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, Gary Behrens, Jim Rilee, Richard Zoschak, Michael Shadiack, Joseph Schwab, Steven Alford, Lisa Voyce.


ABSENT:  Teresa DeVincentis, Charles Bautz.


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


Also present:  Dolores DeMasi, Board Secretary






                                               ROXBURY TOWNSHIP PLANNING BOARD

                                                         MAJOR SOIL REMOVAL/RELOCATION PERMIT


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


1.  Applicant/Permittee:  Built-Right Homes, LLC


2.  Application Number:  M-3-05


3.  Property Identification:  Block 7001, Lot 2


4.  Subdivision/Site Plan Approval Date(s):  Minor Subdivision 11/3/04


5.  Major Soil Permit Approval Date4/20/05


6.  Effective Date4/20/05


7.  Findings of Fact:


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


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


C.            A public hearing was conducted, in accordance with the Ordinance, and with opportunity for comment by interested members of the public, on the following date(s):  4/20/05


D.            In granting this Permit, the Board has considered the factors enumerated in Section 17-6.6 of the Ordinance.  The Board has received and considered the following documents in connection with this Application: (1) soil moving application dated 3/15/05; (2) soil movements stockpile plan by Frederick C. Meola, P.E. revised to 1/13/05; (3) earthwork calculations by Frederick C. Meola dated 4/6/05; and (4) reports of the Planning Board Engineer, Thomas Bodolsky, dated 4/12/05.


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


1.             The Applicant intends to export 954 cubic yards (c.y.) of soil.


2.             The Applicant proposes to relocate within the site  5,424 c.y. of soil.


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


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


5.             The Applicant has agreed to comply with the recommendations contained in the report of the Planning Board Engineer dated 4/12/05.


6.             Pursuant to Section 17-9d of the Ordinance, the Board finds that circumstances warrant the restriction of the hours of soil moving operations to 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays (with such operations prohibited on Sundays and legal holidays).


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


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


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


B.            This Permit shall remain valid for a term of one year from the Effective Date specified in Paragraph 6 hereinabove, subject to extension thereafter in accordance with Ordinance Section 17-9c.


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


D.            This approval shall not become effective until:  (i) Applicant has paid all outstanding property taxes and assessments due or delinquent as of the date hereof; and (ii) all conditions of the minor subdivision approval have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Board Engineer.


E.             Applicant shall comply with:  (i) "Hours of Operation" established pursuant to Ordinance Section 17-9d, as modified pursuant to paragraph 7.E.6 hereinabove; (ii) "General Terms and Conditions of Operation" stipulated in Section 17-10; (iii) "Topsoil Restrictions", pursuant to Section 17-11; (iv) "Depth of Excavation", pursuant to Section 17-12; and (v) "Final Grades", pursuant to Section 17-13.


F.             Applicant grants to the Township Engineer, and/or his duly authorized agents, the right of entry to the property to conduct inspections to determine compliance with this Permit.


G.            This approval is subject to all outside agency review as may have jurisdiction over this matter.


H.            This Permit is subject to the following additional terms and conditions: 


1.             All fill will be exported from Applicant's site to outside the Township.


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


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


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


4.             Applicant shall post fees as follows:


Section 17-7.1  Application Fee - $250.00

Section 17-7.2  Soil Moving Fee - $143.00 ($0.15/cy

times 954 cy)

Section 17-7.3  Engineering Inspection Fees pursuant

to Section 13-2.404 of the

Township Ordinances


5.             Per Section 17-8 of the Ordinance, Applicant shall post a performance bond in the amount of $2,000.


6.             Applicant shall place hay bales on the site to supplement planned silt fencing for erosion control to the satisfaction of the Planning Board Engineer.


7.             In accordance with Ordinance Sections 17-6.1(t) and 17-6.4, the Applicant shall stake out interior improvements with appropriate cut sheets to the satisfaction of the Township Engineer, and a professional land surveyor shall stake out lot corners and appropriate points on line.


The undersigned does hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate recitation of the action taken by the Planning Board on the approval date designated hereinabove.




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


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




Mr. Meyer announced Applications S-24-05 - McArdle, S-21-04 – Glenn Bott, and M-3-04 – Mark Tucci will not be heard and are carried to May 18, 2005.




Attorney Lawrence Berger represented the applicant.  He stated we have had testimony from the traffic consultant and addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s letter except for a few items.  We also addressed Mr. Stern’s memo regarding the variances and waivers.  Tonight we will address the outstanding items.  The main issue is paving for Dell Avenue.


Mr. Ritter said at the last meeting there was discussion on tree replacement and issues that grew out of the fact we had proposed a stormwater detention system in a required buffer adjacent to a residential area.  Originally we had established a 25 foot buffer area adjacent to the site, and it was pointed out to us that the buffer adjacent to a residential area is increased to 50 feet.  We have redesigned the detention system and relocated parking on the site to increase the amount of green space where the property abuts the residential district.  We also changed the tree replacement calculations.  The plan shows a much thinner detention basin and the buffer has been increased to 50 feet in width.  The parking originally on the north side of the building has been moved out of the buffer area and 7 additional overflow spaces have been provided in the back, bringing the total spaces to 42.  There is still a small area of the driveway that encroaches.  Under the original submission we were required to replace about 673 spaces, and now we will be required to replace 427 trees.  We redeveloped the landscape plan – original plan dated 3/14/05 (marked A-5) – revised plan dated 5/4/05(marked A-6). 


An amended landscape plan dated 5/4/05 was marked A-7.


Mr. Ritter said the landscape plan in the package increases the number of trees and the total landscaping will be 271 replacement trees, with 11 street trees in addition to that.  That would still have required a waiver.  What we are willing to do now (shown on A-7) is to provide landscaping on an abutting property that also abuts a residential district.  We will eliminate the need for relief from the tree ordinance by adding 93 trees, additional screening and landscaping, and thickening the number of evergreens, add under-plantings along the southern edge of the driveway.  We have also added trees in the front, for a total of 93 additional trees.  Mr. Petillo owns the abutting tract across the street, and the tramway continues across along the frontage, and the land to the north of his parcel is in the residential zone.  We propose, with this package, to establish the buffer between the residential area and what could be the industrial development and start it growing.  We propose planting an additional 63 pine trees along the road frontage. 


Mr. Zoschak asked if the numbers make sense.


Mr. Stern said there was a shortfall in the most recent submission.  When that occurs, the Board typically accepts a contribution to the tree fund.  Mr. Petillo prefers to put the trees on his adjoining parcel.  It would eliminate gravel and pavement along that property line and provides an opportunity to establish landscaping in that area.  We have recently received a subdivision application for the northerly property along Dell Avenue and B Rd.  The proposal does make sense.  My concern would be that the applicant makes sure the vegetation across the street be protected, and not restrict future re-development of that property. 


Mr. Germinario said that tract is not part of this application, but we can provide for payment of off site landscaping in lieu of plantings on site so this does fit within the ordinance scheme as far as tree replacement. 


Mr. Stern said there would have to be a landscapers guarantee, and a long range agreement for replacement on a one-to-one basis.  If the trees come down on that property in the future, they would have to be replaced elsewhere. 


The applicant agreed.


Mr. Berger said one of the conditions in Mr. Stern’s report stated that to remove any tree on the tract, there would have to be a performance bond for the tree replacement.


Mr. Berger requested that the tree bond be made a condition of C.O., rather than preliminary site plan.


Mr. Stern said the purpose of the bond is to have it in the event the trees are removed, and the project is not completed for some unforeseen circumstance.


Mr. Berger said regarding wooden gates on the trash enclosure, item 2.3 in Mr. Stern’s report, that is acceptable. 


Mr. Berger said regarding the outstanding items in Mr. Bodolsky’s report:


Item 7 – Discussion.   Mr. Berger said the applicant prefers the easement be a condition of final, rather than preliminary.


Mr. Bodolsky asked if this project is imminent.


Mr. Petillo stated this project will be built, and he would like it completed before Christmas.


It was determined the project can be started, as long as the process of the easement is underway.  It will be a condition that there will be a submission of a draft easement simultaneously with the signing of preliminary site plan.


Item 15 – Held for further discussion.


Item 18 – Agree to connect to public water when available.


Item 20 – Applicant prefers the option of either gravel or asphalt.  The Board agreed.


Item 22 – Discussion.  It was determined the ½ width will be reduced to 15 feet.


Item 15 – Regarding the pavement of Dell Avenue, Mr. Berger said there was no requirement for the paving with the other project which was approved.  Should we repave Dell Avenue, it will look the same as it does now in 18 months.


Mr. Petillo said County Concrete uses the road extensively and that is why the road is the way it is now.  There is no drainage.  We are improving the drainage as much as we can on our site. 


Discussion.  Mr. Petillo agreed to change the curb piece head on the inlets on Dell avenue to conform with the new stormwater regulations.


Mr. Meyer said there will be other applications on Dell Avenue.  Does everyone get a pass because of County Concrete?


Mr. Bodolsky said I believe for the other site we asked for the same thing, and it was bartered against other improvements.  Is that the way it was resolved?


Mr. Petillo said we had talked about widening it by 20 feet, and the spread in the difference went into the cost for the water line.


Mr. Zoschak asked if Mr. Petillo will put the water line on the other side.


Mr. Petillo said yes.  It goes to this site.


Mr. Berger said, in answer to Mr. Meyer, the town could do a special assessment based on usage of the road.


Mr. Rilee said the township has never dealt with special assessment.


Mr. Bodolsky said there is the option to require the monetary equivalent.


Mr. Berger said he does not believe we have an obligation to repair the road under any circumstances.  The maximum we would do is our pro rata share of the traffic vs. the total traffic on the road, which would be insignificant.


Mr. Germinario said the pro rata formula comes into play for off tract contributions.  The portion of the road way that directly abuts the site is an off-site improvement.  I would think that is not governed by pro rata share.  The Board has the discretion to require off site improvements.  Those go along with the site improvements.  I agree with Mr. Berger that if this is a situation that has nothing to do with the site improvements they are proposing, and is going to be created by the traffic of other users of Dell Avenue, it probably not be proper for this Board to require that the applicant pay 100% of the cost of restoring the road to its original state.  To come up with some kind of contribution for the upgrading of the road makes sense, at some point in time.  That would be something that benefits this site.


Mr. Berger said we think with whatever money anyone spends on the road, 18 months later it will look the same as it looks today.


Mr. Rilee said if the proper drainage is put in and the road is done properly, it can be maintained.


Mr. Petillo said re-doing the road would require a total reconstruction of the road for its whole width, and that would require a special assessment.


Mr. Behrens said I don’t think it makes sense to just pave that small portion.  Granting a waiver would not set a precedent, as it was not required for the property on the other side of the road anyway, and he has already been granted an exception as a trade-off for the water line.


After further discussion, it was determined the waiver will be granted.


Mr. Bodolsky said regarding the drainage scheme relative to Dell Avenue, the drainage is unconventional from the standpoint of conventional engineering thought.  They are providing 3 inlets along their frontage and dumping into the detention pond that takes a portion of Dell Avenue from there to a crest in the road, and the front portion of the site.  The applicant has said he would assume the maintenance responsibilities for the pond.  On the other side of the street they proposed the same thing and the Board at that time thought that was a good idea because we don’t have anywhere to go on Dell Avenue.   There was a discussion about an off tract contribution to pipe this down to the Corwin Pit, and the board rejected that idea because of water quality to the Corwin pit.  This road is extremely dirty through this area.  I am asking for the Board to vote on the stormwater approach. 


Mr. Zoschak said Mr. Bodolsky said this meets the new stormwater regulations.


Mr. Bodolsky said yes, except if you are going to do infiltration under the new regulations, you are not supposed to take parking areas in it.  Here, it is a dirty roadway.  From that standpoint it doesn’t meet the standards.  Other than that, they do meet the standards.


Mr. Berger said the applicant has agreed they will maintain the basin.


Mr. Bodolsky said the issue of permeability is a question.  I am not satisfied there were good representative results on the soil.  I want to be sure this pond will work. 


Mr. Plante stated as to the permeability and percolation tests, we are doing additional tests in front of the lot near the basin, to make sure we have a high perk rate.  If we get that high perk rate, this basin will function more than adequately and will contain the 100 year design inflow.  There is a very good level of security and insurance in the design of that structure.


It was determined it will be a condition that if the perk tests don’t  meet the requirement, they will return to the Board.


Mr. Bodolsky suggested the township have someone there to observe the new soil logs. 


Mr. Berger said the applicant agrees to have it observed by the appropriate municipal official.


Mr. Germinario said if the permeability tests are not adequate, can the sizing of the pond be worked out between Mr. Bodolsky and the applicant’s engineer?


Ms. Voyce said the NRI shows this as being well drained, and on the permeability, it is listed as 1 to 2 inches per hour.  There may be an issue.  Septic effluent limitations are slight.  It looks like it will probably perk.  Regarding the maintenance, in sand there are problems with iron bacteria at times.  That would be a concern.  The long term maintenance is a concern.


Mr. Berger said in the event the soils don’t pass, we would work it out with Mr. Bodolsky for the normal standard for a 25 year storm.


The Board determined that will be the requirement.


New Item 2A – applicant agreed to staff gauges

All other comments dealing with stormwater management – addressed

Item 5 – agreed

Item 10 – agreed

Item 17 – agreed

Item 19 – agreed

All other items – addressed


Mr. Stern said a design waiver will be required for the area inventoried for the tree replacement calculations.


Mr. Ritter said justification for that is that there is a fairly even mix of standing trees. We felt the samples we used were adequate.


Mr. Stern had no objection.




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. Behrens, yes; Mr. Zoschak, yes Mr. Schwab, yes; Mr. Alford, yes; Ms. Voyce, yes; Mr. Shadiack, yes; Mr. Meyer, yes.


There was a 5 minute recess at 9:00




Attorney Steven Tripp represented the applicant.  He said at the last hearing we were going through the overview of the plans and where the differences are.  One issue we will address is the variance lots. 


Susan Berninger was present.  She stated the current plan shows 14.71 acres of steep slope disturbance, and an additional .137 acres related to the tot lot at the corner of Salmon and Mansel, for a total of 14.874 acres steep slope disturbance.  This includes slopes that will be temporarily disturbed when we are building retaining walls.  The original number approved was 14.3 acres which didn’t include the disturbance behind the retaining walls.


Mr. Bodolsky asked if the 14.8 acres includes everything within the designated limits of disturbance on the site.


Ms. Berninger said that is correct.


Ms. Berninger said the limits of disturbance have decrease because of the loss of lots and shortening of roads.  Common open space has increased from 86.84 acres to 88.4 acres.  We currently have 49.3% open space where the ordinance requires 35%.  Regarding retaining walls, there is an increase in the number of walls.  We looked at walls in the open space lots, tot lots and recreation lots and on individual lots and detention basin lots.    Basin F (shown on A-3) was allowed to have retaining walls added to get the volume we needed to meet peak flow reductions.  In general, the retaining wall length has increased on the individual lots by 644 lineal feet, or 8%.  Five percent of the increase was due to drainage at the end of Road L (exhibit A-3).  We added 391 feet of retaining wall there. 


Mr. Tripp said other than this, there is 250 feet spread out over the entire site?


Ms. Berninger said yes.  On this plan we have included the footprints of the largest possible homes we intend to build.  Some lots had walls before that don’t have them now, and others did not have them and now do.  We tried to stay within the height of the walls we had before.


Mr. Bodolsky said when he issues a report, he will go sheet by sheet and discuss a comparison of the original walls vs. the present walls.


Ms. Berninger said for the walls in the open space area, there were 3,539 feet in the original plan, and now there are 3,932 linear feet.  That is mainly due to designing the tot lots and recreation area.  We designed the tot lot at Mansel and Salmon after discussion with the recreation department.  We also moved a tot lot from lot 183 to the emergency connection to Oren Drive.   In the detention basins, the approved plan had 1,502 feet and the current plan has 2,968 feet.  1,350 feet of that additional wall is related to basin F, where the condition of the resolution said we could use retaining walls to meet the volume and the peak flow rate reduction criteria.   The condition also talks about having two tiers of wall maximum.  We had a staff meeting in February and discussed safety shelves.  In order to do that we went to a third terrace.  The other basins, A & B have each an additional 16 feet of wall in them.


Mr. Stern requested the wall information be submitted in a tabular form.


Ms. Berninger submitted a chart (marked A-4) showing the comparison of lot width variances, net area variances, and comparison of lots with proposed decks.  She said regarding lot width, there were a total of 18 lots requiring variances and we now have 13.  The width is the same as approved or slightly increased.  Lot 49 complied during the original approval, and now requires a variance, however, there were 6 that previously required variances and now don’t.  There is a total of 5 more complying lots. 


Ms. Berninger said on the net area variances, there is a comparison.  There were 17 lots that required the variance and we now have 6.  All of those lots have increased in size, but still require relief.  There is more net area now that originally approved. Net area is the area within the lot that is free of slopes 20% or greater.  All of the 6 now have more net area than previously approved.


Ms. Berninger said the next chart compares the decks.  There were 21 lots previously approved with decks.  We now have 11.  The decks do conform, but you don’t need the decks on 10 of the lots.  You can meet the ordinance by providing them.  It is preferable to have the rear yard without the deck.


Ms. Berninger said regarding the water supply, since 1999 we have been working with the Engineering Department for the water plan.


Ms. Berninger referred to the off-site water plan revised 1/31/05 (marked A-5).  Because we don’t have a confirmed route, the plan shows water coming from Rt. 46 on the other side of Route 80, under Route 80, towards Shippenport Road, under the railroad bridge, and then either up Shippenport Road or up Orben Drive onto Landing Road and into the project.


Mr. Tripp said during the prior hearings, the Lake Rogerene people requested the water line be brought up Orben Drive, and we agreed, if it was consistent with the township water plan, that the engineering department agreed, and that the two municipalities were able to work out an agreement.  When we submitted the amended preliminary plans, an agreement had not been reached.  We fully engineered both routes.  There have been meetings, and I have been advised there is now an agreement in principal, as to the Orben Drive Route, but it is not a written agreement at this time.


Mr. Germinario said that is correct.


Mr. Rilee said at the Council level, he heard there were some unreasonable requests from Mount Arlington.


Mr. Germinario said there was a meeting about 6 weeks ago, and they significantly scaled back what they were asking for.


Mr. Tripp said after discussions, they then agreed to withdraw some of their requests, and the engineering details were discussed.


Ms. Berninger said we did agree to give curb boxes for about 43 homes, hydrants every 500 feet and T’s and valves at intersections, and their engineer will review the plans once Mike Kobylarz is done.  We fully engineered both routes.  Mr. Kobylarz’s office has reviewed the plans, and we are nearing agreement.  The engineering department has indicated they won’t sign any DEP applications until it is resolved.  The on-site water is a different issue, as it doesn’t need the route picked. 


Mr. Tripp said by the time the Board is able to act on this application, I think there will be an agreement.


Mr. Germinario agreed.


Mr. Bodolsky asked, if there is no agreement, what would be the appropriate condition in our resolution relative to water?


Mr. Tripp said he believes it would say the route would be Orben Drive unless the agreement is not reached within a date certain, at which point it would be along Shippenport.


Mr. Germinario said that is correct, subject to the municipal agreement being finalized, and then they would fall back on the Shippenport route.


Ms. Berninger said regarding phasing for the on site water system, there has been a report by the Township Engineer indicating how much water is available. Until there is water for the full build-out we will have to prepare a water phasing plan. 


Mr. Tripp said the first phase will be all the infrastructure, and then work on a number of lots that can be served by water (41 lots).  Phase 2 will be either the remainder of the lots or some combination.


Ms. Berninger said the time frame for build-out if we have water would be about 5 years.


Ms. Berninger said the other major issue is soil movement.  We will be addressing that once the layout is confirmed. 


Mr. Tripp said there are a number of conditions of the original approval that will need to be modified. 


Mr. Meyer asked when we will have the benefit of reports from the staff.


Mr. Bodolsky said in about 2 weeks time.  Mr. Stern said toward the end of June for his report.


Resolution items that need to be modified will be brought before the Board.  


Mr. Bodolsky said he had asked for a digital copy of the (reduced number of lots. There is a new slope delineation, and we need a digital copy of their file to check that more quickly, or we can accept the applicant’s representation.


After discussion, the applicant agreed to submit the digital copy of the file for his review.


Mr. Meyer said he feels the applicant should submit the copy to Mr. Bodolsky to check for any gross areas, and not to split hairs.


The application was carried to 6/15/05.   The applicant granted an extension of time through the end of June.




No one stepped forward.






Mr. Bodolsky said there was a pre-construction meeting for the soil movement aspects of the Gemini site.  The Board had required the applicant to move earth on the site without fulfilling the resolution compliance items, with the caveat they were not to put in any improvements until full resolution compliance.  There was a realization that the fill for the Route 46 side of the phase 1 building is the big fill on that site.  Some of the pipes are 25 to 30 feet below the fill area, but only about 5 feet below the existing road.  The applicant wants to put those pipes in now.  They are seeking an amendment to that condition to allow those particular pipes to be placed now.  Mr. Kobylarz and I don’t object.  Soil Conservation promotes it as well.


The Board agreed to allow the pipes to go in.


The meeting was adjourned by motion at 10:00 p.m.


                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary