with the State Office of Historic Preservation and the Historic Advisory Committee.  We agreed to lose a lot on Road A in order to preserve certain remnants and artifacts of the Morris Canal.  There was an early condition that we flip Road A.  The main reason we couldn’t do that was that there was a wetlands buffer averaging plan to deal with.  The Township owns a piece of property adjacent to the parcel and they had agreed to let us do wetland compensation on that lot, but the entire lot was wetlands and that couldn’t be done.  We have confirmation from Deborah at the State Office of Historic preservation that they are happy with Road A.  We still need to look at Shippenport Road with them.


Ms. Berninger said there are 7 lots lost due to incorrectly mapped steep slopes. Two lots were lost along Road E, two lots were lost at Road F and Road G.  One lot was lost on Roads O & T, and two lots were lost along Road Q.  The roadway alignment is identical except that we shortened Road Q and Road E a little bit.  There are not changes to the overall stormwater management plan.  We still require the di minimus exception as there are 34 lots on the Road L & K cul-d-sac network.  We are now down to 17 reduced size lots (shown on exhibit A-3).  We did not re-number the lots on the drawings.


Ms. Berninger said there were 209 conditions in the original resolution.  Since 1999 we have been working on those, and there are a number of technical changes incorporated into the plan.  There is additional drainage, and additional retaining walls.  We have been working on technical plans for sewer and water with the Engineering Department.


Mr. Zoschak asked when the outflow pipe will be fixed on Shippenport Road. 


Ms. Berninger said she has been working on that with Mr. Kobylarz.  The pipe has to be replaced.


Mr. Bodolsky asked if there was rationale for what lots were eliminated.


Ms. Berninger said the steep slope requirement was one factor.  We focused on the lots that had significant amounts of steep slopes.  We also made a determination as to what lots could be eliminated without having to make too many changes in the lot layout.  With this current plan, 18 lots now required relief.  The previous plan had 29 lots that required relief. Thirteen lots require lot width relief, 6 lots require net area relief.  In all cases, the net area is not less than what was previously approved.  The same situation exists with the lots that required lot width relief. 


Mr. Bodolsky asked if the applicant could submit a comparison, lot number by lot number.


Ms. Berninger said she will provide the information.


Mr. Stern said some of the walls have been eliminated.


Ms. Berninger said with the reconfiguration and loss of lots, we were able to grade Basin G so that it now has no retaining walls in it.


Mr. Tripp asked Ms. Berninger to compare from the prior plan how many lots had to have decks because they did not meet the 20 feet to how many there are now.


Ms. Berninger stated the prior plan had 21 lots requiring a deck, and the current plan has 11.  There were other lots with other encumbrances in the rear yards due to easements.


Mr. Tripp said we have discussed with Mr. Germinario that generally, if in the area of encumbrance you can still have outdoor activities, that would be deemed usable, even if there is an easement underground that prevents construction of something.  Anything where the grade is appropriate to outdoor use would be deemed usable.


Mr. Germinario said he agrees with that interpretation.




No one stepped forward.




The application was carried to 5/4/05.  The applicant granted an extension of time to 5/31/05.






Old Business


Mr. Stern said Commerce Bank went into construction on the extended head wall that went beyond the retaining wall.  As a condition of approval they were to stone-face that and provide some landscaping.  After a site visit, I find the best way to do this is through heavy evergreen landscaping along the child care center, as well as a 6 foot high fence along there.




The Board agreed with Mr. Stern’s recommendation.


The meeting was adjourned by motion at 11:15 p.m.


                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary