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

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


BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT:  Larry Sweeney, Gary Behrens, Charles Bautz, Richard Zoschak, Michael Shadiack, Joseph Schwab, Jim Rilee.  Lisa Voyce arrived at 7:40 p.m.  Teresa DeVincentis arrived at 8:00 p.m.


ABSENT:  Scott Meyer, Steven Alford.


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


Mr. Sweeney announced Application S-24-05 – Jacobsen has been withdrawn






                                               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



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


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






Mr. Stern said this is a major subdivision application for a 5 lot subdivision on Carey Road.  The applicant has met all items of completeness.


Mr. Rilee made a motion to deem the application complete.  Mr. Zoschak seconded.


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


The application is scheduled for 6/15/05.






Ms. DeMasi said there was a problem with the sale of the property, and the Board has to take action on the application.


Mr. Rilee made a motion to deny the application without prejudice.  Mr. Zoschak seconded.


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




Mr. Sweeney said this has been scheduled many times, and suggested it be denied without prejudice


Mr. Rilee made a motion to deny the application without prejudice.   Mr. Zoschak seconded.


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




James McArdle was sworn in.


Ilmar Aasmaa was sworn in. 


Mr. Bodolsky said his report date 5/11/05 indicates the applicant is going to export 3,253  cubic yards of earth.  The subdivision was approved last year.  There should be discussion on hours of operation.  Will the entire lot be developed at once?


Mr. McArdle said probably one or two homes at a time.


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


Mr. Bodolsky said he doesn’t see any reason to deviate from the standard hours of operation.


The applicant agreed.


Mr. McArdle said the soil will go out of town and the route of travel will be either Main Street to Route 80 or Berkshire Valley Road to Route 80.


Discussion.  It was determined the route of travel will be West Dewey Avenue to Main Street to Route 15 to Route 80.  The trucks will stay off of  Berkshire Valley Rd. and Dell Avenue. 


Mr. Bodolsky said the conservation easement should be demarcated as a condition of any earthwork moving. 


The applicant agreed.


The applicant agreed to the remaining conditions in the report.




No one stepped forward.




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


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







Attorney Richard Sweeney represented the applicant.


Mr. Bodolsky said we issued a review letter dated 5/13/05, and reissued a review today as well.  


Michael Spillane was present.


Keith Appelbaum was sworn in.  He gave his educational and professional background as a professional engineer.


Mr. Appelbaum said he prepared drainage calculations for the property and designed a stormwater management facility.  The facility is an infiltration basin with drywells.  It is designed to address a 100 year storm.  The basin will address the water that flows from the street and will allow it to infiltrate so as to not affect the existing residences in the event of a 100-year storm and a lesser storm. 


Ms. DeMasi said everyone on the Board is qualified to hear the application.


Mr. Richard Sweeney asked Mr. Appelbaum to describe the drainage.


Mr. Appelbaum said the water is burdened by water that flows from the street onto it.  He said there is a water problem on Second Street in front of the existing dwelling.  There is a catch basin in the road which is not working well, as it was designed for a drywell and either wasn’t sized correctly or has silted up.  The water flows to the south and flows into the back yard.  There is a curbline there existing.  We have designed two portions in the existing property.  The whole back yard has been lowered to accommodate the water coming onto the property. 


Mr. Appelbaum was referring to the minor subdivision dated 2/3/05 prepared by Spillane Engineering, last revised 5/12/05 (marked A-1).


Mr. Appelbaum said the most outer line of the contours is the 100-year flood line at post development.  The property would be graded, and when that is done, a bowl will be excavated.  That is the elevation at which the 100-year flood will go up to in the back yard.  The lesser lines indicate the contours – the first one being elevation 99 ½, then 98, etc.


Ms. DeVincentis arrived at 8:00.


Mr. Appelbaum said a 100-year storm is the largest storm that will occur, given a probability, in 100 years.  There is a design standard by which detention basins are designed.  It is the 100-year storm.  On the interior of the basin there are drywells which will contain some of the volume of the water and will allow infiltration into the ground. 


Mr. Zoschak asked if perk tests were performed.


Mr. Appelbaum said no.  We can predict the water from a 100-year storm will drain into the ground in 27.1 hours.  The water would most likely leave the basin in less time than that.  It would be probably half that time.  27.1 hours is the worst-case scenario.


Mr. Richard Sweeney said the plans Mr. Appelbaum is referring to were submitted to Mr. Bodolsky.  The only change from the plans submitted to the Board were elevations in the front, including the 100 year elevation.   


Mr. Bodolsky asked about the second detention facility.


Mr. Appelbaum said it is in the front yard of the proposed dwelling adjacent to Second Street.  That will take water from the front yard of Block 2611, Lots 13 & 14.  The design parameter is a 100-year storm, and the basin will collect the water from Lots 13 and 14 and will flow into the basin and discharge into the ground.  There are 3 drywells in that basin as well.


Mr. Germinario asked the time period for that one.


Mr. Appelbaum said it would be 35.5 hours, worst-case scenario. 


Mr. Germinario said there is a provision in the zoning ordinance (Section 13-7.906) that states the basin shall maintain a minimum 20-foot setback from adjoining street right-of-ways and property lines.   


Mr. Richard Sweeney said that cannot be accomplished and we would require a variance.  We would amend the application for that variance.  The notice included language to include other variances required.


Ms. Voyce asked if not doing perk tests, and using information from the County, is standard practice.


Mr. Bodolsky said it is not standard.  The applicant is increasing the storage on this site from 8,400 cf to 21,000 cf. It is almost immaterial how fast it permeates the soil.  As long as it is permeable, they are not going to generate more than the difference of the storage, through the development of this lot.  I caution the Board about taking the testimony about how fast it drains as gospel.  There are many things that influence it.  My observation is that the back yard does drain now.  I know it is permeable. 


Ms. Voyce asked what previous knowledge Mr. Appelbaum used.


Mr. Spillane said when we started the application, there was concern about a mine hole.  We were required to excavate the hole.  All that was there was buried debris.  The entire lot is sand, and it drains very well.  Based on that, we assumed there was a reasonable permeability rate. 


PUBLIC PORTION OPENED for questions of Mr. Appelbaum.


Gary Simons, 82 South First Avenue, was sworn in.  He asked where the water comes from. 


Mr. Appelbaum stated once the rainwater hits the ground, some will permeate into grass and other areas.  The water that comes from the pavement and houses will flow into the street and eventually into the area in front of the dwelling.


Mr. Bodolsky said there is an exhibit of the projected tributary area.  It is not just this lot we are dealing with.


Mr. Simons asked if all the water was included, particularly the water on Route 46.


Mr. Appelbaum said he included all the water from South First Avenue where it runs halfway between Lot 17, behind the lot, down the middle of Frank Street and Ward Place, behind Lot 13, 14 and Lots 1 & 6.  The tributary area was determined from topo, and Mr. Spillane’s knowledge of the area and mapping the area.  It was done both from topo and visual information. 


Arthur Grimm, 94 South First Avenue, was sworn in.  He asked if the calculations were done from Mine Hill, or from his area (Block 2611, Lot 20).


Mr. Spillane said that is not caused by us, and lot 20 is beyond the drainage area.




The applicant addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report:


Item 2 – Mr. Richard Sweeney said the water is running from the municipal street.  The Board would have to make a decision as to who would maintain it.


Item 3 – Mr. Richard Sweeney said Kenvil is sand and gravel, and water has been flowing through that for a long time.  This applicant will allow the Board to impose such conditions it deems appropriate based on the proofs in this case. 


Item 4 – The applicant had no objection to the Township Engineer overseeing the construction of the basin.  The plan before the Board is the one for which we seek approval.


Mr. Rilee said we would like responses to the professional reports.  This is not a variance-free application. 


Item 5 -  Mr. Richard Sweeney said I assume we will submit a deed which will perfect the subdivision.  That deed will incorporate the provisions of the approval.  If you want to add a condition that the properties cannot be conveyed until the improvements are installed,  that is acceptable.  Or, the Board may withhold the signing of the deed until the basins are constructed.  That means the period of time to memorialize does not begin to run until the construction is done. 


Mr. Germinario said we would have to recognize the right to extend the 190 days based on the construction period. We could add a provision to the resolution recognizing the 190 period, due to the unusual condition, may need to be extended to accommodate the construction.  It would be a reasonable extension that is commensurate with the needs of the construction.


Ms. Voyce asked about the drainage easement draft which was submitted.


Mr. Germinario said it was worked out with the applicant’s attorney, but the Township would need to accept it.  This approval would be conditioned on the Township agreeing to these terms.  We will address this matter at the end of Mr. Bodolsky’s report.


Item 7  - agreed

Item 8 – to be discussed as part of the draft agreement

Item 9 – agreed

Item 10 – applicant requested the Board not restrict them from having a basement.  The Board determined basements will not be prohibited.

Item 11 –Discussion – It was determined a 2% grade from the curbline to the back of the house will be required

Item 12 – Mr. Bodolsky said the pond extends onto public property (variance required for setback of pond).  Discussion.  – To be determined by the Township Council.  


Mr. Bodolsky asked where the water for that pond comes from.


Mr. Appelbaum said the water comes from the side of South Second Street and down around Lots 13 and 14.  All of Second Street goes to the back yard pond.


Item 13 – Discussion. –  To be determined.


Item 1 – Mr. Germinario described the draft drainage easement agreement he has prepared.  He said the beginning is the background.  The first term coveys to the Township an easement to an area which would be described in a schedule.  The purpose of the easement is to give permission for what is already occurring, the runoff of water from Second Street onto the two lots that would be created by this subdivision. 


Mr. Rilee asked if the Township Attorney has seen the draft easement agreement.


Mr. Germinario said he has not.


Mr. Rilee said he does not feel comfortable discussing this agreement as we have just received it this evening.


Mr. Germinario said it should be addressed in a public forum.


Mr. Rilee said we have not read it yet.


Ms. Voyce asked what roll Mr. Shivietz has in this. 


Mr. Germinario said he is an attorney associated with Mr. Richard Sweeney.


Ms. Voyce said she has looked through the easement agreement, and doesn’t see how it provides us with much protection.


Mr. Germinario went through the easement.  The first paragraph is the grant of the general easement rights.  Paragraph 2 says the easement is limited to the right of the Township to discharge from Second Street onto Lots 12 and 12.01 in a quantity and volume not substantially greater than that which is presently being discharged onto Lot 12.  The intent is not to give an open-ended easement that would allow the Township to continually augment the volume of water going onto the property.


Mr. Richard Sweeney suggested changing the wording to rate and volume, rather than quantity and volume.


Mr. Germinario agreed and said the second part says the Township will not use this as an open-ended easement to create a public detention basin on this property.  


Mr. Rilee asked how that can be quantified.


Mr. Bodolsky said in his opinion the widening of Second Street would violate this. 


Mr. Rilee asked how you quantify an increase in runoff.


Mr. Germinario said the obligation of the Township is not to do anything, on its own, that would increase the discharge.


Mr. Rilee asked if resurfacing or anything like that would count.


Mr. Bodolsky said this is the low point of the road.  Both sides of the road come ultimately to this lot.  I don’t see that you can alter that to the detriment to the applicant.  There is a fine point.  It is properly worded as it is the Township, not private property owners.


Ms. Voyce asked if a Township-approved zoning permit for something like a shed increased the runoff, would the Township be held responsible?


Mr. Germinario said realistically, I can’t conceive how a shed would cause a substantial increase in the rate or volume of runoff.


Ms. Voyce said that goes back to how you quantify an increase.


Mr. Germinario said substantial means something that would create a distinctly measurable increase in the ponding of water on the site. 


Mr. Rilee asked how we quantify what the current rate is so that we can decide what would be substantial.


Mr. Germinario said that would be something that would be a matter of proof by the complaining party.




Gary Simons stepped forward.  He said he has lived here for 27 years.  The water starts at Rt. 46 and runs on my property.  The little drywell that they put in was because that property did flood at one time.  People know it floods when the ground freezes and it rains on top of that.  We need storm drains. 


Jody LeFrance stepped forward.  She said she has pictures of her driveway where the water is. She said the house in one photo is the one that is renting right now.  You can have water in the basement when you have French drains.  There was water in the basement before. 


Another photo showed the drain out in the street. 


Another photo showed curbing that was put there by the owner who built the house.  The town did not put it there.  You should find out about things.


Mr. Richard Sweeney said he has just repeated testimony that the neighbors gave.


Steve Walilko, 66 South Second Avenue, Mine Hill, was sworn in.  He said he wants to know if there will be sufficient basins made, how it affects his yard, and the street.  He has photos taken of a storm in March showing how the street floods.  The water flows from the property onto the street.  His property is half in Roxbury and half in Mine Hill.  


Mr. Walilko submitted photos P-1 through P-8. 


Mr. Richard Sweeney asked if Mr. Walilko took the photos.


Mr. Walilko said he and his wife both took the photos.  They were taken with a digital camera.


Mr. Richard Sweeney asked if the photos were altered on the computer.


Mr. Walilko said no.  He just printed them and did not alter them.  They were taken in mid-March.  There had been a normal storm.  The photo depicts the house that is presently on the subject property.


Mr. Walilko described the photos for the Board. 


P-1 – Front of house showing beginning of storm.  Usually the driveway floods out first.

P-2 – A little later in the day.  Street and driveway are flooded.

P-3 – Flooding of the street.

P-4 – Photo taken from Mr. Walilko’s driveway to left side of house, showing the water in the back of the yard is starting to flow to the street.  The back of the yard is higher than the street level.

P-5 – Another picture from back yard.  There is one stream from the back of the yard flowing out to the street.

P-6 – Another picture of back yard.  Yard is starting to fill up with water.

P-7 – Photo of wife’s foot showing water up to the ankles.

P-8 – Photo of back yard flooding.


Mr. Richard Sweeney said P-1 shows a Saab automobile in the driveway.  Is there water accumulated at that point?


Mr. Walilko said no.  It is just starting to rain.


Mr. Richard Sweeney said P-2 shows water is beginning to collect on the street.  Is it collecting on the street where the drywell is?


Mr. Walilko said yes.   He agreed the drywell is flooded at that point, and is not taking the water, and it is building up on the surface of the street.  I can’t tell whether or not the drywell is clear.  It does get clogged up a lot.


Mr. Richard Sweeney said P-4 shows the gable side of the house and a trailer parked on the side yard.  Water is shown there to the left of the trailer.  Is that water flowing from the property onto the street?


Mr. Walilko said yes.


Mr. Richard Sweeney asked P-5 shows water is flowing from the property onto the street.


Mr. Walilko said yes.  The same thing applies to P-6.


Mr. Richard Sweeney said the testimony of the engineers is that the grade of the property goes from a high point in the vicinity of the street to the Tucci property.  You don’t agree with that?


Mr. Walilko said he does not agree.  I am there all the time.  They are not.


Mr. Bodolsky said he spoke with Ms. Walilko about two days after that storm.  At the time I got there, the property was largely dry.  She indicated to me that what she observed was that the water was progressing out of the back yard toward the street and ultimately, the street joined that water.  Is that what you observed?


Mr. Walilko said depending on the type of storm, that does happen. 


Mr. Bodolsky asked if it is possible that what you are observing is not water flowing from the back yard but a progression of the size of the pond.


Mr. Walilko said not on that day.


Mr. Bodolsky said the reason I went out there was that I believe this was the remnants of Hurricane Ivan which, in some areas was more than an average storm.  Is that correct?


Mr. Walilko said he does not recall.


Mr. Bodolsky said what we are observing is something significantly higher than a two-year storm, in my opinion.


Ms. LeFrance submitted her photos (marked P-9 to P-12) and described them for the Board.


Mr. Bodolsky asked who put the makeshift curb in.


Ms. LeFrance said the original owner of the house did.  When the town put the sewer in the road was nicely paved.  When they put the water in, it got a little botched up.




The application was carried to 6/1/05.


There was a 5 minute recess at 9:45 p.m.




Attorney Edward Dunne represented the applicant.  This is a minor site plan application attempting to amend a site to add 440 square feet to the rear of the building to enclose an existing walk-in freezer and add a walk-in freezer.  There are some changes that have been made to the plan. The garbage area is being expanded to accommodate recycling and to have a front entrance.  A fence is being used to enclose it.  The old loading dock has been removed from the plan as well.  Loading and unloading will occur during off hours at the rear of the building at the new section.  We have addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s memo at the last hearing.


The applicant addressed Mr. Stern’s memo dated 4/14/05, updated 5/12/05:


Mr. Dicely described how the site operates.  He said traffic enters on the west side and queues up to the drive thru.  The order point is at the rear of the building on the east corner.  The pickup window is on the east side in the middle of the building. The traffic exits onto Rt. 46.  There is a “no left turn” sign there which is existing.  Vehicles generally turn right and left there.  Since the traffic circle was taken away, people do make the left turn out.  You can turn left safely.  There are currently 6 employees at peak time.  When we add the second franchise, the number of employees will increase from 9 to 10 at peak periods.  Probably about half of the employees drive to the restaurant.  We can control where the employees park and would direct them to park on the east lot, which is the farthest from the entrance.  Regarding the queuing of vehicles, there is enough room for 7 cars from the pickup window to the end of the queuing line.  The queuing does not frequently back up into the parking area.  Seeing a long line generally discourages people from getting in the line.  Presently, there are only about 7 or 8 cars queued.  Three or four cars is usually the average.  I am at the site frequently.  This parking lot now has 40 spaces.  I have never seen more than 50% of the parking lot filled up.  It is my belief the 40 parking spaces are sufficient to handle the patrons who will come and eat inside the restaurant.  Right now 15% of the customers eat in.  I don’t foresee any parking issues.  There is no place to put additional parking on the site.  We are not adding any square footage area for dining.  We are just changing the menu and adding a franchise.


Mr. Bodolsky said the site plan designates 2 employee spaces near the dumpster.  That is contrary to the testimony.


Mr. Dicely said the spaces near the dumpster will be public spaces.


Mr. Dunne asked the timing of the garbage pickup.


Mr. Dicely said it is never during the hours the restaurant is open.


Mr. Gluszko addressed items in Mr. Stern’s report:


Item 1.4 – done

Item 1.5 – addressed

Item 1.6 – Waiver requested.  Mr. Stern had no objection.  This is an existing site, and there is no alternative. 


Mr. Rilee suggested putting a cap on the east side of the dumpster.


Discussion.  End cap island will be required.


Item 1.7 – design waiver agreed to


Item 1.8 – Mr. Gluszko said the dumpster will be 8 feet tall to allow for larger capacity, and we propose the 8 foot fence.   The enclosure is a recycled material.  The color will complement the building. 


Item 1.9 – Mr. Gluszko said we have added plant material on the west side as shown on drawing A-3.1, revised 5/10/05.  We have added arborvitae.  


Item 1.10 – agreed

Item 1.11 – agreed

Item 1.12 – agreed

Item 1.13 – agreed

Item 1.14 – agreed

Item 1.15, 1.16 – no addition allocation requested


A-4 – demonstration of a waste container

Page 2 – cigarette snuffer


Mr. Sweeney asked that the items not agreed to be addressed.


1.17, 1.18 – agreed

Signage and architecture – plans have been modified to show two signs for the front.  The proposal to put a sign facing westbound has been withdrawn.  The enter and exit signs will be 2 square feet.


Mr. Zoschak suggested the enter and exit signs should not block the sight distance for cars to be able to see over.


The applicant agreed.


Mr. Zoschak said the no left turn sign should stay there.


Mr. Dunne said the State is looking into that.


A-5 marked – architectural elevations plan dated 3/2/05.


Mr. Dunne said we have agreed to eliminate the drive-thru sign, eliminate the Mugshot sign facing westbound, the welcome sign, and the clock that says “Yum”. 


Mr. Dunne said we don’t believe the menu board and preview boards are signs, and we want to continue those.


Mr. Shadiack asked if the front façade will be changed.


Mr. Dunne said it will be completely redone.


Mr. Dunne stated a monument sign will be installed.  The sign is 94 square feet. It is 5’2” tall and 9’ wide.  It sits perpendicular to the road and replaces the existing pylon sign.  The base is concrete block with stucco finish. 


Mr. Dunne said we will agree to make the sign design subject to Mr. Stern’s approval. 


Mr. Dicely said a preview board is to expedite the ordering process and helps move the queue faster.  The sign faces the back of our building and our detention basin.   The menu board and preview board are large.  They are 8 panels, 4 for each brand.  We will be offering probably 16 food items.  The size of the menu board cannot be reduced without sacrificing menu items.  It is a standard board in the KFC system


The Board had no objection to the menu boards.


Items 2.6, 2.7 – agreed


Regarding item 2.2, Mr. Dunne said the Board should look at the renderings.  The building is split up to provide the appearance of the two tenants. 


Mr. Gluszko said the two signs cannot be merged, as the corporate image has been established as a prototype.  The signs are always separate.  It is done on the pylon sign.  This is a replication of a traditional KFC and Long John Silver sign.


After discussion it was determined the same tan color will be used. The Yummy separations will be the same color as the rest of the wall on the front elevation.  This will be worked out with Mr. Stern.


3.2 – comply

3.3 – new stanchions will meet requirement

3.4, 3.5 – will comply

3.6 – discussion – will do for proposed light poles.  Existing lights will stay where they are.

3.7, 3.8, 3.9 – agreed

3.10 – will comply – no neon

4.1 – landscape plan provided – will contact Mr. Stern

4.2 – agreed

4.3 – agreed


The applicant addressed Mr. Bodolsky’s report updated 5/18/05:


Mr. Dunne stated a complete set of plans will be submitted.


Mr. Bodolsky said regarding items 2A, 4A, and 7A, there is a problem with some of the dimensions. 


New comment A – Mr. Gluszko said the exact distance is 60’7”.    That was measured physically in the field.  I have included perpendicular parking on the site plan, and there are 9’ x 18’ parking spaces with a 24’ cartway, which is a two-way isle width.

Item B – applicant agreed sidewalk will be increased to 6’

Item C – Mr. Dicely said there has never been any difficulty with the truck maneuvering the site.  The site was approved in 1985 and there have never been any problems to his knowledge.  Mr. Gluszko said he did not see any marks on the curbs or lawn.  We will cut down the island and make the isle 30 feet.

Item D – Mr. Gluszko said the field measurement showed the exit driveway throat width to be 16 feet.

Item E – Mr. Gluszko said he surveyed the road and the clearance around the drive through is 20 feet. 


Attachment B – Mr. Gluszko said he watched cars make the turn and there was no problem with cars passing each other. They were SUVs, cars, pickup trucks.  The site operates now.  We are not proposing any change there. 


Item   6 – agreed to .99 footcandles

Item 7A – Applicant is pursuing the left turn issue with the DOT.  Will provide documentation.  If we can’t get the documentation, the no left turn will stay.


Mr. Behrens said he feels 8 feet is too high for the dumpsters. Six feet is adequate.  If they are full too soon, you can schedule another pickup, or you increase your regular pickups.


After discussion, the Board determined the dumpster will be 6 feet high.





No one stepped forward.




Mr. Zoschak made a motion to approve the application subject to all conditions set forth.  Mr. Rilee seconded.


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


The meeting was adjourned by motion at 11:00 p.m.


                                                            Dolores A. DeMasi, Secretary