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,
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.
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.
M-3-05 – BUILT RITE HOMES –
SOIL APPLICATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON BERKSHIRE VALLEY RD. BLOCK 7001, LOT 2
IN R-2 ZONE
Attorney David Stern represented
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.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
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.
M-10-04 – KENNETH JACOBSEN
– MINOR SUBDIVISION FOR 2 LOTS LOCATED ON DOGWOOD LANE,
BLOCK 3201, LOT 30 IN R-2 ZONE
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Mr. Meyer asked Mr. Stern his
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
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
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
Mr. Catero said there is a
problem because there are large trees on each side of Dogwood Lane there.
No one else stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
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
The application was carried to 5/18/05.
There was a 5 minute recess.
S-13-05 – KAZI FOODS (KFC)
– MINOR SITE PLAN FOR ADDITION TO EXISTING RESTAURANT LOCATED ON RT. 46, BLOCK
6501, LOT 19 IN B-2 ZONE
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
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
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.
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
Item 12 – to be addressed in
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
S-7-05 – PRIMAX – SITE PLAN
FOR AUTO PARTS STORE LOCATED ON RT. 46, BOCK 6501, LOT 8 IN B-2 ZONE
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
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
Added end island to the row facing the building and added
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
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
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
Ms. Voyce asked why they need to
have tractor trailers. Could they use box trucks?
The application as carried to
S-2-05 – VILLAGES AT
ROXBURY – AMENDED SUBDIVISION FOR 186 LOTS LOCATED ON SHIPPENPORT RD. BLOCK
11201, LOTS 1, 2, 3 IN R-6 ZONE
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
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
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
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.
PUBLIC PORTION OPENED
No one stepped forward.
PUBLIC PORTION CLOSED
The application was carried to
5/4/05. The applicant granted an extension of time to 5/31/05.
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
The meeting was adjourned by
motion at 11:15 p.m.
A. DeMasi, Secretary